Social Cognition, Vol. 22, No. 6, 2004, pp.

637-649

VAN LEEUWEN
Implicit Person Perception
AND MACRAE

IS BEAUTIFUL ALWAYS GOOD? IMPLICIT

BENEFITS OF FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS
Matthijs L. van Leeuwen
University of Nijmegen

C. Neil Macrae
Dartmouth College

A theme that emerges in life is that it is advantageous to be good looking. Cor-

roborating this observation, an expansive literature has documented the bene-
fits of facial attractiveness on a range of explicit measures. What is not yet
known, however, is whether this association between beauty and positivity
also exerts an implicit influence on peoples responses. That is, does the beau-
tiful is good stereotype operate when attention is not explicitly directed to a
persons appearance? Using a modified Stroop task, we explored this issue in
the current investigation. The results revealed that facial stereotypes do indeed
exert an automatic influence on peoples responses, an effect that is elicited by
targets of either sex and displayed by both male and female respondents. In ad-
dition, female faces elicited positive evaluative responses (i.e., fe-
malepositivity effect). We consider the implications of these findings for
issues in person perception.

It is very fashionable for goodlooking ladies to say how hard it is to be

beautiful, but thats not true. There are times when it depresses and
bothers me to see just how easy things are made for a beautiful woman.
(Catherine Deneuve,1994)

A theme that emerges early in life is that it pays to be good looking.

Socialized on a diet of Hollywood fare, one quickly learns that attrac-
tive individuals live in elegant houses, drive expensive cars, and lead

We would like to thank Rick van Baaren, Jasmin Cloutier, and Malia Mason for their as-
sistance and helpful comments.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthijs Lars van
Leeuwen, Department of Social Psychology, University of Nijmegen, PO Box 9104, 6500
HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands; E-mail: MLvanLeeuwen@student.ru.nl.

637
638 VAN LEEUWEN AND MACRAE

unblemished and successful lives. Put simply, that which is beautiful

is also seemingly healthy, wealthy, and wise (Dion, Berscheid, &
Walster, 1972). Tempting though it may be to source this belief to the
influence of current cultural forces, it turns out that people have
equated beauty with the possession of positive qualities for centu-
ries. Indeed, even the ancient Greeks subscribed to such a view. It is
only in relatively recent times, however, that researchers have
charted the extent and implications of the beautiful is good stereo-
type for peoples treatment of others (see Eagly, 1987; Eagly,
Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991; Langlois et al., 2000; Zebrowitz,
1997). From personality assessments and lifestyle evaluations to hir-
ing decisions and salary raises, the message that emerges in this
work is unequivocalpeople are more favorable in their appraisal of
attractive than unattractive individuals. As Langlois et al. (2000)
have summarized, The effects of facial attractiveness are robust and
pandemic . . . attractiveness is a significant advantage for both
children and adults in almost every domain of judgment, treatment,
and behavior (p. 404).
That good things are perceived to go together is beyond debate;
what remains open to empirical investigation, however, is how this
belief affects peoples behavior. For example, is the conviction that a
beautiful person is smart, poised, and successful grounded in con-
scious deliberation, or does this evaluative association have less con-
templative roots, residing instead in the unobservable workings of
the unconscious mind (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999)? This latter possi-
bility is theoretically important because, if true, it suggests that the
beautiful is good stereotype may shape peoples evaluations of
others in a covert (i.e., automatic) manner (Bargh, 1997). Guided by
the supposition that a great deal of social action is triggered by in-
scrutable mental operations, recent socialcognitive research has
mapped the automaticity of everyday life (see Bargh, 1997; Bargh &
Chartrand, 1999; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). As a result of this en-
deavor, outcomes that were previously thought to be under peoples
voluntary control are now believed to be driven by implicit cognitive
operations. The stereotyperelated products of the person percep-
tion process are a case in point (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). In the
absence of any conscious intention to view people in a stereotypic
manner, or indeed the cognizance that such an influence may be op-
erating, perceivers have been shown to construe others in a
IMPLICIT PERSON PERCEPTION 639

categorybased manner (Bargh, 1999; Blair, 2002; Bodenhausen &

Macrae, 1998; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995).
Might then the evaluative correlates of facial attractiveness also
exert an implicit influence on peoples responses? Moreover, if oper-
ating, is such an effect: (a) bidirectional (i.e., attractive is good, unat-
tractive is bad); (b) elicited by targets of either sex; and (c)
demonstrated by both men and women alike (Langlois et al. 2000)?
Although researchers have yet to undertake a direct examination of
the implicit origins of the beautiful is good stereotype, inspection
of the broadranging literature on this topic suggests that the linkage
between facial attractiveness and positivity (or negativity) may in-
deed operate at such a level (Eagly et al., 1991; Langlois et al., 2000;
Zebrowitz, 1997). For example, when people have instructed to eval-
uate attractive or unattractive individuals along a particular judg-
mental dimension (e.g., health, wealth, happiness), it seems unlikely
that their responses reflect the intentional application of the beauti-
ful is good stereotype. Rather, this influence likely operates at an
implicit (i.e., unintentional) level. A similar message can be extracted
from studies in developmental psychology. At the age of only 12
months, infants are more likely to approach and display positive af-
fect toward an attractive than a less attractive female stranger
(Langlois, Roggman, & RieserDanner, 1990), a nonverbal effect that
is unlikely to rely on deliberative processing. It would appear,
therefore, that facial stereotypes may frequently guide peoples
outputs in a covert manner.
But just how robust and pervasive is the linkage between facial at-
tractiveness and positivity? Although perceivers may not intend to
apply facial stereotypes when they appraise others, in the available
research to date, their attention has nevertheless been directed to-
wards targets facial features through the requirement to provide a
judgment or evaluation of these individuals. This therefore raises an
interesting empirical question. How important is the explicit direc-
tion of attention to a persons face in the elicitation of implicit halo ef-
fects? For example, would the association between attractiveness
and positivity emerge in task settings that neither direct attention to
a targets face nor require an explicit evaluation of the person? Using
a pictureword version of the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935), we explored
this issue in the current investigation. This paradigm provides a
means of assessing the influence of irrelevant stimuli on peoples re-
sponses (see De Fockert, Rees, Frith, & Lavie, 2001; Jenkins, Lavie, &
640 VAN LEEUWEN AND MACRAE

Driver, 2003; Lavie, Ro, & Russell, 2003); hence, it enabled us to

explore the implicit impact of facial stereotypes on response
generation.
Participants (male and female) were presented with valenced
words embedded in either attractive or unattractive faces, and their
task was to make a response to each verbal stimulus (i.e., is the word
positive or negative in implication?). Of critical interest were partici-
pants responses on mismatching trialsthat is, trials in which the
word and face belonged to competing evaluative categories (e.g.,
negative word/attractive face). If the beautiful is good stereotype
is extracted from competing (but taskirrelevant) facial stimuli, then
reactions to words of the opposite valence should be impaired via re-
sponse competition (Jenkins et al., 2003). In this way, mismatch inter-
ference can be used to index the implicit influence of facial
stereotypes on peoples responses.

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS AND DESIGN

Thirtysix undergraduates (20 women and 16 men) from Dartmouth

College completed the experiment for additional course credit. The
experiment had a 2 (face type: attractive or unattractive) 2 (sex of
target: male or female) 2 (word valence: positive or negative) re-
peated measures design.

STIMULUS MATERIALS AND PROCEDURE

Participants arrived at the laboratory individually, were greeted by

a male experimenter, and were seated facing the screen of an Apple
Macintosh computer (IMac). The experimenter explained that the
study comprised a wordclassification task. In the center of the
computer screen, a number of words would appear (e.g., summer,
vomit). The task was simply to report, by means of a key press,
whether each word was positive or negative in valence. The experi-
menter also reported that each word would appear on a back-
ground that was either a human face (i.e., experimental conditions)
or an oval (i.e., baseline condition). Following previous work of this
kind, participants were instructed to ignore the background stimuli
(Jenkins et al., 2003). In total, 64 words appeared on the screen, 32
IMPLICIT PERSON PERCEPTION 641

positive words and 32 negative words (see Appendix 1). The words
were taken from a set prepared by Bellezza, Greenwald, and Banaji
(1986). Each word was paired with three backgrounds: a va-
lencematching face (attractive or unattractive), a valencemis-
matching face (attractive or unattractive), and a faceshaped oval.
The stimulus faces were 64 greyscale files depicting 32 female faces
and 32 male faces. The faces depicted targets in a frontal pose con-
veying neutral facial expressions. Each file was standardized to 300
300 pixels and matched for brightness and contrast. The faces were
selected on the basis of an earlier pilot study in which 13 independent
participants (6 women and 7 men) rated the attractiveness (10point
scale) of a large sample of faces. From these ratings, 64 faces were se-
lected for the experiment proper, 32 male faces (16 attractive and 16
unattractive, respective Ms: 7.13 vs. 3.22, p < .001) and 32 female faces
(16 attractive and 16 unattractive, respective Ms: 8.25 vs. 3.01, p <
.001). A greyscale oval was used to establish baseline performance on
the wordclassification task. The words were superimposed on each
background using Adobe Photoshop (5.0). A standard font (Arial)
and font size (20-point) was used. The words appeared at one of four
pseudorandomized locations on the face: forehead, left cheek, right
cheek, or chin. On each trial, a fixation cross appeared for 1,000 ms,
followed by a word embedded in a background stimulus. The stimu-
lus remained on the screen until participants made a response or
4,000 ms had elapsed. Participants were instructed to respond as
quickly and accurately as possible. Each word was paired with the
three backgrounds (i.e., matchingface, mismatchingface, and
oval), giving a total of 192 experimental trials. The order of presenta-
tion of the items was randomized, and the response key mappings
(i.e., positive/negative or negative/positive) were counterbalanced
across participants. The computer recorded the accuracy and latency
of each response. On completion of the task, participants were
debriefed and dismissed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Median response times were calculated for each participant. Prelimi-
nary analysis revealed no effect of the sex of participants on response
times; consequently, the data were collapsed across this factor. Trials
on which errors were made (3.7% of trials) were omitted from the sta-
tistical analysis. The resulting data were submitted to a 2 (face type:
attractive or unattractive) 2 (sex of target: male or female) 2 (word
642 VAN LEEUWEN AND MACRAE

FIGURE 1. Median reaction times (ms) as a function of facial attractiveness (upper

panel) and sex of target (lower panel).
IMPLICIT PERSON PERCEPTION 643

valence: positive or negative) repeated measures analysis of vari-

ance. This revealed a significant face type word valence interaction,
F(1, 35) = 5.04, p < .03 (see Figure 1, upper panel). Simple effects anal-
ysis showed that, for attractive faces, participants were slower to cat-
egorize negative than positive words, F(1, 35) = 7.96, p < .008. In
addition, responses to negative words were slowed when the items
were embedded in attractive rather than unattractive faces, although
this effect was only marginally significant, F(1, 35) = 3.53, p < .07.
Comparable effects did not emerge for unattractive faces or positive
words. Thus, the implicit effects of facial stereotypes are not
bidirectional. Whereas attractive faces trigger a positive evaluative
response, unattractive faces do not elicit a corresponding negative
reaction.
Interestingly, the analysis also revealed a significant sex of target
word valence interaction, F(1, 35) = 6.58, p < .02 (see Figure 1, lower
panel). For female targets, participants were slower to classify nega-
tive than positive words, F(1, 35) = 9.37, p < .004. In addition, re-
sponses to negative words were impaired when the items were
embedded in female rather than male faces, F(1, 35) = 6.53, p < .02.
Comparable effects did not emerge for male targets or positive
words. What this suggests is that, independent of facial attractive-
ness, female targets are associated more strongly with positivity than
their male counterparts (see also Rudman & Goodwin, 2004). This
finding (albeit at the implicit level) replicates the general observation
that, because of their frequent association with positive communal
qualities (e.g., kind, gentle), women tend to be evaluated more
favorably than men (Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1991).

GENERAL DISCUSSION
Looking good clearly has its advantages. Corroborating previous re-
search, the current inquiry demonstrated the advantages of facial at-
tractiveness. Generally speaking, beauty guarantees a positive
evaluation, whatever the explicit judgment of interest may be (Eagly
et al., 1991; Langlois et al., 2000; Zebrowitz, 1997). Extending this
work, the current findings demonstrated that stereotypes associated
with facial attractiveness also influence behavior implicitlythat is,
under conditions in which attention is neither directed to a persons
face nor an explicit appraisal of the individual is required (Bargh &
Chartrand, 1999). This therefore confirms that the evaluative corre-
lates of facial attractiveness influence peoples responses even when
644 VAN LEEUWEN AND MACRAE

a face is an irrelevant aspect of the task at hand (Bargh, 1997). This ef-
fect, moreover, is elicited by attractive targets of either sex and
demonstrated by both male and female respondents alike.
Interestingly, the observed effects of facial appearance on partici-
pants responses were not bidirectional in nature. Although beauty
was associated with positivity, a corresponding negative evaluation
was not elicited by unattractive faces. This evaluative asymmetry
may be attributed to a couple of factors. First, it is possible that the ef-
fect reflects the depiction of attractive and unattractive individuals
in the media and the influence this has on the strength of associative
linkages in memory (Bargh, 1997). Because the predominant media
portrayal is that beautiful people are good (rather than that unattrac-
tive people are bad), one would perhaps expect this association to
have the most pronounced effect on peoples reactions. Second, one
may question the evaluative impact the unattractive faces exerted in
the current inquiry. Inspection of Figure 1 reveals that these faces
triggered a neutral evaluative response (i.e., equivalent reaction
times for positive and negative words). It is possible that negative re-
actions are triggered only by unattractive faces that are also consid-
ered to be aversive or frightening to perceivers (e.g., disfigured
faces). Because these stimuli were not included in the current investi-
gation, it is therefore difficult to provide a definitive interpretation
for the observed asymmetry in participants reactions. What is ap-
parent, however, is that in the range of faces typically encountered in
everyday life, only attractive exemplars trigger a clearcut
evaluative (i.e., positive) response.
But why does the beautiful is good stereotype exist at all? Al-
though beyond the scope of the current inquiry, it is worth noting
that cultural forces play a pivotal role in the emergence of halo ef-
fects in person perception (Eagly, 1987). According to Eagly et al.
(1991), beliefs about physical appearance come from two sources:
direct observation and cultural depictions of attractive and unat-
tractive individuals. Daily experience (and an extensive literature)
attests that good-looking people are more popular with their peers
and are treated more favorably by others than their unattractive
counterparts (Langlois et al., 2000). It is reasonable for perceivers to
assume, therefore, that this favorable treatment likely derives not
merely from the possession of good looks, but also from the owner-
ship of other desirable attributes and qualities. Reinforcing this as-
sumption are the cultural depictions of attractive and unattractive
IMPLICIT PERSON PERCEPTION 645

individuals to which perceivers are constantly exposed. Almost

without exception (e.g., movies, advertisements, childrens sto-
ries), beauty is associated with success, wealth, and happiness,
whereas ugliness is characterized by the possession of unfavorable
attributes. Little wonder, therefore, that these associations exert a
profound influence on behavior, even when probed using implicit
measures (see Rudman, 2004). In this way, we corroborate previous
research documenting the linkage between groups or individuals
high in social status and the automatic elicitation of positive
attitudes (Jost, Pelham, & Carvallo, 2002; Rudman, Feinberg, &
Fairchild, 2002).
In addition to the observed effects of facial appearance on peoples
responses, the current experiment also revealed a general fe-
malepositivity effect. In particular, females were associated more
strongly with positive than negative items, an effect that did not
emerge for male targets. A similar bias has been reported by Rudman
and Goodwin (2004) using the Implicit Association Test (IAT). They
have speculated that peoples early socialization experiences may
account for the emergence of this effect. In American society, women
typically occupy the role of the primary caregiver, a state of affairs
that may shape infants implicit reactions to male and female targets.
Through positive emotional conditioning (Rudman, 2004), infants
(both male and female) form stronger maternal than paternal bonds
(Montague & WalkerAndrews, 2002), bonds that may shape their
genderbased attitudes and responses to male and female targets in
later life (i.e., femalepositivity effect) Using a different measure of
implicit attitudes, the current findings replicated Rudman and
Goodwins (2004) findings, thereby lending further credibility to this
viewpoint. In this respect, however, a potential limitation of the cur-
rent experiment must be acknowledged. People of both sexes typi-
cally report a greater liking for women than men because women are
more likely to possess communal attributes such as warmth (Eagly &
Mlandinic, 1994). Because several such items were included in the
current list of positive words (see Appendix 1), it is possible that this
stereotypic association may have driven the observed
femalepositivity effect (but see Rudman & Goodwin, 2004). Further
research is required to clarify this issue.
In his seminal writings on socialcognitive functioning, Bargh
(1989, 1997) has delineated the conditions under which different va-
rieties of automaticity are manifest in everyday life. As he notes, All
646 VAN LEEUWEN AND MACRAE

APPENDIX 1. STIMULUS WORDS FOR STROOP TASK

Item Valence
Positive Negative
health bomb
ambition tumor
ocean seasick
loyal cancer
rainbow prison
music debt
warmth vomit
cuddle filth
puppy devil
success hatred
miracle suicide
snuggle pollute
beach brutal
angel stink
family rotten
diploma nazi
happy torture
victory hitler
delight betray
nature trouble
passion killer
trust hurt
heaven tragedy
honest divorce
sunset agony
triumph violent
peace funeral
friend traitor
kiss wicked
caress maggot
freedom detest
love grief
IMPLICIT PERSON PERCEPTION 647

automaticity is conditional; it is dependent on the occurrence of

some specific set of circumstances. A cognitive process is automatic
given certain enabling circumstances, whether it be merely the pres-
ence of the triggering proximal stimulus, or that plus a specific
goaldirected state of mind and sufficient attentional resources
(1989, p. 7). In this respect, the current results are an instance of what
can be termed unintended goaldependent automaticity. The effects
are goaldependent in that a semantic processing goal was operating
during the registration of the taskirrelevant faces (Macrae,
Bodenhausen, Milne, Thorn, & Castelli, 1997). Whether similar ef-
fects would emerge following the mere perceptual detection of a face
is an interesting and important question that awaits empirical inves-
tigation. The results are unintended because while participants were
doubtless aware of the presence of attractive and unattractive faces
on the computer screen, they were unaware that these stimuli
influenced their performance on the wordclassification task (see
Greenwald & Banaji, 1995).
Look into the face of an attractive stranger and one likely sees an in-
dividual whom one believes to be happy, articulate, successful, and
wise. In addition, the person probably has a successful career, a lov-
ing family, and a doting partner. Attractive people are simply lucky
that way. As demonstrated herein, these associations between
beauty and positivity need not demand conscious expression to in-
fluence peoples responses. Rather, they can shape peoples outputs
under conditions in which a targets facial appearance is entirely ir-
relevant to the task at hand. But do implicit effects of this kind sub-
serve meaningful social behavior? In particular, is everyday social
interaction guided by peoples implicit evaluative reactions to men
and women? Additional research is required both to clarify this im-
portant issue and to chart the nature and extent of the advantages,
implicit and otherwise, enjoyed by beautiful people.

REFERENCES
Bargh, J. A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in so-
cial perception and cognition. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended
thought (pp. 351). New York: Guilford.
Bargh, J.A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. Advances in Social Cognition, 10,
161.
Bargh, J. A. (1999). The cognitive monster: The case against the controllability of auto-
648 VAN LEEUWEN AND MACRAE

matic stereotype effects. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in
social psychology (pp. 361382). New York: Guilford.
Bargh, J.A., & Chartrand, T.L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American
Psychologist, 54, 462479.
Bellezza, F.S., Greenwald, A.G., & Banaji, M.R. (1986). Words high and low in pleas-
antness as rated by male and female college students. Behavior Research Meth-
ods, Instruments, and Computers, 18, 299303.
Blair, I.V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 6, 242261.
Bodenhausen, G. V., & Macrae, C. N. (1998). Stereotype activation and inhibition. Ad-
vances in Social Cognition, 11, 152.
De Fockert, J.W., Rees, G., Frith, C.D., & Lavie, N. (2001). The role of working memory
in visual selective attention. Science, 291, 18031806.
Dion, K.K., Berscheidt, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285290.
Eagly, A.H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A socialrole interpretation.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A.H., Ashmore, R.D., Makhijani, M.G., & Longo, L.C. (1991). What is beautiful
is good, but: A metaanalytic review of research on the physical attractive-
ness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109128.
Eagly, A.H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some an-
swers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of com-
petence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 135.
Eagly, A.H., Mladinic, A., & Otto, S. (1991). Are women evaluated more favorably
than men? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 203216.
Greenwald, A.G., & Banaji, M.R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, selfes-
teem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 427.
Jenkins, R., Lavie, N., & Driver, J.S. (2003). Ignoring famous faces: Category specific
dilution of distractor interference. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 298309.
Jost, J.T., Pelham, B.W., & Carvallo, M.R. (2002). Nonconscious forms of system jus-
tification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups. Journal
of Experimental and Social Psychology, 38, 586602.
Langlois, J.H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A.J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M.
(2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A metaanalytic and theoretical review.
Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390423.
Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L.A., Casey, R.J., Ritter, J.M., RieserDanner, L.A., &
Jenkins, V.Y. (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a ste-
reotype? Developmental Psychology, 23, 363369.
Lavie, H., Ro, T., & Russell, C. (2003). The role of perceptual load in processing
distractor faces. Psychological Science, 14, 510515.
Macrae, C.N., & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically
about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93120.
Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., Thorn, T. M. J., & Castelli, L. (1997).
On the activation of social stereotypes: The moderating role of processing ob-
jectives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 471489.
Montague, D.P.F., & WalkerAndrews, A. (2002). Mothers, fathers, and infants: The
role of person familiarity and parental involvement in infants perception of
emotional expressions. Child Development, 73, 826838.
IMPLICIT PERSON PERCEPTION 649

Rudman, L.A. (2004). Sources of implicit attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 13, 7982.
Rudman, L.A., Feinberg, J.M., & Fairchild, K. (2002). Minority members implicit atti-
tudes: Ingroup bias as a function of group status. Social Cognition, 20, 294320.
Rudman, L.A., & Goodwin, S.A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic ingroup
bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 87, 494-509.
Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology, 28, 643662.
Zebrowitz, L.A. (1997). Reading faces: Window to the soul? Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.