Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 603–623 | Cite as

The impact of litigants' baby-facedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts

  • Leslie A. Zebrowitz
  • Susan M. McDonald


The effects of litigants' facial appearance on judicial decisions were investigated in 506 cases heard in small claims courts. Replicating previous laboratory studies, both baby-facedness and attractiveness exerted a significant impact on adjudications. As plaintiffs increased in attractiveness, defendants were more likely to lose the case. Also, as defendants increased in baby-facedness, they were more likely to win cases involving intentional actions and less likely to win cases involving negligent actions, although the latter simple effect was not significant. Finally, as defendants increased in facial maturity, they were required to pay larger monetary awards to baby-faced plaintiffs, albeit not to average or mature-faced plaintiffs. This pattern of decisions was interpreted as reflecting assumptions about the psychological attributes of baby-faced versus mature-faced individuals. The effects of the extralegal variables of litigant attractiveness and baby-facedness were sufficiently large to have practical as well as statistical significance, and they were independent of each other and the age of the litigants as well as of legal variables predicting adjudications.


Social Psychology Laboratory Study Simple Effect Intentional Action Psychological Attribute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agresti, A. (1984).Analysis of ordinal categorical data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, J. H., & Nelson, F. D. (1984).Linear probability, logit, and probit models. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1985). Some components and consequences of a babyface.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 312–323.Google Scholar
  4. Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1986). Perceiving character in faces: The impact of age-related craniofacial changes on social perception.Psychological Bulletin, 100, 3–18.Google Scholar
  5. Berry, D. S., & Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. Z. (1988). What's in a face? Facial maturity and the attribution of legal responsibility.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 23–33.Google Scholar
  6. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 158–216). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bodenhausen, G. V., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1985). Effects of stereotypes on decision making and information-processing strategies.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 267–282.Google Scholar
  8. Bull, R., & Rumsey, N. (1988).The social psychology of facial appearance. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983).Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Frankel, M. E. (1973).Criminal sentences: Law without order. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  12. Friend, R. M., & Vinson, M. (1974). Leaning over backwards: Jurors' responses to defendants' attractiveness.Journal of Communication, 24, 124–129.Google Scholar
  13. Gaylin, W. (1974).Partial justice. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert, D. T. (1989). Thinking lightly about others: Automatic components of the social inference process. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.),Unintended thought. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kerr, N. (1978). Beautiful and blameless: Effects of victim attractiveness and responsibility on mock jurors' verdicts.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 479–482.Google Scholar
  16. Kulka, R. A., & Kessler, J. B. (1978). Is justice really blind: The influence of litigant physical attractiveness on juridical judgment.Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, 366–381.Google Scholar
  17. Leventhal, G., & Krate, R. (1977). Physical attractiveness and severity of sentencing.Psychological Reports, 40, 315–318.Google Scholar
  18. Lown, C. (1977). Legal approaches to juror stereotyping by physical characteristics.Law and Human Behavior, 1, 87–100.Google Scholar
  19. McArthur, L. Z., & Apatow, K. (1984). Impressions of babyfaced adults.Social Cognition, 2, 315–342.Google Scholar
  20. McArthur, L. Z., & Berry, D. S. (1987). Cross-cultural agreement in perceptions of babyfaced adults.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 165–192.Google Scholar
  21. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1985).Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance, and experimental designs (2nd ed., pp. 421–429). Homewood, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
  22. Piehl, J. (1977). Integration of information in the “courts”: Influence of physical attractiveness on amount of punishment for a traffic offender.Psychological Reports, 41, 551–556.Google Scholar
  23. Saks, M. J. (1989). Legal policy analysis and evaluation.American Psychologist, 44, 1110–1117.Google Scholar
  24. Sigall, H., & Ostrove, N. (1975). Beautiful but dangerous: Effects of offender attractiveness and nature of crime on juridic judgment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 410–414.Google Scholar
  25. Solomon, M., & Shopler, J. (1978). The relationship of physical attractiveness and punitiveness: Is the linearity assumption out of line?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 483–486.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Stewart, J. E. (1980). Defendant's attractiveness as a factor in the outcome of criminal trials: An observational study.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 348–361.Google Scholar
  28. Thornton, B. (1977). Effect of rape victim's attractiveness in a jury simulation.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 666–669.Google Scholar
  29. Vidmar, N. (1984). The small claims court: A reconceptualization of disputes and an empirical investigation.Law and Society Review, 18, 515–550.Google Scholar
  30. Villemur, N., & Hyde, J. (1983). Effects of sex of defense attorney, sex of juror and attractiveness of the victim on mock juror decision making in a rape case.Sex Roles, 9, 879–889.Google Scholar
  31. Zebrowitz-McArthur, L., & Montepare, J. M. (1989). Contributions of a baby face and a childlike voice to impressions of moving and talking faces.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 189–203.Google Scholar
  32. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (1990). Impressions of males and females across the lifespan as a function of their baby-facedness and attractiveness. Unpublished Manuscript. Brandeis University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leslie A. Zebrowitz
    • 1
  • Susan M. McDonald
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBrandeis UniversityWaltham

Personalised recommendations