ABSTRACT. The present study was an examination of the effects of physical attractiveness and gender on perceptions of academic success, achievement-related traits, intelligence, initiative, and attributions of ability and effort in relation to academic success. It was hypothesized that attractive persons and men would be rated more favorably along these dimensions than would unattractive persons and women. The participants were 144 U.S. undergraduates who observed photographs of attractive and unattractive men and women and then rated the persons in the photographs on the aforementioned dimensions. Physical attractiveness had a differential effect on the dimensions within achievement. Also, being perceived as physically attractive created positive impressions of achievement-related traits for men but negative impressions for women.

IMPLICIT PERSONALITY THEORISTS suggest that people draw inferences about others on the basis of a few central characteristics (Schneider, 1973). Those inferences create social stereotypes, which, in turn, produce person prototypes, or social stereotypes applied to individuals (Forgas, 1983). People often make judgments about others on the basis of limited information. Brown (1986) suggested that such inferences follow an evaluative consistency in which a positive characteristic primes positive inferences and a negative characteristic primes negative inferences about other attributes or traits. That priming effect indicates that the first impression of a person is particularly important in the formation of subsequent impressions.

One of the first observations about others is an assessment of their physical attractiveness. Attractiveness is a good example of priming because it has been shown to influence, or prime, impressions of a person along a number of dimensions (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972; Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991). Physical attractiveness has also been shown to affect expected and perceived job performance (Cox & Glick, 1986; Marlowe, Schneider, & Nelson, 1996; Morrow & McElroy, 1984; Spencer & Taylor, 1988), personnel selection (Snyder, Berscheid, & Matwychuck, 1988), responsibility for socially undesirable behavior (Fredricks & Arenson, 1992), and for HIV-positive men, responsibility for their own condition (Agnew & Thompson, 1994).

Researchers have also examined the effects of physical attractiveness on several aspects of academic evaluation. Physical attractiveness has been shown to be correlated to actual performance (Clifford, 1975; Zahr, 1985), task evaluation (Landy & Sigall, 1974), teachers' expectations of students (Lerner & Lerner, 1977; Ritts, Patterson, & Tubbs, 1992), and teachers' attributions of student ability (Felson, 1980).

In addition to physical attractiveness, the types of attributions that U.S. students make about their own and others' academic performance have also been of interest to researchers. Hau and Salili (1991) found that for more attractive persons, effort and ability are perceived as the most internal, stable, global, and controllable causes attributed to academic performance, whereas luck is seen as the variable least likely to affect performance.

In the present study, we examined the effect of a target's physical attractiveness (in the absence of any other information) on students' perceptions of his/her academic performance, perceptions of his/her achievement-related traits, and attributions of ability and effort in his/her achievement. Specifically, we formulated the following hypotheses.

Compared with unattractive persons and women, attractive persons and men will be more often perceived as

H1: achieving higher levels of academic performance;

H2: possessing more of the traits needed for academic achievement;

H3: having higher levels of intelligence;

H4: having higher levels of initiative;

H5: achieving because of ability (an internal cause); and

H6: achieving because of effort (an internal cause).

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 144 undergraduate students (81 women, 63 men) at East Carolina University. Their ages ranged from 18 to 49 years (M = 22 years). There were 122 Caucasian participants, 19 African American participants, and 3 participants from other ethnic backgrounds. Nine were freshmen, 26 were sophomores, 56 were juniors, and 53 were seniors.

Stimulus Photographs

The photographs used in the present study--an attractive man, an attractive woman, an unattractive man, and an unattractive woman--were the same as those used in an earlier study (Castellow, Chia, & Wuensch, 1988) of the influence of physical attractiveness in mock jury trials. The photos had originally been selected from a pilot study in which male and female participants rated, on a 9-point scale of physical attractiveness, 120 photos taken from college yearbooks and magazines. The four targets selected for the earlier study (Castellow et al.) had received the highest and lowest attractiveness ratings for both men and women. The photos were 3" x 5" black-and-white portrait-style photos with a full frontal view of the stimulus person's face, head, and upper body. All four stimulus persons were Caucasian.

Instrument

The instrument included a questionnaire about demographic information and a brief description of the task the participants were to complete. We gave the participants the following information (summarized):

Ten years ago, members of the psychology department at East Carolina University studied the influence of certain personality traits on academic performance. The persons in the present photos were college students who had been participants in that research; data had been gathered on their academic performance and personality traits. We also told the participants that some students in the earlier study had consented to be photographed for follow-up studies. Last, we told the participants that the present study involved how accurately they could predict certain academic variables for some of the students who had been involved in the previous study; we informed them that their data would be compared to data.collected previously. The participants' predictions would involve their ratings of each pictured person's performance in an introductory psychology class and of the pictured person's academic traits necessary for success in college.

The measurement of academic traits consisted of adjectives from the Achievement Scale on the Adjective Checklist (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). The scale has 38 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type format. A high score on the scale indicates "a hard-working, goal-directed individual, who is determined to do well and usually does" (p. 8). In the next part of the questionnaire, the participants rated on a 6-point Likert-type format the influence of ability, effort, course difficulty, and luck on the stimulus person's performance. The final part of the questionnaire contained a manipulation check of the stimulus photos. The participants rated the physical attractiveness of the target on a 9-point scale.

Procedure

We had randomly sorted stimulus photos prior to the study. We randomly assigned the participants to one of four treatment conditions in a 2 (high vs. low attractiveness) x 2 (men vs. women) factorial design with 36 participants in each cell. Although the participants received no information except the photograph about the stimulus person, no participants questioned being asked to make predictions about that individual on the basis of the photograph alone. The participants were debriefed by the junior researcher during regular classes 1 week after data collection.

Results

A manipulation check of the stimulus photos revealed a significant difference in the expected direction between the photos in level of perceived attractiveness, F(1, 143) = 841, p less than .001. There was no gender difference between the mean ratings of the photos, nor was there a significant interaction effect.

In support of Hypothesis 1, analyses of mean perceptions of academic performance yielded significant main effects for attractiveness, Ms = 4.56 and 4.15 for attractive and unattractive, respectively, F(1, 140) = 8.89, p less than .01; and for gender, Ms = 4.64 and 4.15 for male and female, respectively, F(1,140) = 17.78, p less than .001. There was also a significant interaction effect, F(1, 140) = 14.48, p less than .001, in which the unattractive man was perceived to be performing at the highest level, whereas the unattractive woman was perceived to be performing at the lowest level.

In support of Hypothesis 2, analyses of the achievement-related traits also yielded significant main effects for attractiveness, Ms = 55.22 and 36.11 for attractive and unattractive, respectively, F(1,140) = 51.55, p less than .001; and for gender, Ms = 48.72 and 42.61 for male and female, respectively, F(1, 140) = 5.27, p less than .05. There was no significant interaction effect.

Analyses of perceived intelligence of the stimulus person yielded mixed results that only partially supported Hypothesis 3. There was no main effect for attractiveness, but there was a significant gender effect, Ms = 3.03 and 2.71 for male and female, respectively, F(1, 140) = 23.35, p less than .001. There was also a significant interaction, F(1, 140) = 12.95, p less than .001. Unattractive men were seen as the most intelligent (3.22), and unattractive women were seen as the least intelligent (2.08).

In partial support of Hypothesis 4, analyses of perceptions of the initiative of the stimulus person showed a main effect for attractiveness, Ms = 2.92 and 2.07 for attractive and unattractive, respectively, F(1, 140) = 29.23, p less than .001. There were no gender or interaction effects.

Hypotheses 5 and 6 were not supported. Analyses of attributions of the influence of ability on achievement revealed a significant Gender x Attractiveness interaction. Unattractive men received the highest attribution for ability, whereas unattractive women received the lowest attribution for ability, Ms = 4.69 and 4.14, respectively, F(1, 140) = 4.79, p less than .05. There were no significant effects for attributions of the influence of effort on achievement.

Discussion

Our basic assumption in the present study was that in the absence of any other information, people would use physical appearance as the basis for drawing other inferences, specifically, inferences about the stimulus person's academic performance, achievement-related traits, intelligence and initiative, and attributions of ability and effort. We hypothesized that the priming effect would favor more attractive persons and men. In general, the results supported the basic hypotheses in the predicted direction, although they yielded stronger support for achievement performance and traits than for attributions. Taken together, the results suggest three trends.

First, the frequently cited "what-is-beautiful-is-good" stereotype may not be clear-cut. The significant interactions in the analyses of academic performance, perceived intelligence, and attributions of ability indicate that according to the combined mean ratings, more attractive men and women fell into the "average" category on performance, intelligence, and attribution of ability. So, "what is beautiful" may be only "average" on those variables. The findings for perceptions of achievement-related traits and initiative, however, indicate that the more attractive persons were indeed perceived to have more achievement-related traits and greater initiative. Thus, the effects of physical attractiveness varied, even within the general area of achievement.

Second, with respect to physical attractiveness, the perception of attractiveness was not as important in impression formation in the achievement area as the perception of unattractiveness was. In the present study, we used only the extremes of attractiveness, although most people are perceived as moderately attractive. In two studies, moderately attractive students received more favorable impressions and evaluations than both attractive and unattractive students (Adams & LaVoie, 1974; DeMeis & Turner, 1978). Thus, future research would do well to include moderately attractive stimulus persons.

The third, and perhaps the most serious, implication of the present study is the differential effect of unattractiveness for men and women. In all cases where there were significant interaction effects, unattractive men consistently received the most favorable ratings, whereas unattractive women consistently received the most unfavorable ratings. This finding supports the results of Lao, Upchurch, Corwin, and Grossnickle (1975). Although in the present study, attributions of ability and effort had minimal effect, the only significant finding was consistent with the other results--the highest ability was attributed to unattractive men and the lowest ability was attributed to unattractive women. Kaplan (1978) found a negative bias against unattractive women in the United States only when they were rated by male judges. That bias emerged in the present study, although the participant pool contained both men and women. Future researchers should include gender of raters as another variable that could shed light on the inconsistencies between Kaplan's study and our own. The negative bias toward unattractive women, however, has also been found in hiring decisions (Marlowe, Schneider, & Nelson, 1996). Thus, many researchers have consistently found that the negative bias toward unattractive women exists in the academic area as well as in the workplace. If further research continues to support the prevalence of this phenomenon, researchers might focus on methods of offsetting the negative bias toward women.

Last, this study dealt with the priming effect of physical appearance among U.S. students. These attractiveness stereotypes may not operate in the same way in other cultures. Also, in the real world, although physical appearance is often the first piece of information available and may well prime other impressions, additional information about the individual in question is often available shortly after the initial impression. We did not address the extent to which the priming effect can be mediated by variables other than physical appearance. Further research is needed to determine how the strength and duration of priming effects stemming from physical appearance are influenced by other considerations.

Parts of this article were presented at the Southeastern Psychological Association Annual Convention, March 1996.

Address correspondence to Rosina C. Chia, Department of Psychology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858-4353.

REFERENCES

Adams, G. R., & LaVoie, J. C. (1974). The effect of student's sex, conduct, and facial attractiveness on teacher expectancy. Education, 95, 76-83.

Agnew, C. R., & Thompson, V. D. (1994). Causal inferences and responsibility attributions concerning an HIV-positive target: The double-edged sword of physical attractiveness. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 181-190.

Brown, R. W. (1986). Social psychology: The second edition. New York: Free Press.

Castellow, W., Chia, R., & Wuensch, K. (1988, August). Physical attractiveness, sex, and cultural differences in juridic decisions. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA.

Clifford, M. M. (1975). Physical attractiveness and academic performance. Child Study Journal, 5, 201-209.

Cox, G. L., & Glick, W. H. (1986). Resume evaluations and cosmetics use: When more is not better. Sex Roles, 14, 51-58.

DeMeis, D. K., & Turner, R. R. (1978). Effects of student's race, physical attractiveness, and dialect on teacher evaluations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3, 77-86.

Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.

Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but...: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.

Felson, R. B. (1980). Physical attractiveness, grades, and teachers' attributions of ability. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 11, 64-71.

Forgas, J. P. (1983). The effects of prototypicality and cultural salience on perceptions of people. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 153-173.

Fredricks, J. C., & Arenson, S. J. (1992). Physical attractiveness stereotype in causal attributions for socially undesirable behavior. Psychological Reports, 70, 115-123.

Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). The Adjective Checklist manual: 1983 edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hau, K. T., & Salili, F. (1991). Structure and semantic differential placement of specific causes: Academic causal attribution by Chinese students in Hong Kong. International Journal of Psychology, 26, 175-193.

Kaplan, R. M. (1978). Is beauty talent? Sex interaction in the attractiveness halo effect. Sex Roles, 4, 195-203.

Landy, D., & Sigall, H. (1974). Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer's physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 299-304.

Lao, R. C., Upchurch, W. H., Corwin, B. J., & Grossnickle, W. F. (1975). Biased attitudes toward females as indicated by ratings of intelligence and likeability. Psychological Reports, 37, 1315-1320.

Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (1977). Effects of age, sex, and physical attractiveness on child peer relations, academic performance, and elementary school adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 13, 585-590.

Marlowe, C. M., Schneider, S. L., & Nelson, C. E. (1996). Gender and attractiveness biases in hiring decisions: Are more experienced managers less biased? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 11-21.

Morrow, P. C., & McElroy, J. C. (1984). The impact of physical attractiveness in evaluative contexts. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 171-182.

Ritts, V., Patterson, M. L., & Tubbs, M. E. (1992). Expectations, impressions, and judgments of physically attractive students: A review. Review of Educational Research, 62, 413-426.

Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 294-309.

Snyder, M., Berscheid, E., & Matwychuck, A. (1988). Orientations toward personnel selection: Differential reliance on appearance and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 962-979.

Spencer, B. A., & Taylor, G. S. (1988). Effects of facial attractiveness and gender on causal attributions of managerial performance. Sex Roles, 19, 273-285.

Zahr, L. (1985). Physical attractiveness and Lebanese children's school performance. Psychological Reports, 56, 191-192.
Copyright 1998 Heldref Publications