Juries are expected to determine guilt verdicts objectively; however, research has shown jury decision-making can be impacted by cognitive biases. Attractiveness bias research has illustrated that attractive defendants are given more lenient sentences than unattractive defendants. Whilst crime severity bias research has shown that defendants of more severe crimes are found more guilty than defendants of less severe crimes. However, little research has been conducted into the impact of victim attractiveness on mock juror judgements, or how this differs across crime severity. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the relationship between defendant attractiveness, victim attractiveness and crime severity bias on mock juror judgements about victims and defendants. Participants (N = 280) were tasked with reading a fictitious criminal trial vignette where crime severity (more severe crime [grievous bodily harm], less severe crime [burglary]), defendant attractiveness (attractive, unattractive) and victim attractiveness (attractive, unattractive) were manipulated. Participants answered questions regarding the victim (reliability, credibility and competency) and were asked to rate how guilty they thought the defendant was. Findings revealed victims in the more severe crime were rated as significantly more reliable but less competent to testify in court than victims in the less severe crime vignette. Participants also rated defendants in the more severe crime vignette as significantly more guilty than defendants in the less severe crime vignette. No impact of defendant attractiveness or victim attractiveness was found on mock jury decision-making. These findings suggest crime severity bias has differing impacts on how defendants and victims are perceived. Explanations for these findings and suggestions for the reduction of cognitive biases within legal settings are discussed.
PLEASE NOTE: You must be a member of the University of Lincoln to be able to view this dissertation. Please log in here.