Physical Attractiveness and Personality in Advertising: More than Just a Pretty Face?

Anne M. Brumbaugh, Duke University^

ABSTRACT of purchase displays (CabaUero and Solomon 1984), for actual

Generally accepted in advertising is the adage that "what is communicators in one-on-one interactions (Chaiken 1979), and for
beautiful is good," and the use of attractive spokespeople and celebrity endorsements (Kamins 1990).
models is de rigueur. Various hypotheses have been put forth to However, for each piece of evidence in support of the effect of
explain how attractiveness affects various measures of advertising physical attractiveness on attitude towards the ad or other measures
effectivMiess. Widiin the literature, however, it appears that for of advotising effectiveness, there sean to exist several that fait to
every significant result supponing attractiveness as affecting atti- uphold the hypothesis. For example, Petroshius and Crocker
tude towards a brand or product, another study fails to show the (1989) show physical attractiveness to influence ratings of ad
effect. This paper suggests thatpeople's perceptionof an advertise- characteristics (interesting, appealing, impressive, attractive, eye-
ment is affected not only by the spokesmodel's physical appeia- catching), but not measures of product information (believable,
ance, but also by personality inferences made by the viewer about informative, clear) or product quality. B aker and Churchill ( 1977)
the mode!. show similar results.
While Kamins (1990) shows that the differential levels of
INTRODUCTION physical attractiveness offered by celebrities Tom Selleck and
AdvCTüsing featuring attractive spokespersons and models Telly Savalas affect advertiser and spokesperson believabilily and
fills television screens and print media, presumably because attrac- spokesperson credibility, the difference in physical attractiveness
tive people sell more products (Dion, Berscheid, and Walster does not affect arguably more important indicators of advertising
1972). Rarely is an unattractive person featured prominently in an effectiveness: attitude towards the brand, credibility of the adver-
ad, save the occasional "character" actor. However, empirical tisement, and purchase intention.
evidence is mixed in its support for the contention that physical Caballero and Solomon (1984) find that physical attractive-
attractiveness in a person pictured in an ad serves to increase ad ness of amodel pictured in apointof purchase display affects actual
effectiveness. Within the literature, it serans that for every signifi- purchase of facial tissues, but not beer. Interestingly, the effect was
cant result supporting physical attractiveness as affecting attitude not in the expected direction: the less attractive model yielded
towards a brand or product, another study fails to show the effect. higher facial tissue sales than did the more attractive model. Their
As people view an advertisement, and the person pictured in explanation for such seemingly incongruent results centered on the
it, they form inferences about that person andhis or her personality. fact that the unattractive model may have attracted more attention
Social psychology literature suggests that such inferences occur to the point of purchase display than did the attractive model.
spontaneously and frequently as we observe others. This paper While some studies fail to show main effects of physical
suggests that these personality inferences mediate the effect of attractiveness on advertising effectiveness measures, some do
physical attractiveness on ad effectiveness, that such personality show significant physical attractiveness by gender of subject inter-
inferences also influence directly how effective the ad will be, and action effects (CabaUero and Solomon 1984; Kahle and Homer
that the formation and application of these inferences are affected 1985). Other research specifically investigates gender differences
by the gender of the observer. in the impact of physical attractiveness on ad effectiveness (Debevec
The first section of this paper reviews some work on physical andKonan 1984). In addition to the negative correlation between
attractiveness in advertising. Sections two and three discuss the model attractiveness and facial tissue sales as fotind by Caballero
formation of personality inferences based on physical doppeaiance and Soloman(1984), Kahle and Homer (1985) fotmd that attractive
and how advertising might be affected by such inferences. Section sources were more effective with female subjects (but not male) in
four proposes five hypotheses about the effects of physical attrac- recognition scores for ads promoting disposable razor blades, and
tiveness and personality inferences on attitude towards a product. unattractive sources were related to lower recall scores for male
Methodology and results of a study follow in sections six andseven, subjects (but not female) for toothpaste ads.
concluding with a discussion of the findings in the final section. Debevec and Keman (1984) specifically try to assess the
impact of the gender of target by gender of speaker interaction as
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS IN ADVERTISING well as model attractiveness on ihe effectiveness of a slide presen-
Advertisers have long accepted the idea that "beauty sells" and tation soliciting support for a levy raising funds for the Cincinnati
have utilized attractive celebri^ endorsers, spokespeople, and Zoo. Their results illustrate a number of gender differences in a
models in their advertisements. Empirical studies bear out this varietyof affective and behavioralmea5ures. For example, females
phenomenon, showing that physical attractiveness of a person reacted more positively to the slide presait^ion picturing an
shown in an ad increases advwtiser believability (Kamins 1990), attractive male model than to one showing an average male model,
willingness to purchase (Petroshius and Crocker 1989; Kahle and but were not more disposed to attending meetings or passing the
Homer 1985), direct mail response rate (Caballero and Pride 1984), levy, ConvCTsely, male subjects' were affected on these dimen-
attitude towards the product (Kahle and Homer 1985), and actual sioTïs when an attractive female model was pictured Other results
purchase (CabaUero and Solomon 1983). Furthermore, this effect show that attractiveness affected different measures to different
is found when both male and female models are used (Petroshius degrees, depending on the sex of the respondent and sex of the
and Crock«-1989), for print advertising (Kamins 1990), for point model featured (Debevec and Keman 1984).

PERSONALITY AS MEDIATOR OF PHYSICAL

ATTRACTIVENESS
author wishes to thank Debra Stephens. Ron Hill, Morris The mixed results shown in studies of physical attractiveness
Holbrook, and Cindy Hanson for the use of their data. of a mode] on attitude towards the ad, source persuasiveness,
159 Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 20, © 1993
1601 Physical Attractiveness and Personality in Advertising: More than Just a Pretty Face?
attitude towards the product, purchase intent, coupled with the
evidence of gender differences when the effect is shown to exist,
suggest that something may be mediating the effect of physical
attractiveness of the model on evaluative meastires of the ad. Such
a mediauir might neutralize the persuasive effect of an otherwise
attractive model, may enhance the effect of an average looking
model, and might explain the effectiveness of less attractive models
in advertising (Kamins 1990).
Physical attractiveness, or lack thereof, is a very salient, highly
visible cue that observers use to form impressions of another person
(Schneider, Hastorf, and Ellsworth 1979; Chaiken 1986). Based on
this outward ^»pearance, we make alt sorts of inferences about the
agents we observe. Among these inferences are judgments about
the agent's personality (Oiaiken 1979; Funder and Colvin 1988;
Winter, Ulanan, and Cunnif 1985; Winter and Uleman 1984;
Debevec and Keman 1984) and status (Kalick 1988). People
spontaneously and unintentionally make inferences about others'
personalities even after only a brief period of exposure. Even when
other data about the agent are available, for example occupation,
role and trait information, observers continue to rely heavily on
physical appearance (Deaux and Lewis 1984). Furthermore, these
inferences are surprisingly accurate. Funde: and Colvin (1988)
found that strangers' assessments of each other, made after only
five minutes of exposure to each other, agreed with judgments made
by close acquaintances as well as with self-assessments. Readily
observable personality traits like extraverted, sociable, talkative,
good-natured,ftmny,poised, status, interesting, sexually warm and
responsive, and kind (Joseph 1982; Albright, Kermy, and Malloy
1988; Funder and Colvin 1988; Maddux and Rogers 1980) seem to
be the most highly correlated with physical attractiveness.
Kalick (1988) had subjects match pictures of males and
females of varying degrees of physical attractiveness with descrip-
tions of different levels of ascribed (conferred through privileged
backgroimd) and achieved (eamed through hard work or applied
talent) status. Irrespective of the status martipulation used (indi-
vidual or family status, eamed or inherited, rich achieved or
ascribed), high status descriptions were associated with pictures of
physically attractive people, and low st^us descriptions with less
attractive photos. In assessing differences between achieved and
ascribed status, he found the relationship between physical attrac-
tiveness and ascribed status to be stronger than that between
attractiveness and achieved status. These assessments made solely
on the basis of {^ysical attractiveness are shown to exhibit gender
differences as well. Albright et al (1988) showed that observers
rated females as more conscientious when using only physical
appearance as evidence of personality. Kalick (1988) found that
female subjects tended to match more physically attractive photos
with all status descriptions than did male subjects, and that sex of
the stimulus person produced diffaent results. When analyzing
data of male stimulus persons, he found that achieved status was
associated with higher physical attractiveness ratings, while for
female stimulus persons achieved status was associated with lower
attractiveness scores.
EFFECT OF PERSONALITY ON AD
EFFECTIVENESS
That people can't help themselves from forming inferences
about others on the basis of íc>pearance seems unequivocal. Do
these inferences, once formed while viewing a model in an adver-
tisement, affect the effectiveness of the advertisement?
AdvCTtisers frequentiy try to convey certain personality char-
acteristics through their choice of actors and the traits the actors
display. Trustworthiness, credibility, and expertness are all traits
that seem to influence positively the scores of evaluative measures
of advertisements (Ohanian 1990). Perhaps advertisers also need
to be mindful of the personality inferences people make spontane-
ously, in addition to those personality inferences that advertisers
want to induce. Presuming the existence of personality as a
mediator of jiiysical attractivraiess might help explain why some
studies find no main effect for physical attractiveness or otherwise
unexpected results, while others offer full sufqx>rt for its main
effects and interactions.
For example. Caballero and Solomon's (1984) finding that a
less attractive model was more effective in selling facial tissues than
a more attractive model might not be just because the less attractive
model was more noticed. Perh^s the result might be explained in
terms of personality. People viewing the less attractive model may
have perceived her to be less active, less outgoing, and conse-
quently less likely to be healthy, while they perceived the more
attractive model to be exlraverted and healthy. The less attractive
model's perceived greater experience with illness, then, made her
a much better endorser for facial tissues than the attractive, healthy
model.
Results of studies in which physical attractiveness was shown
to impact affective measures, but not cognitive or conadve mea-
sures (Petroshius and Crocker 1989; Baker and Churchill 1977;
Caballero, Lumpkin, and Madd^i 1989), might also be explained
by personality inferences as mediators of physical attractiveness.
Physical attractiveness may have elicited perceptions of extraver-
sion and kindness, for example, which caused observers to like the
ad and the spokesperson. However, kindness may not have been an
appropriate trait for an endorser of computers or luxury cars
(Kamins 1990), thereby reducing any positive effect due to the
sheer aesthetic vision offered t^ the source.
Baker and Churchill's (1977) seemingly inconsistent results
might also be explained by personality as a mediating variable.
Male subjects ' high purchase intent for perfume may have resulted
from their ascribing sociable and sexual warmth traits to the
attractive female model pictured, traits they might look for in a
romantic partner. Conversely, their high purchase intent for coffee
after viewing a less attractive model might result from their ascrib-
ing to her traits like hard-working and intelligent, perceiving her to
be a knowledgeable, expert coffee drinker.
Gender differences might also be explained by the different
ways men and women perceive others and utilize physical cues in
making inferences. Both men and women toid to confer on men
stereotypically male traits like ambitious and aggressive, while they
tend to attribute to women traits like caring and frivolous (Schneider
et al 1979; Deaux and Lewis 1984). This natiiral tendency to resort
to a conventional stereotype in the absence of additional informa-
tion might cause viewers to ascribe personality traits to a model
pictured in an ad which, while consistent with the stereotype, are not
congruent with the {S'oduct. Furthermore, even if men and wom^i
perceive the same personality traits, they might subsequently into*-
prêt them differentiy in the context of the advertisement. For
example, while both men and women rate a female model high on
sociability for an ad for exercise equipment, purchase intention for
the men is higher than for the women because they associate
sociability with health and health with exercise, while women's
intent is tower because competence, not sociability, is the trait that
would make them believe that exercise equipment is a smart
investment for themselves.
This paper provides an initial attempt at teasing apart the
effects of personality inferences from the effects due to physical
attractiveness. One advantage of this paper is the structure of the
data. Most studies on appearance in advertising manipulate physi-

cal attractiveness by pretesting a number of photos or ads featuring
models of different levels of attractiveness and picking as stimuli
the two photos rated most and least physically attractive (or three
photos including an average rating). While manipulation checks
verify that irfiysical attractiveness ratings within this type of study
differ significantly in the expected direction, such a manipulation
doesn't allow for individual differences in preference. In this study,
each subject makes his or her own ratings of twenty models, which
are then used as measures of attractiveness in this repeated mea-
sures design.
HYPOTHESES
Basedontheideathatpersonalitymediates the effect of source
physical attractiveness on evaluative measures of the ad, a number
of hypotheses will be examined in the following sections. First, HI
establishes that physical attractiveness of the source enhances the
attitude towards the ad or, in this experiment, the "product,"
women's clothing.
HI: The physical attractiveness of a model pictured in an ad
positively influences the attitude towards the product.
Next, it is necessary to show that attractiveness of the source is acue
that obsCTvexs use to make inferences about the model's personal-
ity, particularly in the absence of other information.
//2: The physical attractiveness of a model pictured in an ad
influences the formation of perceptions about the model's
personality.
Once it has been established that physical attractiveness indeed
influences the attitude towards the model's clothii^ and the person-
ality inferraices made about her, it may be hypothesized that gender
of the observer plays a role in the formation of the personality
pnceptions as well.
H3: Gender of the subject influences the formation of percep-
tions about the model's personality.
It is further hypothesized that, not only does physical attractiveness
affect observers' attitude towards the model's clothing, but that the
personality inferences also have their impact.
H4: Perceptions about the model's personality affect the atti-
tude towards the product.
FinaUy, it is hypothesized that there will be gender differences in
how personality inferences affect aUitude towards the product.
H5\ Gender of the subject modnates the influence of per-
sonality inferences on the attitude towards the product.
METHODOLOGY
The data for this experiment were obtained from the first of
two sessions to assess the impact of women's body satisfaction/
dissatisfaction on their evaluation of advertisements picturing
female models differing in physical attractiveness. In the first
session, subjects were shown slides of 20 models and were asked to
assess models* cloúüng, physical attractiveness, and personality.
During the second session, two questionnaires measuring subjects '
body dissatisfaction were administered. Only data from the first
session are used in this p^)er.
Stimuli
Picbires of twenty models were obtained from a number of
American and European fashion magazines and were selected to
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 20) 1161
provide a variety of physical characteristics (hair, face, complex-
ion, physique). Pretests with students showed that students varied
in their assessment of physical attractiveness and differed in ascrib-
ing personality traits to the models based on the pictures. Tests of
means on current data revealed that models differ significantly in
attractiveness, with means ranging from 2.356 (unattractive) to
4.596 (attractive).
Procedures
Evaluations of models' clothing, {^ysical attractiveness, and
personalities were obtained from 90 male and 88 female und»-
graduate subjects. Subjects were shown 20 pictures of 20 different
models three times each. During the first exposure, subjects were
shown each picture for approximately 20 seconds and were Úien
asked to rate each model's clothing. The second exposure also
lasted approximately 20 seconds, after which subjects were asked
to rate the models' physical attractiveness. The third and fmal
exposure to each slide of the models lasted approximately 30
seconds, after which subjects were asked to make judgments about
the models' personalities.
Measures
Models' clothing was rated using six ftve-position semantic
differential scales: unfavorable/favorable, neat/sloppy, like/dis-
like, not stylish/stylish, bad/good, and tasteful/tasteless. A single
meastire of clothing attractiveness was obtained by averaging the
five semantic differential scales. This score served as the dependent
variable in the analyses.
Two sets of measurements were obtained to assess physical
attractiveness of the model. Inthefirstmeasurement, subjects were
asked to rate the model's hair, face, complexion, and physique on
a five-position scale anchored by the phrases "not at all attractive"
to "very attractive." A single composite attractiveness rating was
obtained by averaging these four ratings. In the second measure,
subjects completed the statement "This model is more physically
attractive than percentage of all females I've ever seen." This
measure served as a manipulation check for the mean attractiveness
rating, showing it to be a reliable reflection of the model's attrac-
tiveness.
Subjects recorded their personality inferences on twenty-two
five-point semantic differential scales anchored by the following
pairs: active/passive, not intelligent^intelligent, hard-working/
lazy,snobbish/down-to-earth, withdrawn/outgoing, hqjpy/unh^jpy,
feminine/unfeminine, urqMjÄilar/popular, unsuccessful/successful,
healthy/unhealthy, trustworthy/not trustworthy, self-conscious/self-
confident, independent/dependent, niceAnean, not sophisticated/
sophisticated, weak-willed/disciplined, free spiritedAraditiona],
fearful/brave, neat/sloppy, not likeable/likeable, boringAnterest-
ing, exciting/dull. This list of personality traits was based on
inventories found in previous studies (Brenner and Hinsdale 1978,
Harris, Harris and Bochner 1982, Staffieri 1972), and was modified
based on students' responses to pretests of the models. The
adjectives were factor analyzed with a principal components analy-
sis with a varimax rotation to yield four factors. Factor one, labeled
"sociable," includes active, outgoing, hqipy, popular, healthy,
confident, intwesting, exciting, and free spirited. Factor two,
labeled "capable," includes intelligent, hardworking, independent,
disciplined, and brave. Factor three, labeled "poised," includes
feminine, successful, ne^, and sophisticated. Finally, factor four,
labeled "friendly," includes down-to-earth, tmstworthy, nice, and
likeable. Cronbach coefficient alphas equal .88, .76, .75, and .76,
respectively.
162 / Physical Attractiveness and Personality in Advertising: More than Just a Pretty Face?
TABLE
Manova Results
Personality Index Model Attractiveness
F P
Sociable 2398.94 0.0001
Capable 334.08 0.0001
Poised 1902.44 0.0001
Friendly 61.38 0.0001
Overall Effect 867.40 0.0001
(Wilks' Lambda)
RESULTS
The impact of model attractiveness (MdlAttr), subject gender
(Gender), and personality inferences (Sociable, Capable, Poised,
Friendly) on subjects' attitude towards models' clothing ( Acioth) is
assessed by forming a series of Fadd calculations (Lutz 1977 p.
203). TheFaddstatistic measiffes the additional contributionof one
or more variables to a full regression model. To test main effects
of gender, attractiveness, and personality on attitude towards cloth-
ing, a full model shown in equation (1 ) is used, with variables being
omitted in tum as appropriate to test the various hypotheses.
Acioth = Gender Subj MdlAttr Sociable
Capable Poised Friendly (1)
To demonstrate that the formation of personality inferences is
affected by subject gender and model attractiveness, a MANOVA
analysis is performed using the four personality indices as depen-
dentvariables, and gender, model attractiveness, and the interaction
between the two as independent variables. For further analyses of
the gender main effect and interactions with personality indices,
series of Fadd statistics are calculated by omitting variables from
the full model shown in equation (2).
Acioth = Gender Subj Mdlattr MdlAttr*Gender
Sociable e n a b l e Poised Friendly
Sociable*Gender Capable*Gender
Poised*Gender Friendly*Gender (2)
ûiteractions in a regression of equation (2) that were significant at
the p=0.05 level are explored further by analyzing parameter
estimates yielded by a regression of equation (3).
~ MdlAttr*Gender Sociable*Gender
Capable*Gender Poised*Gender
Friendly*Gender (3)
To test hypothesis 1, physical títractiveness' influence on
attitude towards clothing, a regression of equation (1) yields a
significant contribution of model atiractiveness on (he total vari-
ance explained (F=440.93 (1,3548 ),p<=0.0001). AnFadd statistic
formed by omitting model attractiveness from the full model
confirms the effect of model attractiveness (Fgjj¿=ll.31 (1,3548),
p<=.01), providing further support for hypothesis 1.
Hypotheses 2 and 3 were tested by performing a MANOVA
analysis on the four personality indices, with model attractiveness.
Gender X Model Attractivraiess
F P
6.04 0.0001
4.80 0.0286
101 0.3154
8.89 0.0029
8.62 0.0001
graider, and their interaction serving as independent variables. The
table provides data from the MANOVA analysis which shows that
model attractiveness and the interaction between gender andmodel
attractiveness both contribute to the formation of three of the four
personality indices. Gender alone does not impact the personality
assessmCTits. The third factor, poised, is not significantly influ-
enced by the interaction between gender and model attractiveness.
To test hypothesis 4, the effect of the four personality factors
on attitude towards clothing, a series of Fg^^ statistics were calcu-
lated as above. First, eliminating all four personality indices from
the full model in equation (1) showed significant effects of person-
ality on attitude towards clothing (Fadd=154.25 (4,3548), p<=0.01).
Separate Fadd calculations for reduced models which omitted each
personality index individually provided support for the personality
traits of capable (Fadd=3-70 (1, 3548), p<=.0562) and poised
(Fadd=35.62 (1, 3548), p<=.01). The effects of the personality
traits of sociable (Fadd=0-26) friendly (Fadd=O 06) were not statis-
tically significant.
Suppon for hypothesis 5 comes from tests of the interactions
between gender and the personality indices. Equation (2) shows the
full model for the test of subject gender as a moderator of the
influence of personality on the attitude towards the models* cloth-
ing. Significant interactions included capable (F=9.74 (1, 3547),
p<=.0018) and friendly (F=4.32 (1,3547), p<=.0378). To investi-
gate the nature of the two interactions, a regression was r\in on the
reduced model shown in equation (3) to obtain parameter estimates
of the interactions involving gender. The capable by gender
interaction was significant only for female subjects (estimate=.14,
t=4.10, p<=.O(X)l), while the friendly by gender interaction was
significantonlyformalesubjects(estimate=O6,t=2.34,p<=.0192).
DISCUSSION
Support for all five hypotheses was obtained. From these
results, it îçpears that people use bothphysica] appearance and their
spontaneous impression of the source's personality when making
judgments relating to the source. Physical appearance was shown
to influence attitude towards clothing directly (HI). Both physical
appearance and its interaction with gender of subject influenced the
formation of personality inferences about the model (H2 and H3).
These inferences, in addition to the direct effect of physical q>pear-
ance, affected the subjects' overall impression of the models'
clothing (H4). Finally, gender differences were found in both the
formation of personality infraences, as well as in their use in
forming attitude towards clothing (H5). Specifically, for women.

a model's apparent competence provided a positive influence on
their subsequent evaluation of her clothing, while for men, tiieir
perceived friendliness of the model caused them to make more
favorable evaluations of hra clothing.
These results suggest that personality inferences made by
viewers of an ad mediate the influraice of jáiysical attractiveness of
the model on evaluative measures of the ad's effectiveness, an idea
that is consistent with other theories of when and how attractive
models should be utilized. Results of studies that demonstrate
different effects of physical attractiveness based on level of in-
volvement of the viewer with the product (Kahle and Homer 1985)
and source expertise (Maldux and Rogers 1980) might also be
explained by influence of personality traits conveyed by the source.
For example. Kahle and Homer's (1985) result that an attractive
source leads to higher recognition scores only for females for razor
blades (tfie high involvanrait product) may be because females
view razor blades as more of a beauty product, rather than a daily
necessity as they might be for men, and the personality traits
conveyed by the attractive source reinforced that image of the razor
blades. Maddux and Rogers' (1980) manipulation of source
expertise and Mtractiveness showed there was no significant main
effect for appearance on agreement with the source message, and
that expert sources produced greater agreement than nonexpert
sources. A further analysis of several of their secondary analyses
might explain the results. They found that expert sources were raied
higher on the attribute sincere, and that experts were more effective
in eliciting agreement when they were less attractive. In terms of
personality, the traits of sociable, status, outgoing, sexually warm
and responsive, etc., which were found to be associated with
attractive sources, may have in fact detracted from the credibility of
the source, while the sincere trail contributed to source credibility'.
Rather than attributing their fmdings solely to the attractiveness and
expert manipulations, intervening personality attributions may
have played a mediating role.
Of course, limitations exist with this study. Female models
were selected from magazines as stimuli, and as one might expect,
none was very unattractive. Utilizing models of both genders that
span the fuUrangeofphysical appearance mi ghtyieldricherresults.
The order in which data were collected might have also influenced
the results. Here, subjects were first asked about their attitude
towards the ja-oduct, which may have affected their subsequent
perceptions of the models' attractiveness, and in lum die models'
personalities. Changing the order in which questions were posed
might yield different results. Finally, by forcing subjects to make
inferences about the models' personalities might actually cause
them to make assessments that they might not have occurred
spontaneously. Using open-ended measures might have avoided
this pitfall.
The contribution of this paper to consumer research is to point
out that physical attractiveness of a source pictured in an ad, by
itself, does not guarantee that ad's success. Rather, the imi^essions
that viewers make about the source and their subsequent ^plication
of those inferences are also relevant. Further research is needed to
determine how these inferences are made in an advertising context,
whether certain personality traits are more effective for viewras of
one sex or another, which ascribed traits are desirable and which are
undesirable, and whether these impressions can be effectively
controlled to increase ad effectiveness. Kamin's "match-up" hy-
pothesis ( 1990) and the incongruent results of other studies suggest
that product class might also interact with physical attractiveness
and personality infraences, making the three-way interaction the
variable of interest in future research.
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 20) 1163
REFERENCES
Albright, Linda, David A. Kenny, and Thomas E. Malloy (1988),
"Consensus in Personality Judgements at Zero Acquain-
tance," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55
(3), 387-395.
Baker, Michael L and Gilbert. A. Churchill, Jr. (1977), "The
Impact of Physically Attractive Models on Advertising
Evaluations," Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (NOVCTI-
ber), 538-55.
Brenner, David and Gary Hinsdale (1978), "Body Build
Stereotypes and Self-Identification in Three Age Groups of
Vemaies," Adolescence, 13,551-61.
Caballero, Marjorie J., James R. Lumpkin, and Charles S.
Madden (1989), "Using Physical Attractiveness as an
Advertising Tool: An Empirical Test of the Attraction
Phenomenon," Journal of Advertising Research, August/
September, 16-22.
and William. M. Pride (1984), "Selected Effects of
Salesperson Sex and Attractiveness in Direct Mail Advertise-
ments," Journal of Marketing, 48 (January), 94-100.
and Paul J. Solomon (1984), "Effects of Model
Attractiveness on Sales Response," Journal of Advertising,
13(1), 17-23.
Chaiken, Shelly (1979), "Communicator Physical Attractiveness
and Persuasion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 37 (August), 1387-97.
(1986), "Physical Appearance and Social Influence," in
Physical Attractiveness, Stigma, and Social Behavior: The
Ontario Symposium, Vol. 3, ed. C. Peter Herman, Mark P.
Zanna, and E. Tony Higgins, Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence
Erlbaum, 132-77.
Deaux, Kay and Laurie L. Lewis (1984), "Structure of Gender
Stereotypes: Interrelationships Among Componerus and
Gender Label," Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 46 (5), 991-1004-.
Debevec, Kathleen and Jerome B. Keman (1984), "More
Evidence on the Effects of a Presenter's Physical Attractive-
ness: Some Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Conse-
quences," in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, ed.
Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research, 127-132.
Dion, Karen K., Ellen Berscheid, and Elaine Walster (1972),
"What is Beautiful is Good," Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
Funder, David C. and C. Randall Colvin (1988), "Friends and
Strangers: Acquaintanceship, Agreement, and the Accuracy
of Personality Judgment," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55 (1), 149-158.
Harris, Mary B., Richard J. Harris, and Stephen Bochner (1982),
"Fat, Four-Eyed, and Female: Stereotypes of Obesity,
Glasses and Gender," Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
12,503-16.
Joseph, W. Benoy (1982), "The Credibility of Physically
Attractive Communicators: A Review," Journal of Advertis-
ing, UQ), 15-24.
Kahle, Lynn R. and Pamela M. Homer (1985), "Physical
Attractiveness of the Celebrity Endorser: A Social Adiq>ta-
úon Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research, 11
(March), 954-61.
Kalick, S. Michael (1988), "Physical Attractiveness as a Status
Cue," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 469-
489.
1641 Physical Attractiveness and Personality in Advertising: More than Just a Pretty Face?
Kamins, Michael A. (1990), "An Investigation into the "Match-
Up" Hypothesis in Celebrity Advertising: When Beauty
May Be Only Skin Deep," Journal of Advertising, 19 (1), 4-
13.
Lutz, Richard J. (1977), "An Experimental bivestigation of
Causal Relations Among cognition. Affect, and Behavioral
hitcnûoiu" Journal of Consumer Research, 3 (March), 197-
208.
Maddux, James E. and Ronald. W. Rogers (1980), "Effect of
Source Expertness, Physical Attractiveness, and Supporting
Arguments on Persuasion: A Case of Brains Over Beauty,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (August),
235-44.
Ohanian, Roobina (1990), "Construction and Validation of a
Scale to Measure Celebris Endorsers* Perceived Expertise,
Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness," Journal of Advertising,
19 (3), 39-52.
Petroshius, Susan M. and Kermeth E. Crocker (1989), "An
Empirical Analysis of Spokesperson Characteristics on
Advertisement and Product Evaluations," Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 17 (Summer), 217-225.
Schneider, David A., Albert H. Hastorf, and Phoebe C. Ellsworth
(1979), Person Perception, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Staffieri, J. Robert (1972), "Body Build and Behavioral
Expectancies in Young Vernales," Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 6,125-27.
Winter, Laraine and James S. Uleman (1984), "When Are Social
Judgments Made? Evidence for the Spontaneousness of
Trait Inference," Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 49 (2), 237-252.
, James S. Uleman, and Cathryn Curmif (1985), "How
Automatic Are Social Judgments?"/ourna/ of Personality
and Social Psychology, 49 (4), 904-917.
Copyright of Advances in Consumer Research is the property of Association for Consumer Research and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.