The impact of monad in legal trials

Brandeis University study of court cases

The impact of this bias even reaches the judicial system. A fascinating study from Brandeis University analyzed more than 500 actual small claims court cases.

The researchers found that differences in defendants' facial attractiveness had a huge impact on the verdict.

Intentional Harm: Baby-Faced Defendants Are Found Less Guilty

In cases involving intentional harm (e.g., assault), defendants with more mature, non-cute faces were 92% likely to be found guilty.

In contrast, baby-faced defendants (more childlike and cute features) were only found guilty 45% of the time.

Our intuition tells us that someone who looks cute and innocent can't possibly be capable of intentional evil.

Negligence Harm: Baby-Faced Defendants Are Found More guilty

Surprisingly, the situation was reversed in cases involving negligent harm (e.g., carelessness causing an accident).

In these cases, baby-faced defendants were much more likely to be found guilty (85% of the time) than those with mature faces (58% of the time).

The unconscious association

The results reveal a very powerful unconscious association.

We associate childlike features with innocence and a lack of malice, but also with immaturity, clumsiness, and negligence.

In contrast, we associate mature faces with the capacity to act deliberately and competently, for both good and evil.

This bias, which operates below our conscious awareness, can have devastating consequences for the administration of justice.

Summary

The cuteness bias has implications deep even in the judicial arena. A Brandeis University study found that a defendant's physical appearance, specifically whether they have a "baby face" or more mature features, can significantly influence a court's verdict, even when the judges are trained to be impartial. In intentional harm cases, defendants with mature faces were found gui