Weaknesses

The researchers measured more items than simply attractiveness. This means that the 160 participants were not all measured on attractiveness. As they measured 8 different items and only two of them on attractiveness, I infer that the sample size consisted of 40 participants.

Jurors may be influenced by the mannerisms of criminals and victims. In this study, photographs were used, thus the jurors could not be influenced in that way.

MORE STUDIES

The attractiveness bias may affect civil cases also. Kulka and Kessler presented the participants with an audio-video showing an automobile negligence case. The mock jury consistently awarded fewer damages to the unattractive defendant.[9]

In Desantts and Kayson’s mock trial, the mock jurors were given a burglary scenario. The only changing factor was the attractiveness of the defendant. The unattractive defendant was given a higher sentence than the attractive defendant.[10] In another mock burglary trial, the jurors gave higher sentences to the unattractive defendant. However, in the swindle trial, higher sentences were given to the attractive defendant. It was hypothesised that the attractive defendant used her attractiveness in the swindle case, and the jurors held this with disapproval.[11] Smith and Hed found the same results. The unattractive burglar was sentenced higher but the attractive swindler was sentenced higher.[12]

CONCLUSIONS

It’s clear that mock jurors possess a bias against unattractive defendants.

For negligent homicide, robbery, burglary, and civil negligence, unattractive defendants were sentenced higher than attractive defendants.

For swindle cases, attractiveness bias seems to have the reverse effect.

However, jurors do not make sentencing decisions, thus, these results do not have direct application.

MOCK JURY: VERDICT, GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY

There is a clear distinction between what jurors believe to be ethical and what jurors actually decide. One study surveyed a series of mock jurors and found that 93% thought physical appearance should not be considered when evaluating guilt.[13] It’s reasonable to assume that jurors are not consciously associating physical attractiveness with guilt and sentencing.

THE META-ANALYSIS STUDY [14]

A meta-analysis examined 25 studies on the effects of physical attractiveness on mock jurors. They found Mock jurors find unattractive defendants guilty more often than attractive defendants. However, the results were not significant.

THE CANADIAN SEXUAL ASSAULT STUDY [15]

125 university students participated in this study. All students were white and Canadian.

The focus was to test the effects of white jury members perceptions of the physical attractiveness of white victims of rape. Were defendants found guilty more often when the plaintiff was attractive?

Participants read a four-page trial excerpt that included opening and closing statements from the Crown and Defence lawyers, and testimony from both the defendant and the victim. In the excerpt, it is specified that the victim and the defendant are colleagues, and the victim invited the defendant over to her home for dinner. Both the victim and the defendant agree that sexual intercourse occurred, but the victim alleged that the sexual intercourse was forced, whereas the defendant maintained that it was consensual.

Key Takeaways

Victim Attractiveness:

34.8% of men thought the defendant was guilty with an attractive victim and 52.3% of women thought the defendant was guilty with an attractive victim. Most men were not confident in their decision. Women were neutral in their confidence. This means, women were more likely to find a defendant guilty when the victim was attractive.

65.2% of men thought the defendant was guilty with an unattractive victim and 47.4% of women thought the defendant was guilty with unattractive victim. Most men were confident in their decision. Women were neutral in their confidence. This means men were slightly more likely to find the defendant guilty with an unattractive female victim.

Men seem to be influenced more by a female victim’s attractiveness than women. Women seem to be more consistent regardless of a female victim’s attractiveness.

Weaknesses

The mock jurors were university students and the average age was 20. The victim was always female and white.

MORE STUDIES

The attractiveness bias may affect civil cases also. Kulka and Kessler presented the participants with an audio-video showing an automobile negligence case. The mock jury consistently gave more guilty verdicts to unattractive defendants.[16]

CONCLUSIONS

Unattractive defendants are found guilty slightly more often than attractive defendants. However, these results are not significant. Many studies found no difference between attractive and unattractive defendants.

Men are more influenced by a female victim’s attractiveness in cases of sexual offenses. They are slightly more likely to decide in favour of the unattractive victim.

MOCK JURY: GENERAL PERCEPTIONS

Esses and Webster’s found that mock jurors perceived the unattractive defendant as significantly more dangerous.[17]

In Efran’s mock trial, he found that the jurors were more certain of the unattractive defendant’s guilt. When the attractive defendant was guilty, the jurors were less certain of their decision.[18]

Researchers found that when the victim was innocent and attractive, less evidence was needed to find the defendant guilty. Conversely, when the victim was unattractive, more evidence was needed to find the defendant guilty. However, when the victim was perceived to have contributed to the crime due to carelessness, attractiveness had no effect.[19]

In a rape mock jury trial, the attractive victim was more likely to be believed to be a victim of rape than the unattractive victim. The unattractive victim was less believed and even thought to have provoked the rapist.[20]

DEFEATING THE ATTRACTIVENESS BIAS

There are several factors that can offset the effects of the attractiveness bias.

THE SLOW THINKING STUDY [21]

The purpose of the study was to find out whether the attractiveness bias could be reduced by rational thinking.

124 female students were given a summary of a murder case. Half of the women were given a clear case of murder and the other were give a case of uncertainty, that is, it was hard to determine whether the defendant was guilty. The other factor that changed was the attractiveness of the defendant. One was unattractive and the other was attractive.

Results and Key Takeaways

The scenario where the criminal is clearly guilty, the women gave higher sentences to the unattractive criminal (24.71 years), than the attractive criminal (15.11 years). This amounts to a 63.53% increase. [See image below]

In the case where the criminal’s guilt is unclear, attractiveness had minimal effect on the sentencing amount. [See image below]

This study suggests that thinking slowly may help reduce the attractiveness bias. It seems that rapid thinking makes one susceptible to such psychological distortions. Even when the defendant is clearly guilty, slow thinking would be beneficial to reduce excessive sentencing.