Human faces and the physical variations among them have been a significant interest to countless researchers, especially considering the human ability to process, recognize, and distinguish information about facial variations (Little, Jones, & DeBruine, 2011). Additionally, humans may be innately interested in faces and favor attractiveness over unattractiveness as several studies have shown that infants prefer facial stimuli over non-face stimuli (Cassia, Turati, & Simion, 2004; Goren, Sarty, & Wu, 1975; Valenza, Simion, Cassia, & Umilta, 1996), while additional studies revealed that infants prefer looking at human faces previously assessed as attractive by adults (Griffey, & Little, 2014; Langlois et al., 1987; Slater et al., 1998). Similarly,
…show more content…
Todorov, Mandisodza, Goren, and Hall (2005) found that hasty judgments of competence were made based on facial attractiveness of photographs and can contribute to the outcome of voting decisions of political elections. Furthermore, research has found that people make rapid judgments within a fraction of a second on facial appearance alone (Bar, Neta, & Linz, 2006; Willis, & Todorov, 2006). These immediate judgments even encompass the justice system and effect bails and fines (Downs, & Lyons, 1991), presumed guilt or innocence (Efran, 1974; Esses, & Webster, 1988; Nesdale, & Rule, 1974; Sigall, & Ostrove, 1975; Solomon, & Schopler, 1978; Stewart, 1980; Stewart, 1985), sentencing severity (Efran, 1974; Esses, & Webster, 1988; Sigall, & Ostrove, 1975; Solomon, & Schopler, 1978; Stewart, 1980) and assumed recidivism (Esses, & Webster, 1988). These research discoveries have encouraged this research proposal which investigates the possible influence of attractiveness and unattractiveness on perceived guilt or …show more content…
Although participants in Efran’s (1974) study believed the defendant’s physical appearance should not effect judicial decisions, the outcome of the simulated jury, in the same study, found that attractive defendants were judged with less certainty of guilt and recommended less severe punishments. Further jury simulations found unattractive defendants evaluated with more certainty of guilt and recommended harsher punishments than attractive defendants in which the nature of the offence was consistent (Darby, & Jeffers, 1988; Solomon, & Schopler, 1978). Moreover, Sigall and Ostrove (1975) discovered attractive offenders were sentenced more leniently than unattractive offenders when the crime was not related to appearance (burglary), whereas attractiveness-related crimes (swindle) had the opposite outcome. Similarly, the attractiveness bias was upheld in Nesdale and Rule’s (1974) study, however, attractiveness bias significantly decreased when observers were held personally accountable for their judgment. Equivalent results were found in Stewart’s (1980) study where observers were sent into courtrooms to rate defendants’ attractiveness and record conviction and sentencing. When seriousness of the crime was controlled there was a strong negative correlation with attractiveness and severity of
Todorov, Mandisodza, Goren, and Hall (2005) found that hasty judgments of competence were made based on facial attractiveness of photographs and can contribute to the outcome of voting decisions of political elections. Furthermore, research has found that people make rapid judgments within a fraction of a second on facial appearance alone (Bar, Neta, & Linz, 2006; Willis, & Todorov, 2006). These immediate judgments even encompass the justice system and effect bails and fines (Downs, & Lyons, 1991), presumed guilt or innocence (Efran, 1974; Esses, & Webster, 1988; Nesdale, & Rule, 1974; Sigall, & Ostrove, 1975; Solomon, & Schopler, 1978; Stewart, 1980; Stewart, 1985), sentencing severity (Efran, 1974; Esses, & Webster, 1988; Sigall, & Ostrove, 1975; Solomon, & Schopler, 1978; Stewart, 1980) and assumed recidivism (Esses, & Webster, 1988). These research discoveries have encouraged this research proposal which investigates the possible influence of attractiveness and unattractiveness on perceived guilt or …show more content…
Although participants in Efran’s (1974) study believed the defendant’s physical appearance should not effect judicial decisions, the outcome of the simulated jury, in the same study, found that attractive defendants were judged with less certainty of guilt and recommended less severe punishments. Further jury simulations found unattractive defendants evaluated with more certainty of guilt and recommended harsher punishments than attractive defendants in which the nature of the offence was consistent (Darby, & Jeffers, 1988; Solomon, & Schopler, 1978). Moreover, Sigall and Ostrove (1975) discovered attractive offenders were sentenced more leniently than unattractive offenders when the crime was not related to appearance (burglary), whereas attractiveness-related crimes (swindle) had the opposite outcome. Similarly, the attractiveness bias was upheld in Nesdale and Rule’s (1974) study, however, attractiveness bias significantly decreased when observers were held personally accountable for their judgment. Equivalent results were found in Stewart’s (1980) study where observers were sent into courtrooms to rate defendants’ attractiveness and record conviction and sentencing. When seriousness of the crime was controlled there was a strong negative correlation with attractiveness and severity of