of sexual harassment (“yes” or and were asked to indicate how certain they were of her “no”), guilt, on a 9-point scale from not guilty” to guilty.” After responding to “definitely “definitely these two questions, respondents were also asked to rate, on a 9-point scale, the physical attractiveness of each litigant. Participants were run in small groups, ranging in size from 10 to 40. Results The Physical Attractiveness Manipulation For the defendant, the attractive photograph was rated significantly more attractive (M = 7.86, = 1.29) than the unattractive photograph (M = 2.90, = 1.74), = 29.15, = SD SD t(322) p .000, = 3.24. For the plaintiff, the attractive photograph was rated significantly more attractive d (M = 6.72, = 1.78) than the unattractive photograph (M = 2.09, = 1.25), = 27.19, SD SD t(322) p = .000, = 3.02. Within-gender comparisons showed that the physical attractiveness d manipulations remained highly effective (t > 14 and = .000 for each litigant). p The Verdict A logit analysis was employed to evaluate the effects of gender of juror and physical attractiveness of plaintiff and defendant upon the verdict rendered. A reduced model was obtained by removing from the saturated model all effects which were not significant at the .10 level. All effects deleted were so trivial in magnitude that each had a < .65 and a > .50. The z p resulting model included a significant main effect of plaintiff attractiveness, = 2.65, = .008, z p and a significant interaction between juror’s gender, defendant attractiveness, and plaintiff attractiveness, = 2.19, = .029. The effect of juror’s gender fell short of the traditional z p standard of statistical significance, = 1.68, = .093. The reduced model fit the data adequately, z p as indicated by a nonsignificant goodness of fit test, = 324) = 1.08, = .897. When the G 2(4, N p
of sexual harassment (“yes” or “no”), and were asked to indicate how certain they were of her guilt, on a 9-point scale from “definitely not guilty” to “definitely guilty.” After responding to these two questions, respondents were also asked to rate, on a 9-point scale, the physical attractiveness of each litigant. Participants were run in small groups, ranging in size from 10 to 40. Results The Physical Attractiveness Manipulation For the defendant, the attractive photograph was rated significantly more attractive (M = 7.86, SD = 1.29) than the unattractive photograph (M = 2.90, SD = 1.74), t(322) = 29.15, p = .000, d = 3.24. For the plaintiff, the attractive photograph was rated significantly more attractive (M = 6.72, SD = 1.78) than the unattractive photograph (M = 2.09, SD = 1.25), t(322) = 27.19, p = .000, d = 3.02. Within-gender comparisons showed that the physical attractiveness manipulations remained highly effective (t > 14 and p = .000 for each litigant). The Verdict A logit analysis was employed to evaluate the effects of gender of juror and physical attractiveness of plaintiff and defendant upon the verdict rendered. A reduced model was obtained by removing from the saturated model all effects which were not significant at the .10 level. All effects deleted were so trivial in magnitude that each had a z < .65 and a p > .50. The resulting model included a significant main effect of plaintiff attractiveness, z = 2.65, p = .008, and a significant interaction between juror’s gender, defendant attractiveness, and plaintiff attractiveness, z = 2.19, p = .029. The effect of juror’s gender fell short of the traditional standard of statistical significance, z = 1.68, p = .093. The reduced model fit the data adequately, as indicated by a nonsignificant goodness of fit test, G 2(4, N = 324) = 1.08, p = .897. When the
Research-WOT2-man.docx