THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
The Interaction of Attractiveness and Style of Crime
Carter W. Daniels
University of Kentucky
1
THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
2
Abstract
Attractiveness has often been investigated as involving a leniency effect; however, in the context
of a con based crime, it becomes the Achilles heel of the perpetrator. Previous research has, for
the most part, demonstrated both effects as real and measurable. The present study recreates the
con specifically; it is believed that an attractive defendant will receive a harsher sentence than an
unattractive one, because a con requires the use of beauty/charm as a weapon. The study utilized
psychology undergraduates from the University of Kentucky as participants, because at the time
they were seen as representative of the university population at large. Students read a crime
summary either accompanied by a picture or no picture at all, which was meant to influence their
decision in how long the perpetrator stayed in prison. The results were inconclusive due to many
extraneous variables that weren’t controlled, thereby resulting in confounds and the inability to
reject the null hypothesis. Limitations are discussed as a foundation for expanded research that
would produce conclusive data.
THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
3
The Interaction of Attractiveness and Style of Crime
Attractiveness is something that our society holds to a self-fulfilling standard; that is we
often go easier or reward more attractive people because of their physical appearance, however
sometimes physical appearances can be a detriment to an individual. There is a lot of research
out there that tries to explain this phenomenon and most of it is conflicting because each study
tries to measure attractiveness through a myriad of unequal measures. Each study redefines
attractiveness in a different way: attractiveness as a set of requirements (Stewart II, 1985), facial
maturity (Dumas & Testê 2006), and they sometimes look at the relationship of one’s self image
to perceived beauty (Darby & Jeffers, 1988). Then other times the idea of attractiveness is
complicated with the type of transgression. The attractiveness-transgression effect allows us to
see that attractiveness isn't always the golden standard (Stewart II, 1985; Schwibbe G. &
Schwibbe M., 1981; Sigall & Ostrove, 1975).
A study in 2006 looked at physical beauty as also containing the characteristic of facial
maturity and researched its persuasion over juridic decisions when related to offense congruency
and case ambiguity. Dumas and Testê (2006) investigated the "influence of face/offence
congruency on such judgments, taking into account the strength of the case against the defendant
and the maturity and attractiveness attributes of the defendant's face" (p. 237). The offense
congruency hypothesis proposed stated that those with mature faces would receive harsher prison
sentences if the ambiguity of the case was low than those with "baby faces" and low ambiguity.
To test their hypothesis a sample of forty diverse people were selected to read case summaries
accompanied by a questionnaire. Dumas and Testê paired each summary with a photo that was
either incongruent or congruent with the case, determined by degree of facial maturity. After
performing their analysis, Dumas and Testê concluded that maturity had a more profound effect
THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
4
on the severity of juridical decisions than perceived attractiveness. Physical appearance can also
be determined through a list of characteristics; that is to say, one must meet certain criteria to be
attractive. In the following research conducted by Stewart II (1985), attractiveness was defined
as having the following four characteristics, "physical attractiveness, neatness, cleanliness, and
quality of dress" (p. 373). Based on these four characteristics of appearance Stewart (1985)
constructed a field study to test whether or not these components of attractiveness would have
persuasion over juridic decisions. In the study eight participants went to a courthouse and
observed court cases until sentences were determined. This occurred over a two-year period and
consisted of sixty cases; ranging from murder, larceny, drug charges and other various felonies.
Stewart provided each participant with an "attractiveness index," and filler questions to fill out
for each case. After controlling for other influences such as race, gender, ethnicity, etc... Stewart
found that, "In a series of actual criminal traits, defendants who were perceived as attractive,
clean, neat, and well dressed were treated with greater leniency than those rated lower on these
four dimensions of attractiveness" (p. 377). He also discovered an ancillary finding regarding the
correlation between attractiveness and transgression and proposed that one could explain this
either by associating the idea that less attractive people commit more serious crimes or that the
more serious a crime the less attractive one is perceived. Appearances, however, can be two fold;
the defendant and juror both could be considered attractive, and this may lead to an interaction
that could affect juror judgment.
Darby and Jeffers (1988) wanted to investigate whether or not a defendant’s or juror’s
physical charm had any “interactive effects” on decisions made by the jurors. In order to
investigate this supposed phenomenon a survey of 33 male and 45 female students was
conducted. In the survey the students filled out a self-assessment questionnaire, read three
THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
5
judicial cases (varying in the type of transgression and picture associated with the case, but equal
in ambiguity), and filled out a perpetrator evaluation inventory. Through analysis of the
questionnaire and inventory Darby and Jeffers (1988) were looking to support the hypothesis that
a good-looking defendant will suffer lesser consequences for a crime; lower conviction rate, less
severe sentence, and seen as a more favorable person as compared to an unattractive defendant.
.It was concluded that if a juror is attractive then they are more likely to be lenient with a
defendant whom they believe shares a common characteristic that is their “good looks”. Darby
and Jeffers also found that attractive jurors, as opposed to unattractive jurors, were more likely to
be less lenient with those defendants not seen as sharing a common trait. While the results seem
conclusive, the types of crimes that the participants read about were transgressions that are more
typical for an academic environment, such as "charges of cheating, malicious release of a
dormitory fire alarm, shoplifting at the campus bookstore, misuse of meal tickets, plagiarism,
and computer misuse," (Darby & Jeffers, 1988, 41). All of these may be crimes, but when
compared to other studies, they are hardly comparable.
A study conducted by Schwibbe and Schwibbe (1981) involved the correlation between
transgression type and attractiveness found that, if perpetrators are equal in other characteristics
then perceived attractiveness will have no influence on juridic decisions. The other qualities
investigated by Schwibbe and Schwibbe (1981) are transgression and gender. In their research, it
was proposed that these other variables would affect the outcome of a juror’s decision regarding
severity of punishment more than perceived beauty. To test this Schwibbe G. and Schwibbe M.
(1981) presented sixty men and sixty women with case summaries, each with a picture or
“dummy picture” and a questionnaire to fill out concerning the outcome of the case. After
collecting data and performing their analysis Schwibbe and Schwibbe demonstrated that only the
THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
6
characteristic "transgression" had any real impact on the judgment and treatment of criminals by
jurors. Transgression seems to be a powerful variable among research concerned with attraction;
however, the nature of a crime can’t be a deciding factor, only an influencing factor.
Sigall and Ostrove (1975), hypothesized that in the case of a burglary an attractive
defendant would be judge more leniently than an attractive person who committed a swindle,
because that's perceived as being manipulative. In order to test this they presented their 120
undergraduate participants (half male, half female) with either a description of a burglary or
swindle, and along with each case summary was a picture of an attractive woman, unattractive
woman, or no picture at all. On a separate page each participant was to fill out a questionnaire
that also contained a question regarding how attractive the defendant was perceived. After
performing an analysis of the data it was found that when a crime in question didn’t involve
charm as a weapon unattractive people were punished more severely than attractive. The data
also suggested the converse of the previous statement to be true; attractive people were punished
more severely if the crime made use of one’s charm as a weapon.
In the present research the Sigall and Ostrove (1975) study is being replicated; more
specifically the swindle portion of their study is being replicated with a couple of changes. One
of the changes is that the pictures presented to the participants are that of male defendants, unlike
the previous research, which utilized pictures of women (Sigall & Ostrove, 1975). This will
allow for a comparison to be made where any significant changes between physical appearance
and transgression can be noted. It is hypothesized that the more attractive defendant will be given
a more severe punishment than the unattractive defendant because the participants will see them
as manipulative. This hypothesis is synonymous with that of Sigall and Ostrove (1975) and
through it the research will try to support the idea that attractiveness can sometimes work in an
THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
7
opposite way, which is against one in a society that generally says, "what is beautiful is good"
(Darby & Jeffers, 1988, 39).
Method
Participants
College students attending the University of Kentucky participated in the study as part of
their Lab requirement for their PSY 215 class. Since the lab is required for the class, they
essentially received credit for participating in the study. Overall there were forty students (14
males, 26 females, Mage = 20, age range: 18-30, SD = 2 years) that participated in this instance.
Other than age and gender differences, the sample population is fairly representative of
psychology students at the University of Kentucky.
Materials
Each student was given a case summary accompanied by either a picture of an attractive
male, unattractive male, or no picture at all. The pictures were chosen from an FBI database of
top felons, the database was ranked from attractive to least attractive. Each summary was the
same for each participant, and along with the picture variable there was a questionnaire on a
separate piece of paper that the students were to fill out. At the end of the case summary, on the
first page, there was a question about how long the defendant should be sent to jail for, the range
was 1-15 years. The questionnaire consisted of general questions about details of the case along
with three important questions pertinent to our analysis. Other than “sentencing length” (range:
1-15 years), the other important questions “likelihood the defendant would be sentenced to at
least 5 years” and “How attractive do you think the defendant is,” used an interval scale of 1-9, 1
being least likely/least attractive to most likely/most attractive. The general questions concerning
THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
8
details of the crime itself were used as deceptive tools so that the study got a fair look at how our
independent variables influenced the sentencing outcome. Each collection of materials was
covered by a blank white sheet of paper to stop people from looking at other people’s packets,
thereby reducing the chance of seeing different pictures and/or how the person was answering
various questions.
Procedure
The students came in and sat down wherever they desired, which resulted in a genderbased segregation with females on one side and males on the other (it is important to note that
the seats were in rows). After everyone arrived, the instructor handed out all the materials at
random; this ensured equal distribution of the independent variables. Once all materials were
passed out, each student had exactly five minutes to read the case summary and then three
minutes to fill out the questionnaire. This regimented time is another difference between the
present research and the Sigall and Ostrove (1975) study. Participants were asked to focus only
on their work and to not look at anyone else’s papers. Upon completion, materials were turned
over and then turned into the instructor.
Results
The independent variables of attractive-male picture, unattractive-male picture, and no
picture at all ended up being, for the most part, equally distributed among the participants. (No
picture: 13; Unattractive: 14; Attractive: 13). The mean sentence between all variables ended up
being very close, with only a little bit of deviation (Msentence = 6, SD = 3.1), also the likelihood of
a defendant receiving more than five years in prison was somewhat high on a scale of 1-9 (M5+=
6.75). The mean sentences for each variable was within a range of five to six years and only
THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
9
deviated some over each variable (Munattractive = 5.29; SD = 3 years, Mattractive = 6.38; SD = 2.694,
Mnopicture = 6.6; SD= 3.61). A one-way ANOVA was performed on all conditions and there was
no statistical significance discovered as a result of this analysis (F2,37=.701, p=.50). Please see
table 1 for a complete summary of results.
Discussion
Previous research has shown that attractiveness can be measured as a multitude of
different facets. It has also shown that, for the most part, some form of attractiveness often
influences the outcome of a juridic decision. Many of these studies; however, did not use similar
measures of attractiveness, therefore causing their conclusions to conflict. Studies by Schwibbe
G. and Schwibbe M. (1981) and Dumas and Testê (2006) gave no credence to the idea of
attractiveness as a golden key, whereas Darby & Jeffers (1988) and Stewart II (1985) concluded
that attractiveness, as defined by their standards, does indeed cause people to treat beautiful
people differently. Sigall & Ostrove (1975) claimed that attractiveness does indeed influence
outcomes on both burglary and swindle crimes, although in the case of the current research there
has been no conclusive evidence to give their hypothesis, and likewise ours, any support.
The current research hypothesis stated that in the case of a swindle-based crime the
attractiveness of the criminal would influence the jurors’ decision, resulting in a longer prison
sentence. The results showed that on average each perpetrator would receive only around six
years in prison. The difference between an attractive defendant and unattractive defendant was
by only one year, which shows that there was little difference between the two perpetrators based
on their perceived attractiveness. The average sentence for some may not be considered light, but
when considering the ANOVA, which showed that the probability of the results occurring by
THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
10
chance alone is 50%, it can be concluded that there is nothing statistically significant to warrant
support for the hypothesis.
The null hypothesis, results by chance alone can’t be rejected. Further proving the lack of
concluding evidence (and acceptance of the null hypothesis) is the standard deviation, which in
all variables was close to half of each resulting average sentence. This proves that in the limited
sample of the study a consensus was not reached; ergo not one version of the defendant received
a harsher sentence due to perceived desirability. Even though the present research isn't
significant, the results are consistent with past research conducted by Schwibbe G. and Schwibbe
M. (1981) and Dumas and Testê (2006). A more intriguing point is that the current research and
Dumas and Testê (2006) were both conducted in the 21st century, and one could possibly infer
from this that thought and consideration of attractiveness has changed over time, and thus limited
it’s influence. It is easy to say that our results were consistent with some past research; it can’t
be; however, because nothing was conclusive. Consistency can’t be determined because of
methodological flaws. What can be inferred is the inconsistency with past valid research.
The present research isn’t consistent with all of the past studies, this inconsistency can be
attributed to a few reasons: too small of a sample, narrow age and education range, able to see
other participants’ decisions, regimented time, gender balance, and gender of the criminal. All of
these could have had an effect. One such variable is the gender of the criminal, in the Sigall and
Ostrove (1975) study the pictures were that of females, while ours were all males. In this case
attractiveness may have had more of an influence because a women's beauty maybe considered
more important, especially if the juror is a man. Another reason for differing results could have
been the narrow education range. Everyone came from roughly the same background education,
some college, which could have caused the participants to consider the case through a more
THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
11
objective lens, thereby limiting the influence of the picture provided. Time was another factor,
the actual time to read, consider, and answer was very limited and could have caused quick
decisions to be made without fully understanding the gravity of the decision. All of these could
have caused the inconsistency with some of the past research. All of the mentioned variables are
also extraneous variables, which weren't controlled for, and led to the issues of inconsistency and
inconclusiveness.
Internal validity was compromised because of extraneous variables. As stated before one
could claim that attractiveness doesn’t influence decisions anymore, which would be quite a
valid argument, but validity would need to be established in further research. Furthermore, this
study is limited to psychology students at an undergraduate level, therefore our results, which are
inconclusive at this time, apply only to them. Psychology students could possibly be more aware
of their decisions, or perhaps figured out the objective of the study and then altered their
behavior in such a way as to not show any bias, either way this is a limit of the study; a limit to a
specific population. These limitations just demonstrate that the lack of internal validity. If the
study could be replicated on a larger scale and reach the same conclusion, but with 5% being due
to chance, then one might be able to draw more consequences from the conclusion. Due to the
methodological flaws, the only foreseen consequence one might deduce from this study is that
the public will look at this with no real interest, and even from their perspective see that a more
systematic approach needs to be taken so that 1) there aren’t as many confounds and 2) that the
results aren’t limited to a specific population.
A more thorough and systematic study needs to be conducted. To further assess the
results presented, a study needs to be designed that accounts for all extraneous variables. First
and foremost of things to be addressed is the sample size. It’s clear that the population of interest
THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
12
needs to be expanded, perhaps everyone that attends the university should have a chance to
participate. An increased sample size would also allow for a more diverse population, thereby
being representative of say the country at large rather than the university. One way to go about
doing this would be to offer an online version of the study; this would provide ease of access,
therefore allowing participants to take as much time as needed along with participating at their
convenience. Another way is to make sure there is an equality of males and females
participating. Through the online survey or say an expanded area of testing (multiple rooms), one
could control the number of each gender participating and make sure they don’t look at other
people’s answers. The internet survey would be perfect for controlling the number of males and
females; however making sure they don’t consult others on their answers wouldn’t be
controllable, it would be based off the honor code. The internet would also allow the population
in question to be expanded outside of the university environment, allowing an unlimited number
of people to participate, one could even be as grandiose to try and get the whole country
involved; however, a more limited size would probably be best. The last thing to consider, and
this would be something to change, would be the gender of the defendant. In the present research
pictures of men were used, in 1975 the study conducted by Sigall & Ostrove used women, and as
previously mentioned the change in gender could have confounded our results. One way to make
the study better or all encompassing would be to alternate the gender of the defendant that way
results could provide a more conclusive look at attractiveness and its influences.
It doesn’t really matter how one goes about expanding the study, all that needs to happen
is control for extraneous variables such as gender and location of the study, along with
confounds such as gender of defendant, limited population, and limited time, all of which played
a hand in rendering the data inconclusive. The present study is seriously flawed, there were too
THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
13
many confounding variables, and we are confident that an expanded study which controls for all
of the above, whether it be through the internet or expanded study location, will create
conclusive data. There is no confidence due to the fact that no logical conclusions could be
deduced from our data.
THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
14
References
Darby, B.W, & Jeffers, D.,(1988). The effects of defendant and juror attractiveness on simulated
courtroom trial decisions. Social Behavior and Personality, 16, 39-50.
Dumas, R., & Testê, B., (2006.) The influence of criminal facial stereotypes on juridic
judgments. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 65), 237-244.
Schwibbe, G., Schwibbe, M., (1981) Judgment and treatment of people of varied attractiveness.
Psychological Reports, 48, 11-14.
Sigall, H., & Ostrove, N., (1975). Beautiful but dangerous: Effects of offender attractiveness and
nature of the crime on the juridic judges. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 410-441.
Stewart II, J. E., (1985). Appearance and Punishment: The attraction-leniency effect in the
courtroom. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 373-378.
THE INTERACTION OF ATTRACTIVENESS AND CRIME
15
Table 1
Sentencing as a Result of Attractiveness
Measure
M
SD
Age of Participants
20
2
Sentence for Attractive People
6.380
2.394
Sentence for Unattractive People
5.290
3.000
Sentence for No Picture
6.600
3.610
Sentence Across all Conditions
6.000
3.100