Assessing the validity of Dixon et al's (2002) Guilt Emphasis? (15 points) The research of Dixon et al (2002) has low external validity because the results of the study cannot be generalized across populations, time and contexts because the ecological validity is low because the results of the research cannot be generalized. be generalized to real contexts. Ecological validity is low because the study uses a simulated jury to decide whether the suspect was guilty or not and additionally controls for extraneous variables because it is a controlled condition. However, in the real world it is not possible to control these variables. However, as ppts were able to deliberate in groups rather than making decisions alone, this is true to life with juries, thus increasing ecological validity. But it would have had higher ecological validity if they had observed actual juries and drawn conclusions about the study. However, that still wouldn't make it true to reality, because their decision doesn't have any real-world consequences and, therefore, they don't have the seriousness of the situation. Additionally, due to low external validity, attributions of guilt are typically made in a richer evidence context than that provided by the study, so it is likely that the strength of the evidence will moderate any effect of the emphasis on legal decision-making. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Population validity was also low because the sample included all white undergraduate psychology students, with an average age of 25.2 years, and 24 were male and 95 years old. female. Although this sample is large, it is not representative of the UK, where there are almost 4 times as many women as men and, furthermore, they were all students, so they only represent the student population and, furthermore, being so young, they are fortunate to have already registered. jury service will be weak and therefore will not experience this before. Also, since they excluded people from Birmingham, this is not realistic because you would tend to be in your county court. For example, a Brummie convict would be tried at Birmingham County Court, Crown Court or Magistrates Court by a Brummie jury, so emphasis would not be taken into account if they look alike, but This could be important if you were tested in another area, for example London. Next to this one, one of the IVs was the color of the suspect, and since all the ppts were white, it is more likely that they would convict the black man by chance more than the white man, because this is related to Pfeifer and Ogloff (1991) who showed that white students judged black defendants more likely to be guilty than white defendants, as many studies indicated racial bias in juries, such as the O.J. trial Simpson showing that whites believed he was guilty because of the weight of the evidence against him, compared to the black jury who interpreted the evidence in terms of police misconduct. So we should have a jury that is equal in terms of size and region the suspect comes from, the jury should also represent the white-black ratio in the area where the court is located, so that the sample is representative. However, even though both ecological and population validity are low, as discussed previously, concurrent validity is high as the study relates to previous studies and can be compared and show the same results than those of others.