The identifiable victim effect suggests that images of murder victims taken before their deaths can increase positive perceptions of those victims, potentially influencing jurors’ decision-making. We investigated whether viewing pre-mortem photographs of murder victims biased jurors’ perceptions of the victim, and consequently their judgments of the defendant. Across three between-subjects experimental studies (total Ns = 2,456), participants who viewed pre-mortem photographs of the victim (vs. did not view) rated the victim more positively. These more positive perceptions, in turn, predicted a higher likelihood of rendering guilty verdicts. Notably, the effect was stronger for White and Black victims than for Latina victims. These findings suggest that even well-intentioned uses of pre-mortem photographs may inadvertently bias jurors and contribute to racial disparities in the administration of justice.
ArmentaA. D.BrayJ. R.ZárateM. A. (2022). How globalization introduced by immigration shapes intragroup and intergroup relations. In Katzarska-MillerI.ReysenS. (Eds.), Globalized identities: The impact of globalization on self and identity (pp. 53–69). Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04644-5_3
3.
BandesS. A.SalernoJ. M. (2014). Emotion, proof and prejudice: The cognitive science of gruesome photos and victim impact statements. Arizona State Law Journal, 46, 1003–1056.
4.
BennettM. W.PlautV. C. (2017). Looking criminal and the presumption of dangerousness: Afrocentric facial features, skin tone, and criminal justice. U.C. Davis Law Review, 51, 745–804.
5.
Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987).
6.
BrightD. A.Goodman-DelahuntyJ. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 30(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9027-y
7.
BrownT. D.Jr.DaneF. C.DurhamM. D. (1998). Perception of race and ethnicity. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 13(2), 295–306.
8.
DevineD. J.CaughlinD. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000006
9.
DiamantopoulosA.SarstedtM.FuchsC.WilczynskiP.KaiserS. (2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3
10.
DickertS.SagaraN.SlovicP. (2011). Affective motivations to help others: A two-stage model of donation decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(4), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.697
11.
DixonT. L.MaddoxK. B. (2005). Skin tone, crime news, and social reality judgments: Priming the stereotype of the dark and dangerous black criminal. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(8), 1555–1570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02184.x
FelicianoC. (2016). Shades of race: How phenotype and observer characteristics shape racial classification. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(4), 390–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215613401
14.
GalinskyD. F.ErolE.AtanasovaK.BohusM.Krause-UtzA.LisS. (2020). Do I trust you when you smile? Effects of sex and emotional expression on facial trustworthiness appraisal. PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0243230. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243230
15.
GenevskyA.VästfjällD.SlovicP.KnutsonB. (2013). Neural underpinnings of the identifiable victim effect: Affect shifts preferences for giving. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(43), 17188–17196. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2348-13.2013
16.
GradyR. H.ReiserL.GarciaR. J.KoeuC.ScurichN. (2018). Impact of gruesome photographic evidence on legal decisions: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25(4), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1440468
17.
GreeneE.KoehringH.QuiatM. (1998). Victim impact evidence in capital cases: Does the victim’s character matter?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01697.x
18.
HarrisonM.PepitoneA. (1972). Contrast effect in the use of punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(3), 398–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033124
19.
HayesA. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (Vol. 3). Guilford Publications.
20.
HodellE. C.WasarhaleyN. E.LynchK. R.GoldingJ. M. (2014). Mock juror gender biases and perceptions of self-defense claims in intimate partner homicide. Journal of Family Violence, 29(5), 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9609-2
21.
HoetgerL. A.DevineD. J.BrankE. M.DrewR. M.ReesR. (2022). The impact of pretrial publicity on mock juror and jury verdicts: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 46(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000473
22.
JenniK. E.LoewensteinG. (1997). Explaining the identifiable victim effect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 14(3), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007740225484
KleinstuberR.ZaykowskiH.McDonoughC. (2020). “Ideal victims” in capital penalty hearings: An assessment of victim impact evidence and sentencing outcomes. Journal of Crime and Justice, 43(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2019.1588770
25.
KogutT.RitovI. (2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual?Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.492
LittleK. (2015, June20). Bill aims to show victims as more than a corpse. Greenville Sun. http://perma.cc/4TX5-PBUY
28.
LynchM.HaneyC. (2011). Mapping the racial bias of the white male capital juror: Jury composition and the “empathic divide.”Law & Society Review, 45(1), 69–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00428.x
29.
MacLinO. H.MalpassR. S. (2001). Racial categorization of faces: The ambiguous race face effect. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(1), 98–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.98
30.
MaddoxK. B.GrayS. A. (2002). Cognitive representations of Black Americans: Reexploring the role of skin tone. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202282010
31.
MitchellK.MyersB.BroszkiewiczN. (2016). Good or essential? The effects of victim characteristics and family significance on sentencing judgments and perceptions of harm. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(5), 651–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1084662
32.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 557.036
33.
MyersB.GreeneE. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10(4), 492–515. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.492
34.
NadlerJ.RoseM. R. (2003). Victim impact testimony and the psychology of punishment symposium: Victims and the death penalty: Inside and outside the courtroom. Cornell Law Review, 88(2), 419–456. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.377521
35.
NitschkeF. T.McKimmieB. M.VanmanE. J. (2019). A meta-analysis of the emotional victim effect for female adult rape complainants: Does complainant distress influence credibility?. Psychological Bulletin, 145(10), 953–979. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000206
36.
NuñezN.McCreaS. M.CulhaneS. E. (2011). Jury decision making research: Are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room?. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(3), 439–451. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.967
37.
NuñezN.MyersB.WilkowskiB. M.SchweitzerK. (2017). The impact of angry versus sad victim impact statements on mock jurors’ sentencing decisions in a capital trial. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(6), 862–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816689809
38.
PhalenH. J.GittingsK.SalernoJ. M.AdamoliM.NadlerJ. (2026). Sympathy from the Jury: The influence of victim photographs on jurors’ emotional responses and subsequent blame judgments [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Psychology, University of Wyoming.
39.
PhalenH. J.SalernoJ. M.AdamoliM.NadlerJ. (2023). White mock jurors’ moral emotional responses to viewing female victim photographs depend on the victim’s race. Law and Human Behavior, 47(6), 666–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000545
40.
PhalenH. J.SalernoJ. M.NadlerJ. (2021). Emotional evidence in court. In BandesS. A.MadeiraJ. L.TempleK. D.WhiteE. K. (Eds.), Research handbook on law and emotion. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788119085.00033
41.
Posit team. (2025). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software, PBC, Boston, MA. http://www.posit.co/
42.
R Core Team. (2025). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <https://www.R-project.org/>.
43.
ReynoldsT.HowardC.SjåstadH.ZhuL.OkimotoT. G.BaumeisterR. F.AquinoK.KimJ. (2020). Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 120–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.05.002
44.
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).
45.
RohrerJ. M.HünermundP.ArslanR. C.ElsonM. (2022). That’s a lot to process! Pitfalls of popular path models. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459221095827
46.
RychlakS. (2016). I see dead people: Examining the admissibility of living-victim photographs in murder trials Notes. Vanderbilt Law Review, 69(5), [i]-1454.
SalernoJ. M. (2017). Seeing red: Disgust reactions to gruesome photographs in color (but not in black and white) increase convictions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(3), 336–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000122
49.
SalernoJ. M.KulakK.SmalarzL.EerdmansR. E.LawrenceM. L.DaoT. (2023). The role of social desirability and establishing nonracist credentials on mock juror decisions about black defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 47(1), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000496
50.
SalernoJ. M.PhalenH. J. (2020). The impact of gruesome photographs on mock jurors’ emotional responses and decision making in civil case. DePaul Law Review, 69(2), 633–656.
51.
SchweitzerK.NuñezN. (2017). Victim impact statements: How victim social class affects juror decision making. Violence & Victims, 32(3), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-15-00187
52.
SlakoffD. C.BrennanP. K. (2020). White, black, and Latina female victims in U.S. news: A multivariate and intersectional analysis of story differences. Race and Justice, 155–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368720961837
53.
SmalarzL.EerdmansR. E.LawrenceM. L.KulakK.SalernoJ. M. (2023). Counterintuitive race effects in legal and nonlegal contexts. Law and Human Behavior, 47(1), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000515
54.
SmallD. A.LoewensteinG. (2003). Helping a victim or helping the victim: Altruism and identifiability. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022299422219
55.
StevensonM. C.SorensonK. M.SmithA. C.SekelyA.DzwairoR. A. (2009). Effects of defendant and victim race on perceptions of juvenile sex offenders. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 27(6), 957–979. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.910
56.
WarrenC. R.ZanhourM.WashburnM.OdomB. (2020). Helping or hurting? Effects of sexism and likeability on third party perceptions of women. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 48(10), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.9315
57.
WilliamsM. R.HolcombJ. E. (2004). The interactive effects of victim race and gender on death sentence disparity findings. Homicide Studies, 8(4), 350–376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767903262445
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
