Citation

Davies GM, Patel D. Leg. Crim. Psychol. 2005; 10(1): 45-62.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2005, British Psychological Society, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1348/135532504X15394

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Purpose. Laymen and legal professionals frequently make decisions on the culpability of drivers involved in collisions on the basis of incomplete and inconsistent information. Could attributions based on car and driver stereotypes influence decisions on culpability?Methods. In Experiment 1, ratings were collected on the perceived on-road aggressiveness of drivers of different age and gender, and for models and colours of motorcars driven. In Experiment 2, participants read an accident scenario involving two cars and were asked to estimate relative speed, position on the road and blame. The ages of the drivers, colours, make and model of car driven were manipulated using the aggressiveness ratings collected in Experiment 1. In Experiment 3, participants read another scenario and were again invited to allocate blame; colour, model of car and driver's age were varied systematically to establish the relative contribution of the different elements of the stereotype.Results. Combinations of colour, car and driver rated high on aggression were judged as travelling faster, being further across the road and more likely to be the cause of an accident than those rated low on these dimensions.Conclusions. Pre-existing car and driver stereotypes have a demonstrable influence on judgments of driver behaviour from conflicting accident statements. The possible implications for the handling of accident claims and legal cases are discussed.

Language: en