Skip to main content

Effects of Male Defendants’ Attractiveness and Trustworthiness on Simulated Judicial Decisions in Two Different Swindles

Qun Yang ; Bing Zhu ; Qian Zhang ; Yuchao Wang ; Ruiheng Hu ; Shengmin Liu ; Delin Sun (2019) — Frontiers in Psychology 10, 2160

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
Unavailable
Average per calendar year
Citation count unavailable

Counts reflect Google Scholar’s coverage and do not measure research quality. Source, calculation and limitations

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02160 (opens in a new tab)

Country:   China
Tags:   Beauty Penalty, Blind Date Swindle, Disgust, Facial Attractiveness, Facial Trustworthiness, Judicial Decisions, Mock Jurors, Romance Swindle
What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
Source updates

                

                    No notice found at last check
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Source updates

                    

                    
No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Last source-status attempt:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Synopsis generation recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Approved for public display:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
This publication reports on two experiments that examine how a male defendant’s facial appearance—specifically attractiveness and perceived trustworthiness—may influence mock judicial decisions in swindling scenarios. The researchers manipulated faces to create four categories (attractive–trustworthy, attractive–untrustworthy, unattractive–trustworthy, unattractive–untrustworthy) and assigned participants to judge defendants in two types of swindles: a blind-date romance scam and a telecommunication scam. Participants provided postexposure ratings of facial pleasantness and trustworthiness and then made conviction and punishment decisions, allowing the authors to examine both verdict likelihood and sentence severity. Across the two studies, the findings showed nuanced, case-dependent effects of facial appearance. In the blind-date swindle, attractive male defendants triggered a “beauty-penalty” for female participants, who were more likely to convict and endorse harsher sentences when the defendant was attractive and untrustworthy. In contrast, the telecommunication swindle revealed that facial trustworthiness, not attractiveness, more reliably predicted punishment: more trustworthy-looking faces tended to receive lighter penalties, with disgust emotions partially mediating this effect. The studies also found that the influence of facial appearance differed by gender and depended on the specific crime scenario, suggesting that the nature of the offense shapes how appearance biases operate in judgment. The authors discuss potential mechanisms, including emotion mediation (disgust) and defensive attribution considerations, and note limitations such as challenges in fully separating intertwined facial traits and the use of a non-lawyer student sample. They caution against extrapolating to real courtroom outcomes and emphasize that facial cues do not reliably reflect personality traits. Overall, the research indicates that facial appearance can bias social judgments in some judicial-like decisions, with effects varying by crime context and facial dimension.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Prior findings on attractiveness effects in swindling judgments are inconsistent, and few studies had tested whether facial-appearance effects differ across criminal scenarios within swindling. The study also notes uncertainty about whether attractiveness affects a particular judicial stage or the entire judicial process.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Two between-subjects online mock-juror experiments with Chinese university students manipulated male defendants’ facial attractiveness and trustworthiness. Participants evaluated either a blind-date romance swindle or a telecommunication swindle, then made simulated verdict, punishment, and/or sentence decisions. Analyses used ANOVA, logistic and linear regression, correlations, and an exploratory mediation analysis of disgust.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
Attractiveness and trustworthiness were difficult to match because the traits were intertwined, and face ratings were only moderately extreme. The interaction was significant only for conviction in Experiment 1. Only male defendants and non-law student participants were used. Individual simulated judgments may not generalize to expert legal decision-makers or real jury group deliberation.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Future studies should improve separation of attractiveness and trustworthiness manipulations, potentially by training perceptions of trustworthiness. They should examine effects across conviction and sentencing stages, include female defendants, test professional legal decision-makers, and assess group jury deliberations.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.