Stereotyping
  • Home
    • Project description RAVE
    • Project description C-RAVE
  • Method
    • Case Production >
      • Contextualizing a Case
      • Recording & Voice Morphing
      • Other manipulation methods
      • Packaging
    • Response >
      • Perception Test
      • Pre-test/Post-test
    • Debriefing
  • Open Access Cases
    • Custody case
    • Youth language case
    • Indian vs British English
    • Disney discussion case
    • Personality factors case
    • Apology case
    • Reprimand case
    • Gender and leadership Scene 1
    • Gender and leadership Scene 2
    • Various material
  • Publications
    • Conference >
      • Keynote Speakers
      • Parallel Sessions: Wednesday
      • Parallel Sessions: Thursday
      • Symposium summary
  • Extra resources
    • Gender & Sexuality
    • Race & Ethnicity
    • Other Resources
  • About Us

The Custody Case
​(note that this case is in Swedish)

The following case was developed in collaboration with Einar Prytz from the School of Law, Psychology and Social work at Örebro University for a course in Family Law. Note that all material is in Swedish.

The aim of this case is to see how the gender of a parent may, or may not, affect students'/practitioners' judgements in a fictitious custody case. It was partly inspired by a popular science article by Meera Jagannathan, which discussed a recent study by Andrea Miller in the Journal of Social Psychology and Personality Science.  

Working out the script
The script was worked out in collaboration with experts in family law in the department, and was designed to be deliberately "ambiguous", i.e. depending on how students interpreted the law text, they could judge in favour of either parent, or for joint custody. We also had to be careful to keep the script gender neutral (i.e. avoiding the use of gendered pronouns or words, and using gender neutral names). In addition to the spoken material, students also received a written account of the circumstances, and here gendered terms were less problematic. Below you will find pdf versions of the a) the background info and b) the script for the recording. ​

juridik_bakgrund.pdf
File Size: 41 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

script_for_recording.pdf
File Size: 76 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File


Recording and Morphing
Before recording the scripts, we first trialed a number of voices to see which responded best to voice morphing, i.e. which sounded genuine when changed into male or female variants. After this the entire script (both Kim and Alex) was played by the same actor and recorded in a studio. Our technician, Jon Svensson, then digitally manipulated one version to sound like a male voice. The two versions were then cut and reassembled to produce one version where Kim was father and Alex mother and one version where the opposite was the case. Note that the actor was the same in both cases. Both versions are available below
Version A: Kim = mother; Alex = father
Version B: Kim = father; Alex = mother

Presenting and Conducting the Case
This case was contextualised as an exercise in family law where the students were supposed to use the law text to decide on whether Kim or Alex should receive custody, or if jointed custody should be granted. Students were also asked to motivate their choices. Of course none of the students knew of the design (i.e. that there were two versions) at this stage.  The material was distributed electronically prior to the discussion seminar, and all participants were asked to listen to and respond to the material before the seminar. The tool used here was a SurveyMonkey questionnaire containing all material and response questionnaires. The tool also included a 'randomizer' so that some were directed to version A and others to version B automatically. 

Picture
Want to try?
If you want to try out the case with your own class use the QR-code or the link below for a ready package.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/N78TM7F

​
Note! Contact mats.deutschmann@oru.se  if you want to do this with a group so that we can set up a specific group for you and give you access to the results.

Picture
Link to post-survey. Please let participants answer this after the seminar discussion!
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/R7N92JX
​


Example of debriefing presentation
Debriefing custody
File Size: 927 kb
File Type: pptx
Download File


Some Results from Previous Trials
​
All in all we had 102 students participating in the trials. It was evident that in those cases students judged sole custody to be the outcome, the female parent was twice as likely to be granted custody than the male parent. The most common principle evoked was continued stability for the child (i.e. that the child should not have to move).
Picture

In spite of this, it is important to point out that continued joint custody was still the most common verdict. Here the principle of the child's continued accessibility to both parents was evoked to motivate judgements.
Picture

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home
    • Project description RAVE
    • Project description C-RAVE
  • Method
    • Case Production >
      • Contextualizing a Case
      • Recording & Voice Morphing
      • Other manipulation methods
      • Packaging
    • Response >
      • Perception Test
      • Pre-test/Post-test
    • Debriefing
  • Open Access Cases
    • Custody case
    • Youth language case
    • Indian vs British English
    • Disney discussion case
    • Personality factors case
    • Apology case
    • Reprimand case
    • Gender and leadership Scene 1
    • Gender and leadership Scene 2
    • Various material
  • Publications
    • Conference >
      • Keynote Speakers
      • Parallel Sessions: Wednesday
      • Parallel Sessions: Thursday
      • Symposium summary
  • Extra resources
    • Gender & Sexuality
    • Race & Ethnicity
    • Other Resources
  • About Us