Why Beautiful Murderesses Inflame the Passions of the True Crime Fan

by Starks Shrink

We here at All Things Crime Blog have touched upon the notoriety of certain criminals based upon their perceived attractiveness as well as the attractiveness of their victims. The Jodi Arias-Travis Alexander case is a prime example. There are a wealth of studies on this topic that explore how we view each other with respect to appearance, and more specifically, about how these perceptions apply to our legal system and our juries that either acquit or convict at trial. Often the results of these studies directly conflict with one another. The basic precept for many of these studies compares the idea of information processing occurring on a rational versus an experiential basis, with the perception of physical attractiveness being a facet of experiential processing. Of course, in reality, we all use a combination of these two modes of information processing, whether or not we are aware of it.

When we look at a person for the first time, without being consciously aware of it, we process the person based upon our own cognitive representations, which collectively are known as social stereotypes. We all possess them. Some typical examples of social stereotypes include the doctor in a lab coat who is presumed to be intelligent, the little girl in pigtails who is presumed to be innocent and naïve, and the car salesman in a loud sport coat who is presumed to be dishonest. These reactions are built into our perceptions as a result of years of experience. This is also why when we see defendants in court, especially at trial, they often appear significantly different from the candid, and often unflattering, photos of them as they appeared prior to their arrest. Part of the defense attorney’s stock-in-trade is to manipulate, or alter, the appearance of the defendant they are representing in order to play on social stereotypes. But, this is precisely where the genders can diverge dramatically on how they perceive a social stereotype.

Women are more harshly critical of other women, especially attractive women, than they are of males both attractive and unattractive. Males, on the other hand. are more likely to hold a kindly bias toward attractive people, both male and female. I know this both rationally and experientially. We even have negative terms for attractive women in our vernacular. If you are an American guy who has a mother and a fondness for the opposite sex, then you are likely to have experienced this. I recall dating a woman in college who my mother derisively referred to as “that blonde bombshell”, despite the fact that she was a Ph.D. candidate in psychology. My mother’s opinion was that I was clearly at risk.

Thus, youthful, attractive defendants such as Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias, instantly engendered scorn from women around the country. Both were depicted in photographs as flamboyant and flirtatious, so women came down harshly in their criticisms of both women, labeling them as whores and sociopaths. This may seem counterintuitive but women judge themselves and other women on their appearances far more often than men are likely to. A woman looking at Jodi Arias sees an outward attempt to alter her appearance in order to make herself more attractive to the opposite sex. They see the breast implants, dyed blonde hair and, oddly enough, to some degree feel threatened.

Now before all the women get up in arms, the perceived threat is that here is an attractive woman who “isn’t playing fair”. Most women believe that they “play fair” when it comes to attracting and keeping their mate; they are honest and forthright and present themselves as they really are. When women like Jodi Arias and Casey Anthony pervert the rules, doing anything in their power to attract the opposite sex, most women are angered and some become outraged.

Now if the first impression and subsequent judgment of defendants based on appearances and behaviors only occurred in the courtroom, perhaps the published studies that suggest attractive people are judged less harshly than their less attractive counterparts would hold true. However, these studies make the mistake of discounting the impact of media coverage prior to a trial. The studies are essentially performed in a vaccuum by giving mock juries photos and profiles of mock defendants as well as mock case evidence. So in a vacuum, these theories will hold up. In the real world, however, I tend to think that they do not.

When photos and descriptions of the accused are published in the media, people necessarily make that initial experiential judgment at the moment they see them. Some attorneys have told me that an impartial jury is still possible and that jurors can set aside any preconceived opinions in favor of the rational evidence presented at trial. I disagree. People by nature have an inclination towards belief preservation and tend to discount or minimize evidence that disputes their original beliefs. In the case of forensic evidence, one can easily set aside rationally-formed opinions when new conflicting facts are presented (except in the case of conspiracy theorists), but when it comes to experiential opinions, it is much more difficult to overcome earlier perceptions. Opinions as to character, motive, and personality are subjective opinions and people will tend to grasp those bits of information that support their beliefs, and will discard those that do not. We’ve all heard the term “you can’t unring a bell”, but it goes beyond even that when subjective opinions have already formed. They are very difficult to uproot or overturn.

The media, of course, carefully selects the cases they choose to present to the public based on the desire for high ratings and the sensationalism that usually drives high ratings. So it’s not at all surprising that the media chooses more attractive defendants and/or victims on which to focus. Studies have proven that people would much rather view someone deemed attractive rather than their plainer counterparts. More and more, media is about visuals and soundbites as opposed to unbiased news coverage, so with increasing frequency, our biases will be affected by what the media chooses to present to us. The media, in turn, gauges the reactions to their stories and subsequently choose to present aspects of the story that match the widespread public opinion formed from the initial story. In this way, they create a “feeding frenzy” of sorts, with the public participating with almost rabid enthusiasm, such as we witnessed in the Anthony and Arias trials.

The question remains, however; does the public become enthralled by true crime stories simply because the participants are attractive? I think it goes deeper than that but certainly the attractiveness of the players is what whets the appetite and gets the ball rolling.

Please click here to view The Starks Shrink’s Other Posts:

Charlie Bothuell V May Have a Very Sharp Axe to Grind