Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
A. Kruglanski (1970)
Attributing trustworthiness in supervisor-worker relationsJournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6
Kelly Shaver (1970)
Defensive attribution-Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accidentJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14
Alan Coffey, Edward Eldefonso (1975)
Process and impact of justice
E. Walster, Ellen Berscheid, William Walster (1973)
New directions in equity research.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25
H. Mitchell, D. Byrne (1973)
The defendant's dilemma: effects of jurors' attitudes and authoritarianism on judicial decisions.Journal of personality and social psychology, 25 1
Kelly Shaver, M. Gilbert, M. Williams (1975)
Social Psychology, Criminal Justice, and the Principle of Discretion: A Selective ReviewPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1
L. Strickland (1958)
Surveillance and trust1Journal of Personality, 26
M. Rokeach, N. Vidmar (1973)
Testimony Concerning Possible Jury Bias in a Black Panther Murder Trial1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3
M. Friedland (1965)
Detention Before Trial: A Study of Criminal Cases Tried in the Toronto Magistrates' Courts
G. Fontaine (1975)
Causal attribution in simulated versus real situations: When are people logical, when are they not?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32
Adams Js (1963)
Towards an understanding of inequityThe Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67
Two studies explored the biasing effect of defendant dress (personal/institutional) and supervision (armed/no supervision) on juror judgments of guilt and recommended sentence using 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial designs. University students in study 1 and registered voters in study 2 watched a videotape of a reenacted criminal trial, then made judgments of defendant guilt and recommended sentences. Results in both studies revealed significant bias against defendants in personal dress with armed supervision and institutional dress with no supervision. Discussion focuses on the appropriateness of models of attribution and equity in describing subjects’ discretionary processes, the nature of an unexpected sympathy effect for the defendant in institutional dress with armed supervision, and the practical implications of the findings. Specific needs for future research in this area are also addressed.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Mar 1, 1978
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.