Bais in the Courtroom

PAGE 1

BIAS IN THE COURTROOM: THE EFFECTS OF ATTORNEY ATTRACTIVENESS AND GENDER ON JUROR DECISIONS BY KEYTIN PALMER A Thesis Submitted to the Division of Social Sciences New College of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Arts in Psychology Under the sponsorship of Dr. Steven Graham Sarasota, Florida April, 2011

PAGE 2

Acknowledgments First off, I would like to thank my thesis committee members: Dr. Steven Graham, Dr. Heidi Harley, and Dr. Anthony Andrews. Their support throughout my academic career at New College has been invaluable. Thank you to Dr. Laura Hirshfield and Dr. Brooke Butler for helping me complete this work by directing me toward useful references and providing helpful advice. Finally, thanks to my boyfriend and my family, who helped me overcome the many obstacles in my path during my time at New College. ii

PAGE 3

Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................................................................................ii TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................iii ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................v WHAT MAKES A FACE ATTRACTIVE?.........................................................................1 WHY DO WE HAVE THE PREFERENCES WE DO?......................................................3 PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS BIAS.............................................................................6 GENDER OF ATTORNEYS.............................................................................................11 PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS OF ATTORNEYS.......................................................16 PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS OF DEFENDANT......................................................17 PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS OF PLAINTIFF..........................................................21 RAPE CASES....................................................................................................................22 CURRENT EXPERIMENT...............................................................................................24 METHOD..........................................................................................................................25 Participants.............................................................................................................25 Materials................................................................................................................26 Procedure...............................................................................................................27 RESULTS...........................................................................................................................28 Descriptive Statistics..............................................................................................28 Attractiveness Manipulation Check.......................................................................28 H1: Lawyer gender will affect how he or she is rated for persuasiveness, credibility, likability, trustworthiness, and knowledgeability................................29 iii

PAGE 4

H2: Lawyer physical attractiveness will affect how he or she is rated for persuasiveness, credibility, likability, trustworthiness, and knowledgeability....................................................................................................29 H3: Lawyer gender will affect a mock juror's judgment of guilt of his or her client.......................................................................................................................31 H4: Lawyer physical attractiveness will affect a mock jurors judgment of guilt of his or her client.......................................................................................................31 H5: Lawyer gender will affect how much money in damages is awarded to his or her client.................................................................................................................32 H6: Lawyer physical attractiveness will affect how much money in damages is awarded to his or her client....................................................................................32 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................32 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................36 APPENDICES...................................................................................................................41 Appendix A............................................................................................................41 Appendix B............................................................................................................42 Appendix C............................................................................................................46 iv

PAGE 5

BIAS IN THE COURTROOM: THE EFFECTS OF ATTORNEY ATTRACTIVENESS AND GENDER ON JUROR DECISIONS Keytin Palmer New College of Florida, 2011 ABSTRACT An experiment was conducted to investigate how attorney physical attractiveness and gender can bias juror decisions in an automobile accident trial. Participants (15 male, 45 female) were presented with a picture of an unattractive or attractive male or female attorney before reading a trial summary and a transcript of the attorney's closing statement. Participants then rated the attorney's persuasiveness, credibility, likability, trustworthiness, and knowledgeability; reported how guilty they deemed the defendant; and suggested an amount of money to be awarded to the plaintiff for damages if a jury found in his favor. Results showed that female attorneys were rated as more credible than males. Participants awarded more damages money to clients represented by female lawyers than to clients represented by male lawyers. In addition, clients represented by unattractive lawyers were awarded more money than clients represented by attractive lawyers. Results suggest that attorney physical attractiveness and gender affect juror decisions in automobile accident trials. ______________________________ Dr. Steven Graham Division of Social Sciences v

PAGE 6

Bias in the courtroom: The effects of attorney attractiveness and gender on juror decisions Physical attractiveness has been valued throughout history and in virtually all cultures (Buss, 1994). However, in modern times, popular sayings like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" or "beauty is only skin deep" downplay the effect physical attractiveness has on how people view and reward one another. Gender also has broad impacts on how people are evaluated and rewarded, especially in the workplace (Pierce, 1995). Understanding bias associated with physical attractiveness and gender may aid in overcoming its effects. Research suggests that we form rapid judgments about the physical attractiveness of an individual before we even recognize his or her identity (Etcoff, 1999). Because physical attractiveness is continually present and immediately available, it can create a halo effect, or positive bias, that colors subsequent judgments (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Past research shows that physically attractive individuals see more positive outcomes than unattractive individuals in a variety of settings, including the workplace (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991; Langlois et al., 2000). This thesis examines past research on physical attractiveness before delving into information about physical attractiveness bias and gender bias in the legal system, an institution that is, in theory, committed to the preservation of justice and equality. What makes a face attractive? Before discussing theoretical explanations about the causes of preferences for physical attractiveness, it is necessary to describe attractiveness and the factors that 1

PAGE 7

determine whether or not an individual is judged as attractive. Some facial characteristics commonly associated with physical attractiveness, which will be discussed later in the paper, include averageness, or a lack of distinct features; bilateral symmetry, or symmetry between bilateral traits; and sexual dimorphism, or the presence of sexually distinct traits (Rhodes, 2006). Other factors like a pleasant expression, good grooming, youthfulness, how well an individual is known by a rater, and how much an individual is liked by a rater may affect judgments of facial attractiveness (Etcoff, 1999). In addition to general judgments about an individual's facial attractiveness there are also different types of attractiveness with different affective or motivational consequences. Examples include sexual attractiveness, attractiveness as a potential ally or friend, and cuteness or babyfacedness (Etcoff, 1999). However, most studies in psychology deal solely with physical attractiveness, or more specifically, facial attractiveness (Rhodes, 2006). Although many non-physical, personal, or contextual characteristics may influence a person's attractiveness, there are many roles in which physical attractiveness is generally considered a desired or important criteria for selection (Buss, 1994). For example, when individuals give reports of sexual attractiveness of members of the opposite sex, responses are typically highly correlated with overall ratings of desirability to date or marry (Buss, 1994). Physical attractiveness researchers typically assume that common aesthetic judgments are made for individuals of both sexes (Rhodes, 2006). When it comes to judging sexual attractiveness, men and women are typically in high agreement about the level of attractiveness of same sex and opposite sex individuals 2

PAGE 8

(Langlois et al., 2000). Apparently, despite not being sexually attracted to individuals of the same sex, heterosexual men and women can still determine how sexually attractive an individual is to members of the opposite sex with high reliability (Langlois et al., 2000). Some of the proposed functions and explanations for this ability include the assessment of danger of same sex competitors, evaluating the"fitness" of a same sex individual as an ally or friend, or the existence of a generic aesthetic response to all faces (Buss, 1994). Why do we have the preferences we do? Although a common view in the social sciences is that standards of physical attractiveness are arbitrary inventions of culture, several pieces of evidence suggest otherwise (Etcoff, 1999). The presence of cross-cultural agreement of physical attractiveness ratings and evidence that preferences for physical attractiveness emerge very early in development, when infants are only three to six months old, suggest that culture and learning are not the only elements at work in creating standards and preferences for physical attractiveness (Langlois et al., 2000). Evolutionary psychologists assert that modern preferences for physical attractiveness could have evolved through sexual selection, considering that physical attractiveness is so highly related to mate choice today (Rhodes, 2006). In physical attractiveness research, there are three major candidates for sexually selected preferences: averageness, bilateral symmetry, and sexual dimorphism. These characteristics are consistent, reliable indicators of physical attractiveness in metaanalyses done to evaluate what characteristics make a face attractive (Rhodes, 2006). As with any hypothesized sexually selected preference, averageness, bilateral symmetry, and 3

PAGE 9

sexual dimorphism may signal mate quality or may merely be byproducts of some other characteristic with no link to mate quality (Rhodes, 2006). However, in order for a trait to be a good candidate for a biologically based preference, it must have adaptive value. Average faces have features that are low in distinctiveness and reflect mathematical averages of traits of a large number of individuals. In meta-analyses, averageness has been shown to be positively related to physical attractiveness, even after controlling for other factors also related to physical attractiveness like bilateral symmetry and sexual dimorphism (Rhodes, 2006). Some evolutionary psychologists have hypothesized that averageness may signal mate quality by reflecting developmental stability (the ability to withstand stress during development) and heterozygosity, which could increase an individual's resistance to disease (Rhodes, 2006). Bilateral symmetry refers to the degree of symmetry between bilaterally paired traits. Facial bilateral symmetry is also positively correlated with facial attractiveness (Rhodes, 2006). Deviations from bilateral symmetry are positively correlated with developmental instability in humans and other animals (Rhodes, 2006). In non-human animals, body asymmetry increases with inbreeding, homozygosity, parasite load, poor nutrition and exposure to pollution. In humans, body asymmetry increases with inbreeding, premature birth, psychosis, and mental retardation. Thus, bilateral symmetry could function as a signal of mate quality by acting as a positive indicator of mate health, which is an important factor in reproduction and survival (Rhodes, 2006). Sexual dimorphism refers to traits that diverge between the sexes at puberty. In males, testosterone levels increase growth of jaws, cheekbones, brow ridges, the center of 4

PAGE 10

the face, and facial hair (Rhodes, 2006). In females, growth of these traits is inhibited by estrogen, which may cause lips to become fuller (Rhodes, 2006). Because these traits emerge at puberty when an individual becomes capable of reproducing, sexually dimorphic traits serve as signals of sexual maturity and reproductive potential. As in other animals, differences in sexually dimorphic traits could signal differences in mate quality between individuals (Rhodes, 2006). Testosterone and estrogen have been hypothesized to signal mate immunological competence, as both hormones stress the immune system so that only healthy individuals can tolerate high hormone levels. In addition, masculine traits could signal dominance and status, while feminine traits could signal fertility. Regardless of the validity of the theories regarding sexual dimorphism, femininity in female faces is very highly related to ratings of facial attractiveness, while masculinity in male faces is less clearly associated with judgements of physical attractiveness made by members of the opposite sex (Rhodes, 2006). Socialization and social expectancy theories like behavioral confirmation, selffulfilling prophecies, and implicit personality theory assert that preferences for physical attractiveness are a product of learning and culture (Langlois et al., 2000). These theories generally rest on the assumption that cultural norms and expectations influence individuals' attitudes and behaviors and their perceptions of others; In this way, social stereotypes can create their own reality (Langlois et al., 2000). According to these theories social stereotypes are perpetuated through a multi step causal mechanism. For instance, the appearance of an individual may elicit social stereotypes which entail a set of expectations and assumptions about the traits of that individual, regardless of how well 5

PAGE 11

those traits actually characterize that individual. In turn, if the perceiver treats or judges that individual differently based on his or her stereotypical expectations, then that individual may internalize the perceivers judgments and treatments and develop corresponding behaviors and self-views (Langlois et al., 2000). Although evolutionary theories and socialization theories about physical attractiveness may seem like very different theoretical explanations for preferences for physical attractiveness, it is important to remember that these theories are not necessarily at odds. In fact, both theories may be operating simultaneously or at different levels to generate modern preferences for physical attractiveness. It is not necessary to rule one theory out in favor of the other. For example, humans could have evolved a predisposition to favor attractive faces when selecting a mate. However, the importance an individual places on finding an attractive romantic partner may be enhanced by, for example, media depictions of successful men marrying extremely attractive women. The first explanation operates at a different level than the second. Physical Attractiveness Bias Eagly et al. (1991) and Langlois et al. (2000) conducted meta-analyses showing that more favorable personality traits and more successful life outcomes are attributed to physically attractive individuals than to physically unattractive individuals. In the first meta-analysis on this topic conducted in 1991, the largest differences in participants' perception of personality traits of physically attractive individuals versus physically unattractive individuals were for measures of social competence; intermediate differences were found for potency, adjustment, and intellectual competence. The analysis also found 6

PAGE 12

no significant difference in participants' judgments of integrity and concern for others between the two groups. Langlois et al. (2000) attempted to improve on the 1991 meta-analysis on the physical attractiveness stereotype by looking at situations in which the participants know the individuals they are making judgments about. In addition to showing high inter-rater reliability between judgments made by individuals both within and across cultures about others' attractiveness, the analysis also shows that physically attractive children and adults are judged and treated more positively than unattractive children and adults, even by people who know them. In addition, in the studies used, attractive children and adults show more positive behaviors than unattractive children and adults. In general, studies show that judgments made about physically attractive individuals tend to be more positive than judgments made about physically unattractive individuals (Langlois et al., 2000). For children, large effect sizes were found for judgments between physically unattractive children and physically attractive children on measures of social appeal and academic competence. Physically attractive children also received more positive judgments for adjustment and interpersonal competence measures. Even physically attractive adults were judged more positively on measures of occupational competence, social appeal, interpersonal competence, and adjustment. In contradiction to the meta-analysis by Eagly et al. (1991), physical attractiveness was found to be just as important for academic and occupational judgments as it was for social domain judgments (Langlois et al., 2000). 7

PAGE 13

Studies also show that participants treatment of physically attractive individuals tends to be better than their treatment of physically unattractive individuals (Langlois et al., 2000). Attractive children receive more attention and caregiving, greater designation of academic ability, more positive interactions, and less negative interactions than physically unattractive individuals. Attractive adults receive more attention, more helpgiving and cooperation related behaviors, less negative interactions, more positive impression management, more positive interactions, and more rewards than physically unattractive individuals. In addition, there are group differences in the behavior of physically unattractive and physically attractive individuals, with the physically attractive tending to behave more positively than physically unattractive individuals in a variety of ways (Langlois et al., 2000). Physically attractive children tend to be more popular and better adjusted. They also display greater intellectual / performance competence. Physically attractive adults achieve similar results through a tendency to have more occupational success, be liked more, have more dating experience, have more sexual experience, and be in better physical health than physically unattractive adults. Physically attractive adults also tend to be somewhat more extraverted, have more traditional attitudes, have higher selfconfidence or self-esteem, have better social skills, have better mental health, and be slightly more intelligent than physically unattractive individuals. Perhaps as a result, physically attractive adults also tend to perceive themselves as more competent and mentally healthy than physically unattractive individuals tend to perceive themselves. 8

PAGE 14

Cross cultural evidence also suggests that while all cultures may show a physical attractiveness bias, the content of the bias may vary depending on what traits a culture values (Wheeler & Kim, 1997). In a sample of Korean students, more physically attractive targets were judged as more socially competent, more intellectually competent, more adjusted, more sexually interested and warm, and less modest than physically unattractive targets. These findings in the Korean sample coincide with findings in North American samples. However, the Korean student's judgments of a target's potency were not significantly correlated with target attractiveness level as they are in North American samples. Further, Korean students also judged physically attractive individuals as having greater concern for others and greater integrity than physically unattractive individuals. This outcome confirmed scientist's initial predictions that traits like concern for others and integrity would be ascribed to physically attractive individuals over physically unattractive individuals because these traits promote harmonious relationships. Current research suggests that in many Asian cultures, including Korea, greater value is placed on interdependence than on independence, which is more of a North American value. As a result, Koreans may place greater value on promoting harmonious relationships and individual traits associated with harmony are considered highly positive. Therefore, the study supports the stereotyped notion that what is beautiful is good, even if cultures differ in what traits they deem "good." When it comes to finding out how physical attractiveness biases trait inferences, no trait has been more studied than intelligence. The most recent meta-analysis of studies showed that physical attractiveness is positively correlated with perceived intelligence in 9

PAGE 15

all age groups (Zebrowitz, Hall, & Rhodes, 2002). In addition, physical attractiveness is also positively correlated with IQ scores in all age groups except late adulthood. Participants also tend to be better than chance at predicting intelligence of an individual after viewing his or her facial photo. Further analysis shows that physical attractiveness judgments at least partially account for participants' ability to predict intelligence better than chance; the ability disappears when physical attractiveness is controlled for (Zebrowitz et al., 2002). Researchers have proposed multiple developmental paths to account for the relationship between physical attractiveness and IQ (Zebrowitz et al., 2002). One theory in evolutionary psychology posits that both intelligence and physical attractiveness are affected by "good" genes. Other theories explain possible biological and environmental influences of attractiveness on intelligence and possible influences of intelligence on attractiveness (Zebrowitiz et al., 2002). Physical attractiveness has also been shown to play an important role in persuasive communication (Pornpitakpan, 2004). A recent meta-analysis shows that high credibility sources are superior over low credibility sources at inducing persuasion as measured by a change in attitudes or behaviors (Pornpitakpan, 2004). A social psychological theory referred to as source credibility theory asserts that there are five major components of persuasive communication: source, message, channel, receiver, and destination (Pornpitakpan, 2004). Source often refers to the person doing the persuading. Three characteristics of the source known to influence persuasion are credibility, attractiveness, and power (Pornpitakpan, 2004). Some researchers go further and divide 10

PAGE 16

credibility into two parts important for persuasion, including expertise and trustworthiness (Pornpitakpan, 2004). Source credibility provides impetus for studying the effect of physical attractiveness of a source on the effectiveness of persuasion. In addition, physical attractiveness may lead to instances of bias in situations where persuasion is particularly relevant, as in a legal trial. Physical attractiveness bias also infiltrates the legal system through the judgments of jury members (Taylor, 2006; Downs & Lyons, 1991; Efran, 1974; Stephen & Tully, 1977; Ahola, Hellstrom, & Christianson, 2010; Abwender & Hough, 2001; Izzet & Leginski, 1974; Thornton, 1977; Jacobsen & Popovich, 1983; Wuensch & Moore, 2004). Gender bias can also affect courtroom outcomes (Szmer, Sarver, & Kaheny, 2010; Hahn & Clayton, 1996). Although the legal system is intended to give every person the right to a fair trial, this is often not the case due to biases and stereotypes that affect juries' final decisions. The presence of extralegal factors, which jury members would ideally ignore in order to judge a case objectively, play a large part in the outcome of a trial. The rest of the information provided will overview how physical attractiveness and gender of attorneys, defendants, and plaintiffs can affect the outcomes of both civil and criminal trials. Gender of Attorneys Prior research suggests that gender may even influence the persuasion style of lawyers (Pierce, 1995). Gilligan (1982) has suggested that, when faced with moral dilemmas, women tend to favor solutions in which no one will be hurt, whereas men tend to favor solutions which align with their notions of justice or universal rights. In 11

PAGE 17

accordance, Jack and Jack (1989) assert that although there are variations among individuals, as a group, women are more likely than men to express a caring orientation when practicing law. On the contrary, Kanter (1977), has suggested that because female lawyers are a numerical minority in relation to male lawyers, they can be considered tokens within the legal profession. Accordingly, female tokens may conform to male norms within their profession to avoid drawing attention to any differences between them and the dominant (numerical majority) group of male lawyers (Kanter, 1977). Thus, Kanter (1977) predicted that female lawyers may take on more stereotypically male forms of persuasion, but lacked the evidence to back her prediction. Pierce (1995), however, finds that some women have adopted a caring orientation in resolving legal disputes, while some have adopted a more male typical adversarial role in the courtroom. Additionally, some women adopt a caring orientation in the office but an adversarial role in the courtroom. Pierce (1995) suggests that regardless of the persuasive style female lawyers adopt they risk being criticized for being "too nice" and unaggressive or not aggressive enough. Accordingly, female lawyers who adopt a caring orientation toward witnesses are sometimes criticized for being too nice to the witness, and women who adopt an aggressive adversarial style risk being criticized for being too aggressive. Pierce observed that male lawyers were praised for using cajoling or placating strategies to achieve a particular outcome in trial and in the office, while women who adopted similar strategies were accused of using their "feminine wiles" to get their way with witnesses or opposing 12

PAGE 18

counsel. According to Pierce, men seemed to be expected to be manipulative, aggressive, and calculating, while women were not. In fact, women who displayed these same qualities risked being criticized for being unladylike, domineering, or shrill. Pierce sees female lawyers as facing a dilemma between being seen as a "good" woman and fulfilling the adversarial role expected of lawyers. Research shows that gender bias persists amongst justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (Szmer et al., 2010). A study examining all supreme court cases from 1993-2001, in which female attorneys orally argued against male opposing counsel, suggests that women attorneys may begin at a disadvantage when attempting to persuade individual supreme court justices. Overall, ideologically conservative justices were less likely to side with female attorneys, even after controlling for possible mediating variables like attorney expertise, sex of the justice, amicus participation, party capability, and judicial ideology. Justices were also less likely to side with female attorneys who represented a liberal position in a case. This effect persisted even after controlling for possible mediating variables like the Supreme Court justice's ideology. However, justices were seventeen percent more likely to side with a female attorney in a women's issue case (i.e. sexual discrimination or harassment, reproductive rights, maternity rights, and issues involving equal employment opportunity) regardless of which side or position the woman was representing. Another study suggests that male attorneys may be more successful than female attorneys (Hahn & Clayton, 1996). In the study, college students read a summary of an assault and robbery trial and prosecuting and defense attorney interrogations of victims. 13

PAGE 19

They then viewed a video tape of the defense attorney interrogating the only eye witness in the case, a 21 year old male. The researchers varied the gender of the defense attorney in the video and the interrogation style used by the attorney was either passive or aggressive. After viewing the video, participants read the closing statements of both attorneys and evaluated the defense attorney and the eyewitness on seven characteristics and rendered a verdict. Results of the study showed that the female attorney was less successful in obtaining a favorable verdict (i.e. not guilty) than the male attorney (Hahn & Clayton, 1996). However, because only one female and one male attorney were used in the study, it is impossible to tell if this effect was due to the gender of the attorney or some other mediating personal characteristics or attribute that was not controlled for in the methodology. Although the two attorneys said the same thing and tried to maintain similar body language and vocal tone throughout the interrogation, the male attorney was perceived as more friendly than the female attorney. In addition, the male attorney benefitted more than the female attorney from adopting an aggressive interrogation style. For example, when the male attorney adopted an aggressive interrogation style, participants rated the crime as less serious and rendered fewer guilty verdicts. Male participants were more influenced by an aggressive attorney than by a passive attorney, regardless of the attorney's gender. However, male participants were more influenced by an aggressive male attorney than they were by an aggressive female attorney. On the other hand, women were not differentially influenced by the gender of the attorney or presentation style of the attorney. Male jurors found the defendant more guilty when the 14

PAGE 20

defense attorney was aggressive toward the witness, while females did not. The witness, a man in his twenties, was also rated as friendlier when interrogated by a female attorney. Participants also rated the male witness as less capable when he was interrogated by the aggressive male attorney than when he was interrogated by the passive male attorney or any female attorney. The witness was also rated as more aggressive when interrogated by a passive attorney than when interrogated by an aggressive attorney. However, when the witness was rated as more aggressive he was also rated as more competent and more likely to be believed. Therefore, this effect may have led to a greater likelihood that the defendant would be convicted. Finally, the crime was rated as more serious by male jurors when the defense attorney was female than when the attorney was male. Another study shows that nonverbal communication and style of speech influences how attorneys are perceived (Rockwell & Hubbard, 1999). In the study, participants rated attorneys with more expressive faces, greater pitch variety, and greater tempo variety as less trustworthy. Participants also rated attorneys with greater facial expression and pitch variety as less competent. However, attorneys with greater pitch and tempo variety were viewed as more friendly. This study highlights how using one method of enhancing perceived credibility may detract from other means of enhancing credibility. For example, attorneys who are perceived as friendly may also be perceived as less competent. Unfortunately, the study used eight attorneys, only one of whom was female, so it was impossible to determine if there are any interactions between gender and nonverbal communication or speech style. For instance, if one gender is more likely to use certain speech or nonverbal communication styles, the participants ratings may have 15

PAGE 21

reflected those differences. Or, gender may have influenced how certain nonverbal communication or speech styles affected attorney ratings. Physical Attractiveness of Attorneys Outside the lab, physically attractive attorneys have an overall advantage in their profession (Biddle & Hamermesh, 1998). In a longitudinal study on a large sample of graduates of one law school, graduates rated as better-looking earned more money five years after graduating from law school than their less attractive counterparts. This effect became even more dramatic as experience practicing law increased. The study also found that attorneys who went into the private sector were overall better looking than attorneys who went into the public sector. Physical attractiveness may be an indicator of career success and choice for lawyers as it is in so many other occupations (Etcoff, 1999). In a study examining the effects of physical attractiveness and gender on juror decisions in a medical malpractice case, college students and community members gave verdicts and evaluated prosecuting attorneys on various characteristics after viewing a photo of the prosecuting attorney, reading a case summary, and reading the closing statements of both attorneys (Taylor, 2006). The study found that, overall, physical attractiveness of attorneys did not influence the verdict or how much money was awarded to the plaintiff for damages (Taylor, 2006). However, in cases in which participants rendered a negligence verdict, physically unattractive male prosecuting attorneys who were arguing against another male defense attorney were rated lower on skill level than physically attractive attorneys. The authors explained these findings by asserting that if the strongest indicator of a verdict is evidence, then intellectual ability of an attorney may 16

PAGE 22

be more important than social skills. Because physical attractiveness was shown to be only moderately related to intelligence, the effect may not have been enough to carry over and influence the verdict. The study also showed that attorney gender did not impact participant's rating of an attorney's traits, including confidence, assertiveness, aggressiveness, competence, knowledge, intelligence, persuasiveness, skillfulness, believability, honesty, fairness and impartialness, and likability (Taylor, 2006). However, if prosecuting attorneys were arguing against an attorney of the same sex, the prosecuting attorney's skills were evaluated more positively. The reverse effect occurred for prosecuting attorneys who argued against an attorney of the opposite sex. In addition, in cases where the prosecuting attorney lost, he or she was rated as less skilled if the opposing attorney was of the opposite sex. While attorney gender did not affect how participants rated certain attorney traits, facing off against an attorney of the opposite sex clearly had a negative impact on how participants viewed the skill level of the prosecuting attorney. Physical Attractiveness of Defendant The physical attractiveness bias also plays a part in the outcome of a trial and the amount of monetary reward given to a plaintiff. Efran (1974) showed that 79% of mock jurors claimed to believe that a defendant's character and previous history should influence a juror's decision and 93% claimed to believe that the defendants physical appearance should not bias these decisions. Despite these reported attitudes, Efran (1974) still found that mock jurors were less certain of the guilt of physically attractive defendants and issued these defendants less severe punishment than physically 17

PAGE 23

unattractive defendants. The mock jurors claimed to hold the view that physical appearance should not factor into their decisions, yet, their decisions were biased none the less. In a survey of court cases occurring over an eighteen month period and involving three different classes of misdemeanors and three classes of felonies, police officers rated the physical attractiveness of 915 female defendants and 1320 male defendants (Downs & Lyons, 1991). The attractiveness levels of the defendants were then compared with the bails and fines set by judges. More physically attractive defendants were given lower bail and fine amounts than physically unattractive defendants in misdemeanor cases but not in felony cases. Therefore, the type of charge a defendant faces may determine whether or not physical attractiveness bias will affect the outcome of their case. Down and Lyons (1991) even go as far as to suggest that physical attractiveness bias may be more important at the beginning of a trial, when bail amounts are set than it is at the end of the trial, when guilt is judged and punishments are set. In another study legal practitioners (judges, jurors, police officers, counsels for the defense, prosecutors, and law students) read summaries of child molestation, child abuse and homicide, and homicide cases committed by male or female perpetrators and were shown photos of the perpetrator (Ahola et al., 2010). The legal practitioners then gave a recommended term for imprisonment and rated the defendant for credibility, reliability, guilt, aggressiveness, insensitiveness, disagreeableness, ruthlessness, degree of mental disorder, and the seriousness of the crime on a one to ten scale. Each participant's evaluation of defendant characteristics were then averaged to create a harshness of 18

PAGE 24

evaluations index. A same-sex penalty effect occurred in which judges and jurors gave higher imprisonment rates and harsher evaluations to perpetrators of their own sex than to perpetrators of the opposite sex. Non-sentencing evaluators, including police officers, counsels for the defense, prosecutors, and law students also showed a male penalty effect, in which male defendants were given higher imprisonment rates and harsher evaluations than females defendants. However, the male penalty effect was enhanced for physically attractive males. On the other hand, physically attractive females were given less harsh evaluations than physically unattractive females. This evidence contradicts Efran's (1974) finding that jurors were less certain of guilt of physically attractive defendants and gave them less severe punishments. A study involving a vehicular homicide case summary confirms the idea that the gender of the evaluator or juror may influence the outcome of a case (Abwender & Hough, 2001). 250 graduate students viewed a photo of a defendant and then read a vehicular homicide case summary. They were then asked to give a rating of how guilty they thought the defendant was on a scale of one to seven and a jail sentence from 1 to 99 years. Female participants recommended longer sentences for attractive defendants than for unattractive defendants. Overall, females participants also recommended shorter sentences for attractive defendants than male participants, while males recommended shorter sentences for unattractive defendants than females. In addition, for male participants there was a positive correlation between a defendant physical attractiveness judgments and responsibility for the incident. Therefore, males viewed the more 19

PAGE 25

physically attractive defendants as more responsible for the crime they committed. This effect did not hold for female participants. Babyfacedness, defined by facial characteristics including large, round eyes, high eyebrows, and a small chin, also influences juror decisions. In general, baby-faced adults are perceived as having more child like qualities like naivete, warmth, kindness, and honesty, even when age and physical attractiveness are controlled for (Berry & Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1988). In a simulated trial baby faced defendants were more often found guilty of an offense resulting from negligent actions than mature faced defendants (Berry & Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1988). However, baby-faced defendants were less often found guilty of charges involving intentional criminal behavior. These results fit with baby faced individuals being perceived as naive, but honest. It is important to remember that most of the experiments on physical attractiveness of a defendant and trial outcomes are very controlled and do not necessarily represent real world conditions, especially considering that mock jurors usually do not discuss the case before making a decision, as they would in a real court setting. Izzet and Leginski (1974) performed a study which involved groups of four to six mock jurors reading a case and sentencing a defendant, then discussing the case with the group and given a chance to sentence the defendant again. Before the group discussion, jurors in the unattractive defendant condition sentenced the defendant to longer prison terms than jurors in the attractive defendant condition. However, after discussing their sentencing decisions with the group there was a shift toward leniency in sentencing in the unattractive defendant condition, while there was no significant change in the sentencing 20

PAGE 26

decisions in the attractive defendant condition. This suggests that group discussion might increase the probability of reaching an objective non biased solution. Considering group discussion is a large part of a real jury, physical attractiveness bias may not always pervade jury decisions. Baumeister and Darley (1982) offer advice for how the legal system can reduce biases and offer fair trials despite a physical attractiveness bias. Operation of a sentencing bias for attractiveness (including personality attractiveness) increases as ambiguity or incompleteness of facts increases. Jurors may be filling in the gaps with stereotyped notions or predictions when there is not enough detailed information provided about a case. Physical Attractiveness of Plaintiff In addition to defendant physical attractiveness, plaintiff physical attractiveness also has an effect on trial outcomes. In one study researchers varied the physical attractiveness and age of a plaintiff in a faux personal damage lawsuit (Stephan & Tully, 1977). Mock jurors found in favor of the attractive plaintiff more often than they found in favor of the unattractive plaintiff and the attractive plaintiff was awarded more money in damages than the unattractive plaintiff. As with defendants, babyfacedness of plaintiffs can also influence trial outcomes. In a naturalistic study involving 506 real cases in small claims courts, as babyfacedness increased for plaintiffs, defendants were more likely to lose a case (Zebrowitz & McDonald, 1991). Moreover, as defendants increased in facial maturity they were 21

PAGE 27

required to pay larger monetary rewards to baby faced plaintiffs, but not to average or mature faced plaintiffs. Clearly, baby-like facial features bias jurors significantly. Rape Cases The effects of gender and physical attractiveness of defendants and plaintiffs seen in rape cases are often different from other types of cases, presumably because of the sexual nature of the crime. Physical attractiveness also plays a part in rape cases, where victims cannot always receive equal protection because courts are often biased (Field, 1979). This may be due to the fact that rape is an emotional issue and oftentimes there is a lack of hard evidence on which to base decisions. Therefore, jurors may base their decisions on stereotypes or extra evidential factors (Field, 1979). There are two obvious ways that physical attractiveness of a victim could influence the juries' opinions about a case. One possibility could involve jurors feeling more sympathy for a defendant who raped an attractive victim or ascribing less overt control to the defendant's actions. The defendant could be seen as overcome by beauty. Another possibility could involve juror doubt that an unattractive woman was actually raped by the defendant (Field, 1979). In one study, participants read a description of a rape case in which it was unclear whether or not the rape had actually taken place (Jacobsen & Popovich, 1983). Participants judged physically attractive victims as being more responsible for the event and more careless. Physically attractive defendants were also rated as less likely to have wanted to rape someone and less likely to have committed the rape. Attractive defendants also received shorter prison sentences and garnered more sympathy from the participants 22

PAGE 28

than unattractive defendants. Jurors were biased in favor of physically attractive defendants and biased against physically attractive victims. Physical attractiveness of a male defendant in a sexual harassment case may also affect trial outcomes (Wuensch & Moore, 2004). In a simulated civil case, a male plaintiff accused his female boss of sexual harassment. Participants who read the case were more certain of the guilt of the defendant when the plaintiff was physically attractive than when he was not. Attractiveness of the plaintiff also had an effect on the verdicts of participants when the defendant was unattractive but not when she was attractive. Female participants were also more likely than male participants to conclude that sexual harassment had taken place, but only in cases in which the defendant and plaintiff had differing levels of attractiveness. Therefore it may be more believable to jurors that a man would be sexually harassed if he is good looking. It may also be less believable that a good looking woman would harass an unattractive man than that an unattractive woman would harass an unattractive man. These patterns are very similar to the patterns observed for female rape victims and their perpetrators. Physical attractiveness of rape victims may play a part in determining the severity of punishment given to the plaintiff. Thornton (1977) showed that defendants who raped more attractive victims were given longer sentences, while the jurors opinions of a victim's credibility and responsibility for the incident were not influenced by the victim's attractiveness level, which clearly contradicts Jacobsen and Popvich's (1983) findings of increased responsibility and carelessness of attractive victims. The jurors viewed attractive victims as no less truthful than unattractive victims and more respectable than 23

PAGE 29

unattractive victims. Overall, males may be more influenced by a female victim's physical attractiveness than females. Males gave defendants who raped attractive women longer sentences than defendants who raped unattractive victims. These results show that a more attractive rape victim may fare better in getting retribution, possibly because attractive rape victims are viewed as more respectable. Current Experiment In the end, the difference between how attractive people and unattractive people are treated is probably less than most individuals might imagine, but it would be neglectful to ignore the evidence that attractive people do have certain advantages in society. Most of the experiments outlined in the following pages were done with extremely unattractive individuals and extremely attractive individuals, whereas, most people fall somewhere in between. In his book "The Moral Animal," Robert Wright (1994) points out that it is possible to correct predispositions to certain behaviors through an increased knowledge of the reasoning behind those behaviors, saying, "Understanding the often unconscious nature of genetic control is the first step toward understanding that, in many realms, not just sex, we're all puppets, and our best hope for even partial liberation is to try to decipher the logic of the puppeteer" (Wright, 1994, p. 37). Becoming aware of bias may help us better understand our actions and question their meaning and effects. Remember that the physical attractiveness of an individual affects how people behave towards that individual in a variety of experiments spanning many different types of situations (Etcoff, 1999). One area in which experiments have shown that physical 24

PAGE 30

attractiveness may have an effect on peoples' actions is the legal system (Abwender & Hough, 2001; Ahola et al., 2010; Downs & Lyons, 1991; Efran, 1974; Izzet & Leginski, Stephen & Tully, 1977; Taylor, 2006; 1974; Thornton, 1977). Most of the past experiments on physical attractiveness and the legal system have focused on the plaintiff or defendant. However, how does the physical attractiveness of an attorney affect a juror's perception of the attorney's personal characteristics relevant to who wins a case? In light of the prior evidence, we might expect to see that gender and physical attractiveness of an attorney will have affect how he or she is rated for persuasiveness, credibility, likability, trustworthiness, and knowledgeability (Eagly et al., 1991; Hahn & Clayton, 1996; Langlois et al., 2000; Porpitakpan, 2004; Szmer et al., 2010). Gender and physical attractiveness of an attorney may also affect a mock juror's judgement of guilt of his or her client. Gender and physical attractiveness of a lawyer may also affect how much money in damages is awarded to his or her client. Method Participants 60 students (15 males, 45 females) from New College of Florida participated in the study. Overall, 202 participants began the experiment, but 42 did not finish and were eliminated from analysis. When asked to provide their race, 58 participants responded with white, 1 responded with Asian, and 1 chose not to answer. Participants were recruited through emails to the New College student forum encouraging them to follow a link to participate in a study on impressions of closing statements in the legal system at surveymonkey.com. 25

PAGE 31

Materials Facial photos (see Appendix A) were originally acquired from a German study on facial attractiveness (Braun, Gruendl, Marberger, & Scherber, 2001). Dr. Martin Gruendl, a lead author in the initial study, provided the photos for use in this study. Each color photo contained a face with a neutral expression against a white background. The individuals in the photographs were wearing white shirts and shown from the top of the shoulders and up. Each individual was rated in the previous study for physical attractiveness on a one to seven scale. The physically attractive male had a rating of 5.6. The physically attractive female had a rating of 5.7. The physically unattractive male had a rating of 2.6. The physically unattractive female had a rating of 2.56. The study used an online slide show which first showed a picture of a lawyer alongside his or her name and instructions to read the case summary and closing statement that followed. The participants then clicked a next button to move to the following pages with a brief description of the case and a closing statement (see Appendix B) from the plaintiff attorney. The next slide asked participants to rate the lawyer for persuasiveness, credibility, knowledgeability, trustworthiness, and likability on a one to seven scale and to give a one to seven rating of guilt of the defendant. The participant was then asked to provide an amount of money they thought should be awarded to the plaintiff in damages from $0 to $15,000. The participants then rated the physical attractiveness of the lawyer (one to seven) and gave their age, gender, and race. 26

PAGE 32

Procedure A total of four photos, including one male and one female photo for each category of attractiveness (attractive and unattractive) were identified and used in the study. Participants were exposed to the online slide show and randomly assigned to one of four conditions: attractive male attorney, unattractive male attorney, attractive female attorney, or unattractive female attorney. All participants read a brief case summary and closing statement by the plaintiff attorney which was based on a real auto accident trial (OptiLaw, n.d.). The case summary was written after review of the full trial transcript of the auto accident and only a few details of the actual case were altered. The closing statement was also taken from the trial transcript and only a few lines were deleted from the original transcript. The case summary read as follows: Below is a sample trial transcript from an auto accident trial. The case deals with the question of who was negligent in a car accident. The plaintiff, Mr. Ervin, alleged that a tanker-trailer carrying fuel oil cut him off in traffic, causing him to swerve into the adjacent lane, where he was struck from the rear by another vehicle. Ervin filed suit against Mr. Quade, the driver of the tanker trailer, and Mrs. Young, the driver of the vehicle that struck him. The defendants (Mr. Quade and Mrs. Young) claimed that the plaintiff was responsible for the car accident. The case was tried on the issue of liability. Presented here is the plaintiff's closing statement supporting the claim that the plaintiff was not negligent, and that the driver of the tanker truck caused him to swerve into the adjacent lane where he was subsequently struck by Mrs. Young. The participant then rated the lawyer on five character measures, gave a judgment of level of guilt of the defendant, gave a suggested amount of money they would award to the plaintiff in damages had a court found in his favor, gave a rating of physical attractiveness for the lawyer, and then gave basic personal stats. 27

PAGE 33

Results Using a two way ANOVA, the data was analyzed to discover possible relationships of attorney gender and attorney attractiveness with lawyer characteristics, level of guilt, and damages awarded. All statistical tests were two-tailed and used .05 criterion for significance. Descriptive Statistics Participants had average ratings for persuasiveness (M=4.137, SD=.229), credibility (M=3.975, SD=.167), likability (M=3.615, SD=.191), trustworthiness (M=3.66, SD=.176), knowledgeability (M=4.123, SD=.188), degree of guilt (M=4.446, SD=.193), and damages money (M=5790.446, SD=474.096). Attractiveness Manipulation Check Participants rated the photos of the attractive individuals higher than photos of unattractive individuals: attractive male (M=4.895), attractive female (M=5.231), unattractive male (M=3.389), unattractive female (M=3.7). Further, males and females in the same attractiveness category had similar ratings. Therefore, the attractiveness manipulation worked. 28

PAGE 34

H1: Lawyer gender will affect how he or she is rated for persuasiveness, credibility, likability, trustworthiness, and knowledgeability H2: Lawyer physical attractiveness will affect how he or she is rated for persuasiveness, credibility, likability, trustworthiness, and knowledgeability Hypothesis one and two were not supported for persuasiveness, likability, trustworthiness, and knowledgeability. However, hypothesis one was supported for credibility but hypothesis two was not. Persuasiveness. There was no main effect of attorney gender F(1,56) = .017, p = .898 or attorney attractiveness F(1, 56) = 2.062, p = .157 on persuasion. There was no interaction between attorney gender and attorney attractiveness, F ( 1, 56) = .503, p = .481. Participants in the male attorney condition had an average persuasiveness rating of 4.167, while participants in the female attorney condition had an average persuasiveness rating of 4.108. Participants in the attractive attorney condition had an average persuasiveness rating of 3.808, while participants in the unattractive attorney condition had an average persuasiveness rating of 4.467. Credibility. There was a main effect of attorney gender on credibility, F(1, 56) = 5.039, p = 029. The 37 participants in the male lawyer condition had an average credibility rating of 3.599, while the 23 participants in the female lawyer condition had an average credibility rating of 4.35. Therefore, the female lawyers were rated as more credible than the male lawyers. 29

PAGE 35

There was no main effect of attorney physical attractiveness on credibility, F (1,56) = 2.497, p = .120. There was no interaction between attorney gender and attorney attractiveness, F (1,56) = 2.497, p = .120. Participants in the attractive attorney condition had an average credibility rating of 3.711, while participants in the unattractive attorney condition had an average credibility rating of 4.239. Likability. There was no main effect of attorney gender F(1, 56) = .445, p = .507 or attorney physical attractiveness F(1,56) = .938, p = .337 on likability. There was no interaction between attorney gender and attorney attractiveness F(1, 56) = .809, p = .372. Participants in the male attorney condition had an average likability rating of 3.487, while participants in the female attorney condition had an average likability rating of3.742. Participants in the attractive attorney condition had an average likability rating of 3.429, while participants in the unattractive attorney condition had an average likability rating of 3.8. Trustworthiness. There was no main effect of attorney gender F(1, 56) = .154, p = .696 or attorney physical attractiveness F(1,56) = .010, p = .920 on trustworthiness. There was no interaction between attorney gender and attorney attractiveness F(1, 56) = .089, p = .767. Participants in the male attorney condition had an average trustworthiness rating of 3.596, while participants in the female attorney condition had an average trustworthiness rating of 3.735. Participants in the attractive attorney condition had an 30

PAGE 36

average trustworthiness rating of 3.648, while participants in the unattractive attorney condition had an average trustworthiness rating of 3.683. Knowledgeability. There was no main effect of attorney gender F(1, 56) = 1.048, p = .310 or attorney physical attractiveness F(1, 56) = 1.680, p = .200 on knowledgeability. There was no interaction between attorney gender and attorney attractiveness F(1, 56) = .717, p = .401. Participants in the male attorney condition had an average knowledgeability rating of 3.93, while participants in the female attorney condition had an average knowledgeability rating of 4.315. Participants in the attractive attorney condition had an average knowledgeability rating of 3.879, while participants in the unattractive attorney condition had an average knowledgeability rating of 4.367. H3: Lawyer gender will affect a mock juror's judgment of guilt of his or her client H4: Lawyer physical attractiveness will affect a mock jurors judgment of guilt of his or her client Hypothesis three and four were not supported. There was no main effect of attorney gender F(1, 56) = 1.125, p = .293 or attorney attractiveness F(1, 56) = 1.213, p = .275. There was no interaction between attorney gender and attorney attractiveness F(1, 56) = .511, p = .478. Participants in the male attorney condition had an average degree of guilt rating of 4.241, while participants in the female attorney condition had an average degree of guilt rating of 4.650. Participants in the attractive attorney condition had an average degree of 31

PAGE 37

guilt rating of 4.658, while participants in the unattractive attorney condition had an average degree of guilt rating of 4.233. H5: Lawyer gender will affect how much money in damages is awarded to his or her client H6: Lawyer physical attractiveness will affect how much money in damages is awarded to his or her client Hypothesis five and six were supported. There was a main effect of attorney gender F(1, 56) = 5.031, p = .029 and attorney attractiveness F(1, 56) = 3.794, p = .056 on amount of money awarded in damages. The 37 participants in the male lawyer condition had an average amount awarded for damages of $4727.047, while the 23 participants in the female lawyer condition had an average amount awarded for damages of $6853.846. Therefore, the female lawyers were awarded more damages money for their client. The 32 participants in the attractive condition had an average amount awarded for damages of $4867.004, while the 28 participants in the unattractive condition had an average amount awarded for damages of $6713.889. Therefore, the unattractive attorneys were awarded more damages money for their client than the attractive attorneys. There was no interaction between attorney gender and attorney attractiveness F(1, 56) = .067, p = .797. Discussion Overall, female attorneys were rated as more credible than male lawyers. Female attorneys were also able to attain more money in damages than male lawyers. It is 32

PAGE 38

possible that female attorneys attained more money for damages as result of being seen as more credible. Further, unattractive attorneys attained more money in damages than attractive attorneys. This finding persists despite the fact that there were no significant differences in how attractive and unattractive lawyers were rated for characteristics that might have affected their ability to persuade participants to dole out money for their client, like persuasiveness, credibility, likability, trustworthiness, and knowledgeability. This finding is somewhat surprising in light of past research showing that faux jurors in a personal damage lawsuit find in favor of an attractive plaintiff more often than they found in favor of an unattractive plaintiff (Stephan & Tully, 1977). Past research on physical attractiveness bias also shows more positive outcomes for attractive individuals in a variety of situations (Eagly et al, 1991; Langlois et al, 2000). The characteristics of the participants and the environment in which they live may offer some explanation for these surprising results. New College is an extremely liberal college where equality and bias are frequent topics of conversation. At a glance, students seems less concerned with their appearance and gender norms are often broken. A lot of students are seemingly aware of bias and committed to feminist ideals. Of course, these are anecdotal assumptions about the student population which have not been subjected to empirical scrutiny. Also, a majority of participants were female. This may account, at least in part, for bias in favor of female lawyers. This experiment suffers from a variety of limitations. Participants were required to read the case materials. If participants were jury members in a real court case, the 33

PAGE 39

results may have differed because of a greater variety of available information. In a real court case, the plaintiff, defendants, and attorneys would be physically present and information about each individuals appearance, including physical attractiveness, race, and age would be available and may affect the outcome of the case. Further, an attorney's nonverbal communication and speech style may also affect how they are perceived in a real court setting. Thus, while this experiment allows us to isolate physical attractiveness and gender and observe their effects in the absence of potential mediating variables, it does not necessarily show how attorney gender and attorney attractiveness affect outcomes in a real court case. In this experiment the attorneys represented a male client and all attorneys were prosecuting attorneys. Further, the male plaintiff was up against a same sex defendant. Different outcomes might be expected in cases where gender and physical attractiveness of the defending attorney, defendant, and plaintiff were available. Whether an attorney is facing off against a same sex or cross sex opposing counsel or an attractive or unattractive opposing counsel may affect how attorney gender and attorney physical attractiveness affect case outcomes. Therefore, the outcomes of this experiment only apply to plaintiff attorneys who are representing male clients. The nature of the case may also play a part in determining how attorney attractiveness and gender affect trial outcomes. Here, an automobile negligence trial was used because it was seen as more gender neutral than many other types of cases. Women and men both have experience driving. However, in cases in which the attorney could be expected to have a different understanding of some aspect of the case, as in a case dealing 34

PAGE 40

with rape or gendered medical issues, attorney physical attractiveness and gender may affect outcomes differently than in this experiment. Participants were asked to provide an amount they would award to the plaintiff for damages if the jury found the defendant guilty. In a real court case, jury members would be informed how much damage was done and how much money would be required to fix the damage. Therefore, we might expect different outcomes in an actual court case. However, the amount of money awarded for damages was included to provide some assessment of how much money participants thought the client deserved, which varied depending on the physical attractiveness and gender of the attorney. This suggests that physical attractiveness and gender of an attorney have an impact on how much monetary compensation people think a plaintiff deserves when a jury finds in his favor. Further research should be conducted to determine how physical attractiveness or gender bias play out in a real courtroom environment and how the different characteristics of a case and the individuals involved affect court outcomes. Further, this research shows that bias does not always operate in the ways one might expect. Bias against physically attractive individuals or against men is not a frequent topic in discussions about inequality. If combating social injustice is to be fully effective, individuals must be made aware that bias can operate against any group of people, even those that are not traditionally considered oppressed or subjugated. The content of bias is dependent on the contextual factors of a situation and does not always operate in traditional or predicted ways. 35

PAGE 41

References Abwender, D. A., & Hough, K. (2001). Interactive effects of characteristics of defendant and mock juror on U.S. participants judgment and sentencing recommendations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 603-615. Ahola, A. S., Hellstrom, A., & Christianson, S. A. (2010). Is justice really blind? Effects of crime descriptions, defendant gender and appearance, and legal practitioner gender on sentences and defendant evaluations in a mock trial. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 17, 304-324. Baumeister, R. F., & Darley, J. M. (1982). Reducing the biasing effect of perpetrator attractiveness in jury simulation. Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 286-292. Berry, D. S., Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. (1988). What's in a face? Facial maturity and the attribution of legal responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 23-33. Biddle, J. E., & Hamermesh, D. S. (1998). Beauty, productivity, and discrimination: Lawyers' looks and lucre. Journal of Labor Economics, 16, 172-201. Braun, C., Gruendl, M., Marberger, C., & Scherber, C. (2001). Beautycheck Ursachen und Folgen von Attraktivitat. Report. [pdf-document] Available from; http:// www.beautycheck.de/english/bericht/bericht.htm Buss, D. M. (1994). The Evolution of Desire. New York: BasicBooks. Downs, A. C., & Lyons, P. M. (1991). Natural observations of the links between attractiveness and initial legal judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17, 541-547. 36

PAGE 42

Eagly, A H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., Longo, L. C. (1991) What is beautiful is good, but...: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128. Efran, M. G. (1974). 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, 8, 45-54. Etcoff, Nancy (1999). Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty. New York: Random House Inc. Field, H. S. (1979). Rape trials and jurors' decisions: A psycholegal analysis of effects of victim, defendant, and case characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 261-184. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and womens' development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hahn, P. W., Clayton, S.D. (1996). The effects of attorney presentation style, attorney gender, and juror gender on juror decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 533-554. Izzett, R. R., & Leginski, W. (1974). Group discussion and the influence of defendant characteristics in a simulated jury setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 93, 271-279. Jack, R, & Jack, D. C. (1989). Moral vision and professional decisions: The changing values of women and men lawyers Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 37

PAGE 43

Jacobson, M. B., & Popovich, P. M. (1983). Victim attractiveness and perceptions of responsibility in an ambiguous rape case. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 8, 100-104. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation New York, NY: Basic Books. Kanekar, S., & Kolsawalla, M. B. (1980). Responsibility of a rape victim in relation to her respectability, attractiveness, and provocativeness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153-154. Langlois, J. H., Kalakinis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic an theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390-423. Nisbett, R. E., Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250-256. OptiLaw (n.d.). The Law Offices of Miller and Zois, LLC Retrieved from http:// www.millerandzois.com/trialtranscript.pdf Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243-281. Pierce, J. L. (1995). Gender trials: Emotional lives in contemporary law firms California: University of California Press. Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 57, 199-226. 38

PAGE 44

Rockwell, P., & Hubbard, A. E. (1999). The effect of attorneys' nonverbal communication on perceived credibility. The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 2, 1-13. Stephan, C., & Tully, J. C. (1977). The influence of physical attractiveness of a plaintiff on the decisions of simulated jurors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 101, 149-150. Szmer, J. J., Sarver, T. A., & Kaheny, E. B. (2010). Have we come a long way, baby? The influence of attorney gender on supreme court decision making. Politics & Gender, 6, 1-36. Taylor, T. S. (2006). An investigation of the effects of attorney attractiveness and gender on jurors' decisions in a medical malpractice trial. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX. Thornton, B. (1977). Effect of rape victim's attractiveness in a jury simulation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 666-669. Wheeler, L., & Kim, Y. (1997). What is beautiful is culturally good: The physical attractiveness stereotype has different content in collectivist cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 795-800. Wright, R. (1994). The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life New York: Random House Inc. Wuensch, K. L., Moore, C. H. (2004). Effects of physical attractiveness on evaluations of a male employee's allegation of sexual harassment by his female employer. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 207-217. 39

PAGE 45

Zebrowitz, L. A., Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Rhodes, G. (2002). Looking smart and looking good: Facial cues to intelligence and their origins. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 28, 238-249. Zebrowitz, L. A., & McDonald, S. M. (1991). The impact of litigants' baby-facedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 603-623. 40

PAGE 46

Appendix A Attorney Facial Photos Alex B. Bratt, Attorney You are about to read a summary of a civil trial about an automobile accident followed by a transcript of a closing statement given by Attorney Alex Bratt, who is shown above Please read all of the closing statement before proceeding to the next page, as you will be asked to give responses to the trial. 41

PAGE 47

Appendix B Plaintiff Attorney's Closing Statement By Alex Bratt: Good afternoon. You can make an accident sound pretty complicated if you try really hard, right? I don't really think this is one of those situations. I don't think this is a complicated accident. I don't think that you should think this was a complicated accident. You've heard exactly one version of how this accident happened today. The only person who said anything about how it happened is the Plaintiff, Mr. Ervin. Why? Because Ms. Young testified that before this collision between her vehicle and the Plaintiff's she never saw his vehicle and she never saw the truck. And the driver of the only Baltimore Tank Lines vehicle in that area says that he has absolutely no memory at all of what he did that day. Now he spent some time trying to tell you all what he normally does and from that they'd like you to decide that on this particular day he did what he ordinarily does even though he wasn't even able to tell -tell you that himself, okay. There are a lot of things everybody agrees about about this accident. Everybody agrees that this is how Mattawoman Beantown Road is laid out. Everybody agrees that it goes from two lanes to four, okay. Now, what you've heard is the Court instruction about how we make these kind of decisions and basically the standard is what's the preponderance of the evidence; what is more likely to have happened than not likely to have happened, okay. And Mr. Ervin has the burden to show that the Defendant was negligent; Mr. Quade. Now, what do we know about Baltimore Tank Lines. We know that they admit that Mr. Quade was their employee at the time this accident happened. They admit that he was acting within the scope of his employment with them on this particular day. And they admit that he was the only driver that they had that was in the vicinity of this intersection and this accident at the time of this accident; around 12:00. And what's Mr. Quade tell you? That yes, he could have been in this area because he goes through there all the time. He lives right by there. That's how he goes home. He can tell you that he usually comes through this intersection but he can't tell you if that's what he did on March 13th, 2006. He can't tell you if he went straight on March, 2000 -March 13th. He can't tell you if he used a turn signal on March 13th. He can't tell you whether Ted Ervin's car was there on March 13th. He can't tell you if Ms. Young's car was there on March 13th. Mr. Quade has nothing to say about how this accident happened other than what he normally does which he can't say happened in -on this day. And the reason I'm talking about that is is you just heard the instructions that the Court gave. The Judge talked about witness testimony and how do ya -how do you evaluate that. And the instructions the Court gave don't tell you what to decide but they give you some guidelines for making those kind of decisions. And what I want you to think is who had an opportunity to observe how the accident happened. Mr. Ervin did. Did Mr. Quade observe how the accident happened? No. Did Ms. Young observe how it happened? No. She doesn't know anything that happened before there was a car in her lane. Now, let me look at my notes because as much as I'd love to be able to remember 42

PAGE 48

all this stuff, I can't quite do it. Now, what Mr. Ervin told you he did is that he started out here at some point behind this BTL truck. That as he traveled down the road at a constant speed of about 35 miles an hour, these two through lanes kept going through and then as you can see on the diagram, the two left turn lanes came into pos -into existence. Mr. Ervin said that he -started out in this lane. That as soon as he was able to merge over into the turn lane he did so. And that he was in the outermost of the two turn lanes, our clunky dialog for them is the left turn left -left left turn lane and the right left turn lane. He had to be in the right left turn lane because after he goes through this intersection, he makes this left turn and then less than a quarter mile he has to make a right turn to get into where he lived. Now, he testified that he had to work the day of this accident but that he had to be at work at 2:00 in the afternoon and he was only about a quarter mile from his house so Mr. Ervin had no reason to be in a hurry. He had no reason to try to pass this vehicle because no matter what he did he was gonna be home in five minutes. Either way all he had to do was make it to the light, turn left and then turn right right away. He wasn't trying to pass the vehicle. Nobody's testified that he was. When you have these kinds of questions what you need to do is, is you need to decide if Mr. Ervin has shown you more likely than not that a Baltimore Tank Lines vehicle came into his lane and caused the accident. Now, you're gonna also have to look at -excuse me, when Mr. Ervin was cross examined he got asked a lot of questions about distances and exactly where he was and you saw the manner in which he answered those questions. He was straight forward. Mr. Ervin wasn't trying to say that his testimony at Deposition was anything other than what it was. Or that he really changed what he testified about. All he said was that he had to estimate the distances because he's not an engineer and he didn't have access to the exact measurements. But that when he did have a chance to look at the diagrams that they were produced, he did the best he could to illustrate for you what happened. Now, Mr. Ervin never told you that everything he has shown you on this diagram is exact to the foot and inch. But what he did do is, is he did use the diagram to show you what happened. And just like he testified, what he has here is he's got his vehicle, the Honda, and it's in -established in his turn lane. He's already driving in that lane when the tractor trailer comes over into his lane. Now, he said his brother worked for Baltimore Tank Lines so he knew what their trucks looked like. And more importantly, he knew that Baltimore Tank Lines hauls oil. Everybody knows that oil is dangerous. Everybody knows that a tractor trailer with an oil tanker on it is dangerous because in addition to the regular danger that you would have from any kind of collision with a big vehicle like a tractor trailer, you've also got the added fire or explosion danger if that tanker had something in it. And what Mr. Ervin said he did is he did, and we're back to the instructions that the Judge gave, he did what a reasonable person would have done. He was traveling at a constant speed in his turn lane when a very large vehicle that he thought was full of a flammable liquid cam over. He did what a reasonable person would do which is he went in the opposite direction of that oil tanker as quickly as he could. Be -because he knew that it presented an immediate danger to him. And he testified that he didn't have time to see what was in the other lane because of the danger. And what the judge told you about 43

PAGE 49

evaluating whether somebody was reasonable or not is, is that you have to look at the reasonableness of what they did in light of the situation that they were in. And Mr. Ervin was in a situation where a large, dangerous vehicle came into his lane and he had to decide the best thing to do right away (fingers snapping) like that. He didn't have time to sit and think about it so he did what a reasonable person would do. He steered to the left in the opposite direction as quickly as he could. Now, it turns out that there was another vehicle in that lane. Ms. Young is in the unfortunate position of being a party to this case because she happened to be in one of -driving one of the cars that was involved in this accident. And again, Ms. Young doesn't tell us anything about how the accident happened but she does tell us a few things that are important. Mr. Young, the main thing that he -Mr. Ervin, the main things that he told you was this truck came over into his lane all of a sudden and he -he had to get away from it. Now, you can see that the distance where his truck is along the side of this tractor trailer, it -it looks like a different position here than it does there. Again, he testified that he didn't measure it out; he gave his best estimate. But what he -what he is sure about is, is that he was somewhere in the middle of this tractor trailer whether it's closer to the front of it or closer to the back of it, but either way his car was next to this tanker as it came over into his lane. And he testified to you that the first thing he said to Ms. Young when he talked to her at the scene was did you see the truck that just cut me off. And when I talked to Ms. Young the main thing that I really wanted to get across to you folks is that she backed up what Mr. Ervin said. I asked her flat out, you know, isn't it true that the first thing he said to you was did you see the tractor trailer that cut me off. And she admitted that that is exactly what he had said. Mr. Ervin said the same thing to the police when they showed up; a tractor trailer cut me off. Now, what's more likely than not. I think Mr. Ervin's version is more likely than not. He's a gentleman who's on his way home to get ready for work, something comes into his lane. He immediately goes in the opposite direction and then right at the scene the first thing that he says to the only other person that was right there and that stopped is, did you see that truck. You know, he didn't sit and think of how the accident happened. He didn't sit there for 20 minutes and try to come up with a reason. He said exactly what had just happened to him moments before. You know, it's the one thing that Ms. Young clearly remembers about this accident is, is that Mr. Ervin said that immediately afterwards. Now, Mr. Quade, he can't tell you for sure what, if anything, he did or what Mr. Ervin or Ms. Young did. He had nothing to say about this accident other than he hopes you'll believe that he didn't do anything. But he hasn't offered any proof of it. And the only proof as to what the actions of this trailer was are Mr. Ervin's story of how it happened and the comment that he made right afterwards to Mrs. Young. Ms. Young doesn't have any reason to say that that's what Mr. Ervin said unless he said it. She has nothing to gain by supporting his version of the events in that respect. So I -I would submit to you that what she said that he said to her is very, very reliable because she has no reason to make it up. It happened right after the accident. She was very clear that that's what Mr. Ervin said. And again there's been some discussion about what you 44

PAGE 50

actually have to do physically with your vehicle as you go through here. Mr. -Mr. Quade's trying to say that you can just continue with -from her -that you just continue with your vehicle in a straight line and that as long as you don't do anything, you will end up in this lane. But I think the diagram that everybody has agreed is an accurate representation of the road doesn't support that. As you can see -you know, if you --if you're gonna -if you're gonna get into one of these turn lanes you've gotta cross that dividing line. You've gotta go from a through lane into a turn lane. And the instructions the Court just gave you say that when you have to do that you can change lanes here when it's safe to do so. You gotta make sure it's safe to do so before you do it. And what's more likely than not that happened in this accident is that the driver of the Baltimore Tank Lines vehicle didn't exercise due care. How do we know they didn't exercise due care is because the driver didn't make sure that that turn lane was clear of vehicles before he got into it. And Mr. Ervin testified that as soon as he was able he got into this clear lane and continued on. And that had that vehicle not come over into his lane he would have gone up to the light, made his turn and gone home. And that's the long and the short of what happened here. I think that it's common knowledge that nobody has exact recall of anything particularly something that happened two years ago. But what's material, what's important, the important parts all make sense because if a tractor trailer didn't come into Mr. Ervin's lane why would he jump over into the next lane. He'd have no reason to do that an if he was gonna get into that lane he would be in the wrong place because he has to make a right after he makes this turn. So Mr. Ervin's got no reason to ever be in this left-most lane unless something forces him into it which would be the truck. So, we know that a Baltimore Tank Lines vehicle was there. We know that it came into Mr. Ervin's lane and we know that that caused the accident. I'd submit to you that that's what is more likely than not. And it should say that Mr. Ervin was not negligent. Why? Because like you heard the Judge instruct you right at the end, the burden's change. The person that's asserting a claim or defense has the burden of establishing it beyond -within the -with -by the preponderance of the evidence. In terms of his claim of negligence against Baltimore Tank Lines, Mr. Ervin has the burden to show that that's more likely than not if the accident happened the way he says it did. If the defendant wants to argue that Mr. Ervin was contributorily negligent, that burden shifts to them. They have to show you by preponderance of the evidence that he was contributorily negligent. And I submit to you that they can't do that because nobody saw what happened except for Mr. Ervin. And in the absence of any direct evidence that he was negligent you should find that he wasn't. So I'm gonna ask you to render a verdict that Mr. Quade was negligent and that his negligence was the cause of the accident. And I'm gonna ask you to render a verdict that Mr. Ervin was not negligent. But what the evidence does show is that Baltimore Tank Lines vehicle caused this accident and there's nothing that contradicts it. Thank you. 45

PAGE 51

Appendix C New College of Florida Informed Consent For persons 18 years of age or older who take part in a research study The following information is being presented to help you decide whether or not you want to take part in research study. Please read this carefully. If you do not understand anything, ask the person in charge of the study. Title of research study: Closing Statement Impressions in the Legal System Person in charge of study: Keytin Palmer The purpose of this research study is to investigate how various characteristics of a closing statement influence a prospective juror's opinions. Description You are invited to participate in a research study on impressions of closing statements in the legal system. You will be asked to listen to a recording of a closing statement and give your opinions about the statement. Your participation will take approximately 15 minutes. Benefits of Being a Part of this Research Study By participating in this study you may increase your overall knowledge about the legal system and juries. Risks of Being a Part of this Research Study There are no risks associated with this study. Although you may be viewing material that may be mildly emotionally disturbing to you. Payment for Participation You will not be paid for your participation in this study. Confidentiality of Your Records Your privacy is important. However, the results of this study may be published. Your individual privacy will be maintained in all published and written data resulting from the study. Only authorized research personnel, employees of the Department of Health and Human Services and the NCF Institutional Review Board may inspect the data from this research project. The data obtained from you will be combined with data from others in the publication. The published results will not include your name or any other information that would personally identify you in any way. Volunteering to Be Part of this Research Study 46

PAGE 52

If you have read this form and have decided to participate in this project, please understand your participation is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw your consent or discontinue participation at any time without penalty. You have the right to refuse to answer particular questions. Questions and Contacts If you have any questions about this research study, contact Keytin Palmer at (954) 673-5325 If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may contact the Human Protections Administrator of New College of Florida at (941) 487-4649 or by email a t irb@ncf.edu Consent to Take Part in This Research Study By signing this form I agree that: I have fully read or have had read and explained to me this informed consent form describing this research project. I have had the opportunity to question one of the persons in charge of this research and have received satisfactory answers. I understand that I am being asked to participate in research. I understand the risks and benefits, and I freely give my consent to participate in the research project outlined in this form, under the conditions indicated in it. I have been given a copy of this informed consent form, which is mine to keep. Principal Investigator Statement I have carefully explained to the subject the nature of the above research study. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the subject signing this consent form understands the nature, demands, risks, and benefits involved in participating in this study. Please print out this page for documentation purposes. 47