Psychological Reportr, 1972, 31,495-500.

@ Psychological Reports 1972

EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL APPEARANCE

O N SOCIAL RESPONSIVENESS1m2
RALPH BAROCAS AND PAUL KAROLF
University of Rochester
Summary.-A behavioral analysis of the consequences of physical appear-
ance on social behavior =as undertaken with the view that physical attractiveness
operates as a stimulus ccntrol variable by occasioning differential interpersonal
reinforcement. Fifty-six males were requested to role-play an interaction with
the taped performance of a young woman. Video-taped performances were pre-
sented under two conditions, attractive and unattractive, to Ss instructed to uans-
late their enacted social responses into "button-presses." The audio portions of
these rapes were presented alone to two additional groups of Ss and no differences
attributable to voice quality or speech content were observed. The attractive
appearance evoked more social reinforcement and enhanced cognitive-evaluative
ratings of calmness, popularity, and friendship desirability.

Few people dispute that physical beauty is an important determinant of

social responsiveness. While variables such as propinquity, similarity, and reci-
procity have all received broader attention, the investigation of physical attri-
butes defines a more scattered area of research and speculation. Although beauty
may be a culture-bound phenomenon because of the relativity of attractiveness
(Ford & Beach, 195 1), the tendency to approach, to prefer, and to become affec-
tively aroused in the presecce of beauty reflects a subtle shaping process in which
the person learns that attrectiveness in others may yield a more rewarding state
of affairs than unattractiveness. This process is apparent in our conceptions of
intelligence as well where, for example, the American 4%-yr.-old is expected to
discriminate pretty faces from less pretty faces. Failure is presumed to reflect
diminished intellectual performance (Terman & Merrill, 1960).
Where attractiveness is the sole basis for impression-formation of person-
ality attributes, its effects are clear. Miller (1970), using photographs of college
women controlled for level of physical attractiveness, reported that the attractive
person receives significant.^ more positive ratings than does the person whose
looks are rated as less appealing. That unattractiveness produces differential re-
sponding is well documented by the multi-million dollar cosmetics industry, the
medical speciality of cosmetic surgery, and in the study of interpersonal conse-
quences of physical handicaps (e.g., Goffman, 1963; Richardson, 1769).
Psychologists have been quite resourceful in the development of research
situations to evaluate the effects of appearance within the social process (Mills
& Aronson, 1965, 1969; Slgall, Page, & Brown, 1967; Walster, Aronson, Abra-
hams, & Rotunan, 1966). But, little work has been directed toward a more re-
'A form of this paper was presented ar the Eastern Psychological Association Meetings,
New York, April, 1971.
T h e authors wish to thank h s l i e Walker and Daniel Kirschenbaum for their assistance.
'Presently at the University of Cincinnati.
496 R. BAROCAS 8r P. KAROLY

fined analysis of social exchange that identifies the consequences of attraction,

not only with respect to cognitive summary evaluations of others (e.g., ratings of
llking or attraction) but its influences on discrete behavioral responses as well.
Cognitive summary evaluations follow from Ss' after-the-fact reconstructions in
distilled form of prior behavior sequences and supposed internal reactions.
Therefore, these ratings are most frequently self-reported historical statements,
rather than indices of ongoing behavior. In the work reported here, much of
the basic response data are accumulated from an ongoing process which more
closely approximates the continuity of natural interaction.
The present work, operating from within an exchange theory framework,
views physical attractiveness as a stimulus control variable in social interaction.
By making a distinction between the dispenser, or vehicle of reinforcer presenta-
tion, and the reinforcers (effective change-producing stimuli) themselves, we
are led to an examination of an individual's response-eliciting characteristics,
independent of his actions. A readily observed dispenser-effect exists in the
literature on conformity behavior. There, in studies of scams and influence, the
independent variable, status (or source credibility), regularly produces differen-
tial responsiveness.
The present study contributes a behavioral analysis of the discriminative
properties of appearance. It was directed toward a more articulated description
of the effects of physical attractiveness on interpersonal reward processes. Fol-
lowing a procedure developed by Weiss ( 1966, 1967, 1968) social responsivity
was defined as the number of reinforcing responses emitted by a person in the
presence of another.
The hypotheses examined were, first, chat a physically attractive female
evokes more social responsiveness (emitted reinforcement) than an unattractive
female in males of a similar age. And, secondly, that a physically attractive
female enhances perceived popularity, friendship desirability, and intelligence
ratings while diminishing perceived competitiveness.

Ss were 56 University of Rochester male undergraduates enrolled in lower

level psychology courses serving as volunteers or discharging a research partici-
pation requirement.
Procedures
The laboratory paradigm described here recreated an important dimension
of interpersonal behavior, i.e., dyadic heterosexual communication. While this
situation restricted the range of critical interpersonal responses, and was a safe
one because rejection was not a possible consequence, it provided maximal con-
trol of the evocative event and the opportunity to assess behavior in a continuous
manner.
 APPEARANCE AND SOCIAL RESPONSIVENESS 497

Each S was randomly assigned to one of four laboratory conditions. These

were video-attractive (VA) , video-unattractive ( W ) , audio-attractive ( AA) ,
and airdio-anuttractiue ( AU) . Regardless of condition, each S heard the same
recording of a young woman of college age describing her university experience.
He was told to translate and to signal his rapport engendering responses by press-
ing a button. These socii responses, or emitted reinforcements, defined by the
button press, were tabulated in an adjoining room that also contained necessary
programming equipment.
The two video conditions, VA and W, caused S to see either an attractively
made-up young woman, VA, or the same young woman in an unflattering ap-
pearance, W, on a closed-circuit television monitor. Sound was carried into the
room separately, and emanated from a speaker near the video-receiver. In the two
audio conditions, Ss heard only the sound portion of the two tapes affording
oppoitunity to control for effects of voice.
Each S heard the following instructions:
This experiment studies the acquaintanceship process.
You are to respond to a series of four tapes.' Each of these rapes is a statement
made by a student about an aspect of their university experience. The students will speak
about their decision to come here and some of their thoughts and feelings about how the
university has met their expectations.
You are to pretend that the person on the tape is actually in your presence.
.
Now . . Notice the button . . . Press it a few times to get the feel of it...
If you were really in their presence, you would smile, gesture, nod your head, or
make approving statements. Because they are on tape and do speak continuously, we would
like you to press the button on those occasions during the presentation that you would have
made rapport-building responses.
.
That is, press the button each time you would have smiled . . nodded your head
or made an approving statement or gesture.
I will now review ...
You are to pretend that each of the four taped persons is indeed in your presence.
Because they are on tape and d o speak continuously, we would like you to press the button
on those occasions during the presentation that you would have made rapport-building re-
sponses.
That is, press the buttor. each time that you would have smiled . . . nodded your
head . . . or made an approving statement or gesture.
After each tape presenntion,-you will be asked to complete some rating forms
about the person on the tape.
You will hear a click that signals the beginning of each of the tapes . . .
The tapes ran approximately 3 min. and all data reported are on the basis
of 180 sec. of response opportunities.
'In fact, all Ss were exposed co only one condition. These instructions were designed to
create a set in S that the task mas of a longer duration and that he would be responding to
more than a single model.
498 R. BAROCAS 8r P. KAROLY

At the close of the laboratory session, each S completed a group of 10-step

behavioral rating scales. These required S to estimate: ( 1 ) popularity of the girl
with young men; ( 2 ) popularity with other college women; ( 3 ) her grade-
point-average; ( 4 ) her competitiveness; ( 5 ) desired friendship with her; ( 6 )
her calmness; and finally, ( 7 ) her attractiveness. The last rating scale served
as a validity check on the experimental manipulation. In order to be included
in the final analysis, the VA condition S had to have indicated a rating between
6 and 10, and the VU S, a rating between 1 and 5. While no Ss rated the VA
condition as unattractive, i.e., a score below 5, 2 Ss did rate the VU image above
5 and their data were not included in the statistical comparisons. Their per-
formance, which exceeded the mean response rate of the VA group, only offers
continued testimony to the adage, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

RESULTSAND DISCUSSION
Table 1 summarizes the comparisons between the two control groups.
These results yield minimal differences and imply that the content and presenta-
tion style of the stimulus tapes are functionally equivalent. Table 1 also sum-
marizes the comparisons between the video attractive and unattractive groups.
With the exception of grade-point-average and competitiveness, all the observed
differences are significant and in the expected directions.
These data contribute to the specification of the consequences of physical
attractiveness in the interpersonal reward process. Attractiveness, because it

TABLE 1
MEANS,STANDARD
DEVIATIONS,
AND COMPARISONS
FOR ALL FOUR GROUPS

Audio Groups Video Groups

Attrac- Unattrac- t Attrac- Unattrac- t
tive tive rive rive
(N=14) (N=14) ( N = 1 4 ). (. N = 1 4 )
Emitted Reinforcements 11.21 11.57 .19 14.64 10.35 2.44+
4.81 4.62 4.10 4.82
Friend 7.64 7.00 1.07: 8.36 5.57 4.67'
.47 1.60 .90 1.95
Grade-point Average 6.07 6.15 .21 5.79 6.14 .94
.9G 1.03 .77 1.12
Female Popularity
Male Popularity 7.43 6.64 .92 8.36 4.07 8.33*
1.45 2.38 1.04 1.53
Competitiveness
Calmness 6.86 6.14 .85 8.07 6.21 3.05.
2.03 2.26 1.33 1.73
Attractiveness 6.42 6.57 .17 8.64 3.43 13.14'
1.92 1.95 .81 1.18
Note.-All tests are one-tailed, p = .05.
 APPEARANCE A N D SOCIAL RESPONSIVENESS 499

evokes more responses, operates to broaden the latitude of response opportunities

by cueing differential reinforcement. Appearance, then, is an important con-
tingency in the interpersonal process but obviously does not simply, and totally,
dissipate the effects of communication content. An analysis of variance of the
emitted reinforcements for the six 30-sec. intervals is significant ( F = 10.70, df
<
= 5/26, 9 .01). Finally, the failure to observe an interaction berween the
groups across time ( F = 1.12, df = 5/130, ns) argues for the parallel narure of
the response curves and implies that appearance operates in a continuous manner
through time, at least for the initial moments of an encounter.
The social implications of these observations are noteworthy, particularly
in terms of the consequences of appearance upon personal adjustment processes.
It might be anticipated that the more attractive a person is, the more available
are social rewards, and consequently, the less likely that interpersonal relation-
ships will be found wanting. Similarly, from an exchange theory vantage, because
the attractive person evokes more responses from their peers, they, in turn, might
be expected to emit more social rewards. If the acquisition of social skills is
related to performance opportunities, then attractive people might be more adept
interpersonally. Attractiveness has been identified, at least for firstborns, as a
feminine manipulative interpersonal strategy (Singer, 1964).
However, it is also pssible that attractive persons evoke noncontingent
rewards, obtaining positive social responses independently of the context re-
quirements. Thus, it might be anticipated that the irregular relationship between
their social responses and the obtained rewards might cause a more "unstable"
or "scatter-brained" appearance. The determinants of being a Maci-Hati or a
Goldie Hawn ate to be found in the person's ability to discriminate the deter-
minants of his own and others' responses. A person aware of his appearance
is likely to be interpersonally competent, in contrast to the non-discriminated
performance of the scatter-brained beauty.
Attractiveness and unattractiveness are neither discontinuous nor absolute
variables. Moreover, most people are not distinguished by particular disfigure-
ment or breathtaking beauty. Nevertheless, it is dear that appearance is an im-
portant determinant of the quality of interpersonal transaction, and additional
work could be profitably dkected toward the relationship of appearance to the
acquisition, and skill in execution, of social behaviors.

REFERENCES
FORD, C. S., & BEACH, F. A. Patterns o f sexiccrl behavior. New York: Harper, 1951.
GOPPMAN, E. Stignza: notes on 16.2 management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963.
MILLER,A. G. Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic
Science, 1970, 19, 241-243.
MILLS,J., & ARONSON, E. Opinion change as a function of the communicator's atuac-
tiveness and desire to influence. journal o f Personality and Social Psychology,
1965, 1. 173-177.
500 R. BAROCAS & P. KAROLY

RICHARDSON,S. A. The effect of physical disability on the socialization of a child.

In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook o f socializarion theory and research. Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1969. Pp. 1047-1064.
SIGALL,H., PAGE,R.,& BROWN,A. C. The effects of physical attractiveness and evalua-
tion of effort expenditure and work output. P~oceedings,77th Annual Convention,
APA, 1969, 5 , 355-356.
SINGER,J. E. The use of manipulative strategies: Machiavellianism and attractiveness.
Sociometry, 1964, 27, 128-150.
TERMAN,C. M., & MERRILL, M. A. Stanford-Binet intelligence Scale. Boston: Hough-
ton Mifflin, 1960.
WALSTER,E., ARONSON,V., ABRAHAMS,D., & ROTIUAN, C. The importance of
physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal o f Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 1966, 4, 508-516.
WEISS, R. L. Some determinants of emitted reinforcing behavior; listener reinforcement
and birth order. Jorrrnal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3 , 489-492.
WEISS, R. L. Studies of emitted reinforcing behavior: personality correlates of "rein-
forcing skill." Paper presented at the meeting of the Western Psychological As-
sociation, San Francisco, May, 1967.
WEISS, R. L. Operant conditioning techniques in psychological assessment. In P. Mc-
Reynolds (Ed.), Advances i n psychological assessment. Palo Alto: Science and
Behavior Books, 1968. Pp. 169-190.

Accepted May 31, 1972.