The Effects of Physical Attractiveness, Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Gender of Defendants and Victims on Judgments of Mock Jurors¶
Mazzella, & Feingold. (1994). The Effects of Physical Attractiveness, Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Gender of Defendants and Victims on Judgments of Mock Jurors: A Meta‐Analysis1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Halo Effect
- Personnel evaluation — a documented appraisal error that rating-form design (behaviorally anchored scales, multi-rater crossing) explicitly targets. Educational assessment — ability and competence ratings biased by an instructor's warmth or a student's appearance. Marketing — brand attributes (quality, reliability, eco-friendliness, nutrition) co-moving beyond what the products warrant. Legal decision-making — attractive defendants drawing lighter sentences for identical conduct
This sourceA meta-analysis of mock-juror experiments finding that it was generally advantageous for defendants to be physically attractive, female and of high socioeconomic status, though the advantages were absent for some crimes.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
“In general, it was advantageous for defendants to be physically attractive, female, and of high SES, although these advantages were nil for some crimes.”
- Personnel evaluation — a documented appraisal error that rating-form design (behaviorally anchored scales, multi-rater crossing) explicitly targets. Educational assessment — ability and competence ratings biased by an instructor's warmth or a student's appearance. Marketing — brand attributes (quality, reliability, eco-friendliness, nutrition) co-moving beyond what the products warrant. Legal decision-making — attractive defendants drawing lighter sentences for identical conduct
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This work's DOI is recorded above but has not been resolved against an external catalogue, so nothing here confirms the work exists.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:b7225263fd30 · see in the full table