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
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
Research-WOT2-man.docx