Effects of Offender Attractiveness & Nature of Crime on Juridic Judgment Article Brief For this assignment, you will write a brief paper on how the scienti

Effects of Offender Attractiveness & Nature of Crime on Juridic Judgment Article Brief For this assignment, you will write a brief paper on how the scientific process was used to conduct the study and evaluate the results described in the article that you will choose from the list provided. In the article you must:Summarize the purpose of the experiment.List the hypothesis/hypotheses.State any operational definitions, the independent variable(s), and the dependent variable(s).Summarize the results.Write a brief proposal of your own variation of the experiment. Journal ol Personality and Social Psychology
1975, Vol. 31, No. 3, 410-414
Beautiful but Dangerous: Effects of Offender Attractiveness and
Nature of the Crime on Juridic Judgment
Harold Sigall and Nancy Ostrove
University of Maryland
The physical attractiveness of a criminal defendant (attractive, unattractive,
no information) and the nature of the crime (attractiveness-related, attractiveness-unrelated) were varied in a factorial design. After reading one of
the case accounts, subjects sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment. An interaction was predicted: When the crime was unrelated to attractiveness (burglary), subjects would assign more lenient sentences to the
attractive defendant than to the unattractive defendant; when the offense
was attractiveness-related (swindle), the attractive defendant would receive
harsher treatment. The results confirmed the predictions, thereby supporting
a cognitive explanation for the relationship between the physical attractiveness
of defendants and the nature of the judgments made against them.
Research investigating the interpersonal
consequences of physical attractiveness has
demonstrated clearly that good-looking people
have tremendous advantages over their unattractive counterparts in many ways. For
example, a recent study by Miller (1970) provided evidence for the existence of a physical
attractiveness stereotype with a rather favorable content. Dion, Berscheid, and Walster
(1972) reported similar findings: Compared
to unattractive people, better-looking people
were viewed as more likely to possess a variety of socially desirable attributes. In addition, Dion et al.’s subjects predicted rosier
futures for the beautiful stimulus persons-—
attractive people were expected to have happier and more successful lives in store for
them. Thus, at least in the eyes of others,
good looks imply greater potential.
Since physical attractiveness hardly seems
to provide a basis for an equitable distribution of rewards, one might hope that the
powerful effects of this variable would occur
primarily when it is the only source of information available. Unfair or irrational consequences of differences in beauty observed in
some situations would cause less uneasiness if,
in other situations given other important data,
This study was supported by a grant from the
University of Maryland General Research Board.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Harold
Sigall, Department of Psychology, University of
Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742.
respondents would tend to discount such
“superficial” information. Unfortunately, for
the vast majority of us who have not been
blessed with a stunning appearance, the evidence does not permit such consolation. Consider, for example, a recent study by Dion
(1972) in which adult subjects were presented with accounts of transgressions supposedly committed by children of varying
physical attractiveness. When the transgression was severe the act was viewed less negatively when committed by a good-looking
child, than when the offender was unattractive. Moreover, when the child was unattractive the offense was more likely to be seen as
reflecting some enduring dispositional quality: Subjects believed that unattractive children were more likely to be involved in future
transgressions. Dion’s findings, which indicate
that unattractive individuals are penalized
when there is no apparent logical relationship
between the transgression and the way they
look, underscore the importance of appearance because one could reasonably suppose
that information describing a severe transgression would “overwhelm the field,” and
that the physical attractiveness variable
would not have any effect.
Can beautiful people get away with murder? Although Dion (1972) found no differences in the punishment recommended for
offenders as a function of attractiveness,
Monahan (1941) has suggested that beauti-
410
EFFECTS OF OFFENDER ATTRACTIVENESS AND NATURE OF THE CRIME
ful women are convicted less often of crimes
they are accused of, and Efran (1974) has
recently demonstrated that subjects are much
more generous when assigning punishment to
good-looking as opposed to unattractive transgressors.
The previous findings which indicate a
tendency toward leniency for an attractive
offender can be accounted for in a number of
ways. For example, one might explain such
results with the help of a reinforcement-affect
model of attraction (e.g., Byrne & Clore,
1970). Essentially, the argument here would
be that beauty, having positive reinforcement
value, would lead to relatively more positive
affective responses toward a person who has
it. Thus we like an attractive person more,
and since other investigators have shown that
liking for a defendant increases leniency (e.g.,
Landy & Aronson, 1969), we would expect
good-looking (better liked) defendants to be
punished less than unattractive defendants.
Implicit in this reasoning is that the nature of
the affective response, which influences
whether kind or harsh treatment is recommended, is determined by the stimulus features associated with the target person. Therefore, when other things are equal, benefit accrues to the physically attractive. A more
cognitive approach might attempt to explain
the relationship between physical appearance
and reactions to transgressions by assuming
that the subject has a “rational” basis for
his responses. It is reasonable to deal harshly
with a criminal if we think he is likely to
commit further violations, and as Dion’s
(1972) study suggests, unattractive individuals are viewed as more likely to transgress
again. In addition, inasmuch as attractive individuals are viewed as possessing desirable
qualities and as having relatively great potential, it makes sense to treat them leniently.
Presumably they can be successful in socially
acceptable ways, and rehabilitation may result in relatively high payoffs for society.
There is at least one implication that follows from the cognitive orientation which
would not flow readily from the reinforcement model. Suppose that situations do exist
in which, because of his high attractiveness,
a defendant is viewed as more likely to transgress in the future. The cognitive approach
411
suggests that in such instances greater punishment would be assigned to the attractive
offender. We might add that in addition to
being more dangerous, when the crime is
attractiveness related, a beautiful criminal
may be viewed as taking advantage of a Godgiven gift. Such misappropriation of a blessing
may incur animosity, which might contribute
to severe judgments in attractiveness-related
situations.
In the present investigation, the attractiveness of a defendant was varied along with the
nature of the crime committed. It was reasoned that most offenses do not encourage the
notion that a criminal’s attractiveness increases the likelihood of similar transgressions
in the future. Since attractive offenders are
viewed as less prone to recidivism and as
having greater potential worth, it was expected that under such circumstances an
attractive defendant would receive less punishment than an unattractive defendant involved in an identical offense. When, however, the crime committed may be viewed as
attractiveness-related, as in a confidence game,
despite being seen as possessing more potential, the attractive defendant may be regarded
as relatively more dangerous, and the effects
of beauty could be expected to be cancelled
out or reversed. The major hypothesis, then,
called for an interaction: An attractive defendant would receive more lenient treatment
than an unattractive defendant when the
offense was unrelated to attractiveness; when
the crime was related to attractiveness, the
attractive defendant would receive relatively
harsh treatment.
METHOD
Subjects and Overview
Subjects were 60 male and 60 female undergraduates. After being presented with an account of a
criminal case, each subject sentenced the defendant
to a term of imprisonment. One-third of the subjects were led to believe that the defendant was
physically attractive, another third that she was unattractive, and the remainder received no information
concerning appearance. Cross-cutting the attractiveness variable, half of the subjects were presented
with a written account of an attractiveness-unrelated
crime, a burglary, and the rest with an attractivenessrelated crime, a swindle. Subjects were randomly
assigned to condition, with the restriction that an
412
HAROLD SIGALL AND NANCY OSTROVE
equal number of males and females appeared in
each of the six cells formed by the manipulated
variables.
Procedure
Upon arrival, each subject was shown to an individual room and given a booklet which contained
the stimulus materials. The top sheet informed subjects that they would read a criminal case account,
that they would receive biographical information
about the defendant, and that after considering the
materials they would be asked to answer some questions.
The case account began on the second page.
Clipped to this page was a S X 8 inch card which
contained routine demographic information and was
identical in all conditions.1 In the attractive conditions, a photograph of a rather attractive woman was
affixed to the upper right-hand corner of the card;
while in the unattractive conditions, a relatively
unattractive photograph was affixed. No photograph
was presented in the control conditions.
Subjects then read either the account of a burglary or a swindle. The burglary account described
how the defendant, Barbara Helm, had moved into
a high-rise building, obtained a pass key under
false pretenses, and then illegally entered the apartment of one of her neighbors. After stealing $2,200
in cash and merchandise she left town. She was
apprehended when she attempted to sell some of the
stolen property and subsequently was charged with
breaking and entering and grand larceny. The
swindle account described how Barbara Helm had
ingratiated herself to a middle-aged bachelor and
induced him to invest $2,200 in a nonexistent corporation. She was charged with obtaining money under
false pretenses and grand larceny. In both cases, the
setting for the offense and the victim were described
identically. The information presented left little
doubt concerning the defendant’s guilt.
The main dependent measure was collected on the
last page of the booklet. Subjects were asked to
complete the following statement by circling a number between 1 and IS: “I sentence the defendant,
Barbara Helm, to
years of imprisonment.”
Subjects were asked to sentence the defendant,
rather than to judge guilt versus innocence in order
to provide a more sensitive dependent measure.
After sentencing had been completed, the experimenter provided a second form, which asked subjects to recall who the defendant was and to rate
the seriousness of the crime. In addition, the defendant was rated on a series of 9-point bipolar adjective scales, including physically unattractive (1) to
physically attractive (9), which constituted the
check on the attractiveness manipulation. A postexperimental interview followed, during which subjects were debriefed.
1
This information, as well as copies of the case
accounts referred to below, can be obtained from the
first author.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The physical attractiveness manipulation
was successful: The attractive defendant received a mean rating of 7.S3, while the mean
for the unattractive defendant was 3.20,
F (1,108) = 184.29, p < .001. These ratings were not affected by the nature of the crime, nor was there an interaction. The criminal cases were designed so as to meet two requirements. First, the swindle was assumed to be attractiveness-related, while the burglary was intended to be attractiveness-unrelated. No direct check on this assumption was made. However, indirect evidence is available: Since all subjects filled out the same forms, we obtained physical attractiveness ratings from control condition subjects who were not presented with a photograph. These subjects attributed greater beauty to the defendant in the swindle condition (X = 6.65) than in the burglary condition (X = 5.65), F (1,108) = 4.93, p < .05. This finding offers some support for our contention that the swindle was viewed as attractiveness-related. Second, it was important that the two crimes be viewed as roughly comparable in seriousness. This was necessary to preclude alternative explanations in terms of differential seriousness. Subjects rated the seriousness of the crime on a 9-point scale extending from not at all serious (1) to extremely serious (9). The resulting responses indicated that the second requirement was met: In the swindle condition the mean seriousness rating was 5.02; in the burglary condition it was 5.07 (F < 1). Table 1 presents the mean punishment assigned to the defendant, by condition. Since a preliminary analysis demonstrated there were no differences in responses between males and females, subject sex was ignored as a TABLE 1 MEAN SENTENCE ASSIGNED, IN YEARS (» = 20 per cell) Defendant condition Offense Swindle Burglary Attractive Unattractive Control 5.45 2.80 4.35 5.20 4.35 5.10 EFFECTS OF OFFENDER ATTRACTIVENESS AND NATURE OF THE CRIME variable. It can be seen that our hypothesis was supported: When the offense was attractiveness-unrelated (burglary), the unattractive defendant was more severely punished than the attractive defendant; however, when the offense was attractiveness-related (swindle), the attractive defendant was treated more harshly. The overall Attractiveness X Offense interaction was statistically significant, F (2,108) = 4.SS, p < .025, and this interaction was significant, as well, when the control condition was excluded, F (, 108) = 7.02, p < .01. Simple comparisons revealed that the unattractive burglar received significantly more punishment than the attractive burglar, F (1,108) = 6.60, p < .025, while the difference in sentences assigned to the attractive and unattractive swindler was not statistically significant, F (1,108) = 1.39. The attractive-swindle condition was compared with the unattractive-swindle and control-swindle conditions also, F ( 1,108) = 2.00, ns. Thus, strictly speaking, we cannot say that for the swindle attractiveness was a great liability; there was a tendency in this direction but the conservative conclusion is that when the crime is attractiveness-related, the advantages otherwise held by good-looking defendants are lost. Another feature of the data worth considering is that the sentences administered in the control condition are almost identical to those assigned in the unattractive condition. It appears that being unattractive did not produce discriminatory responses, per se. Rather, it seems that appearance had its effects through the attractive conditions: The beautiful burglar got off lightly, while the beautiful swindler paid somewhat, though not significantly, more. It can be recalled that in the unattractive conditions the stimulus person was seen as relatively unattractive and not merely average looking. Therefore, the absence of unattractive-control condition differences does not seem to be the result of a weak manipulation in the unattractive conditions. Perhaps it is possible to derive a small bit of consolation from this outcome, if we speculate that only the very attractive receive special (favorable or unfavorable) treatment, and that others are treated similarly. This is a less frightening conclusion than one which 413 would indicate that unattractiveness brings about active discrimination. As indicated earlier, previous findings (Efran, 1974) that attractive offenders are treated leniently can be interpreted in a number of ways. The results of the present experiment support the cognitive explanation we offered. The notion that good-looking people usually tend to be treated generously because they are seen as less dangerous and more virtuous remains tenable. The argument that physical attractiveness is a positive trait and therefore has a unidirectionally favorable effect on judgments of those who have it, would have led to accurate predictions in the burglary conditions. However, this position could not account for the observed interaction. The cognitive view makes precisely that prediction. Finally, we feel compelled to note that our laboratory situation is quite different from actual courtroom situations. Most important, perhaps, our subjects made decisions which had no consequences for the defendant, and they made those decisions by themselves, rather than arriving at judgments after discussions with others exposed to the same information. Since the courtroom is not an appropriate laboratory, it is unlikely that actual experimental tests in the real situation would ever be conducted. However, simulations constitute legitimate avenues for investigating person perception and interpersonal judgment, and there is no obvious reason to believe that these processes would not have the effects in trial proceedings that they do elsewhere. Whether a discussion with other jurors would affect judgment is an empirical, and researchable, question. Perhaps if even 1 of 12 jurors notes that some irrelevant factor may be affecting the jury's judgment, the others would see the light. Especially now when the prospect of reducing the size of juries is being entertained, it would be important to find out whether extralegal considerations are more likely to have greater influence as the number of jurors decreases. REFERENCES Byrne, D., & Clore, G. L. A reinforcement model of evaluative responses. Personality: An International Journal, 1970, 1, 103-128. 414 HAROLD SIGALL AND NANCY OSTROVE Dion, K. Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children's transgressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 207-213. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24,. 28S-290. Efran, M. G. The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 1974, 8, 4S-S4. Landy, D., & Aronson, E. The influence of the character of the criminal and victim on the decisions of simulated jurors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969, 5, 141-152. Miller, A. G. Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 19, 241-243. Monahan, F. Women in crime. New York: Washburn, 1941. (Received July 23, 1973) Purchase answer to see full attachment