Physical Appearance and Trait
Judgements
By Alex Stevens, Hope Childree, Laura Perry, Amy Sapp, and
Emily Lunsford
Previous Research
The idea that physical appearance is associated with the attribution of certain traits has been examined
in various studies. One of the earliest experiments on this topic created the “what is beautiful is good”
stereotype (Dion, Berscheid & Walster, 1972).
This study had 60 participants rate individuals on socially desirable traits, future success, and happiness. Each
participant was given three photos of a relatively attractive person, average-looking person, and relatively unattractive
person. They were told that perception accuracy was the purpose of this study; however, the experimenters were actually
interested in how the participants rated people on marital satisfaction, parental happiness, social and professional
happiness, and overall happiness.
Participants were asked to rate each person on personality traits that were on a scale from exciting to dull Then,
they were asked to assess another list of personality traits on a different rating scale that ranged from least likely to mostly
likely to possess a trait.
What were the results? Results ultimately suggested that the physically attractive people in the
photos were assumed to have more socially desirable characteristics compared to the unattractive
individuals. In addition, results indicated that attractive men and women had higher estimates for
obtaining more prestigious occupations and happier marriages (Dion et al., 1972).
Previous Research
Other studies have placed emphasis on perception in determining how people evaluate others.
(Lorenzo, Biesanz & Human, 2010). This experiment focused on the ratings of positivity and accuracy
in terms of personality/first impressions.
Seventy-three participants were placed in 10 groups that ranged from 5 to 11 people, and each
person met with one another for a 3-minute interaction. After each interaction, each participant was
given a questionnaire that was made up of 21 items found on the Big Five Inventory assessment. The
assessment consisted of an assortment of personality traits, and it was scaled from disagree strongly
(1) to agree strongly (7). Participants were then asked to rate how physically attractive they thought
each person they encountered was.
What were the results? Participants rated attractive individuals with greater positivity and
normative accuracy. In other words, perception played a role in how individuals acknowledged and
evaluated one another. Levels of attractiveness may have caused participants to either pay more or less
attention to one another, therefore influencing the amount of understanding and positive judgements
(Lorenzo et. al., 2010)
Previous Research
Lucker, Beane and Helmreich (1981) 102 male and 128 female participants who were from the University of Texas.
Participants were shown 12 different people (six male and six female) who they had to rate (Lucker et al., 1981). They
were shown each slide for 2.5 min(Lucker et al., 1981).
The participants rated the pictures on attractiveness on a nine-point scale. (“very ugly”- “very attractive”) (Lucker et al.,
1981).
Then they rated them on 12 personality traits (intelligent, unintelligent; warm, cold; assured, unassured; ambitious,
unambitious; sexy, unsexy; sad, happy; friendly, hostile; threatening, nonthreatening; conceited, not conceited;
competent, incompetent; masculine, feminine; active, passive) (Lucker et al., 1981).
Lastly, they were asked “how much do you think you would like this person?” the scale was from “dislike very much”“like very much” (Lucker et al., 1981) .
The results showed that there was a significant difference between personality traits in the amount of variance
accounted for by attractiveness ratings (Lucker et al., 1981). Friendliness and warmth were found to not be strongly
related to one’s attractiveness. Sexiness, femininity, and liking were found to be strongly related to attractiveness of the
person (Lucker et al., 1981).
Previous Research
In Van Leeuwen’s (2004) experiment there were 36 participants (20 female and 16 male) who were
undergraduates(Van Leewan 2004).
They were instructed to look at a computer screen that would display words that were either positive or negative (Van
Leewan 2004).
The words would be in the foreground while there was a face of a person (male/female; attractive, unattractive) in the
background during the experimental condition or just a plain oval in the baseline condition (Van Leewan 2004).
64 words were shown- 32 positive and 32 negative (Van Leewan 2004). Each word appeared on a matched face
(attractive/unattractive), a mismatched face and an oval (Van Leewan 2004).
The participant had to press a computer button if they thought the word was positive or negative (Van Leewan 2004).
They were told to ignore the background picture ( Van Leewan 2004).
The results showed that when an attractive face was in the background participants were faster at depicting positive
versus negative words (Van Leewan 2004). They took a longer time to identify negative words when there was an
attractive face in the background (Van Leewan 2004). Female faces made participants respond slower to negative
words versus positive ones (Van Leewan 2004).
Methods
● Hypothesis
o Attractive people will be rated higher on five positive
attributes than unattractive people.
● Participants
o 50 females, between the ages of 18-31 (M=21.48,
SD=2.41)
o Participants randomly assigned to attractive (n=23)
or unattractive (n=27) condition
● Materials: Pen, coin, photos, questionnaires
Methods, ctd.
● Participants given photo of attractive or
unattractive male.
Methods, ctd.
● Participants asked to rate person in five
positive attributes, using Likert scale of 1-4
(1 is unlikely to have, 4 is likely to have)
o
o
o
o
o
Intelligence
Warmth
Ambition
Friendliness
Confidence
Results
● Independent sample t-test
● compared individual traits
● combine responses for overall comparison
Results for Individual Traits
●
●
●
●
●
●
Levene’s test not significant
Warmth t(48)=3.96, p<.001
Confidence t(48)=7.57, p<.001
Friendliness t(48)=3.19, p=.003
Intelligence t(48)= -1.81, p=.08
Ambition t(48)=.601, p=.55
Results for Overall Comparison
● Levene’s test not significant
● Overall mean for attractive 15.39 (SD = 1.64)
● Overall mean for unattractive 13.22 (SD = 1.19)
● t(48)=5.4, p<.001
Discussion
Hypothesis:
-The attractive photo will yield a higher average for positive
traits than the not attractive photo.
- The participants will perceive the attractive person to be
more likely to possess positive traits.
Discussion
Results Interpreted:
- A significant difference was found for the overall
responses between the attractive and not attractive
conditions
- 3 of the 5 individual traits were significantly difference
- Warmth, Confidence, and Friendliness
- Not Intelligence or Ambition
Discussion
Related to Previous Research:
- Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972) found
the attractive photo to have a higher
perceived possession of socially desirable
characteristics.
- Our findings were consistent with this
Discussion
Related to Previous Research:
- Lorenzo, Biesanz, and Human (2010) found
that more attractive people were rated with
higher positivity.
- Our findings were consistent with this
Discussion
Related to Previous Research:
-
-
-
Lucker, Beane and Helmreich (1981) found sexiness, femininity and liking
to be strongly related to attractiveness. These traits can be categorized as
positive traits.
Our findings are consistent with this.
However, they also found that friendliness and warmth were only weakly
related to attractiveness
This is not so consistent with our findings or the findings of other research
suggesting that other factors may come into play.
Discussion
Related to Previous Research:
- Van Leeuwen (2004) found that positive words were
more correctly identified when a photo of an attractive
person was in the background.
- This is similar to the implicit bias test and reveals
internal biases towards attractive people
- Our findings are consistent with this
Discussion
Limitations:
- Time
- Sample Size/Type
- Photographs were not standardized
- Individual Experimenter Error
Discussion
Implications:
- Support for the theory
- Other traits and characteristics outside of
social traits should be researched further
such as intelligence and ambition.