Can a Face Influence Justice? The Hidden Power of Appearance

Imagine two people standing before a parole board. They have committed similar crimes, served similar sentences, and expressed similar levels of regret. Yet one is viewed as more likely to deserve a second chance than the other.

Why? New research published in the Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition suggests the answer may have more to do with how these people look than what they have done.

In a study by Brianna B. Stevens and Holly Kleider-Offutt of Georgia State University, the authors investigated the effect of facial appearance on perceptions of parole and the probability of future offending. Their findings show that people draw substantial inferences from facial features alone, even when they believe they are making impartial decisions.

The Science of First Impressions

People are often ready to judge others. Research has long shown that people can form judgments about trustworthiness, competence, and character within fractions of a second after looking at an unfamiliar face. Such perceptions often seem convincing and plausible (at least to the person making the judgment), even when they are based on mere appearance. Once created, they can be remarkably resistant to change.

While this ability to make quick judgments likely stems from the need to determine quickly whether a stranger is dangerous (such as in social situations), these hasty judgments can also become problematic when they affect major decisions in employment, relationships, politics, or the criminal justice system.

In theory, at least, the court system is supposed to weigh evidence, not appearances, and to remain completely impartial. Psychological research has repeatedly demonstrated, however, that how defendants are seen often depends on whether they “appear” to be criminals.

The “Criminal Face” Phenomenon

Forensic psychology studies have long demonstrated that certain facial traits are more likely to provoke perceptions of criminality, irrespective of a person’s actual behavior. People with faces that look more criminal are often judged more harshly. They are more likely to be identified in police lineups, more likely perceived as guilty, and given longer sentences.

These judgments are rooted in facial traits that spectators automatically perceive as signaling danger or untrustworthiness. Importantly, the people who have these characteristics do not choose them, and even many people later exonerated after unjust convictions often exhibited those same “criminal” facial traits.

The danger is clear: If appearances influence perceptions of guilt or punishment, then legal decisions might be based on prejudice rather than evidence.

The Importance of Remorse

A second strong influence on legal decision-making, felt remorse, is also identified.

Judges, juries, and parole boards generally see remorse as an indication that an offender takes responsibility and is less likely to reoffend. Those defendants who seem truly repentant are often treated more leniently than those who seem indifferent. But repentance is difficult to measure.

People convey regret through words, facial expressions, body language, and emotional tone, and it is usually up to observers to assess whether these signals are genuine. As a consequence, perceptions of remorse are often subjective. This raises the question: How might a person's appearance influence whether they seem remorseful?

Testing for Criminality and Remorse

In the present study, the authors conducted two experiments in which participants were shown faces varying in the strength of traits related to criminality and sorrow. All of the faces were of young, Caucasian males to minimize racial bias and were digitally morphed to assume features that were perceived to be more criminal (darker skin, smaller eyes, lower eyebrows, and less prominent chins), while remorseful features included mouths pulled down showing sadness, skin tone, and raised eyebrows. The participants then assessed whether the defendant should be placed on parole and whether they were likely to commit another crime. A second study showed individuals' faces with a blend of criminal-looking and repentant features and described the crimes in which they were involved.

Bias Essential Reads

Why Things Look Smaller in Your Peripheral Vision

When Ableism Meets Racism, Coping with Dual Discrimination

The researchers found a consistent pattern in their results: Strongly criminal faces were less likely to be seen as deserving of parole and more likely to reoffend. Faces with greater remorse-related features were rated more positively.

These effects were more obvious when facial cues were particularly strong. Less influence of subtle differences in appearance but large changes in perception from highly conspicuous traits. The results also showed that even those who looked criminal might still seem repentant. But that perception depends on circumstances.

It also mattered what sort of crime it was. The exact judgment being made is also important. Sometimes participants judged sorrow differently in terms of whether someone should get parole and when predicting future criminal behavior. In other words, the impressions you formed based on looks were malleable, but they still mattered.

Why Is This Important?

What’s perhaps most alarming about the findings is that facial appearance led to judgments about future behavior. No one can reliably predict whether a stranger will commit another crime just by looking at their face. And yet, participants regularly relied on appearance as a cue to estimate the probability of recidivism.

This is an example of a more general psychological tendency known as the representativeness heuristic. People generally assess possibilities by how well someone fits a preconceived stereotype. If someone looks like our idea of a criminal, we may automatically think they have criminal characteristics. If they appear sorry, we may infer that they are more trustworthy or less hazardous.

These assumptions sound intuitive, but intuition is no proof.

The Secret Danger of Comparison

The researchers found something else that was particularly revealing. Neutral faces next to more criminal-appearing faces were rated more positively than when they were next to remorseful faces. It seems people don’t only judge a face on its own, but relative to the other faces around it (such as in a police lineup).

This is an important consequence. Judges, parole boards, and other decision-makers often review cases one at a time. The person being assessed is likely to be unknowingly affected by the person who was assessed just before them. Psychologists call the phenomenon a contrast effect. What is suitable in one setting will look entirely different in another.

Is There a Solution?

Unfortunately, there is no easy solution for this problem, since humans are hardwired to draw conclusions from faces. These judgments are typically unconscious and automatic. But identifying these biases is a crucial first step.

Training for legal professionals seeks to minimize the impact of irrelevant data. Recognizing how facial appearance might influence judgments of criminality and guilt can help decision-makers be more aware of potential sources of prejudice. It is not designed to totally ignore human intuition but instead to supplement that intuition with evidence.

Looking Beyond the Face

While most judges, jurors, and parole board members believe they are making objective decisions, this study and others like it suggest that subtle factors can affect perceptions in ways people seldom realize. A defendant’s facial structure is not evidence. It does not reflect character, contrition, or future conduct. But looks can affect how all three are seen by others.

In a court system that prides itself on impartiality, that should give us pause. If two people can be given different verdicts only because one appears more criminal than the other, the problem is not a matter of bias alone but a matter of learning how to look past bias.