Estimating the speed of vehicles: the influence of stereotypes

Abstract

Davies and Patel (2005, Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 45–62) demonstrated that stereotypes associated with particular types of car influenced judgements of culpability in a road accident report. This study explores whether stereotypes influence judgements of the speed of different vehicles. In Experiment 1, participants observed films of a BMW 3 Series and VW Polo being driven at 20, 40 and 60 mph. Accuracy of speed estimates was high and no effect of stereotyping was observed. This finding was replicated in Experiment 2 when the stereotype of a ‘typical’ BMW or Polo driver was instantiated prior to viewing the films and despite participants predicting that the speed of the BMW would be substantially higher than the Polo. In Experiment 3, speed estimates were made unexpectedly a day after viewing the films. In accordance with the stereotype, the BMW was now judged as being driven significantly faster than the Polo at the same actual speed. Consistent with findings from person perception, these results suggest that when unambiguous countervailing information is present, stereotypical influences are minimised or overwhelmed, but much stronger effects occur when access to critical information is impaired or ambiguous. The implications of these findings for witness estimates of vehicle speed are discussed.     

Attributions of blame in a hypothetical internet solicitation case: Roles of victim naivety,parental neglect and respondent gender

Abstract

This study investigates attributions towards the perpetrator, the victim and the victim's parents in a hypothetical internet solicitation case. A community sample of 187 respondents read a vignette outlining an internet chatroom conversation between a 10-year-old girl and a 25-year-old man, followed by a depicted sexual assault, before rating 26 attribution items. Principal components analysis extracted six reliable and interpretable factors which were then subjected to a two-respondent gender×two-victim age×two-victim internet naivety×two-parental neglect between-subjects multiple analyses of variance (MANOVA). While levels of victim naivety had no impact on any measure, parents who were neglectful of their child's online activities were deemed more culpable for their child's later abuse than were parents who took an active interest in their child's activities. In general, females deemed the victim more credible than males. Implications are discussed.     

Doing,Allowing, and the State

The doing/allowing distinction plays an important role in our thinking about a number of legal issues, such as the need for criminal process protections, prohibitions on torture, the permissibility of the death penalty and so on. These are areas where, at least initially, there seem to be distinctions between harms that the state inflicts and harms that it merely allows. In this paper I will argue for the importance of the doing/allowing distinction as applied to state action. Sunstein, Holmes, Vermeule and others have presented influential arguments for the claim that where the state is concerned the doing/allowing distinction has no moral significance, even if it does elsewhere. I show that these arguments can be resisted. In doing so, I defend some important distinctions and principles that help us understand the state’s role in protecting people from harm.