In litigation, appearance matters, and I don’t just mean appearing in court on the record. How you present yourself: what you look like, what you wear, and your general reputation all make an impression on the people around you. And the impressions we make of others influence who we date, hire, vote for, and even what verdict we may render on a jury.[1] But despite their substantial impact on our decisions, these impressions are often based on factors entirely out of our control.[2] Countless studies have demonstrated that both physical and social appearance often have a direct correlation to case outcomes in court,[3] with outcomes being substantially influenced by traits like physical attractiveness[4] and community reputation.[5] Research has found that, in general, positive impressions lead to more positive case outcomes, while negative impressions lead to more guilty verdicts and lower civil awards.[6] But why does this happen? It’s all due in part to a cognitive bias known as the halo effect.[7]
First recognized in 1920 by American psychologist Edward L. Thorndike, the halo effect creates an overall impression of someone’s entire personality based on one unrelated trait.[8] In his study, Thorndike had military officers “rank” their subordinates based on character traits such as leadership ability and intelligence.[9] However, in making their rankings, Thorndike also had the officers consider the “physical qualities” of their subordinates such as “physique, bearing, neatness, voice, energy, and endurance.”[10] Thorndike’s study found that the officers’ assessment of a single trait, significantly influenced how they assessed the subordinates’ other attributes.[11] For example, a subordinate who was ranked as more physically attractive, or having higher “physical attributes,” would consistently also be ranked as more intelligent and more dependable.[12] In contrast, those subordinates initially ranked as having lower physical attributes were consistently given a more negative ranking overall.[13] From this, Thorndike discerned that the halo effect kept even intelligent, capable people from separating out individual qualities when assessing a person as a whole, and that appearance made a big impact on the final ratings.[14]
Research has further demonstrated that the halo effect impacts decisions made in the courtroom. Since the 1970s, studies have repeatedly shown that physical attractiveness affects the rulings of judges and juries in criminal cases, with defendants who are considered more attractive being granted lower bail amounts and sentences overall.[15] And this effect extends to the appearance of victims in criminal case as well as criminal defendants. Results from a 1990 study into the effect of attractiveness in sexual harassment jury trials “clearly suggest[ed] that the probability of obtaining guilty verdicts [was] significantly increased when the alleged victim [was] a beautiful woman and the accused [was] an unattractive man.”[16] Specifically, the study found that “when the plaintiff was attractive the defendant was judged guilty 77% of the time, significantly higher than the 55% guilty rate with the unattractive plaintiff.”[17] The study offered an explanation of these results, stating that “stereotypic belief systems were stronger in [jurors’] ultimate judgments of culpability [as opposed to] their greater identification with the plaintiff.”[18] In other words, the halo effect makes an impact, and sometimes the judicial process is just skin deep.
But the halo effect doesn’t only relate to physical attractiveness. Reputation and status have also been demonstrated to form a halo that influences case outcomes. In a civil context, corporate prestige and positive firm reputation have been associated with a decreased likelihood of being found liable in employment discrimination suits.[19] A recent study published in 2018 analyzed a database of more than 500 employment discrimination suits brought between 1998 and 2008.[20] The study found that juries were more likely to acquit companies with high prestige and good reputation.[21]
That sounds simple enough, right? Just make sure you have a good reputation, and you’ll always have a good case outcome? Not necessarily. There’s a flip side.
Though verdicts were favorable to high prestige companies in initial deliberation, if a company was found guilty with incontrovertible evidence, juries were shown to be much harsher in their sentencing on positive reputation companies than they were on a companies with more negative reputations.[22] From this, the study posited that there is a negative halo effect as well as a positive one: a halo “tax” in antithesis to the halo “effect.”[23] When juries felt let-down by a company they had given a positive “halo,” they felt the need to punish the company more harshly as compared to a company they had never held in esteem. Overall, the study confirmed in a civil context what had been previously demonstrated in the criminal realm: that in the face of the halo effect, the legal arena is “not an even playing field.”[24]
Over and over, the halo effect has been found to dictate case outcomes in the courtroom. Appearances matter a lot in litigation, and, unfortunately, the halo effect means your case can be thwarted by factors not in your control.
With Resolutn, you don’t have to worry if impressions outside your control are dictating your case. Resolutn puts you in the driver’s seat, letting you avoid the halo effect by streamlining the negotiation process. Don’t risk your case on appearances, take back control with a system that evens the playing field.
Learn more about how to take back control of your case with Resolutn on our Features tab.
[1] Bastian Jaeger, A Guilty Look? Overcoming First Impressions in the Courtroom, The Society for Personality and Social Psychology (Sep. 16, 2020) https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/guilty-look-overcoming-first-impressions-courtroom.
[2] Id.
[3] Wilbur A. Castellow, et. al., Effects of Physical Attractiveness of the Plaintiff and Defendant in Sexual Harassment Judgments, 5 Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 547 (1990); Mary-Hunter McDonnell & Brayden G. King, Order in the Court: The Influence of Firm Status and Reputation on the Outcomes of Employment Discrimination Suits, 83 American Sociological Review 61 (2018).
[4] See Castellow, supra note 4; A. Chris Downs, Phillip M. Lyons, Natural Observations of the Links Between Attractiveness and Initial Legal Judgments, 17 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 541 (1991); Karl L. Wensch, et.al, Effects of Defendant Attractiveness and Types of Crime on Juridic Judgment, 6 Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 1 (1991).
[5] McDonnell, supra note 3.
[6] Id.
[7] McDonnell, supra note 3; Richard Silk, The Halo Effect – a UX Secret Weapon, Userism (May 19, 2021) https://userism.agency/articles/the-halo-effect.
[8] Kristeen Cherney & Timothy J. Legg, PhD, PsyD., What Is the Halo Effect?, Healthline (Apr. 1, 2021) https://www.healthline.com/health/halo-effect (referencing Edward L. Thorndike, A Constant Error in Psychological Ratings, 4 Journal of Applied Psych. 25 (1920)); Jakob Neilson & Jen Cardello, The Halo Effect, Nielsen Norman Group (Nov. 9, 2013) https://www.nngroup.com/articles/halo-effect/;
[9] Id.
[10] Thorndike, supra note 8 at 27.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Downs, supra note 4 (referencing Harold Sigall & Nancy Ostrove, Beautiful but Dangerous: Effects of Offender Attractiveness and Nature of the Crime on Juridic Judgment, 31 Journal of Personality And Social Psychology 410 (1975)).
[16] Castellow, supra note 3 at 561.
[17] Castellow, supra note 3 at 556-557.
[18] Castellow, supra note 3 at 560.
[19] McDonnell, supra note 3.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.