The Effects of Perceived Morality and Facial Attractiveness on Allocations of Responsibility for Consumer Product Safety

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of perceived morality and facial attractiveness on allocations of responsibility in a civil litigation context. Confronted with uncertainty, jurors may focus less on the factual evidence presented and more on peripheral cues. It is hypothesized that jurors will attribute more responsibility to a bad individual compared to a good person, and unattractive consumers will be allocated more responsibility for an accident than their attractive counterparts. Results indicate perceived morality significantly influenced responsibility allocations. Bad people were given more responsibility than good people. Although unattractive consumers were given more responsibility than attractive consumers, the difference was not statistically significant. Finally, allocations to the consumer and manufacturer differed depending upon the product involved in the scenario, indicating that responsibility allocations to consumers is related to the type of product. Implications for civil litigation include the awareness that jurors' decisions are influenced by the type of product as well as subjective information about the consumer.