The effect of sexist attitudes on the perception of visual artists by community college and university students

This study compared the effects of sexist labeling on the perceptions of visual artists by the community college and university students and determined their sex role orientation. The 370 students were shown five slides of an artist's works and were given six versions of an artist's biography. It contained embedded sexual labeling (woman, girl, person/ she, man, guy, person/he). The Artist Evaluation Questionnaire was administered to the female and male community college and university students that required the students to evaluate the female and male artists on several aspects of affective and cognitive measures. The questionnaire consisted of 9 items that had to be rated by the participants. In addition, the students filled out the Demographic Questionnaire and the BEM Sex Role Inventory, titled the Attitude Questionnaire. The Analysis of Variance testing procedures were administered to analyze the responses. The results disclosed gender differences in students' ratings. The female artist's work, when the artist was referred to by the neutral sexual label, "person", received significantly higher ratings from the female students. The male students gave the female artist her highest ratings when she was referred to by the low status sexual label, "girl". Both sexes did not express statistically significant preferences for any of the male sexual labels. Gender difference became apparent when it was found that female students rated both sexes equally, and their ratings were lower than those of the male students. The male students rated the female artist's work higher than the work of the male artist. The analysis of the sex role inventory questionnaire revealed the absence of the feminine (expressive) and masculine (instrumental) personalities among the students. The personalities of almost all the students were androgynous, with a few within the range of the near feminine, and a few within the range of the near masculine. The study reveals that there are differences in perception of sexual labels among the community college and university students.

Does expert psychological testimony improve juror sensitivity to lineup suggestiveness?

Previous research has examined the validity of behavioral assumptions underlying the presumed effectiveness of safeguards against erroneous conviction resulting from mistaken eyewitness identification. In keeping with this agenda, this study examined juror sensitivity to lineup suggestiveness in the form of foil, instruction, and presentation biases and whether expert psychological testimony further sensitizes jurors to the factors that influence the likelihood of false identifications. One hundred and sixty jury eligible citizens watched versions of a videotaped trial that included information about the identification of the defendant by an eyewitness and that varied the suggestiveness of the eyewitness identification procedure. In addition, half of the mock-jurors heard the testimony of an expert psychologist regarding the factors that influence lineup suggestiveness. Mock-jurors rendered individual verdicts, rated the defendant's culpability and the suggestiveness and fairness of the identification procedure. Results indicated that jurors are somewhat sensitive to foil bias but are insensitive to instruction and presentation biases. No evidence was found to suggest that expert testimony leads to juror skepticism or juror sensitization. These results question the effectiveness of cross-examination and expert testimony as safeguards against erroneous convictions resulting from mistaken identification. ^