This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]
On: 20 January 2015, At: 17:12
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
The Journal of Social
Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
Perceptions of Physical
Attractiveness Among
College Students: Selected
Determinants and
Methodological Matters
Timothy A. Brown
a
, Thomas F. Cash
a a
& Steven W.
Noles
b
a
Department of Psychology , Old Dominion
University , USA
b
United States Submarine Base , King's Bay, Georgia,
USA
Published online: 30 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Timothy A. Brown , Thomas F. Cash & Steven W. Noles (1986)
Perceptions of Physical Attractiveness Among College Students: Selected Determinants
and Methodological Matters, The Journal of Social Psychology, 126:3, 305-316, DOI:
10.1080/00224545.1986.9713590
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1986.9713590
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloadedby[MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland]at17:1220January2015
The Journal of Social Psychology, /26(3),305-3 16
Perceptions of Physical Attractiveness
Among College Students:
Selected Determinants and
Methodological Matters
TIMOTHY A. BROWN
THOMAS F. CASH
Department ofPsychology
Old Dominion University
STEVEN W. NOLES
United States Submarine Base
KingS Bay, Georgia
ABSTRACT. The present study used videotape to examine selected determinants of
perceptions of physical attractiveness and gender (masculinity/femininity) in a college
student sample of 30 men and 85 women. Both body and facial attractiveness
contributed to the prediction of overall attractiveness, although neither variable was
a more powerful predictor than the other. Perceptions of overall physical attractiveness.
both static (“fixed target”) and dynamic (“moving target”), were positively
related to perceptions of grooming. In predicting dynamic physical attractiveness
from static physical attractiveness and certain nonverbal indices thought to be related
to attractiveness evaluations in naturally occurring conditions, only static physical
attractiveness entered the regression equation at a significant level. Still, perceived
friendliness and natural body movement were related to overall attractiveness perceptions.
Finally. physical attractiveness was significantly related to gender perceptions
in both males and females, with natural body movement and tight-fitting clothes also
predictive of perceived masculinity in males and overall grooming and natural body
movement predictive of perceived femininity in females.
REVIEWS OF A SUBSTANTIAL LITERATURE (Berscheid & Walster,
1974;Cash, 1981) on the physical attractivenessvariable attest to its powerful
influence on social attitudes, attributions, and behaviors in a variety of cultural
contexts. Collectively, these studies indicate that differing levels of atRequests
for reprints should be sent to Thomas F. Cash, Department of Psychology,
Old Dominion University,No~olk.VA 23508.
305
Downloadedby[MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland]at17:1220January2015
306 The Journal of Social Psychology
tractiveness elicit differential social perceptions, exchanges, and behaviors
that often favor the attractive while operating as a detriment to those who are
physically unattractive. Given the undeniable importance of physical attractiveness,
it is important to consider what factors contribute to the perception
of appearance.
One distinction that can be made when examining the determinants of
physical attractiveness (Cash, Rissi, & Chapman, 1985)is to view attractiveness
as a composition of either static components (i.e., stable and enduring
physical characteristics) or of fluctuating or changing components (i.e.,
grooming, facial expression, nonverbal behavior). By the predominant use of
yearbook facial photographs to manipulate attractiveness, the vast majority of
researchers have apparently assumed that physical attractiveness is a static
phenomenon represented by the face (Berscheid & Walster. 1974).
A small group of studies provides evidence that questions the view of
physical attractiveness as a static variable. A recent investigation (Sussman,
Mueser, Grau, & Yarnold, 1983) found a significant Target Person x Grade
interaction in assessing attractiveness from the yearbook photos of the same
subjects in Ist, 4th, 7th, and 10th grades, indicating that some individuals
changed more relative to the group than others. The authors suggested that
fluctuations in facial attractiveness may have been due to changes in hairstyle,
use of makeup, or mood.
Another changing component of physical appearance is grooming. Unfortunately,
only a few studies have examined the effects of grooming variables
(e.g., clothing, hairstyles, etc.)on physical attractiveness (Cash, 1985;
Graham 6;:Jouhar, 1981). One notable exception is the study by Graham and
Jouhar, that found that the manipulation of facial cosmetics and hair grooming
in women of average attractiveness significantly improved initial evaluations
of them by male and female peers.
An important question that arises in the assessment of physical attractiveness
is the relative salience of facial and body attractiveness in overall
judgments of physical appearance. Although both facial (cf. Cash, 1981)and
bodily attributes (Lerner & Gellert, 1969; Lerner & Korn, 1972) have been
used as measures of physical attractiveness in the past, little is known about
how they influence overall perceptions of appearance. Are they equally
weighted, or does one exert greater influence than the other on overall attractiveness
assessments? Mueser, Grau, Sussman, and Rosen (1984) found that
both facial and bodily attractiveness of females were predictive of their overall
attractiveness, although the face was a slightly more powerful predictor.
In an experimental study using only males as target persons, Jones (1982)
found that bodily attractiveness significantly influenced overall attractiveness,
although facial attractiveness did not.
A component of physical attractiveness that has gone largely unexamined
is nonverbal behavior and its effects on assessments of attractiveness.
Downloadedby[MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland]at17:1220January2015
Brown, Cash, & Noles 307
Specifically, does visual information gained from a “moving target” person
significantly influence attractiveness judgments? The data of Mueser et al.
(1984) suggest an affirmative answer. Consistent with the Byrne and Clore
(1 970) reinforcement-affecttheory, Mueseret a]. (1984)found that target persons
were seen as less physically attractivewhen their facialexpressionswere
sad, than when their expressions were either neutral or happy. Judgments of
neutral or happy expressionsdid not differ. In addition,when four dimensions
of facial expression were assessed (pleasantness, intensity, surprise, naturalness),
only pleasantness consistentlyemerged as the most significantpredictor
of correspondingchangesin attractiveness.Thus, Mueseret al. concluded
that fluctuations in perceived facial attractiveness may be associated with
changes in affect. This conclusion questionsthe generalizability of the many
studies that use static photographs as stimulus materials, and suggests the
need either to study physical attractivenessunder naturallyoccurring, ecologically
valid conditions or to use more dynamic methods of stimulus presentation
(e.g., videotape).
Finally, a related issue in attractiveness research concerns the manner in
which attractiveness, its components, and other physical attributes convey
information about gender(Cash& Janda, 1984).The firstcues people usually
have for inferring whether a person is male or female are cues from physical
appearance. There is a growing literature (Cash & Duncan, 1984; Cash &
Trimer, 1984;Gillen, 1981;Major & Deaux, 1981)that confirms the “whatis-beautiful-is-sex-typed”phenomenon,
the notion that physical attractiveness
often conveys sex-role appropriateness,particularly for females. Given
that physical characteristicsexert such a strong influenceon gender stereotyping
(Deaux & Lewis, 1984), it is possible that the same factors that affect
perceptions of attractivenessalso affect sex-rolestereotyping.
With the above issues in mind, the present study examined the following
hypotheses: (a)Observer ratings of grooming will relate positively to ratings
of physical attractiveness;(b) when predicting overall attractiveness,both facial
and bodily attractivenesswill account for significantamounts of the variance,
as will overall grooming;(c)a static measure of physical attractiveness
when combined with certain nonverbal and grooming indices will serve as a
better predictor of dynamic (or moving)attractiveness;(d)certain perceptions
of the target persons’ traits (includingnonverbal components)will be related
to perceptions of attractiveness;and (e)physical attractivenesswill relate significantlyto
perceptions of masculinityand femininity,with many of the nonverbal
and grooming indices that are related to physical attractiveness also
correlating significantly with gender stereotypes.
Method
Subjects
There were 115 subjects (85 women, M age = 19.5, SD = 2.3 years; 30
Downloadedby[MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland]at17:1220January2015
308 The Journal ofSoc-inl Psychology
men, M age = 19.8, SD = 2.6 years; 98 whites, 11 blacks, 6 Asians) selected
from a sample of 224 subjects who participated in a study by Noles,
Cash, and Winstead (1985). In that study, following completion of several
questionnaires to assess body image and depression, each subject was videotaped
for a duration of 1 to 5 min. Each taped segment consisted of an initial
greeting by the experimenter, during which the subject was informed that he
or she was being videotaped, and a short, structured interview ending with
a request by the experimenter that the subject pose for a clear, videotaped
picture. For this posed shot, the subject was asked to stand and, on cue, to
smile and look directly into a one-way mirror behind which the videotape
camera was located. Thus, although the subject could not see the camera,
the subject could see his or her reflection in the mirror. The posed shot
allowed for a controlled, static picture of each subject from the knees
up. Finally, each subject was again seated and the experimenter turned
off the videotape camera. Unlike some studies (Cash, 1985; Graham
& Jouhar, I981) that have manipulated certain stimulus characteristics
(i.e., grooming, physical attractiveness), the variables assessed in the
present study were based entirely on how the subjects presented themselves
for the experiment without prior knowledge that they would be
videotaped.
Criteria used to select the subjects for the present study were based on
age (18 to 31 years). technical quality of the videotapes, length of each segment
(interview = 1 to 3 min, posed shot = 10 to 15 s), and technical deviations
in the segments (i.e., we eliminated segments with irregularities in
the interview or pose, experimenter deviations from interview structure,
etc.).
Materials and Procedure
Raters were recruited from a senior-level psychology class. Except for the
raters of static physical attractiveness, four raters (1 male, 3 females) were
assigned to each of three classes of ratings. The raters were informed that the
purpose of the exercise was to determine how accurately people can rate certain
attributes of others based on visual information. Raters saw the entire
videotaped segment (presented on two 19-in. color monitors), terminating
with and including the posed shot. No audio was used when presenting the
tapes to the raters. At the end of the posed shot, the experimenter froze the
picture so that the subject remained on the screen while the ratings were being
made. The raters were instructed, however, to use the entire segment as the
basis of their judgments. Rating Groups 1 and 2 (rating grooming and traits),
which were run concurrently, were given 30 s to record their independent
judgments of each subject. The raters of dynamic physical attractiveness, run
Downloadedby[MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland]at17:1220January2015
Brown, Cash, & Noles 309
at a later time, were given 15sto do so. The ratingsconsistedof thefollowing
measures’:
1. Grooming. Six social judgment scales relating to grooming and
clothing style: Hair Neatness, Clothes Neatness, Casual-Formal
Clothes, Revealing-Covering Clothes, Loose-Tight Fitting Clothes,
and Overall Grooming. Each was rated on a 7-pointLikert scale. The
respective reliabilities(Cronbach’salphas)of these scales for all subjects
were .76, .79, .87, .86, .76, and .78. Because of a high correlation
between Clothes Neatness and Casual-Formal Clothes
(r = .70), these measures were collapsed to form the Clothes
Grooming Scale (alpha = .89).
2. Traits. Five social judgment scales: Masculinity, Femininity, SelfConsciousness
(5-point Likert scales); Friendliness and AwkwardNatural
Body Movement (7-point Likert scales). The respective interrater
reliabilitiesof these scalesfor all subjectswere .90, .86, .37,
.68,and .40. Because of a high correlation between Masculinityand
Femininity (r = - .89), a composite scale, the MasculinityFemininity
scale, was formed (alpha = .92).
3. Dynamic physical attractiveness. Three 7-point, Likert-type, social
judgment scales were used to assess facial, body, and overall dynamic
attractiveness,each ranging fromextremelyunattractiveto extremely
attractive. The respective interrater reliabilities of these
scales for all subjectswere .76, .87, and .83.
4. Static physical attractiveness.Using a 7-point Likert scale, Noles et
al. (1985)obtained physical attractivenessratings (n = 13raters) by
freezingan exposureduring the posing segment after the subject was
asked to smile. These data were used as the measure of Static Physical
Attractiveness in the present study. Interrater reliability on this
measure was .94.
Results
In addition to the expected differences in the raters’ perceptions of the male
and female subjects’ masculinity and femininity (p < .001), sex differences
I In addition to the measures reported in this study, four ratings of nonverbal behavior
were made that pertained to grooming and reactions to posing for the videotape
camera: Hair Primping, Clothes Primping, Cued Smiling, and Self Gaze (time spent
engaging in eye contact with self in one-way mirror). All measures were rated on a
3-point scale. Although each was rated quite reliably, little variability among subjects’
rated behaviors emerged; thus, the measures were not used in the analyses. It
was thought that the lack of variability among subjects was due to the fact that their
responses to the experimental situation reflected manded behavior; their behaviors
were under control of the experimental situation and did not reflect the subjects’ true
behavior.
Downloadedby[MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland]at17:1220January2015
3 I 0 The Journal of Social Psychology
were observed on two of the grooming measures. Females’ (M = 3.96)
clothes were rated as more well groomed than males’ (M = 3.33), F(1,
1 13) = 7.91, p < .01. Females (M = 5.34) were also rated as wearing
clothes that covered their bodies more than males’ clothes (M = 4.76),F( I ,
113) = 5 . 3 7 , ~< .05.
To test whether perceptions of grooming and clothing style were related
to perceived overall attractiveness, Pearson correlations were computed between
the static and dynamic overall attractiveness measures and the grooming
and clothing measures. For males (df = 28), static physical attractiveness
was significantly related (ps < .05) to hair neatness (r = .57) and overall
grooming (r = .65), but not to clothes grooming (r = .26). In addition,
males’ dynamic physical attractiveness was significantly related to hair neatness
(r = .65), clothes grooming ( r = .37), and overall grooming
(r = .74). For females (df = 83), static physical attractiveness was significantly
correlated (ps < .05)with hair neatness (r = .33), clothes grooming
( r = .34), and overall grooming ( r = .46). Females’ dynamic physical attractiveness
was also significantly related to hair neatness (r = .33),clothes
grooming ( r = .43), and overall grooming (r = .55). Revealing-covering
clothes was nonsignificantly related to the overall attractiveness measures for
both males and females. Loose-tight fitting clothes was significantly correlated
with both static (r = .45, p < .05) and dynamic (r = .45, p < .05)
physical attractiveness for males, but not for females. A z test revealed a
significant sex difference in the relationship of loose-tight fitting clothes with
both static ( z = 2.59, p < .01) and dynamic ( z = 2.05, p < .05) physical
attractiveness. No other sex differences were found.
Multiple regression analyses were performed to assess how an observer’s
judgments of persons’ body and facial attractiveness affected his or her judgment
of overall attractiveness. These results are summarized in Table 1. Using
dynamic physical attractiveness as the criterion variable, both facial and body
attractiveness entered as significant predictors for both males and females.
This was also true when static physical attractiveness was used as the criterion
variable. In all regression analyses, overall grooming was also entered as a
predictor, but it did not account for a significant amount of additional variance.
In examining the correlations between facial and body attractiveness
with the overall attractiveness measures, neither variable could be regarded
as contributing more to overall attractiveness than the other. The higher correlations
between dynamic physical attractiveness and the facial and body
attractiveness measures (ascompared with static physical attractiveness)were
most likely not due to the mode of stimulus presentation, but were attributable
to the fact that the same observers rated dynamic, facial, and body attractive-
ness.
To determine whether nonverbal measures and static physical attractiveness
would combine to predict optimally dynamic physical attractiveness,
Downloadedby[MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland]at17:1220January2015
Brown. Cash, & Noles 3I I
TABLE 1
Optimal Prediction by Multiple Stepwise Regression for Dynamic and Static
Physical Attractiveness with Facial and Body Attractiveness and Overall
Grooming as Predictors
Adiusted
Predictor r R2 Beta F to enter
Dynamic physical attractiveness (males)
Facial attractiveness .93*** .86 .52
Body attractiveness .93*** .97 .52
Dynamic physical attractiveness (females)
Body attractiveness .88*** .77 .60
Facial attractiveness .84*** .94 .50
Overall grooming .74*** - Overall
grooming .55*** - Static
physical attractiveness (males)
Body attractiveness .75*** .54 .46
Facial attractiveness .73*** .61 .37
Overall grooming .65*** - Facial
attractiveness .71*** S O .57
Body attractiveness .57*** .54 .25
Overall grooming .46*** - Static
physical attractiveness (females)
101.36***
100.64***
365.57***
252.34***
-
5.64*
3.67*
40. I 1***
7.60**
multiple regressions were calculated by using dynamic physical attractiveness
as the criterion variable and static physical attractiveness, awkward-natural
body movement, friendliness, and self-consciousness as predictors. For
males and for females, static physical attractiveness was the only predictor to
enter the equation at a significant level.
Pearson correlations were also computed to determine whether certain
trait-like perceptions reflecting nonverbal components were related to judgments
of overall attractiveness. Perceived self-consciousness was not significantly
related to static and dynamic physical attractiveness for either male or
female subjects. Friendliness was significantly related only to the static attractiveness
measure and only when the male and female samples were combined
(r = .33. p < .001). Awkward-natural body movement was significantly
related to static physical attractiveness for both males (r = .33,
p < .05) and females ( r = .33, p < .01). In addition, awkward-natural
body movement was significantly related to dynamic physical attractiveness
for males ( r = .49,p < .Ol) and for females (r = .25,p < .05).No significant
sex differences were found between the relationships of the trait ratings
with the attractiveness measures.
Downloadedby[MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland]at17:1220January2015
3 I2 The Journtrl of Sociol Psvcholoyv
Pearson correlations, shown in the first column of Table 2. indicated that
each of the overall attractiveness measures was significantly related to the
masculinity-femininity measure for both males and females (ps < .001). Females,
who were perceived as more attractive, were also perceived as more
feminine, whereas the attractive males were perceived as more masculine. In
addition, for females, hair neatness (r = .31, p < .Ol), clothes grooming
( r = .61, p < .001),overall grooming (r = .58, p < .001), and awkwardnatural
body movement (r = .43, p < .001) were significantly related to
masculinity-femininity. For males, revealing-covering clothes ( r = .50,
p < .Ol), loose-tight fitting clothes (r = -.66, p < .001). and awkwardnatural
body movement (r = - .63, p < ,001)were significantly related to
masculinity-femininity.
Table 2 summarizes the results of the regression analyses conducted to
predict masculinity-femininity for males and females. For males, the variables
loose-tight fitting clothes, awkward-natural body movement, and static
physical attractiveness entered significantly into the equation, accounting collectively
for 60% of the variance in masculinity-femininity. Revealingcovering
clothes did not enter into the equation at a significant level. For
females, overall grooming, awkward-natural body movement, and static
physical attractiveness entered as significant predictors of masculinityfemininity,
accounting collectively for 44% of the variance.
TABLE 2
Optimal Prediction by Multiple Stepwise Regression for Gender Perceptions
using Physical Attractiveness, Grooming, and Trait Measures as Predictors
Adjusted
Predictor r R' Beta F to enter
Loose-tight fitting
Awkward-natural
Static physical
clothes
body movement
attractiveness
Overall grooming
Awkward-natural
body movement
Static physical
attractiveness
Masrulinipfemininit?, (males)
- .66*** .41 - .36 6.72*
- .63*** .54 - .35 6.87"
- .60*** .60 - .30 4.85"
Masculiniyjemininity (females)
.58*** .33 .42 20.81***
.43*** .42 .26 9.09**
.49*** .44 .21 5.03*
* p < .0s.** p < .01. *** p < ,001
Downloadedby[MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland]at17:1220January2015
Brown, Cash, & Noles 313
Discussion
An important outcome of the present study is that it offers further evidence
that perceptions of overall physical attractiveness are not made on the basis
of the face alone. Consistentwith Mueseret al. (1984),both facialand bodily
attractivenessserved as significantpredictors of both static and dynamicoverall
attractiveness. Unlike Mueser et al., however, who concluded that facial
attractiveness is a slightly more powerful predictor of overall attractiveness
than bodily attractiveness, we make no such conclusion. The lack of differences
in the magnitudes of the correlations between body and facial attractiveness
with the overall physical attractiveness measures suggests that neither
predictorcan be deemed more powerful than the other. Nevertheless, our
results provide further evidence that individualsdo not perceive physical appearance
in a totally undifferentiated,gestalt-likemanner. Instead, they consider
both facial and bodily components in making overall attractiveness
judgments. The vast majority of the studies on physical attractiveness have
used facial photographsto manipulate attractiveness (Cash, 1981). Although
the studiesusing the proverbial yearbook photographmay reasonably approximate
overall attractiveness, whether static or dynamic, our findings clearly
indicatethat the presentation of the entire body carries important information
not conveyed by facial photographs.
In addition, the present study found that observer ratings of grooming
were positively related to both static and dynamic ratings of overall physical
attractiveness. These findings are consistent with others (Cash, Brown, &
Noles, 1985; Graham & Jouhar, 1981). which suggest that enhancement of
one’s appearance (e.g., through use of clothing, cosmetics, hairstyling, etc.)
is significantly related to more favorable assessments of physical attractiveness.
Like Graham and Jouhar, who manipulatedgrooming, the present study
indicated that observers’ perceptions of grooming were related to perceived
attractiveness. In addition to the explanation that good grooming enhances
perceptions of physical attractiveness, it is also possible that these ratings
were subject to the halo effects demonstrated in the literature, which attest to
the“what-is-beautiful-is-good”stereotype(Berscheid & Walster, 1974;Cash,
1981). Those subjects who were physically attractive were inherently more
likely to receive positive grooming evaluations than their unattractive counterparts.
Furthermore, there is evidence that physically attractive individuals
may attend to their appearance more than unattractive individuals. For example,
McDonald and Eilenfield (1980) found that both males and females
spent more time gazing into a reflective surface when they were more physically
attractive, thus suggestingthat selectiveexposure to self-awareness increased
as a linear function of the level of physical attractiveness.Cash et al.
(1985) found that self-reports of the degree of attention and importance the
subjects placed on their physical appearancewere positively related to objective
ratings of their attractiveness.
Downloadedby[MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland]at17:1220January2015
3 I4 The Journal ojSocral Psychology
Our study failed to demonstrate that significant additional information
about physical attractiveness could be obtained from a dynamic or moving
target stimulus than from a static target stimulus. Specifically, it was thought
that certain nonverbal aspects (i .e.,body movement, perceived friendliness,
etc.) of the individual would provide information used by others when evaluating
the person’s physical attractiveness in social situations. If this had been
true, then the studies utilizing still photographs would be denying their raters
access to information that is normally used in ecologically valid evaluations
of physical attractiveness. Given the relatively strong relationship between
static and dynamic attractiveness (r = .74) and given that none of our nonverbal
measures significantly entered as predictors of dynamic attractiveness,
it is conceivable that nonverbal behavior either does not offer additional information
that alters perceived attractiveness or does not provide information
that is unattainable from still photographs of smiling persons. In light of the
low reliabilities of the nonverbal measures and the fairly restrictive experimental
setting, however, it is likely that our methodology did not allow this
finding to arise. More appropriate and precisely defined measures that allow
for higher interrater reliabilities. and a more dynamic experimental setting
that permits a broader range of behaviors may ultimately reveal which nonverbal
behaviors, if any, contribute to perceptions of overall physical attrac-
tiveness.
Although our nonverbal and perceived-trait measures did not couple with
static attractiveness to serve as a better predictor of dynamic attractiveness,
our analyses did demonstrate a significant relationship between physical attractiveness
and perceptions of certain traits. For example, perceived friendliness
was positively related to static physical attractiveness. This agrees with
a finding by Mueser et al. (1984) who found that pleasantness of facial
expression emerged as the most significant predictor of facial attractiveness.
Indeed, in our study, facial attractiveness was significantly related to perceived
friendliness (r = .22, p < .02); bodily attractiveness was not
( r = .02,p < .8).
As mentioned above, two of the other trait measures, self-consciousness
and awkward-natural body movement, were not assessed with a high degree
of interrater reliability. This may account for the nonsignificant relationships
between perceived self-consciousness and the attractiveness measures. However,
awkward-natural body movement, which was not much more reliable,
was significantly related to both static and dynamic overall attractiveness for
both males and females. Thus, attractive subjects may have been perceived
by the raters as more graceful and more natural in their body movements than
the unattractive subjects, Still, this finding should be viewed with caution
because of the low level of interrater agreement.
Finally, the present study examined the relationships between perceived
physical attributes and perceptions of masculinity and femininity. Consistent
Downloadedby[MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland]at17:1220January2015
Brown, Cash, & Noles 315
with a host of other studies (Cash & Duncan, 1984; Gillen, 1981; Major and
Deaux, 198I), current findings indicate that higher levels of attractiveness
were associated with stronger attributionsof masculinity to males and femininity
to females. In addition, the present study revealed other physical components
associated with gender perceptions. For example, the regression
equation predicting perceived sex-typingfor males indicated that, in addition
to higher levels of physical attractiveness, tighter fitting clothing and more
natural body movement were significantpredictors. For females, better overall
grooming, graceful body movement, and higher levels of physical attractiveness
were predictive of perceived sex-typing. Therefore, effective kinesics
may enhance the extent to which one is seen as communicatingidealized
aspects of one’sgender. Thus, although attractivenessconveys gender ideals,
how one carries this attractivenessis important as well.
REFERENCES
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness.In L. Berkowitz(Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 157-215). New York:
Academic Press.
Byrne, D., & Clore, G. L. (1970). A reinforcement model of evaluative responses.
Personality: An InternationalJournal, I , 103-128.
Cash, T. F. (1981). Physical attractiveness:An annotated bibliographyof theory and
research in the behavioral sciences. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology.
I I , Ms. 2370.
Cash, T. F. (1985). The impact of grooming style on the evaluation of women in
management. In M. Solomon (Ed.), Thepsychology offashion: From conception
to consumption (pp. 343-355). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath (Lexington Press).
Cash. T. F., Brown, T. A., & Noles, S. W. (1985). Physical attractiveness, body
image. and grooming. Unpublished manuscript.
Cash, T. F., & Duncan, N. C. (1984). Physical attractiveness stereotyping among
black American college students. Journal of Social Psychology. 122, 71-77.
Cash, T. F., & Janda, L. H. (1984). The eye of the beholder. Psychology Today,pp.
Cash, T. F.. Rissi, J., & Chapman, R. (1985). Not just another pretty face: Sex
roles. locus of control, and cosmeticsuse. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
l l , 246-257.
Cash, T. F., & Trimer, C. ( I 984). Sexism and beautyism in women’s evaluations of
peer performance. Sex Roles, 10, 87-98.
Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships
among componentsand gender label. Journal of Personality and Social PsyGillen,
B. (1981). Physical attractivenessas a determinantof two types of goodness.
Graham, J. A., & Jouhar. A. J. (1981). The effects of cosmetics on person percepJones,
R. (1982). The importance of face and body in perceptions of physical attrac-
46-52.
chology, 46, 991-1004.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 277-281.
tion. InternationalJournal of Cosmetic Science, 3, 199-210.
tiveness. Unpublished master’s thesis. Utah State University, Logan.
Downloadedby[MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland]at17:1220January2015
3 16 The Journal of Social Psychology
Lerner. R. M., & Gellert, E. (1969). Body build identification,preference and aversion
in children. Developmenral Psychology, I , 456-462.
Lerner, R. M., & Korn, S. J. (1972). The developmentof body-build stereotypesin
males. Child Development, 43, 912-920.
Major, B., & Deaux, K. (1981). Physical attractivenessand masculinity and femininity.
PersonaliQ and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 24-28.
McDonald, P. J., & Eilenfield, V. C. (1980). Physical attractiveness and the approachlavoidanceof
self-awareness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
6. 391-395.
Mueser, K. T., Grau, B. W., Sussman, S., & Rosen, A. J. (1984). You're only as
pretty as you feel: Facial expression as a determinant of physical attractiveness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 469-478.
Noles, S . W., Cash, T. F., & Winstead, B. A. (1985). Body image, physical attractiveness,
and depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 88-
94.
Sussman. S.. Meuser, K. T., Grau, B. W., & Yarnold. P. R. (1983). Stability of
females' facial attractivenessduring childhood. Journal of Personality and Social
psycho log^^, 44, I 231-1 233.
Received January 22, 1986.
Downloadedby[MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland]at17:1220January2015