The_Attractive_Bias__How_Looking_Good_Is_Connected_to_Being_Good

It is a widely conceived notion that physically attractive people are superficially viewed in a relatively positive light when compared to others. Vast research done in the past has proved the existence of the physical attractiveness bias in society (Dion & Berscheid, 1974). Apart from the perceptions of the society in general, mock criminal case presentations have also found that people generally tend to rate unattractive individuals as committing more serious crimes (Saladin, Saper & Breen, 1988). There have been a number of studies conducted on attractiveness bias all further explained hereafter, but one important consideration that most courtroom replication studies seem to have lack of is the actual involvement of the nature of the crime conducted. Izzet & Fishman studied the effect of attractiveness and the defendants’ justification of their actions, and found that attractive individuals were judged harsher if they blamed their doings on external factors. This piece of research will look for an interaction between the nature of the crime which may be blue collar or white collar, and the attractiveness of the criminal in question. Dion, Berscheid, & Walster studied this bias in 1972 and found that physically attractive individuals are viewed as having a better future and positive personality characteristic in general. Physically attractive people are also perceived to be more sociable, happier, and more successful in life compared to unattractive individuals (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani & Longo 1991). Bias towards the physically attractive have been seen to manifest in a number of situations such as student judgments made by teachers (Clifford & Walster, 1973), performance ratings for pianists (Ryan & Costa-Giomi, 2004), voting choices for election candidates (Efran & Patterson, 1974), and examiner biases towards scoring children’s intelligence scales (Wheeler et al, 1987). In a study done by Chaiken in 1979, it was also found that physically attractive individuals were perceived to be more persuasive, and to be more effective communicators than unattractive individuals. Benson et al (1975) learnt through their study that an individual’s helping behaviors were directly proportional to a person’s attractiveness. To add to the attractiveness bias, there are studies done that show that attractive people are seen as much more intelligent, socially competent, and better adjusted in society (Eagly et al, 1991; Feingold, 1992). This generalization is now known as the ‘what is beautiful is good’ stereotype (Dion et al 1972). The attractiveness bias has been seen to run deeper than just people’s tendency to associate the attractive with the good. Although the number of studies done on attractiveness bias in the legal context is few, bias towards attractive criminal deviants has been repeatedly seen to occur. Studies conducted on mock jurors have proved that physically attractive individuals are commonly favored when it comes to rate of harshness of punishment. A survey done by Efran in 2004 indicated that a majority of 93% of those who took part believed that a criminal defendant’s physical appearance should not serve as a bias to a juror’s decisions. However, around the same time, Efran experimented on mock jurors and results showed that physically attractive defendants were judged with less certainty of guilt and less severe punishment choices than unattractive defendants. Subjects also rated unattractive individuals as more likely to commit crimes like armed robbery and murder, compared to attractive defendants (Saladin et al, 1988). Furthermore, studies done by Darby & Jeffers in 1988 and Wuensch, Chia, Castellow, Chuang, & Cheng in 1993 show that more jurors believe attractive defendants to be more intelligent, sociable and trustworthy than average looking defendants. This trend in perception could be strengthened by cognitive factors like perception related to rationality too; Dion’s 1972 study suggests that unattractive individuals are perceived as more likely to repeat criminal wrongdoings in the future. This aspect of rationale in people’s minds may further lead them to believe the opposite for attractive individuals, as studies mentioned initially saw that attractive individuals were viewed to be contributing more to society than unattractive individuals. This explanation sustains the results found by Wuensch et al in 1993, indicating that unattractive defendants were given judgments of longer prison sentences than attractive defendants. The findings of all these studies have one thing in common, the attractive were generally considered in a more positive light as compared to unattractive individuals. The above studies lie on the theory that bias towards the attractive does indeed exist; there are a number of external factors that may not have been taken into consideration. For example, gender roles have been found to have a considerable influence over attractiveness bias decisions. Attractiveness favoritism has been seen to depend on the sex of the deciding subject in the case of Agthe, Sporrle, & Maner’s study in 2010, in which attractive applicants were seen to be given more preference by receiving more number of scholarships as compared to unattractive applicants. But what was also observed was the preference of granting scholarships to the unattractive applicants when the person taking the decision was of the same sex. These findings suggested that this discrimination probably happens because highly attractive individuals of the same sex can be viewed as a social threat to the individual making the decision of hiring these aesthetically pleasing individuals (Agthe et al, 2010). Another important factor that most studies, especially in mock criminal cases, failed to consider was the effect of a joint mock juror discussion before arriving at a final decision, instead of individually making judgments about the defendant. Patry’s (2008) study confirmed the attractiveness stereotype at first, that is, mock jurors that did not participate in a group of deliberation were more likely to view the average-looking defendant as guilty. But interestingly enough it was found that mock jurors that underwent a joint deliberation by discussing their decisions resulted in the unanimous final verdict perceiving the attractive defendants as guilty. This study emphasizes on the suggestion that bias, therefore, can be minimized to a great extent by jury deliberation. Although the above studies all point to the fact that bias towards attractive defendants can play an influential part in making punishment choices, there has been almost no consideration for the actual nature of the crime being reviewed. Izzett & Fishman (1976) studied the effect of attractiveness and justification of a defendant’s actions. Contrary to their hypothesis, they found that attractive individuals were found to be given more harsh sentences when they gave too many external justifications for their actions. This study was important in the view that it took an account of external factors of the crime committed, without testing the mere attractiveness bias on the mock jury.