Farhan Sarwar

Who Gets Blamed for Rapes: Effects of Immigration Status on the Attribution of Blame Toward Victims and Perpetrators.

This study examines the influence of the victim’s immigration status, perpetrator’s immigration status, and participant’s immigration status on victim and perpetrator blame attributions. In addition, comparisons between men and women were made. Participants read a rape vignette in the form of a newspaper article and subsequently attributed victim and perpetrator blame. A 2 (victim’s immigration status) × 2 (perpetrator’s immigration status) × 2 (participant’s immigration status) × 2 (gender of participant) between-subjects design was used. Measures of blame attributions toward the victim and perpetrator were used as dependent variables. The main results showed that participants with an immigrant background and native males attributed significantly more victim and less perpetrator blame. An interaction involving victim and perpetrator immigration status emerged for female participants and were subsequently discussed, as well as suggestions for future research.

Reasons Pro et Contra as a Debiasing Technique in Legal Contexts

Although legal contexts are subject to biased reasoning and decision making, to identify and test debiasing techniques has largely remained an open task. We report on experimentally deploying the technique “giving reasons pro et contra” with professional (N = 239) and lay judges (N = 372) at Swedish municipal courts. Using a mock legal scenario, participants assessed the relevance of an eyewitness’s previous conviction for his credibility. On average, both groups displayed low degrees of bias. We observed a small positive debiasing effect only for professional judges. Strong evidence was obtained for a relation between profession and relevance-assessment: Lay judges seemed to assign a greater importance to the prior conviction than professional judges did. We discuss challenges for future research, calling other research groups to contribute additional samples.

Prototype Effect and the Persuasiveness of Generalizations.

An argument that makes use of a generalization activates the prototype for the category used in the generalization. We conducted two experiments that investigated how the activation of the prototype affects the persuasiveness of the argument. The results of the experiments suggest that the features of the prototype overshadow and partly overwrite the actual facts of the case. The case is, to some extent, judged as if it had the features of the prototype instead of the features it actually has. This prototype effect increases the persuasiveness of the argument in situations where the audience finds the judgment more warranted for the prototype than for the actual case (positive prototype effect), but decreases persuasiveness in situations where the audience finds the judgment less warranted for the prototype than for the actual case (negative prototype effect).