Effects of Physical Attractiveness on

Evaluations of a Male Employee’s Allegation of

Sexual Harassment by His Female Employer

By Karl L. Wuensch & Charles H. Moore

Research Question & Hypothesis

Research QuestionWhat effects of the sex of the juror and the physical attractiveness of the litigants where sexual harassment of a male employee by his female employer is occurring have on the outcome, or verdict?

HypothesisGuilty verdicts would be more likely when the defendant (female employer) was unattractive and when the plaintiff (male employee) was attractive.

Participants324 total subjects– 164 men– 160 women All were enrolled in the undergraduate psychology classes at a southern college.

Statistics78% Caucasian19% African American3.5% Other (Native American, Asian American,

Hispanic)

Procedures1. Put into 10 groups of 40 individuals in each2. Each was given a packet3. Plaintiff gave his testimony4. Defendant gave her testimony and denied all allegations 5. Given participant response forms6. Asked to rate, on a

9-point scale certaintyof guilt and the attractiveness of eachlitigant.

7. Jury asked for guilty or not guilty verdict

Variables of the Study• Independent Variables

– Sex of the participants• Male or female

– Physical attractiveness of plaintiff

– Physical attractiveness of defendant

• 1=physically unattractive to 9=physically attractive

• Dependent Variables– The verdict

• guilty or not guilty – Participants own certainty of

guilt or lack there of• 9-point scale from “definitely

not guilty” to “definitely guilty”

The Set-Up

Results•Female jurors rendered a guilty verdict more often than males did

Females: 74% Males: 66&•When defendant was attractive and plaintiff not, female jurors gave out more verdicts (78%) compared to men (56%)•Plaintiff was attractive and defendant was not, female jurors were more likely to render a guilty verdict (85%) compared to men (68%)

•Both unattractive, results were not very much different. (females 58%, males 63%)•Both attractive, no difference at all (78%)

•“Only significant effect was that of the plaintiff attractiveness. With certainty of guilty being significantly greater when the plaintiff was attractive”

Limitations• Limitation 1

– College students and actual jury selection• Limitation 2

– Verdict of this study compared to that of an actual trial

• Limitation 3– Predeliberation verdicts