The Psychology of Physical Attractiveness

Michael Nanko, Ph.D.

Much research over the past decade has shown that a person's
physical attractiveness mediates or helps to determine many
of his or her experiences. The phrase "what is beautiful is
good" was coined by Dion, Berscheid & Walster (1972) based on
their findings that physically attractive individuals are
assumed to be more socially desirable than persons of lower
attractiveness. Physical attractiveness has been found to be
associated with a host of favorable qualities: popularity,
likability, competence, intelligence, persuasiveness, ability
to succeed, and as better adjusted in relationships.

Persons who are more attractive also tend to be a magnet for

the material benefits and rewards bestowed by society. These
rewards may even be directly monetary in nature (Stillman &
Hinsley, 1980; May, 1980)-

The search for the possible existence of generalized positive

stereotypes associated with physical attractiveness has demon-
strated the pervasiveness of physical attractiveness across a
myriad of contexts. In educational settings teachers have been
found to rate attractive students more favorably than the less
attractive on expected potential and on various academic success
prediction measures (Adams & Cohen, 1976; Clifford, 1975; Ross
& Salvia, 1975). The physically attractive have been found to
benefit from their appearance in simulated juror decision making
studies as recipients of more lenient sentences and verdicts than
the less attractive (Efran, 1974; Izzett & Fishman, 1976; Izzett
& Leginski, 1974).

There is some evidence that persons who are physically attractive

are better adjusted emotionally. A handful of studies have
investigated the relationship of physical attractiveness and judged
adjustment of mental patients. For example, Martin,Friedmeyer &
Moore (1977) found that patients who were judged to be more attractive
were also judged by hospital staff to be better adjusted. Another set
of experiments by Jones, Hansson & Phillips (1978) found that
nonprofessionals were more likely to attribute psychological
disturbance to unattractive target persons, even when
 2

the subject was cued to the potential effects of physical

attractiveness on their ratings.

Persons who are more attractive are inclined to be sought more

as dating partners, and, they as well tend to seek friends,
dates, and marital partners who are among the more attractive
(Berscheid, Dion, Walster & Walster, 1971! Cavior & Boblett,
1972; Murstein, 1972, 1976). However, many participants in
these studies also choice partners-more attractive than they
were themselves. Other research has demonstrated that the
potential for rejection needs to be explored further in
dating studies (Huston, 1973).

In the business context, Dipboye, Fromkin & Wiback (1975)

discovered that the physically attractive are chosen more
readily for job openings. And evaluations of work produced
by attractive persons are also judged more favorably (competent,etc)
(Anderson & Nida, 1978; Landy & Sigall, 1174).

Research in this area also suggests that one may increase one's
own prestige and the impression managed by mere association with
a physically attractive person of the opposite sex ( Sigall & Landy,
1973; Strane & Watts, 1977).

Although the greatest proportion of studies in this subject area

support the premise that a physical attractiveness stereotype
is alive and well in our society and mediates differential behaviors
(e.g., social reinforcements, competency evaluation, socialization
experiences, etc), it would also be improper to assume that this
premise is correct and active in each and every case. We can imagine
many instances where physical attractiveness information would be
likely to be irrelevant (telephone work) and times where physical
beauty can work against the person. For example, if the good-looking
person is perceived as using their beauty for unfair (and illegal)
advantages ( Sigall & Ostrove, 1975) or is perceived as egotistical and
bourgeois (Dermer & Thiel, 1975). One surprising example of
attractiveness producing an opposite effect was a study conducted
 3

Kielcolt (1976). This investigator showed that in a significant

number of cases physically attractive disabled individuals received
less help than unattractive (disabled) individuals in a field
experiment.

Moreno (1934) wisely insisted that a sociometric investigation

should refer to a specific situation since a person chosen as
a partner for a given purpose will not necessarily be preferred
in a different situation. Thus, the resources involved or needed
in various conditions may be different.

An example from the present study will help to elaborate on this train
of thought. If a work-type task requires specific skills (negotiating
and decision making ability) and a choice is available between two
persons presented by photograph and personality profile: one a highly
physically attractive person (but low on task-relevant skills); the
other, a moderately physically attractive person (high on task-
relevant skills) 1 , which one would be chosen? According to the
bulk of the literature, the prediction is that the highly
physically attractive person (HPA) would be chosen even though
this person is not in possession of the work task-- relevant skills.
The influence of the HPA photograph for this context is expected to
be overvalent.

In a social-type task, with both partners again represented by

photographs but as equal on socially task-relevant skills (social-
interpersonal traits), the same expectation would hold, i.e.,
choosing the HPA person. Why have plain when you can have flavored?

What if the same situations presented themselves; however, this

time there was no visual stimulus to represent the differences in
physical attractiveness (no photographs)? What would happen if
we had only written information that one stimulus person is HPA
and the other is moderately physically attractive (MPA) and we
were to choose between the two for the work-type task? Again,
in this example the HPA person is below the MPA on the task-relevant
skills. Would the same prediction still hold? The physical attrac-
 4

tiveness stereotype prevail? It is the expectation of this in-

vestigator that without the impact of a visual stimulus (written
information only) more attention would be directed to the work task-
relevant information. This indicates that the MPA persons would be
chosen because they offer the pertinent skills for success on the
task.

Which would be chosen if we presented this same written information of

the HPA and MPA persons for the social task? Remember, the work-
type task differences are irrelevant for this situation. Because the HPA
person is stereotypically perceived as more socially desirable, the
prediction would be for the HPA person to be chosen?

For the present study, the impression ratings between the higher
and lesser attractive persons would be expected to differ. ,As early
as 1946, for example, Asch found in his research that certain
characteristics (i.e., warm-cold) of a person has a greater impact on
both the overall impressions and evaluations of specific qualities of
another person. He called these influential characteristics
"central traits." This idea was supported by Kelley (1950) in a
more realistic study. However, subsequent research by Wishner (1960)
has found this relationship to be much more complex than previously
found.

Wishner's analyses have shown that the most important factor of the central
traits' effect lies with the relationship it has with response traits. For
instance, if persons were asked to decide how sociable or popular an
individual is from a list of other traits, the dimension of warmth would be
important because warmth is highly related to sociableness and popularity. But a
characteristic like warmth would have little effect on other qualities (e.g.
technical ability) and would be less central if the judges were asked to rate the
individual on these. The same would be true of the trait "physical attrac-
tiveness."
 5
Highly attractive people are generally rated as more sociable, popular,
intelligent, and successful than their less attractive peers (Dion et al.,
1972; Miller, 1970a; Seligman, 1974). Thus, based on the centrality of
traits research and the literature on physical attractiveness, we would expect
the HPA person to be rated higher than the MPA person on related traits.

To test these notions about impression ratings’ and those questions

pertaining to whether partner choices for the two different tasks are
influenced by the nature of information (photograph vs. written/ rated
physical attractiveness information) and the type of person (HPA vs.
MPA person and above or below on various traits), the following
hypotheses can be stated:

Hypothesis 1. In the Social task/Photo condition (ST/P), it is

expected that the HPA stimulus person will be chosen more often as a
partner than the MPA person.
Hypothesis 2. In the Social task/Written condition (ST/W), it is
expected that the HPA person will be chosen more often as a partner
than the MPA person, but the ratio of choices of HPA over MPA
choices will be of lower magnitude than in the Photo condition.
Hypothesis 3. In the Bargaining task/Photo condition (BT/P), it is
expected that the HPA person will be chosen more often as a partner
than the MPA person.
Hypothesis 4. In the Bargaining task/Written condition (BT/W),
it is expected that the MPA person will be chosen more often than
the HPA person as a partner.
Hypothesis 5. Impression ratings will be more favorable for the
HPA than the MPA stimulus person on the dimensions of Liking,
Popularity, Physical/Character Attractiveness and on Success in
Professional Life. The ratings for the estimates of Grade Point
Average (GPA) is expected to produce a more favorable -result for the
MPA person in the Written conditions. It is believed that there
will be more attention paid to the Work-Competence traits in the
Written conditions and since the MPA person is presented as "Above"
and the HPA as "Below" in this area; the MPA will receive more
favorable ratings. In the Photo conditions it is predicted that
the HPA person will be rated more favorable due to the halo effect
of the attractive photograph.
 Footnotes

2Character Attractiveness is the measure used in the Written

Condition since a Physical Attractiveness rating is already
provided.

•
 METHOD

Subjects

The subjects were 64 male undergraduates at California State

University, Los Angeles who were recruited by classroom appeal for
volunteers. Participants were 32 Blacks and 32 Caucasians with a mean
age of 25.6 and a range of 19 to 47 years.

Design
The subjects reviewed booklets that possessed profiles with
physical attractiveness and personal information about two females and
were to choose one to be their partner for a second session task. One
partner was to be chosen for a "Bargaining Game" task and one was to
be chosen for a "Social Perception" task. Each S, however, believed
•
they would be chosen to participate in one of the two experimental

tasks. One half of the subjects (32) were given booklets that had

judges' ratings on physical attractiveness of the females with the

personal profile (Written condition). There were 16 Black and 16

Caucasian S's per condition. Photos were matched to race of the

subject. To investigate these partner choices, the design yielded a
2 x 2 within each of two task-contexts. Nature of information (Photo,
Written) was varied with Profile type (HPA, MPA) within the Bargaining
task choice and Social task choice contexts. This design also
provided the comparison of changes in choice behavior as a function
of task context and nature of information.
the race of the subject. To investigate these partner choices, the
design yielded a 2 x 2 within each of two task-contexts. Nature of
information (Photo, Written) was varied with Profile type (HPA, MPA)
within the Bargaining task choice and Social task choice contexts.
This design also provided the comparison of changes in choice behavior
as a function of task context and nature of information.

Stimulus Materials
Each booklet in this study had two standard stimulus profiles.
Included on each stimulus profile was a list of personality traits under
three main categories. These categories were labeled: Social-
Interpersonal, Work-Competence, and Non-Interpersonal. Each category
heading represented a composite of trait adjectives that were from the
same personality area (e.g. social, friendly . . . for Social-
0
Interpersonal). Also, each heading had either the word ABOVE or BELOW

circled next to it. This score represented to have rated herself on the

six-point bipolar trait adjective scales. For example, if ABOVE is

circled for Social-Interpersonal this indicates the stimulus person

generally rated herself above the mean (3.0) on the traits comprising

this composite. In this case, the stimulus person would be seen to

consider herself very sociable, as possessing good interpersonal skills,

poised, etc. If BELOW is circled, this means an averaged response that is

below the mean (3.0), thus on the negative pole on these traits.

In the Photo condition (PC) one profile was presented with a photo '

if a Highly Physically Attractive person (HPA) affixed and had a

composite self-rating of ABOVE on Social-Interpersonal (SI), BELOW on

Work-Competence (WC), and ABOVE on Non-Interpersonal traits (NI).

The other profile was presented with photo of a Moderately Physically
Attractive person (MPA). This same profile had presented self-ratings
of ABOVE on SI traits, ABOVE on WC traits, and ABOVE on NI traits.
Subjects in the Written condition (WC) were also presented with
two profiles. Instead of a photograph each of these profiles had a
physical attractiveness rating of the stimulus person attached to the
profile. S's were led to believe that 20 judges rated each stimulus
person based on a photograph. The system for rating and the rating
scale were outlined in the booklet instructions. The HPA stimulus
profile (ABOVE, BELOW, ABOVE) had a physical attractiveness rating of
8.0 attached to the profile. For the MPA stimulus person (ABOVE, ABOVE,
ABOVE) the attached rating was 6.5. All other information presented on
the two profiles was identical (age, race, and marital status).

Picture Selection
Twenty-four Black and 24 Caucasian women, mostly Monrovia Community

Adult School students, volunteered as photographic subjects. Particular

care was taken to include a wide range of attractiveness in the

photographic sample. The resulting 48, 3 inch by 5 inch color portraits

were distributed to 10 same-race males who served as judges. The 20 males

were comprised of students and faculty from Citrus Community College

(mean age of judges equaled 26 years old). The judges rated the female

pictures on a (10) point scale of physical attractiveness ranging from

"Extremely Attractive (10) to Physical Unattractive (1)." A (6) was

considered "Moderately Attractive." Each judge

was presented with the 24 same-race picture in a different random order,

and his ratings were recorded by the experimenter. The judges were

told that they should feel free to use all 10 categories with no

restrictions as to the number assigned per category.

d

From each race two female pictures were selected by the exper-
imenter. One photo was selected to represent a "Highly Physically
Attractive" person (approximately an 8.0) and one to represent a
"Moderately Physically Attractive" person (approximately a 6.5). For
the Black S's a photograph with a mean of 7.85 (SD= .872) was chosen for
the Highly Physically Attractive person and a photo with a mean rating
of 6.4 (SD =.979) for the Moderately Physically Attractive stimulus

person. For the Caucasian race a picture with a mean rating of 7.8(SD =

.781) for the Highly Attractive stimulus person was chosen and a photo
with a mean rating of 6.35 (SD= .894) for the Moderately Physically
Attractive stimulus person.

Procedure

Two to four subjects were scheduled to report for the experiment

during any given experimental session. As each S entered the designated

experimental room he was greeted by E and asked to stand on a taped

line to have an upper body photograph taken. It was explained to the S's

during the classroom solicitation for volunteers that a photograph would

be taken at the beginning of the first session. A 35mm camera with a

flash was set on a tripod 6 feet from the taped line and was operated

by the experimenter. This S stood until the camera flashed after

which he was instructed to be seated.

As soon as the last S was photographed and seated, the S's as a

group were reminded that they were participating in a two session study.

S's were told that the first session dealt with how persons make

"impressions" of others on the basis of limited information. They

were also told that since their own personality characteristics may

affect how they judge others it would be necessary to fill out the

same personality information that the females completed. This person-

ality information was elicited from an INFORMATION SHEET that followed
the introduction section of the booklet. After this, S's were told that
they would make potential partner choices for the Bargaining Game
task and the Social Perception task. Participants were again reminded
that they would be randomly chosen by computer to participate in only
one of the two experimental tasks and that more specific instruction and
descriptions would follow in the booklets.
Following these introductory remarks, E handed each S one of the
experimental booklets and instructed them not to open them until instr-
ucted. All booklets were stacked in a different random order prior to
each session by the shuffling of a student not associated with the study.
This effort to randomize the remainder booklets protected against the E
having any knowledge of which condition any particular subject would be
assigned. The booklets were coded by a colored piece of paper one-
fourth inch in the corers to cue the E as to race of the profiles
enclosed within the booklet. A total of 64 booklets were made; of these,
32 were for the Photo condition (16 Blacks and 16 Caucasians) and 32
were for the Non-Photo condition (16 Blacks and 16 Caucasians).
After reading the introduction and instructions the S completed

the Information Sheet and moved on to the profiles. Paraphrasing this

latter section, S's read the following:

As you look over each profile we would like you to visualize or

imagine how you think the person would be if she was actually
here in front of you. Visualize how she would act, talk, look,
etc. After you have thought about or imagined the person based
on her profile, turn to the following page. You will see that
accompanying each profile will a short set of scales to which
you are to respond concerning that particular person. The purpose
of these responses is to see how people form "impressions" of others
based on limited information ...............
The subjects rated each stimulus profile on four 7 point bipolar scales. In

order, this included Liking for the person, and estimates of Popularity,

Grade Point Average, and Success for professional life. A 10 point scale

for Physical Attractiveness was used since physical attractiveness ratings

were already given.

Following the impression ratings, S's went on to make their partner

choices for the two tasks. Subjects were reminded that they could choose

the same stimulus person for both tasks because they would only be

selected for one.

In sum, the description for the Bargaining task went as follows:

. . . You and your partner will work together as a team bargaining with
another couple whom you will not see, but will communicate-by intercom
between rooms. . . . You will have the opportunity to win (or not win)
some money depending on how well you and your partner can successfully
compete with another couple. Success in this game is contingent on at
least two basic factors: How competent your partner is for this work-
type task, and how well you and your partner work together in bargaining
with another couple. These factors should be kept in mind when you make
your choice.
The S then entered his partner choice in the booklet, rated the

"Confidence" that he made the best choice and briefly discussed the reason

for the choice.

The description of the Social Perception task to S's is paraphrased

below:

. . . In the Social Perception study, you and your partner will meet
on a coffee date (actually the choice of beverage is yours). The task will
be to meet for a half-hour and get acquainted socially. The interaction
you have with your partner will be compared with the other couples that
participate in this study. You will be judged on how well you and your
partner get along, and the amount and kind of conversations or interesting
points brought up while on your date. Keep in mind when making your choice
that a successful date is dependent not only on how well you communicate,
but on the responsiveness of your partner as well.
The subject again entered his partner choice in the booklet, rated
the "Confidence" of his choice, and discussed in the space provided the
reason for his choice.
 After the Bargaining Game task and Social Perception task partner
choices were made, a series of measures were asked of S related to their
partner choice decisions. Imbedded in these measures was a 10 point
scale for self-rating of physical attractiveness.

RESULTS
Comparisons between Black and Caucasian subjects on ratings of

physical attractiveness for both the highly physically attractive (HPA)

stimulus person (t = 1.47, df = 1, n.s.), and the moderately physically

attractive (MPA) stimulus person (t = .14, df = 1,n.s.) produced no

significant differences. Therefore, mean ratings of physical attract-

iveness are combined. The mean ratings of physical attractiveness for

the HPA person is 7.84 (SD = 1.35); mean rating for the MPA person .is

6.03 (SD = 1.26). A t-test for related means showed the differences

between the HPA and the MPA stimulus persons, to be significant (t =

7.57, df = I, p .0001) which indicates the choices of stimulus persons

to represent these two levels of attractiveness were successful.

Partner choices made by Black and Caucasian subjects for both the

Social and Bargaining tasks were compared and the results are not
significant (X2 = 7.85, df = 7, n.s.). Thus, partner choices for Blacks

and Caucasians are combined in further analyses.

According to the first hypothesis, it was predicted subjects would

choose the EPA person over the MPA person for the Social task-Photo

condition (ST-P). A binomial test was preformed and the results were

highly significant in the expected direction (p .00001). The second

hypothesis predicted that for the Social task-Written condition ST-W),

the HPA person would again be chosen over the MPA person; however, the

magnitude of the HPA partner choices in this condition (ST-W) would be

less than those in the ST-P.

A binomial test found the partner choices to be in the expected dir-
ection or statistical significance (p. .0135). Comparisons of total
HPA to MPA partner choices for the Social task, for both ST-P and ST-W
conditions, also proved to be highly significant (X2 = 26.0,
.0000001). Table 1 summarizes the choices are combined together and

contrasted with the total MPA choices the comparison by binomial test is

again highly significant (p .0000001). Table 1 summarizes the choice-

making data for Social task.

Table 1

Social Task Partner Choices

Nature of Information HPA MPA

Photograph Condition 28 4
6
Written Condition 24 8
52 12

1
Chi-squares were calculated in all cases without Yates correction
for continuity (see Camilli & Hopkins, 1978).

Hypothesis three predicted that for partner choice in the Bargaining

task-Photo condition (BT-P) subjects would choose the HPA person over

the MPA person as a partner. The binomial test comparing the ratio of HPA

over MPA partner choices (BT-P) failed to reach significance (p .18).

The fourth hypothesis, however, made a prediction in the opposite

direction: Here it was predicted that for partner choice in the Bargaining

task-Written condition (BT-W) subjects would choose the MPA person

over the HPA person as a partner. The expectation was based on the
premise that more attention would be given to the task-relevant Work-
Competence trait information in the absence of a photograph. The bi-
nomial test was used and the differences are highly significant (p
.000057). Thus, the hypothesis is confirmed. Data analysis of the
overall Bargaining task partner choices also proved to be highly

significant (Xi = 13.07, p .00005). Photo and Written conditions pro-

duce differential partner choice decisions for the Bargaining task.

Subjects make MPA partner choices also proved choices more often in
the WC and tend to make more HPA partner choices in the PC. These
comparisons may be inspected in Table 2.

Further analyses regarding the overall task-relevant partner choices

were performed. It was expected that subjects in the Written condition
would make more task-relevant partner choices than those subjects assigned
to the Photo condition. The task-relevant choice for the Social task is
the HPA person and the task-relevant choice for the Bargaining task is the
MPA person. Using the Lancaster and Irwin method for partitioning 2 X 2
tables (Everitt, 1977, pp. 41-44), the relationship of task-relevant
choices to stereotypic choices (i.e. HPA person for both tasks) is

significant (4 = 8.18, p .0005). It may be seen in Tables 3 and 4 that

task-relevant partner choices occurred more often in the Written rather
than the Photo condition.

Table 2

Bargaining Task Choices

Nature of Information HPA MPA

Photograph Condition 19
Written Condition
 These analyses demonstrate the fact that the manipulations on the
nature of Information (Photo vs. Written conditions) with the Type of
person (HPA, MPA) has a definite influence on partner choice behavior
for the two tasks.
After a partner choice was made for each task the subject rated the
"degree of confidence" that he had made the best partner choice. Based
on the hypotheses for partner choices it was expected that high
confidence would be associated with choosing the HPA person for the ST-
P, ST-W, and BT-P conditions; however, it was also expected that high
confidence would be associated with choosing the MPA for the BT-W
condition. Point biserial correlational analyses find the choice of the
MPA person for the BT-W is associated with high confidence (rbis .33, df
= 31, p .05). No other comparisons of confidence and partner choice are
significant.
One of the central issues of the present research is whether on
four-7 point measures the HPA stimulus person would be differentially
assessed in comparison with the MPA stimulus person. Comparisons were
made both within the Photo condition and within the Written condition. A
fifth measure is a 10 point scale for rating the stimulus person on
Physical Attractiveness. The measure is termed Character Attractiveness
in the Written condition since a physical attractiveness rating is
already provided.
For hypothesis five, the prediction that the HPA stimulus person
would be rated more favorably than the MPA person on Liking, Popularity,
Attractiveness, and Success; and the MPA person rated more favorably on
the Grade Point Average is partially confirmed. Comparisons were computed
using a t-test for related means. Table 5 shows that for the Photo
condition the HPA person is Liked more, perceived as more Popular, and as
higher in Physical Attractiveness than the MPA person. The Success
dimension did not produce a significant result. The Grade Point Average
(GPA) measure approached significance in the predicted direction (in
favor of MPA). For Table 5 and all tables to follow a lower mean sign-
ifies a more favorable score; however, for the Physical/Character
Attractiveness dimension the reverse is true.
In the Written condition, the HPA person is again Liked more, is seen
as more Popular, and has a higher Attractiveness rating than the MPA. As
predicted, the MPA person is'definitely perceived as definitely more
academically competent. See Table 6 for details.
From these findings it appears that without the photograph (Written
condition) the subjects apparently still operated to some degree on the
physical attractiveness stereotype; that is, the HPA person is rated as
more socially desirable than the MPA person. However, this same HPA
person is not seen to be a better student or predicted to have a more
successful professional life. As can be seen from Tables 5 and 6 the
magnitude of favorableness scores for the HPA versus the MPA person is
larger in the Photo condition; whereas, the favorableness score for the
MPA on the GPA measure is larger in the Written condition.
Also computed were t-tests for independent means to compare sub-
ject's ratings of the HPA person in the Photo condition with those in the
Written condition. These tests were also completed for ratings of MPA
persons across the two conditions. These comparisons yield an
interesting trend. The only significant differences for both physical
attractiveness levels are the measure of perceived GPA.. The HPA person
benefits from the Photo condition on GPA. This indicates that subjects
in this condition rate GPA higher for the HPA person when a photo is
available. For the MPA person the GPA rating is more favorable when
she is presented in the Written condition; however, this result only
approached significance. It appears from this sample that if you are
not physically attractive you may be better off in some contexts

(e.g. academic) to be evaluated without a visual representation (i.e.

no photo). The results of these comparisons are displayed in Tables 7

& 8.

The relationship between self-rating of physical attractiveness and

partner choice was compared for matching of attractiveness levels. The

choosing of the HPA person for the ST-P condition is associated with

high self-ratings of physical attractiveness (rbis = .31, df=31, p .05).

Their partner choice combinations are associated with self-ratings of

physical attractiveness. The significant finding here is partially in

line with some of the earlier research on matching of partner choice

with self-rated physical attractiveness (Berscheid

et al., 1971; Berscheid & Walster, 1974b; Huston, 1973; however, in the

present study this finding is true only for one four comparisons.

DISCUSSION

The present study was designed to test the central predication

that behavior of an individual making partner choices between a com-

petent moderately attractive and a less competent highly attractive

woman can be predicted from the knowledge of the task and the nature of

the information. The results of the present study confirmed this

prediction. The general findings are that more HPA persons were chosen

for a social interaction task in both the Photo and Written conditions.

Fifty-two of the 64 total subjects chose this way. Clearly the HPA

person is considered more socially desirable whether a stimulus picture

is presented or not. As expected, more MPA persons were chosen as

Bargaining task partners in the Written condition (WC), while more HPA

persons were chosen as Bargaining task partners in the Photo condition

(PC).
 For this Bargaining task, the MPA choices are task-relevant and
reflect the attention paid to the task-relevant traits of WorkComptence
presented on the stimulus profiles. The increased number of HPA choices
in the PC for the Bargaining task demonstrates a possible halo effect
for the HPA. This latter type of partner choice may be considered as
task-irrelevant because the HPA person was low on the task-relevant
Work-Competence traits; however, it is consistent with
the "Beauty is Talent" findings of Landy and Sigall (1974). The present
results are more striking than the above study since the highly and
moderately attractive persons were not equal on all other factors; the
less attractive person was higher on Work-Competence skills.
In the PC only 10 of•32 subjects made partner choices that were
task-relevant. Even fewer subjects made partner choices in conformance
with the MPA-MPA pattern of responding in this PC. It is interesting to
note why these latter subjects did not respond in a stereotypic manner
as did the majority of the respondents in this condition. Two of the
three commented in their booklet that they felt "awkward" or "uneasy"
with physically attractive women and the third declined to comment.
It seems that in the PC, the physical attractiveness of the stimulus
persons is overvalent across task-contexts. One idea of why subjects may
have chosen in this direction may be due to the belief that they could
"pull" or elicit certain desirable behaviors from the attractive partner
to conform to their stereotypic expectations (see Snyder, Tanke, and
Berschied, 1977). This favorable expectation could also have led to
the belief that the HPA female in the PC may have been a bit modest in
her self-ratings on the Work-Competence traits or that she did not want
to appear perfect, egotistical, or as a threat to males. It is not
unlikely that subjects for either task (Bargaining