The Alias Advantage and Perceptions of Guilt

Abstract

The present study is an examination of the perception of guilt based on the number of aliases used by a defendant. Participants in Experiment 1 (N = 275) reviewed materials summarizing an actual crime in which the defendant was identified with no alias information or with 1, 5, or 9 aliases. Participants were asked to decide if the suspect was guilty and if so, what his sentence should be. Results showed that the presence of alias information influenced perceptions of guilt. However, in conditions where the defendant had more aliases, the maximum sentence was imposed less often. Relationship information linking the suspect and the victim in the materials was removed for some of the participants in Experiment 2. Participants (N = 265) were provided with either no alias information or all 9 aliases. An interaction was found in Experiment 2 demonstrating the alias advantage only when the relationship information was present. However, the relationship information had minimal effect on the attributions made toward the victim.

Impact of face masks on perceptions of black and white targets during the COVID‐19 pandemic

“…One possible reason for why masks may have less impact on Black targets is that the meaning of masks may be more ambiguous—activating associations related to concern for others (Bestch et al., 2020; Nakayachi et al., 2020), as well as negative associations related to illness and threat stereotypes (MacLin & Herrera, 2006; Oldmeadow & Koch, 2021). In Study 2, we attempted to make masks less ambiguous by including a condition in which masks explicitly displayed a caring message.…”

“…In addition to these key dimensions, we also examined the impact of masks on attributions of threat, a construct that is particularly relevant in an intergroup context in the United States and Canada (Eberhardt et al, 2004;Karmali & Kawakami, 2023;Kawakami et al, 2017Kawakami et al, , 2020. Given that common stereotypes of Black people are related to anger, physical threat, and dominance (Goff et al, 2014;Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003;MacLin & Herrera, 2006;March et al, 2021;Wilson et al, 2017), we examined the impact of masks on negative associations of threat for Black and White targets.…”

“…While previous studies have examined the impact of masks that were black or white (colors that have strong negative or positive connotations, respectively) or masks that feature an upturned line, simulating a smile (Kamatani et al., 2021; Oldmeadow & Koch, 2021), neither of these types of masks altered trait perceptions relative to plain masks. Because masks may have positive connotations, such as the protection of others, prosocial behavior, and being responsible (Ackermann et al., 2021; Bestch et al., 2020; Nakayachi et al., 2020), as well as negative connotations, such as being unhealthy, threatening, and dangerous (Oldmeadow & Koch, 2021), their meaning may be ambiguous to some people, especially when worn by different racial groups (MacLin & Herrera, 2006). In the present research, we extended past work by reducing the ambiguity of masks by including masks with the explicit positive message “I CARE.”…”

Do individual differences in face recognition ability moderate the other ethnicity effect?

“…In addition, length of exposure to White faces moderated the OEE for East Asians (i.e., the longer they had lived in Toronto, the smaller the OEE). In general (although see Harvey, 2014; MacLin et al, 2004; Ng & Lindsay, 1994); studies investigating the role of contact (both in geographical and self-report) in face recognition show that as contact increases the magnitude of the OEE can diminish (see Table 1 for summarized findings). However, it is particularly noteworthy that although contact can diminish the magnitude of the OEE, it often does not eliminate this effect completely (De Heering et al, 2010; although see Estudillo et al, 2020).…”

Examining the effect of prison time on landlords' willingness to rent to exonerees: A test of the stigma‐by‐association framework

“…(2012) argued that stigma‐by‐association may account for the stigma that exonerees experience insofar as being associated with prison and offenders can contaminate and stigmatize an individual. That is, because exonerees have experience with the prison system and have lived alongside “dangerous criminals,” the stigma and negative stereotypes (e.g., Clow & Esses, 2007; MacLin & Herrera, 2006) associated with rightfully convicted individuals are applied to exonerees by association (Blandisi et al., 2015; Clow et al., 2012). Relatedly, individuals may be concerned about the impact of incarceration and how it changes someone, leading to a preferred social distance from exonerees, and ultimately contributing to the stigma and discrimination that exonerees experience post‐release (Clow & Leach, 2015).…”