Researchers from the University of Lincoln in Britain explored how the perceived beauty and attractiveness of individuals charged with crimes could shape the severity of jury verdicts. The findings were published in the scholarly journal Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (QJEP).
Earlier work has indicated that the halo effect—the tendency for a favorable first impression to color later judgments—can sometimes lead to lighter penalties for offenders. In psychology, the halo effect describes how initial positive cues about a person can unduly influence subsequent perceptions and evaluations.
For the study, volunteers were recruited to act as mock jurors. They were shown 60 defendants described as having different levels of attractiveness and were accused of one of three serious offenses: robbery, sexual assault, or homicide.
Each juror was asked first to rate the defendant’s attractiveness on a scale from zero to nine, where higher numbers indicated greater attractiveness, and then to render a verdict of guilty or not guilty.
The results revealed that higher attractiveness reduced the likelihood of a guilty verdict in homicide cases but increased the likelihood of a guilty verdict in sexual assault cases. In robbery cases, attractiveness did not significantly sway the jurors’ decisions.
According to the researchers, the study captured a clear halo effect within a jury-trial simulation. They note that in real trials, the gravity of the crime under consideration should typically outweigh any influence from a defendant’s physical appearance (University of Lincoln, 2023).
Additional researchers have pointed out that attempts to manipulate appearance through products or styling can alter perceptions, but the legal system generally emphasizes the evidence and the seriousness of the offense over how a defendant looks.