Do you think pretty people have it easier than others? While “pretty privilege” is a thing, it won’t take you very far in court according to new research. A study published in Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law is showing that defendants that were considered conventionally unattractive tended to get more sympathy and leniency from jurors compared to their more attractive counterparts. If you’re feeling surprised by this information, you’re not alone.
Previous work and conventional wisdom would conclude that attractiveness would impact jurors to vote “not guilty” compared to their less good-looking counterparts. After all, there have been psychological studies in the past that have indicated that beautiful people were seen as more trustworthy than average or “ugly” folks. However, Professor Antonio Olivera-La Rosa of Luis Amigó Catholic University and his team found opposite results.
“I was really interested in exploring the consequences of facial biases in the legal field,” said Olivera-La Rosa. “I feel that, among all the areas susceptible to experiencing the consequences of facial biases, the legal field is one that requires the most attention. It is not difficult to understand why. Personally, I think it’s important to integrate our knowledge of human cognition to human practices and institutions.”
Olivera-La Rosa’s study involved 128 participants that were assigned to one of two groups, one group that was required to make their judgments as quickly as possible and the other being given as much time as they wanted to make a decision. These participants were asked to imagine themselves as judges in a blind date swindle case and assess the guilt or innocence of nine male faces. These faces were each categorized as attractive, unattractive, and neutral, with all of them collected from the Chicago Face Database. The participants were flat-out asked if each face looked guilty, then rated how sure they were about their judgment on a seven-point scale.
The results found that the “ugly leniency effect” was at play, with the majority of the participants seeing the less attractive faces as innocent compared to attractive or neutral ones. The results remained consistent between both the quick-judgements and ones in which the participants could take their time to think.
“Our results provide valuable insights by demonstrating that, under specific conditions, unattractive faces can reduce guilt perception,” Olivera-La Rosa told PsyPost. “This evidence could enhance awareness of how implicit bias influences legal decisions, potentially reducing the skepticism many judges express towards such extralegal factors. While the legal system is traditionally grounded in rationality, it is not immune to the influence of facial biases.”
There still needs to be more thorough studies, such as comparing unattractive/attractive/neutral male faces versus female ones, but there is an argument that facial bias exists on both sides of the beauty coin in court. But what about other aspects of life?
There is an abundant amount of evidence, both anecdotally and in hard data, that suggest that pretty privilege is real for both women and men. Being considered physically attractive isn’t just a buff in life in general, but also boosts a person’s confidence and encourages them to speak louder, both considered attractive traits as well. This leads not only to success in relationships but in career goals as well.
So while “pretty privilege” exists, it doesn’t mean that you cannot appear attractive or become successful without beauty. As mentioned, confidence is hugely attractive both in terms of obtaining romantic relationships or business ones. Most people’s physical attractiveness wanes over time and age, along with other people’s perception of it, too.
At least when it comes to criminal justice, the facial bias scales don’t appear to lean heavily against less attractive people compared to conventionally pretty people.
