>. ..A survey conducted by London Guildhall
> University of 11,000 people showed that (subjectively) good-looking
> people earn more. Less attractive people earned, on average, 13%% less
> than more attractive people. In other words one could say that people
> who earn more are more likely to be (or able to be) beautiful. Beauty
> is a value associated with an innate and emotional perception of
> life's affirmative and meaningful aspects within objects in the
> perceived world -ie. vitality, fertility, health, happiness, goodness,
> and love.
>
Below are some points from the full text below that. One part missing
though is about how the more attracttive we are the more is expected
of us. It is harder to make mistakes when you look real good than if
you are average. There are some exceptions to this rule but this may
be part of the incentive for someone who look perfect to become
perfect.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
- people tend to attribute less blame to
physically attractive children, regardless
of the facts.
- sixth graders tended to rate their physically
attractive classmates as being more competent
than their less attractive classmates. Moreover,
in that study, the teachers fell into the same trap.
Speaking of teachers, all other things being equal,
physically attractive teachers may also have an
edge over their less attractive colleagues.
- For men, being physically attractive resulted in a
higher starting salary. Moreover, this effect did not
fade over time as employers got to know them.
Rather, attractive men continued to out-earn their
less attractive counterparts over the entire
10-year period.
- people tend to favor a beautiful woman unless
they suspect her of misusing her beauty. Both
male and female college students were allowed
to read an account of a criminal case in which
the defendant was clearly guilty of a crime. Each
subject then "sentenced" the defendant to a prison
term he or she considered appropriate. The results
showed that, when the crime was unrelated to
attractiveness (burglary), the sentences were
much more lenient when the defendant was
physically attractive. When the crime was r
elated to her attractiveness (a swindle in which
the defendant induced a middle-aged bachelor
to invest some money in a nonexistent corporation),
the sentences were much harsher for the physically
attractive defendant.
- when seen in the company of a beautiful woman,
a man is perceived differently from when he is
seen with an unattractive woman. In their study,
subjects who met a man seated next to an extremely
attractive woman tended to like him more, and to
rate him as friendlier and more self-confident, than
did subjects who met the same man when he was
seated beside an unattractive woman.
- subjects who thought they were talking with an
attractive partner rated her as more poised, humorous,
and socially adept than did those who thought they
were talking with a less attractive woman. This is not
very surprising. But what was startling was this: When
independent observers were allowed to listen to a tape
recording of only the woman's half of the conversation
(without looking at a photograph), they were far more
impressed by the woman whose male partner thought
she was physically attractive. In short, since the male
partner thought he was talking to an attractive woman,
he spoke to her in a way that brought out her best
qualities.
---------------------------------------
Physical Attractiveness. Imagine you are on a blind date. It is near
the end of the evening, and you are wondering whether or not you want
to go out with this person again. Which of your partner's
characteristics will weigh most heavily: Warmth? Sensitivity?
Intelligence? Compassion? How about good looks? You guessed it!
Most of us tend to be both incredulous and appalled by such a
suggestion. We don't want this to be true. We would like to believe
that beauty is only skin deep and, therefore, a trivial determinant of
liking. Also, it seems so unfair; why should something like physical
attractiveness-which is largely beyond a person's control-play an
important role? Indeed, when asked what they looked for in a potential
date, most college students put "physical attractiveness" at the very
bottom of the list. But I'm afraid this reflects only what students
think they ought to believe-for, in study after study of their actual
behavior, college students (as well as the population at large) are
overwhelmingly influenced by another person's physical attractiveness.
In one study, for example, Elaine Walster (Hat-field) and her
associates randomly matched incoming students at the University of
Minnesota for a blind date. The students previously had been given a
battery of personality tests. Which of their many characteristics
determined whether or not they liked each other? It was not their
intelligence, masculinity, femininity, dominance, submission,
dependence, independence, sensitivity, sincerity, or the like. The one
determinant of whether or not a couple liked each other and actually
repeated their date was their physical attractiveness. If a handsome
man was paired with a beautiful woman, they were most likely to desire
to see each other again.
This general phenomenon is not limited to a blind date. Gregory White
studied relatively long-term relationships among young couples at
UCLA. Like Walster (Hatfield) and her colleagues, White found that
physical attractiveness was a very important factor; but in this
situation it was the similarity of the attractiveness of the members
of the couple that was crucial in determining whether or not a
relationship had staying power. Specifically, some 9 months after the
couples started dating, those who were well matched in terms of rated
physical attractiveness were more deeply involved with each other than
those who differed from each other in physical attractiveness.
What is clear from these studies of dating couples is that, in one way
or another, physical attractiveness plays an important role in
determining who likes whom in both the short run and the long run.
Moreover, these studies indicate that there are clear cultural
standards for physical attractiveness-at least in the United States,
where most of this research has been done. Raters had no difficulty
judging people on physical attractiveness. And the raters agreed with
one another-that is, the ratings were highly reliable. Moreover, all
other things being equal, people's physical attractiveness not only
helps us predict whether or not others will want to date them, but
also influences a wide range of attributions. For example, in one
study, Karen Dion and her colleagues showed college students
photographs of three college-age people. The photos were especially
selected for differing degrees of attractiveness: One was attractive,
one average, and one unattractive. The subjects were asked to rate
each of the people depicted in these photographs on 27 different
personality traits and to predict their future happiness. The
physically attractive people were assigned by far the most desirable
traits and the greatest prognosis for happiness. This was true whether
men were rating men, men rating women, women rating men, or women
rating women.
Does it surprise you to learn that most people seem to agree on both
the physical characteristics and the concomitant personality traits of
so-called beautiful people? Perhaps it shouldn't. From early childhood
experiences we learn that a specific definition of beauty is
associated with goodness. Walt Disney's movies and the illustrators of
children's books have taught us that gentle and charming heroines like
Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty-as well as the princes who
woo and win them-all look alike. They all have regular features, small
pert noses, big eyes, shapely lips, blemish-free complexions, and slim
athletic bodies. They all look like Barbie and Ken dolls. Indeed, so
do Barbie and Ken dolls! And how are the wicked stepmothers,
stepsisters, giants, trolls, and queens depicted?
In addition, television sustains these cultural standards; actors who
fit the U.S. stereotype of beauty are carefully selected to play the
heroines and heroes of popular TV soap operas and prime-time sitcoms.
And then there are the commercials. Anyone who watches a fair amount
of television is subjected to a continuous flow of propaganda aimed at
selling the idea of beauty in a bottle. Shampoo, skin lotion,
deodorant, toothpaste-all are peddled by promoting the conviction that
these products will make us beautiful, desirable, and ultimately
successful. And exposure to this kind of thing does have an impact.
For example, in one experiment, young women between the ages of 16 and
18 were systematically exposed to some 15 TV commercials extolling the
virtues of beauty preparations. A control group of teenagers was shown
15 commercials unrelated to beauty products. Sometime later, all of
the young women were asked to rank the relative importance of 10
attributes-sex appeal, intelligence, a pretty face, industriousness,
and so on. The young women who had been shown the beauty ads were more
likely than the control group to consider beauty-oriented attributes
more important than other qualities.
One of the implications of our discussion is that cultural standards
of beauty are learned early. If we learn about beauty by looking at
the pictures in storybooks, or from Walt Disney movies, or from
watching television, then it should follow that even young children
are influenced by these norms. And so they are. In a striking study,
Karen Dion and Ellen Berscheid found that, even as early as nursery
school, children are responsive to the physical attractiveness of
their peers. In their study, Dion and Berscheid first had several
independent judges (graduate students) rate the physical
attractiveness of nursery-school children. Then they determined who
liked whom among the children themselves. They found that physical
attractiveness was very important. The clearest results were obtained
for the males: The physically attractive boys were liked better than
the physically unattractive boys. Moreover, unattractive boys were
considered to be more aggressive than their attractive counterparts,
and when the children were asked to name the classmates that "scared
them," they tended to nominate the unattractive children. Of course,
it might have been the case that the less attractive children actually
behaved more aggressively. In this study, the researchers did not
observe the actual behavior of the children in the nursery school, so
they could not test that possibility.
But there is independent evidence that people tend to attribute less
blame to physically attractive children, regardless of the facts. This
finding emerges from a subsequent experiment by Karen Dion. Dion asked
several women to examine reports of rather severe classroom
disturbances, apparently written by a teacher. Attached to each report
was a photo of the child who was said to have initiated the
disturbance. In some instances, the photo was that of a physically
attractive boy or girl; in others, the photo was that of a less
attractive boy or girl. The women tended to place more blame on the
less attractive children and to infer that this incident was typical
of their everyday behavior. When the child was pictured as physically
attractive, however, they tended to excuse the disruptive behavior. As
one of the women put it, "She plays well with everyone, but like
anyone else, a bad day can occur. Her cruelty . . . need not be taken
seriously." When a physically unattractive girl was pictured as the
culprit in exactly the same situation described in exactly the same
way, a typical respondent said, "I think the child would be quite
bratty and would probably be a problem to teachers. She would probably
try to pick a fight with other children her own age. . . . All in all,
she would be a real problem." Thus, it seems that we tend to give
attractive children the benefit of the doubt. Their misbehaviors are
seen as forgivable aberrations caused by special aspects of the
situation, other people, or an unfortunate accident. Less attractive
children, on the other hand, are not let off the hook so easily; their
misdeeds are attributed internally-to stable negative personality
dispositions.
It probably won't surprise anyone to learn that attractiveness plays
an important role among early adolescents as well as in children and
adults. For example, Richard Lerner and his colleagues found that over
the course of the school year, sixth graders tended to rate their
physically attractive classmates as being more competent than their
less attractive classmates. Moreover, in that study, the teachers fell
into the same trap. Speaking of teachers, all other things being
equal, physically attractive teachers may also have an edge over their
less attractive colleagues. In one study, Bruce Huns-berger and Brenda
Cavanagh found that sixth graders rated physically attractive
potential teachers as nicer, happier, less punitive, and more
effective than their less attractive counterparts.
Physical attractiveness has important consequences in the business
world as well. Irene Frieze and her associates rated the
attractiveness of over 700 young adults and tracked their employment
histories-starting just after they attained masters degrees in
business administration and continuing for a 10-year period. The
results are clear. For men, being physically attractive resulted in a
higher starting salary. Moreover, this effect did not fade over time
as employers got to know them. Rather, attractive men continued to out-
earn their less attractive counterparts over the entire 10-year
period. For women, being attractive did not affect their starting
salaries, but attractiveness began to influence salaries after they
had been on the job a while and continued to the conclusion of the
study. Attractiveness was rated on a 5-point scale. The researchers
were able to calculate that each point on the scale was worth about
$2,150; thus, theoretically, if you underwent plastic surgery and it
improved your looks from a rating of 2 to a rating of 4, that would be
worth exactly $4,300 per year!
Physical attractiveness is not always a one-way street. Several years
ago, I performed an experiment in collaboration with Harold Sigall in
which we demonstrated that attractive women have more impact on men
than less attractive women-for better or for worse. In this
experiment, a woman was made to appear either physically attractive or
unattractive. This was accomplished by taking a naturally beautiful
woman and, in the unattractive condition, providing her with loose,
baggy, unflattering clothing, fitting her with a frizzy blond wig that
did not quite match her skin coloring, and making her complexion look
oily and unhealthy. Then, posing as a graduate student in clinical
psychology, she interviewed several college men. At the close of the
interview, she gave each student her own clinical evaluation of him.
Half of the students received highly favorable evaluations and half
received unfavorable evaluations. We found that, when the evaluator
was made to look unattractive, the men didn't seem to care much
whether they received a good evaluation or a poor one from her; in
both situations, they liked her a fair amount. When she was beautiful,
however, they liked her a great deal when she gave them a favorable
evaluation, but when she gave them an unfavorable evaluation, they
disliked her more than in any of the other conditions. Interestingly
enough, although the men who were evaluated negatively by the
attractive woman said they didn't like her, they did express a great
desire to return in order to interact with her in a future experiment.
Our guess is that the negative evaluations from the beautiful woman
were so important to the subjects that they wanted the opportunity to
return so as to induce her to change her mind about them.
In a subsequent experiment, Harold Sigall and Nancy Os-trove showed
that people tend to favor a beautiful woman unless they suspect her of
misusing her beauty. Both male and female college students were
allowed to read an account of a criminal case in which the defendant
was clearly guilty of a crime. Each subject then "sentenced" the
defendant to a prison term he or she considered appropriate. The
results showed that, when the crime was unrelated to attractiveness
(burglary), the sentences were much more lenient when the defendant
was physically attractive. When the crime was related to her
attractiveness (a swindle in which the defendant induced a middle-aged
bachelor to invest some money in a nonexistent corporation), the
sentences were much harsher for the physically attractive defendant.
Let's pause for a second and take a deep breath. The Sigall-Ostrove
experiment is an important one, in itself, because it demonstrates the
power of physical attractiveness in influencing our decisions. But,
when thinking of our legal system, how seriously should we take these
data? After all, Sigall and Ostrove were not dealing with trained
jurists; the participants in their experiment were only college
students. Can we conclude from this experiment that our legal system
is so biased that physical attractiveness plays a role in the
sentencing of actual criminals? Are judges as susceptible to physical
beauty as college students? Chris Downs and Phillip Lyons decided to
find out. They scrutinized the fines and bails set by real judges in
actual court cases involving 915 female and 1,320 male defendants
being charged with either misdemeanors or more serious felonies. What
they found was interesting and somewhat comforting. Where misdemeanors
were involved, the judges were much more lenient with physically
attractive male and female defendants, assessing both lower bail and
lower fines than they did for relatively unattractive defendants. But,
when it came to actual felonies, the physical attractiveness of the
defendant made no difference. Thus, the answer is that even trained
judges are in danger of being influenced-but, when the crime is a
serious one, their good judgment overrides the potential impact of
this irrelevant variable.
The effects of a person's physical attractiveness go beyond how we
evaluate or how much we are influenced by that person; it can also
change our perceptions of the people with whom he or she is
associated. An experiment by Harold Sigall and David Landy
demonstrated that, when seen in the company of a beautiful woman, a
man is perceived differently from when he is seen with an unattractive
woman. In their study, subjects who met a man seated next to an
extremely attractive woman tended to like him more, and to rate him as
friendlier and more self-confident, than did subjects who met the same
man when he was seated beside an unattractive woman.
Taking all of this research into consideration, it is clear that
beauty is more than skin deep. We are affected by physically
attractive people, and unless we are specifically abused by them, we
tend to like them better and we reward them more than less attractive
people. Moreover, in ambiguous situations involving trouble and
turmoil, beautiful people tend to be given the benefit of the doubt;
they receive more favorable treatment than less attractive people.
This begins at a very young age. The disconcerting aspect of these
data is the strong possibility that such preferential treatment
contains the seeds of a self-fulfilling prophecy: We know that the way
people are treated affects the way they come to think of themselves.
Some evidence for this phenomenon comes from a classic experiment
conducted by Mark Snyder, Elizabeth Decker Tanke, and Ellen Berscheid.
Put yourself in the place of a typical male undergraduate in their
experiment: You have volunteered to participate in an investigation of
"how people become acquainted with each other," and you have been
paired with a female student who is located in another room,
ostensibly because the two of you are assigned to the "no nonverbal
communication" condition of the study. Though you haven't seen your
partner, you have been given a packet of information, which contains a
Polaroid snapshot. When you proceed to have a conversation with this
woman over an intercom, do you think the physical attractiveness of
the woman in the photo will influence your impressions of her? Snyder,
Tanke, and Berscheid found it did.
As the reader might suspect, the snapshot viewed by the male subject
did not depict his actual partner. For half of the subjects, it
pictured a very attractive woman; for the others, it pictured a
relatively unattractive woman. But the snapshot did have an effect.
The subjects who thought they were talking with an attractive partner
rated her as more poised, humorous, and socially adept than did those
who thought they were talking with a less attractive woman. This is
not very surprising. But what was startling was this: When independent
observers were allowed to listen to a tape recording of only the
woman's half of the conversation (without looking at a photograph),
they were far more impressed by the woman whose male partner thought
she was physically attractive. In short, since the male partner
thought he was talking to an attractive woman, he spoke to her in a
way that brought out her best qualities. When these independent
observers listened to her conversation, they rated her as more
attractive, more confident, more animated, and warmer than the woman
whose partner thought her to be less beautiful. Thus, physically
attractive people may come to think of themselves as good or lovable
because they are continually treated that way. Conversely, homely
people may begin to think of themselves as bad or unlovable because
they are continually treated that way-even as children. Ultimately,
people may begin to behave in a way that is consistent with this self-
concept-a way that is consistent with how they were treated to begin
with.
Please note that, for the most part, our discussion of beauty has
focused on visual beauty. But there are other kinds of beauty. Our
visual perceptual mechanisms exercise a terribly conservative
influence on our feelings and behavior. We are wedded to our eyes-
especially as a means of determining physical attractiveness. And, as
we have seen, once we have categorized a person as good-looking or
homely, we tend to attribute other qualities to that person; for
example, good-looking people are likely to strike us as being more
warm, sexy, exciting, and delightful than homely people. Later in this
chapter, I will briefly discuss sensitivity-training groups. Some of
these groups allow people to engage in nonvisual sensory experiences.
For example, one such experience enables people to "turn off their
eyes" and become acquainted with each other solely through the sense
of touch. After participating in one of these exercises, group members
typically report a dramatic diminution of their prior stereotypes.
Basically, individuals find that there is little "homeliness" in a
nonvisual situation. Moreover, participants are frequently astonished
to learn that, for example, the incredibly warm, gentle, and sensitive
person they had been having a nonvisual encounter with is, "in
reality," the funny-looking guy with the pimples. I doubt that, after
even one such nonvisual encounter with him, a person would ever relate
to him again as merely a funny-looking guy with pimples. To the extent
that such experiences can enable people to become aware of the
nonvisual aspects of beauty, some of the unfairness due to the
inequitable distribution of physical beauty maybe reduced.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
