Our first impressions of others, whether accurate or unfounded, have real-world consequences in terms of how we judge and treat those people. Previous research has suggested that criminal sentencing is influenced by the perceived facial trustworthiness of defendants in murder trials. In real cases, those who appeared less trustworthy were more likely to receive death rather than life sentences. Here, we carried out several attempts to replicate this finding, utilizing the original set of stimuli (Study 1), multiple images of each identity (Study 2), and a larger sample of identities (Study 3). In all cases, we found little support for the association between facial trustworthiness and sentencing. Furthermore, there was clear evidence that the specific image chosen to depict each identity had a significant influence on subsequent judgments. Taken together, our findings suggest that perceptions of facial trustworthiness have no real-world influence on sentencing outcomes in serious criminal cases.
AbelM. H.WattersH. (2005).
Attributions of guilt and punishment as functions of physical attractiveness and smiling. The Journal of Social Psychology,
145(6), 687–702.
2.
BerryD. S.Zebrowitz-McArthurL. (1988).
What’s in a face? Facial maturity and the attribution of legal responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
14(1), 23–33.
3.
BlairI. V.JuddC. M.ChapleauK. M. (2004).
The influence of Afrocentric facial features in criminal sentencing. Psychological Science,
15(10), 674–679.
4.
BrooksR. R. W.RaphaelS. (2001).
Life terms or death sentences: The uneasy relationship between judicial elections and capital punishment. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology,
92(3–4), 609–640.
5.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011).
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science,
6(1), 3–5.
6.
Canes-WroneB.ClarkT. S.KellyJ. P. (2014).
Judicial selection and death penalty decisions. American Political Science Review,
108(1), 23–39.
7.
CarréJ. M.McCormickC. M.MondlochC. J. (2009).
Facial structure is a reliable cue of aggressive behavior. Psychological Science,
20(10), 1194–1198.
8.
ChenF. F.JingY.LeeJ. M. (2014).
The looks of a leader: Competent and trustworthy, but not dominant. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
51, 27–33.
9.
DesanttsA.KaysonW. A. (1997).
Defendants’ characteristics of attractiveness, race, and sex and sentencing decisions. Psychological Reports,
81(2), 679–683.
10.
DionK.BerscheidE.WalsterE. (1972).
What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
24(3), 285–290.
11.
DownsA. C.LyonsP. M. (1991).
Natural observations of the links between attractiveness and initial legal judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
17(5), 541–547.
12.
EberhardtJ. L.DaviesP. G.Purdie-VaughnsV. J.JohnsonS. L. (2006).
Looking deathworthy: Perceived stereotypicality of Black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science,
17(5), 383–386.
13.
FunkF.TodorovA. (2013).
Criminal stereotypes in the courtroom: Facial tattoos affect guilt and punishment differently. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
19(4), 466–478.
14.
HassinR.TropeY. (2000).
Facing faces: Studies on the cognitive aspects of physiognomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
78(5), 837–852.
15.
HuangJ.HeX.MaX.RenY.ZhaoT.ZengX., . ChenY. (2018).
Sequential biases on subjective judgments: Evidence from face attractiveness and ringtone agreeableness judgment. PLoS One,
13(6), e0198723.
16.
JenkinsR.WhiteD.Van MontfortX.BurtonA. M. (2011).
Variability in photos of the same face. Cognition,
121(3), 313–323.
17.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2012).
Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
103(1), 54–69.
18.
KorvaN.PorterS.O’ConnorB. P.ShawJ.ten BrinkeL. (2013).
Dangerous decisions: Influence of juror attitudes and defendant appearance on legal decision-making. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law,
20(3), 384–398.
19.
KramerR. S. S.WardR. (2010).
Internal facial features are signals of personality and health. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
63(11), 2273–2287.
20.
KramerR. S. S.WardR. (2011).
Different signals of personality and health from the two sides of the face. Perception,
40(5), 549–562.
21.
LittleA. C.PerrettD. I. (2007).
Using composite images to assess accuracy in personality attribution to faces. British Journal of Psychology,
98, 111–126.
22.
OlivolaC. Y.TodorovA. (2010).
Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
46(2), 315–324.
23.
OosterhofN. N.TodorovA. (2008).
The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
105(32), 11087–11092.
24.
OverH.CookR. (2018).
Where do spontaneous first impressions of faces come from?Cognition,
170, 190–200.
25.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.IpeirotisP. G. (2010).
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making,
5(5), 411–419.
26.
Penton-VoakI. S.PoundN.LittleA. C.PerrettD. I. (2006).
Personality judgments from natural and composite facial images: More evidence for a “kernel of truth” in social perception. Social Cognition,
24, 490–524.
RitchieK. L.PalermoR.RhodesG. (2017).
Forming impressions of facial attractiveness is mandatory. Scientific Reports,
7(1), 469.
29.
SaidC. P.SebeN.TodorovA. (2009).
Structural resemblance to emotional expressions predicts evaluation of emotionally neutral faces. Emotion,
9(2), 260–264.
30.
SchmidtK.LevensteinR.AmbadarZ. (2012).
Intensity of smiling and attractiveness as facial signals of trustworthiness in women. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
114(3), 964–978.
31.
StewartJ. E.II. (1980).
Defendant’s attractiveness as a factor in the outcome of criminal trials: An observational study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
10(4), 348–361.
32.
StewartJ. E.II. (1985).
Appearance and punishment: The attraction-leniency effect in the courtroom. The Journal of Social Psychology,
125(3), 373–378.
33.
StirratM.PerrettD. I. (2010).
Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust: Male facial width and trustworthiness. Psychological Science,
21(3), 349–354.
34.
ThaxtonS. (2013).
Leveraging death. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology,
103(2), 475–552.
35.
TodorovA.MandisodzaA. N.GorenA.HallC. C. (2005).
Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science,
308(5728), 1623–1626.
36.
TodorovA.PakrashiM.OosterhofN. N. (2009).
Evaluating faces on trustworthiness after minimal time exposure. Social Cognition,
27(6), 813–833.
37.
TodorovA.PorterJ. M. (2014).
Misleading first impressions: Different for different facial images of the same person. Psychological Science,
25(7), 1404–1417.
38.
WillisJ.TodorovA. (2006).
First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science,
17(7), 592–598.
WuenschK. L.CastellowW. A.MooreC. H. (1991).
Effects of defendant attractiveness and type of crime on juridic judgment. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
6(4), 713–724.
41.
ZebrowitzL. A.McDonaldS. M. (1991).
The impact of litigants’ baby-facedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts. Law and Human Behavior,
15(6), 603–623.
