The Social Psychology of Facial Appearance

357 Pages·1988·13.91 MB·English

by  Ray Bull

SSSP
Springer
Series in
Social
Psychology
SSSP
Ray Bull
Nichola Rumsey
The Social
Psychology of
Facial Appearance
Springer-Verlag New York Berlin Heidelberg
London Paris Tokyo
Ray Bull Nichola Rumsey
Department of Psychology 18, The Street
Glasgow College: A Scottish Polytechnic Didmarton, Gloucestershire
Cowcaddens Road GL91DS
Glasgow, G4 OBA United Kingdom
Scotland
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Bull, Ray.
The Social psychology of facial appearancelby Ray Bull, Nichola
Rumsey.
p. cm.-(Springer series in social psychology)
Bibliography: p.
Includes indexes.
ISBN-13: 978-1-4612-8348-5
1. Interpersonal attraction. 2. Face-Social aspects. 3. Beauty,
Personal-Social aspects. 4. Body image. I. Rumsey, Nichola.
II. Title. III. Series.
HM132.B83 1988
302'. 13-dc19 87-32127
© 1988 by Springer-Verlag New York Inc.
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1988
All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the
written permission of the publisher (Springer-Verlag, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010,
USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connec
tion with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer soft
ware, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden.
The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, etc. in this publication, even if
the former are not especially identitled, is not to be taken as a sign that such names, as under
stood by the Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks Act, may accordingly be used freely by
anyone.
Typeset by Asco Trade Typesetting Ltd., Hong Kong.
9 8 765 4 3 2 1
ISBN-13: 978-1-4612-8348-5 e-ISBN-13: 978-1-4612 -3782-2
DOl: 10.1007/978-1-4612-3782-2
Everyone knows that it is better to be beautiful than to be
ugly. There may be some people who would prefer to be bad
than good. Some might even prefer to be poor than rich. But
we take it on faith that no one prefers to be ugly. The reason
for this must be that people expect good things to come to
the beautiful. Folklore tells us that beautiful girls marry
handsome princes and live happily ever after. Heroes are
handsome and villians are ugly.
Udry and Eckland (1984)
Stereotypes about physically distinctive people may begin
in the eye of the beholder, but they can often end a reality.
Stereotyped expectations lead people to treat members of
a physically distinctive category of people in a manner that
elicits the expected behavior. Once elicited, this behavior
may be internalized into the self-concept of the stereotyped
group members. More specifically, since their distinctive
physical appearance is likely to produce self-focused atten
tion, these people may make self-attributions for behaviors
that were in reality situationally induced, and they may thus
come to expect from themselves what others have expected
(and elicited) from them.
McArthur (1982)
Contents
1. Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. The Role of Facial Appearance in Liking, Dating, and Marriage. . 9
The Effects of Facial Appearance on Liking .................... 9
The Effects of Facial Appearance on Meeting and Dating ....... 14
The Role of Facial Appearance in Marriage .................... 29
Conclusion ................................................... 39
3. The Effects of Facial Appearance in Persuasion, Politics, Employ-
ment, and Advertising ......................................... 41
Facial Appearance and Persuasion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
The Role of Facial Appearance in Politics ...................... 50
The Role of Facial Appearance in Employment ................ 62
Facial Appearance and Advertising ............................ 75
General Conclusion ........................................... 79
4. Facial Appearance and the Criminal Justice System ............. 81
The Extent to Which People Expect a Relationship Between
Facial Appearance and Criminality .......................... 81
The Effects of Facial Appearance on Recognizability ........... 85
Is There, in Fact, a Relationship Between Facial Appearance
and Criminality? ............................................ 91
Facial Appearance and Attributions of Responsibility .......... 101
The Effects of Facial Appearance on "Jurors" .................. 104
Overall Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5. The Effects of Facial Appearance in the Educational System ..... 121
The Effects of Facial Appearance on Teachers' Expectations. . . . 122
viii Contents
The Effects of Facial Appearance on Academic Work .......... 134
Is There Really a Relationship Between Facial Appearance and
Academic Performance? .................................... 140
The Effects of Teachers' Facial Appearance.................... 147
Conclusion ................................................... 149
6. The Effects of Children's Facial Appearance on Adults and the
Effects of Facial Appearance on Children. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. . 151
Children's Facial Appearance and Their Disciplining ........... 151
Adults' Reactions to Infants' Facial Appearance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
At What Age Can Children Discriminate Facial Attractiveness? 161
At What Age Do Children Demonstrate Stereotyping Based on
Facial Appearance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Overall Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
7. The Social Psychology of Facial Disfigurement .................. 179
The Birth and Development of Facially Disadvantaged Children. 179
A Historical Perspective on Disfigurement and Society ......... 185
Negative Stereotyping and Negative Attitudes Toward Dis-
figured Persons-Do They Exist? ........................... 187
The Relationship Between Societal Values and the Demand for
Cosmetic Surgery ........................................... 191
Social Interaction Involving Disfigured Persons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
What Are the Consequences of the Negative Reactions of Others? 198
Studies of Helping Behavior Relevant to Facially Disfigured Per-
sons........................................................ 203
The Behavior of Disfigured Persons Themselves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Ways of Helping Facially Disfigured Persons ................... 212
Issues to Be Considered in Future Research .................... 213
Summary ..................................................... 215
8. How Can Psychologists Help Those Disadvantaged by Their
Facial Appearance? ........................................... 217
Attitudes Toward Facially Disfigured Persons .................. 218
The Behavior and Attitudes of Facially Disadvantaged Persons . . 223
Techniques of Attitude Change .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
The Media-Enemies or Allies? ............................... 227
How the Media Can Help ..................................... 232
The Provision of Health Services for Facially Disadvantaged Per-
sons........................................................ 237
Ways of Offering Help Directly to Facially Disadvantaged People. 247
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Contents ix
9. Some Final Remarks 269
Other Studies Concerning the Social Psychological Aspects of
Beauty..................................................... 269
What Is Facial Attractiveness? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
Individual Differences Between Perceivers ..................... 282
Context Effects in Reactions to Faces .......................... 283
Theoretical Explanations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Further Points for Future Research ............................ 294
References........................................................ 301
Author Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
SubjectIndex ..................................................... 353
Chapter 1
Introduction
Several years ago Coleman (1981) reported that in 1979 one of the many in
ternational cosmetics companies had an annual sales figure of $2.38 billion,
nearly 1.25 million sales representatives, and over 700 products, the majority
of these being for the face. Cash and Cash (1982) noted that in 1979 U.S.
consumers spent over $4 million on cosmetic products. They stated that,
"Although this practice would seem to be a fascinating aspect of human be
havior on the basis of its generality and resilience, social-behavioral scientists
have largely ignored the phenomenon so plainly (or pleasingly) in front of
their eyes."
Why should people be so concerned with their facial appearance? Many
psychologists have argued (e.g., Kleck & Rubenstein, 1975) not only that
facial information is usually the first that is available to the perceiver, but
also that it is continuously available during social interaction. Maruyama and
Miller (1981) stated that "appearance is often the first dimension upon which
a stranger can be evaluated. Since people tend to see others as integrated and
consistent units, rather than as collections of situation-specific behaviors, a
potent and immediately evident basis for an evaluation, such as physical
appearance, should intrude into and affect any overall and subsequent evalua
tion." Furthermore, De Jong and Kleck (1986) have suggested that the con
tinuous availability of physical appearance information during interaction
"does not depend, as does attitudinal or personality information, on complex
information processing and retrieval." Although we would not necessarily
agree with the latter statement, we would agree with Hatfield and Sprecher
(1986) that, "Other infomation may be more meaningful but far harder to
ferret out." In addition, many societies have changed, and are changing, in
the sense that people are becoming increasingly mobile in terms both of em
ployment and of home. This has resulted in an increased incidence of people
coming into contact with unknown others for the first time. This provides less
time for individuals to get to know those persons to whom they have to re
spond. Therefore, it may well be the case that they have to rely on the avail-
2 Introduction
able, limited information such as facial appearance. Early in this century, Per
rin (1921) stated in the Journal of Experimental Psychology that, "Just why
the physical characteristics of individuals should exert so profound an in
fluence over their associates furnishes an interesting topic of speculation."
Little psychological speculation and even fewer methodologically rigorous
studies of the social psychology of facial appearance took place until the
1960s. Several authors have suggested (e.g., Kleinke, 1974) that by avoiding
the study of the role of facial appearance, psychologists can escape from sci
entifically supporting the unpalatable view that looks are really important in
how a person is judged. Berscheid (1981) has argued that "our collective re
luctance to acknowledge the true impact of physical appearance has affected
research . . . in the past and it probably continues to affect research and prac
tice today." Although little research was conducted until the 1970s on the so
cial psychology of facial appearance, we cannot support the notion that since
then research has ignored this topic.
In fact, as the very considerable number of studies cited in the present book
attest, a vast number of studies have been conducted recently. However,
most of these studies are of poor quality, and it may have been this aspect of
current research to which Berscheid was referring. Certainly, as pointed out
by Goldstein (1983), few competent psychologists have made facial appear
ance their main research focus. Instead, many have published one or two
(usually rather simple) studies while their main research efforts have been
directed elsewhere. Thus the literature reviewed in this book is greatly lack
ing in terms of systematic long-term research. Goldstein argued that in this
respect the development of face-related research may be unique, and be
suggested that one reason for this may be the foreseen difficulties of conduct
ing high quality research. Berscheid (1981) suggested that the strong history
in American psychology of behaviorism and the environmental approach
(as contrasted to the "dismal flops" of phrenology and morphology) led many
researchers away from even investigating whether facial appearance has an
influence on behavior. She argued that research might have been different
if society were "not so enamoured of the idea that because a person's appear
ance ought not to make a difference, it does not."
Notwithstanding the possibility that some able researchers have purposely
avoided working on facial appearance, Berscheid (1981) claimed that
A person's physical attractiveness level has been revealed by numerous in
vestigations to be an extraordinarily important psychological variable, for it
has accounted for a statistically significant portion of the variance in almost
all situations in which it has been investigated and for almost all dependent
measures which have been constructed to show its effect. This effect, in
general, is such that the physically attractive are preferred to the unattractive
and thus receive numerous preferential social treatments. . .. the psycho
logical effects of physical attractiveness have been found to be pervasive in
frequency, considerable in strength, and generally monolithic in nature.
We leave it to readers of our book to judge whether Berscheid's statement is a
valid one with respect to facial appearance. (Our own view is that it is an
Introduction 3
overstatement.) Readers may also wish, when going through our overview of
the research, to determine for themselves whether it supports the claims re
cently made by Hatfield and Sprecher (1986) that
There seem to be four steps in the stereotyping process that ensures that
beauty equals goodness
1. Most people feel that discriminating against the ugly is not fair, but
yet ...
2. Privately, most of us simply take it for granted that attractive and un
attractive people are different. Most often we perceive that attractive peo
ple have the more desirable traits.
3. As a consequence, we treat good-looking versus ugly people quite dif
ferently; the good-looking get the better treatment.
4. How does such prejudice affect the victims of our discrimination? Over
time, a sort of "self-fulfilling prophecy" occurs. The way we treat attrac
tive versus unattractive people shapes the way they think about them
selves and, as a consequence, the kind of people they become.
Similarly, McArthur (1982) suggested that stereotyped expectations lead
people to treat members of physically distinctive categories in a manner that
elicits the expected behavior. Once elicited, this behavior may be internalized
into the self-concepts of the stereotyped people so that they come to make
self-attributions for behaviors that were situationally induced. R. Jones
(1982) additionally argued that "when we have categorized someone in a cer
tain way, we are more likely to attend to and remember actual behaviors con
sistent with the categorization and to fill in memory gaps with attributes for
which we have no evidence (but are consistent with the initial categorization).
We may even remember only the categorization itself, and forget the features
that prompted us to make it" (see also B. Clifford & Bull, 1978).
Hatfield and Sprecher (1986) suggested that "people generally say looks
are not important to them, but their actions belie their statements." One
reason why it may to some extent be true that most people are not fully aware
of the effects of facial appearance could be, as Nisbett and Wilson (1977) sug
gested, that whatever effects occur may largely be the result of unconscious
processing. However, a number of professional groups (e.g., dentists, surgeons,
and lawyers) recently may have increased their awareness of facial issues.
Lucker, Ribbens, and McNamara (1981) made the point that techniques
of facial surgery are now so advanced and fairly widely available (at least to
those who can pay) that the resultant opportunities to alter facial appear
ance require a worthwhile understanding of the possible psychological ben
efits of such interventions. Berscheid and Gangestad (1982) stated that "the
increasing concern health practitioners are now giving to the social and
psychological impact of alterations in facial form has come about through
mounting evidence that an individual's facial physical attractiveness has an
important impact upon his or her life."
In 1986 Berscheid noted that practitioners in a variety of professions are in
creasingly asking just how important is facial appearance. She noted that
lawyers