yearbooks and popular magazines and were black and white portrait-style. The most attractive (M = 7.7) and least attractive (M = 2.6) male photographs were selected for use in the study. Likewise, the most attractive (M = 7.6) and least attractive (M = 1.9) female photographs were selected. Experimental Materials and Procedure Each participant was provided with a packet containing the following items: Instructions, case background, summaries of the litigants’ testimony, summaries of the litigants’ character witness testimony, a photograph of each litigant, a summary, and a participant response form. These materials (available in electronic format upon request from the first author) were nearly identical to those used by Moore et al. (1994), except for changes involved in reversing the genders of the litigants. In the plaintiff’s testimony, it was explained that in the years that he had been working for the defendant as an assistant manager of her apartment complex, her harassing behaviors had escalated. Initially she made inappropriate and unwanted remarks about his clothing and physique. She stared at his crotch and made remarks about the size of his genitals. She tried to touch and caress his body. When he objected to these behaviors, she told him that he must like it or he would have found other employment. He alleged that in recent months she had tried to put her hand under his clothing, had chased him around the office trying to kiss him, and repeatedly tried to fondle his buttocks and genitals. She even went so far as to describe to him the sexual acts in which she desired to engage him. Since few people would argue that the alleged behaviors do not constitute sexual harassment, we assumed that any juror who believed the plaintiff’s testimony would find in his favor.
of sexual harassment (“yes” or “no”), and were asked to indicate how certain they were of her guilt, on a 9-point scale from “definitely not guilty” to “definitely guilty.” After responding to these two questions, respondents were also asked to rate, on a 9-point scale, the physical attractiveness of each litigant. Participants were run in small groups, ranging in size from 10 to 40. Results The Physical Attractiveness Manipulation For the defendant, the attractive photograph was rated significantly more attractive (M = 7.86, SD = 1.29) than the unattractive photograph (M = 2.90, SD = 1.74), t(322) = 29.15, p = .000, d = 3.24. For the plaintiff, the attractive photograph was rated significantly more attractive (M = 6.72, SD = 1.78) than the unattractive photograph (M = 2.09, SD = 1.25), t(322) = 27.19, p = .000, d = 3.02. Within-gender comparisons showed that the physical attractiveness manipulations remained highly effective (t > 14 and p = .000 for each litigant). The Verdict A logit analysis was employed to evaluate the effects of gender of juror and physical attractiveness of plaintiff and defendant upon the verdict rendered. A reduced model was obtained by removing from the saturated model all effects which were not significant at the .10 level. All effects deleted were so trivial in magnitude that each had a z < .65 and a p > .50. The resulting model included a significant main effect of plaintiff attractiveness, z = 2.65, p = .008, and a significant interaction between juror’s gender, defendant attractiveness, and plaintiff attractiveness, z = 2.19, p = .029. The effect of juror’s gender fell short of the traditional standard of statistical significance, z = 1.68, p = .093. The reduced model fit the data adequately, as indicated by a nonsignificant goodness of fit test, G 2(4, N = 324) = 1.08, p = .897. When the
were somewhat more certain (d = .34) of the guilt of the female defendant. These results mirror those of found earlier with a female plaintiff and a male defendant (Castellow et al., 1990). Jurors found it difficult to believe that a physically unattractive man would be sexually harassed by his female employer. The effect of plaintiff attractiveness on the recommended verdict was modified by an unanticipated interaction with gender of juror and attractiveness of the defendant. In the present research female jurors favored the physically attractive male plaintiff only when the female defendant was unattractive. Perhaps female jurors are more likely to think of the harassment as being sexual (making physical attractiveness of the male plaintiff relevant) if the female defendant is physically unattractive. The unattractive female defendant may be thought of as being sexually frustrated, in which case it is easier to believe that she would sexually harass an attractive (sexy) man than an unattractive man. Female jurors may think of harassment in terms of other motives when the female defendant is physically attractive, assuming that a physically attractive woman can get all the sexual attention she needs without resorting to harassment If the motive behind the harassment is not sexual, then there is no strong reason to believe that an attractive man would be more likely targeted then an unattractive man. In earlier research (Castellow et al., 1990), female jurors favored the physically attractive female plaintiff who had accused a male defendant of sexual harassment regardless of the attractiveness of the defendant. Female jurors may think of the harassment as being sexually motivated in all cases where the defendant is male. In the present research male jurors favored the attractive male plaintiff only when the female defendant was physically attractive. As noted by Etcoff (1999), men are much more likely than women to infer that attractive women are high in sex drive and seek variety in their