Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1973, Vol. 28, No. 2, 218-224 RADIATING BEAUTY: EFFECTS OF HAVING A PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE PARTNER ON PERSON PERCEPTION HAROLD SIGALL 1 AND DAVID LANDY- University of Rochester In the context of previous research which has documented the importance of physical attractiveness on interpersonal choices, two experiments examined the effects of having a physically attractive romantic partner on person perception. In Experiment I, subjects formed impressions of a male stimulus person who was presented either as the boyfriend of, or as unassociated with, a female confederate who appeared as either an attractive or unattractive woman. As hypothesized, the stimulus person was evaluated most favorably when he was associated with the attractive woman. Least favorable impressions occurred when he was associated with the unattractive woman. In Experiment II, male subjects predicted the impressions that raters would form of them. Subjects expected to be target persons who, along with a female confederate (attractive or unattractive), would be presented to a rater as associated (boyfriend and girlfriend) or as unassociated. As predicted, subjects believed they would be viewed most favorably in the attractive-associated condition and viewed least favorably in the unattractive-associated condition. The status of physical attractiveness as a variable was discussed. Physical attractiveness is a variable which clearly has important interpersonal consequences. Over the past few years, these consequences have been investigated by several social psychologists. Two general findings which have emerged are that (a) good-looking people have greater social power they can be more persuasive, their evaluations have more impact than their unattractive counterparts (e.g., Mills & Aronson, 1965; Sigall & Aronson, 1969; Sigall, Page, & Brown, 1971), and (b) all other things being equal, physically attractive individuals are liked better than unattractive individuals (e.g., Byrne, London, & Reeves, 1968; Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966). Perhaps the most striking finding was made by Walster et al. (1966). They arranged a "computer dance" in which a large number of men and women, whose physical attractive- 1 The authors would like to thank Penny Baird, Arlene Cohen, and James Gallant for their assistance. Requests for reprints should be sent to Harold Sigall, who now is at the Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742. 2 David Landy is no longer affiliated with the University of Rochester and now resides in Freehold, New Jersey. 218 ness had been assessed, were randomly matched as dates. Although they gathered a great deal of additional information about participants, the only factor which seemed to affect liking and desired future contact was physical attractiveness. It is not surprising that appearance was an important determinant of liking in this context, only that it was so important. Given that liking is known to be influenced by numerous variables (e.g., see Berscheid & Walster, 1969), many of which are more than skin-deep, Walster et al.'s results were intriguing. A variety of explanations may be invoked to account for their results. The research reported here focuses on one possibility, although no attempt was made to rule out others. One reason that physical attractiveness is so important in choosing a date or spouse may be that the person making the choice believes that he 3 will be endowed with favorable attributes by others who are aware of the relationship and that he may gain social advantages simply by being linked with an 3 In the research to be described, the target person was male and the attractiveness of a female was varied. This was so primarily for methodological advantage; since women wear makeup it is easier to manipulate their appearance.
EFFECTS OF HAVING A PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE PARTNER 219 attractive person. Waller (1937) long ago suggested that individuals may gain prestige by dating those who have the "right" qualities. Since having an attractive romantic partner is assumed to be desirable in our culture, and since beauty is a relatively scarce commodity, when we view someone with a beautiful date we may impute positive characteristics to him to account for the relationship (e.g., "He must have something going for him"). A slightly different view is that on looking first at the attractive date, we may infer that she has a great deal of choice over whom she associates with, and by choosing that particular date, she is testifying to his competence. It should be clear that these possible processes are viewed as distinct from, although not to the necessary exclusion of, feelings of competence a person may derive from winning the favor of attractive others (Sigall & Aronson, 1969). Whether an individual's enhancement or perceived enhancement is influenced by the beauty of his date constitutes an interesting question in its own right, even if it has nothing to do with why people seek out attractive others. In the first experiment reported below, we attempted to assess the impressions formed of a male stimulus person as a function of the attractiveness of his girlfriend. In the second experiment, subjects were "given" an attractive or an unattractive girlfriend and were asked to indicate how they thought others would perceive them. EXPERIMENT I Method Overview and Subjects Twenty-eight male and 28 female subjects were recruited from an introductory psychology course. Each subject saw the stimulus person, a male, together with a female. The female was either made to look extremely attractive or rather unattractive. Half of the time, the female was presented as the stimulus person's girlfriend; in the remaining sessions, it was made clear that she had no connection with him. Subjects were tested individually and were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions, the only restriction on randomization being that an equal number of males and females would be represented in each condition. Procedure Subjects reported to an experiment entitled "Perception" and entered a waiting room. A posted sign directed subjects not to talk with one another. There were three chairs in the room: Two of them were placed adjacent to one another and were always occupied, when the subject arrived, by the male stimulus person (an accomplice who posed as a subject) and the female confederate. The third chair was situated so that the subject would face them upon being seated. The female confederate's appearance was manipulated according to a random, prearranged schedule. For half of the subjects, those in the attractive conditions, she was tastefully dressed and made up, so as to accentuate her natural good looks. For the remaining subjects, who were in the unattractive conditions, she wore an unbecoming wig, no makeup, and unflattering clothes. These features detracted from her appearance to an extent that made her physically unattractive. The appearance of the stimulus person (the male confederate) was not manipulated, although an attempt was made to have him appear as average in physical attractiveness. This was done to avoid having subjects account for his association with the female confederate in terms of his physical attractiveness. For example, if, when presented as the boyfriend of the attractive woman, the stimulus person were very good looking, subjects might have been relieved of their attribution problem, thereby obviating their need to endow him with other favorable qualities. Shortly after the subject entered, the experimenter appeared. He asked those present if they were scheduled to take part in the experiment on perception. After the subject and the stimulus person indicated that they were, the experimenter asked the female confederate if he could help her. Half the time in the associated conditions she held the stimulus person's hand and said, "No, I'm just waiting for my boyfriend." In the other, unassociated conditions, she said, "No, I'm waiting for Dr.. " As he left the waiting room, the experimenter told the subjects that he would return shortly to begin the experiment. After one minute, during which it was hoped that the subject would digest the information presented thus far, the experimenter reappeared and escorted the subject and stimulus person to separate cubicles. When he was alone with the subject, the experimenter pointed out that the study was concerned with perceptions of people, that various information would be exchanged between subjects in the course of the experiment, and that to begin with he wanted to obtain the subject's first impression of the "other subject." A form on which impressions could be recorded was given to the subject, confidentiality was assured, and the experimenter asked for honest responses. The experimenter then left the subject to respond in private, as he presumably went to attend to the other subject. After the form was completed, the experimenter
220 HAROLD SIGALL AND DAVID LANDY TABLE 1 MEAN OVERALL IMPRESSION OF THE STIMULUS PERSON Female's attractiveness Attractive Unattractive Note. N = 14 per cell. Associated 7.07 5.50 Association Unassociated 5.93 6.07 returned, the subject was debriefed, and the experimental session came to an end. Dependent Measures The first-impression questionnaire asked the subject to evaluate the stimulus person by circling the appropriate number on a series of 9-point rating scales. There were two major items. One was "My general, overall impression of the other subject is. " This statement was followed by a 9-point scale labeled, at the endpoints, negative (1) and positive (9). The second major item, "I think that I would personally. the other subject," was followed by a scale labeled dislike (1) and like (9). In addition, eight other items were included, partly to provide credibility for the cover story and partly for informational value. These items called for ratings of the stimulus person with respect to the following pairs of adjectives: unintelligent (1)- intelligent (9), insecure (l)-self-confident (9), unfriendly (l)-friendly (9), untalented (l)-talented (9), not likeable (l)-likeable (9), dull (l)-exciting (9), physically unattractive (l)-physically attractive (9), apathetic (l)-energetic (9). Results Table 1 shows the mean "overall impression" of the stimulus person by experimental condition. Although female subjects provided a more positive overall impression (X = 6.39) than did males (X = 5.89; F = 4.38, dj - 1/48, p <.05), the sex variable did not interact with the experimental variables, and scores obtained from men and women therefore were combined. It may be seen that whether one has an attractive or an unattractive girlfriend does, indeed, influence others' perceptions of him. When the stimulus person had a goodlooking girlfriend (attractive-associated condition), he elicited the most favorable impression (. =7.07); when his girlfriend was homely (unattractive-associated condition), he was viewed most negatively (X" = 5.SO). A look at the means reveals that when the stimulus person just happened to be in the presence of the female confederate (unassociated condition), her attractiveness did not affect perceptions of him. It was necessary for the stimulus person to be linked to the girl for her attractiveness to have an effect. The results of an analysis of variance of these data are presented in Table 2. Of primary importance is the Attractiveness X Association interaction, which was statistically significant beyond the.001 level (F = 12.86, dj 1/48). Although a significant main effect for attractiveness emerged as well, this effect clearly was due to results in the associated conditions. A simple comparison between the attractive-associated and attractive-unassociated conditions yielded an F of 11.43 (dj = 1/48, p <.005). A similar comparison between the unattractive-associated and unattractive-unassociated conditions yielded an F of 2.86 (dj = 1/48, p <.10). Thus, not only is it better to be associated with a beautiful girl than not to be associated with her, but also it appears that being associated with an unattractive girl tends to detract from the impressions we make. Results on the liking item were essentially similar. The stimulus person was liked better when he was seen as associated with the attractive female (X = 6.86) than when they were unassociated (X = 5.64), and although he was not liked less in the unattractiveassociated condition (X = 5.79) than in_the unattractive-unassociated condition (X 6.14), the critical A X B interaction was statistically significant (F = 7.32, dj = 1/48, p <.01). No other interactions or main effects were found. TABLE 2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR OVERALL IMPRESSION DATA Source Attractiveness (A) Association (B) Sex of Subject (C) AXB AX C B X C A X B X C Within groups Total *p <.05. ** p <.001. df 1 11 1 1 11 48 55 MS 7.14 1.14 3.50 10.29.64 1.79 1.79.80 F 8.93* 1.43 4.38* 12.86** <1 2.24 2.24
EFFECTS OF HAVING A PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE PARTNER 221 Considering the remaining items, we found no systematic differences with respect to ratings of intelligence, talent, or energy. The experimental variables did not affect judgments of the stimulus person's "excitingness" nor his physical attractiveness, although female subjects expressed significantly more favorable views on both of these dimensions. The attempt to keep the physical attractiveness (of the male stimulus person) in the average range appeared to be successful. The mean rating of his attractiveness given by males was 5.32, and the mean rating when subjects were female was 6.11, on a 9-point scale. Finally, the attractive-associated condition produced greater attributions of selfconfidence, friendliness, and likeability than the attractive-unassociated condition, while the unattractive-associated condition led to less attribution of these qualities than did the unattractive-unassociated condition. Statistically significant Attractiveness X Association (A X B) interactions resulted for each of these items. When seven of the eight subsidiary items were combined to obtain a general positivity index (the check on the stimulus person's physical attractiveness was excluded), 4 this interaction was the only effect which approached significance (^ = 3.15, df = 1/48, p <.10). Moreover, the general positivity index was higher in the attractive-associated condition (X = 43.09) than in the remaining conditions (X = 39.24; F = 5.71, df = 1/48, p <.025). In summary, our results strongly supported the notion that the physical attractiveness of one's girlfriend affects the impressions others form of him. While there was a tendency towards reduced favorability as a function of being associated with an unattractive woman, the most compelling finding was that being linked to a beautiful woman led to enhanced impressions. Discussion How are our results accounted for best? A number of possible, interrelated explanations may be invoked. Perhaps the simplest might be called a generalized halo effect. We like 4 The relationships and analyses were not affected if the physical attractiveness item was included in the pooled index. beauty; therefore, we like what beauty is near. Since mere proximal association with beauty did not affect judgments of the stimulus person, however, it is probably more appropriate to think in terms of balance (Heider, 1958): Person P (subject) likes Person O (attractive female); Person 0 likes Person Q (stimulus person); therefore, Person P likes Person Q. Going beyond this structural level of analysis, it can be argued, as we have suggested earlier, that people who view an individual romantically linked to an attractive person try to make sense of that association. In effect, they may ask themselves "Why is she, desirable as she appears to be, involved with him?" Our observers may answer such a question by attributing favorable qualities to him. At the outset, we placed our question in the context of a larger question; namely, do the impressions created in bystanders contribute to our desire to have relationships with beautiful others? What we have demonstrated is that onlookers do, in fact, enhance those with pretty girlfriends, thereby adding another favorable consequence to any others we may gain by having good-looking dates. However, in order to pursue the possibility that such a phenomenon is even capable of motivating romantic choices, it is necessary, at the very least, to demonstrate that those doing the choosing have some sense of the effects of their choice on observers. In Experiment II, reported below, we studied how men think they will be perceived as a function of the attractiveness of their girl friends. A confirmation of our expectation, that subjects believe others will think more of them when they are engaged in romance with beautiful women, would keep viable the possibility that bystander impressions influence desires to be associated with attractive people. In no sense, of course, would such a finding prove that others' impressions constitute a motivating force. EXPERIMENT II Method Overview and Subjects Forty male undergraduates recruited from an introductory psychology course were paired with a female confederate who posed as a subject. For half
222 HAROLD SIGALL AND DAVID LANDY of the subjects, the female confederate appeared to be physically unattractive; for the remaining subjects, she was extremely physically attractive. Subjects believed that they were to be target persons in an impression-formation study and that someone else would be asked to rate them. Crosscutting attractiveness was an association variable. Half of the subjects thought they would be presented to the rater as the confederate's boyfriend, while the rest of the subjects expected to be presented as never having had previous contact with the confederate. Subjects were asked to predict what the rater would say about them. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions and tested individually. Procedure Each subject was recruited for an experiment entitled "Impressions" by telephone, at which time it was stressed that he report to the laboratory precisely at the arranged hour. Within moments of his arrival, the confederate appeared. As in Experiment I, the attractiveness conditions were created through the differential use of makeup and clothing by the confederate. The experimenter quickly escorted them to an experimental room and explained the purpose of the study. She told them that they were taking part in a study of impression formation. Reminding the subjects that punctuality had been stressed, the experimenter told them that shortly another subject would be arriving, and that he would be asked to form impressions of them. The intervening time would be used to brief the subjects and to get set up for the soon-to-appear "other subject" (hereafter called the rater). It was explained that impression formation was of concern to psychologists and that what was of interest in the present study was how impressions developed. The experimenter told the subjects that information about them would be presented serially to the rater and that he would be asked to record his impressions of them. To begin with, the rater would be given some standard information which had been generated by the experimenter. Subjects were given forms and asked to fill them out. These forms requested uninteresting information, such as hometown, parents' occupation, ages of siblings, etc., and subjects were asked to copy (presumably to make things look realistic) the prescribed responses. Naturally, this information was identical throughout conditions. After these forms were completed, the experimenter informed the subject and the accomplice either that they would be presented to the rater as never having met prior to the experiment (unassociated conditions) or that they would be presented as being boyfriend and girlfriend with a four-month-old relationship (associated conditions). In the associated conditions, the experimenter pointed out that it was important that the rater believed a relationship existed and asked them to take a moment to imagine that they were indeed romantically associated. This was done in order to encourage subjects to attend to and to consider the information, although the explanation given was that it might be helpful in convincing the rater. The subject (and confederate) was then given a form and asked to predict the rater's impressions. Instructions directed subjects to "Indicate how you think the other subject will describe you...." Responses were made on a series of 9-point scales labeled at the end-points as follows: unintelligent (l)-intelligent (9), insecure (1)-self-confident (9), untalented (l)-talented (9), unsociable (l)-sociable (9), apathetic (l)-energetic (9), not likeable (1)- likeable (9), generally unfavorable (l)-generally favorable (9). On completing the form, subjects were asked to respond to another questionnaire, labeled "Personal Description." It was explained that part of the information that the rater would get would be generated by subjects. Thus, in contrast to the early material which the experimenter had concocted, this questionnaire directed the subject to describe how he felt at the moment on a series of 9-point scales. Actually, we were interested in seeing whether the experimental variables would affect self-presentation or attitudes toward self, in addition to predicted attributions. When the second questionnaire had been filled out, the experiment ended and subjects were debriefed. Results The subject's prediction of the "general" impression he would create in the rater was the major dependent measure. The resulting means are presented in Table 3, along with means obtained on an overall index which was formed by combining responses to the remaining items. Both measures yielded clear and consistent findings: On the general-impression item, subjects who believed they would be seen as the boyfriend of a beautiful woman expected the observer to regard them most highly (^=6.8), while subjects who thought they would be presented as an unattractive woman's boyfriend predicted the least favorable evaluations (X=5.6), The TABLE 3 SUBJECTS' MEAN PREDICTIONS OF How WOULD PERCEIVE THEM Condition Attractive-associated Attract! ve-unassociated Unattractive-associated Unattractive-unassociated General impression 6.8 6.1 5.6 6.5 THE RATER Overall index" 39.3 33.9 31.1 33.9 a Scores represent combined responses to the following items: unintelligent-intelligent, insecure-self-confident, untalentedtalented, unsociable-sociable, apathetic-energetic, not likeablelikeable.
EFFECTS OF HAVING A PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE PARTNER 223 means obtained in the attractive-unassociated and unattractive-unassociated conditions, were, respectively, 6.1 and 6.5. Analyses of variance showed that the Attractiveness X Association (A X B) interaction was statistically significant (for general impression, F = 5.08, df = 1/36, p <.05). As may be seen in Table 3, the pattern of findings was similar on the overall index (F = 5.47, df = 1/36, p <.05). A significant main effect for attractiveness (F = 5.47, df - 1/36, p <.05) emerged in the analysis of overall index scores, but this was clearly due to differences in the associated conditions, inasmuch as the means in the unassociated conditions were identical. Apparently the impact of our manipulations was restricted to influencing how subjects thought they would be viewed. Subjects' personal descriptions, in which they could express self-attitudes or manage self-presentation, were not affected by the variables. GENERAL DISCUSSION The results of the present investigations were consistent with a body of developing literature which points to the social psychological importance of physical attractiveness. Other researchers have demonstrated that physically attractive people are likely to be seen as possessing generally favorable qualities (e.g., Berscheid & Walster, 1972; Miller, 1970). Our research showed that when an individual is associated with an attractive partner, others will view him more favorably (Experiment I); such an association also leads the individual to believe that others will perceive him positively (Experiment II). These findings do not prove that the scramble for beauty in the dating marketplace is caused by considerations of how others will regard us. Nevertheless, given the ubiquity of needs for social approval (e.g., see Crowne & Marlowe, 1964), it is very tempting to regard these processes as part of the overall picture. One might wonder, for example, whether physical attractiveness would be so important under circumstances in which the relationship was restricted from public view. It may be difficult to imagine a research situation in which a couple is totally isolated, under circumstances that would allow a test (as, say, on a deserted island); but even relative public exposure may affect the importance of beauty (a fraternity party versus an off-thebeaten-path neighborhood theater). A few words should be said about the nature of physical attractiveness as a variable. As. noted earlier, many factors influence interpersonal preferences and behaviors; what is so special about good looks? With few exceptions (e.g., race) no other characteristic about a person is as readily apparent and observable as appearance. This fact seems to be especially pertinent to the research we have reported. While intelligence, kindness, or wealth may be equally, or even more, desirable than beauty, and while a person who has a relationship with someone favorably endowed on these dimensions may ultimately reap benefits in the eyes of beholders, such information is not easily accessible to observers. We would speculate, for example, that if people normally had their intelligence quotients permanently tattooed on their foreheads, we could replicate our findings, in principle, by pairing a stimulus person with an individual stamped 150 in half the conditions and 80 in the remaining conditions. The point is that we give credit to those successful with others who have favorable qualities. It is the immediate availability of information about beauty which contributes to its importance in first-impression situations. While most underlying traits bear no necessary logical relationship to physical appearance, perceivers make inferences which result in advantage to those blessed with physical attractiveness. Certainly there are people who are not good-looking but who do possess admirable qualities. We should be free to shake the effects of Madison Avenue socialization: Consciousness-raising efforts need to be undertaken so that individuals become acutely aware of the subjective processes which affect the way they view others. REFERENCES BERSCHEID, E., & WALSTER, E. Interpersonal attraction. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969. BERSCHEID, E., & WALSTER, E. Beauty and the best. Psychology Today, 1972, 5(10), 42-46. BYRNE, D., LONDON, O., & REEVES, K. The effects of physical attractiveness, sex, and attitude similarity
224 HAROLD SIGALL AND DAVID LANDY on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality, 1968, 36, 259-271. CROWNE, D. P., & MARLOWE, D. The approval motive. New York: Wiley, 1964. HEIDER, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. MILLER, A. G. Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 19, 241-243. MILLS, J., & ARONSON, E. Opinion change as a function of the communicator's attractiveness and desire to influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 173-177. SIGALL, H., & ARONSON, E. Liking for an evaluator as a function of her physical attractiveness and nature of the evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969, 5, 93-100. SIGALL, H., PAGE, R., & BROWN, A. C. Effort expenditure as a function of evaluation and evaluator attractiveness. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1971, 2, 19-25. WALLER, W. The rating and dating complex. American Sociological Review, 1937, 2, 727-734. WALSTER, E., ARONSON, V., ABRAHAMS, D., & ROTT- MAN, L. The importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 508-516. (Received April 27, 1972)