The Effects of Physical Attractiveness, Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Gender of Defendants and Victims on Judgments of Mock Jurors: A Meta‐Analysis

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 24, Issue 15, 1994, Pages 1315-1338

  Mazzella, Ronald ^a   Feingold, Alan ^b  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84991127121     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: 15591816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01552.x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Reducing the biasing effect of perpetrator attractiveness in jury simulation
2. Interpersonal attraction
3. Methodological considerations in study of the courtroom
4. Effects of defendants' and victims' characteristics on jurors' verdicts
5. The empirical study of decision processes injuries: A critical review
6. What is beautiful is good
7. What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta‐analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype
8. Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms
9. Good‐looking people are not what we think
10. Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research
11. Perceptions of blue‐collar and white‐collar crime: The effect of defendant race on simulated juror decision
12. Effects of a mandatory death penalty on the decisions of simulated jurors as a function of heinousness of the crime
13. Juror judgment as information intergration: Combining evidential and nonevidential information
14. Laboratory simulation and bias in the study of juror behavior
15. The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decisions of simulated jurors
16. Practical implications of psychological research on juror and jury decision making
17. Beautiful but dangerous: Effects of offender attractiveness and nature of the crime on juridic judgment
18. Effects of offenders' age and attractiveness on sentencing by mock juries
19. Group decision making and social influence: A social interaction sequence model
20. Apparent weight of evidence, decision criteria, and confidence ratings in juror decision making
21. A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics