MIRROR, MIRROR

MIRROR, MIRROR . . .

The Importance of Looks in Everyday Life

Elaine Hatfield, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA

Susan Sprecher, ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK PRESS

SUNY Series in Sexual Behavior, Donn Byrne and Kathryn Kelley, Editors

Published by State University of New York Press, Albany

No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

For information, address State University of New York Press, State University Plaza, Albany, N.Y., 12246

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Hatfield, Elaine. Mirror, mirror.

(SUNY series in sexual behavior)

Bibliography: p. 377

Dedicated to Charles Hatfield and Eileen Hatfield and Charles William Fisher and Abigail Sprecher Fisher

CONTENTS

List of Tables
Acknowledgments
Foreword
Preface

Chapter 1 GOOD LOOKS - WHAT IS IT?

Chapter 2 WHAT IS BEAUTIFUL IS GOOD: THE MYTH

Chapter 3 THE UGLY: MAD OR BAD?

Chapter 4 ROMANTIC BEGINNINGS

Chapter 5 MORE INTIMATE AFFAIRS

Chapter 6 LET'S GET PHYSICAL

Chapter 7 HEIGHT, WEIGHT AND INCIDENTALS

Chapter 8 PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS: THE REALITY

Chapter 9 BEAUTY THROUGH THE LIFE-SPAN

Chapter 10 THE UGLY TRUTH ABOUT BEAUTY

Chapter 11 SUSAN LEE: A CASE HISTORY

Chapter 12 SELF-IMPROVEMENT—IS IT WORTH IT?

Bibliography

LIST OF TABLES

Societies' Preferences in Appearance

Satisfaction with Body Parts

The Relationship Between Looks and Career Success

Where Do Most College Couples Meet?

The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale

Percentage of Compliance with Each Request

Sexual Traits

The Beliefs vs. The Reality

6.3. How Intimate Is Your Relationship?

6.4. Reasons for Entering a Sexual Relationship

7.1. Acceptable Weights for Men and Women

7.2. Percent of Men and Women Exceeding Acceptable Weight by 20 Percent or More. A United States Health and

Nutrition Examination Survey, 1971-1974

9.1. The Impact of Age Upon Body Image

9.2. Consistency of Appearance and Self-Esteem, Body Satisfaction, and Current Happiness

11.0. Scores on the MSIS

12.1. The Effect of Dramatic Changes in Appearance

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would first like to thank our families for their ideas and support of this book. Elaine would like to thank Richard and Kim Rapson; Charles, Eileen, and Mary Hatfield; and Patricia, James, Jeremy, Joshua, Jordan, and Shayna Rich. Susan would like to thank Charles Fisher; Milton, Shirley, Terry, Dawn, Larry, Jan, and Cynthia Sprecher; and Bill, Sharon, Rebecca, and David Ring.

We would also like to thank our colleagues and friends who read drafts of the book: Geraldine Alfano, Leslie Donavan, Diane Felmlee, Gerald Marwell, Kathleen McKinney, Nancy Neuman, Gerelyn O'Brien-Charles, Terri Orbuch, Patt Schwab, and Robert Smith. Thanks to Amy Grever and Carol Yoshinaga for typing this manuscript and to Chris Peters from the University of Wisconsin for providing assistance on Illustrations. Charles Fisher helped secure permission to use the various tables, graphs, and quotations.

To all the men and women interviewed for the book we express our gratitude.

CREDITS

Figure 1.3 Reprinted with permission from Body and Clothes, by R. Broby-Johansen (Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel, 1966). Figure 1.5 Reproduced with permission of Pinacateca di Brera, Milan. Figure 1.6 Reprinted with permission from The Gibson Girl by S. Warshaw (Berkeley, Calif.: Diablo Press, 1968).

Figure 1.7 Illustration first appeared in Wiggins, Wiggins, and Conger, "Correlates of heterosexual somatic preference," /. of Personality and Social Psychology © 1968 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission of the author.

Figure 1.8 Reprinted with permission of Paul J. Lavrakas, "Female Preferences For Male Physiques," /. of Research in Personality 9:324-334. Figure 1.9 Reprinted with permission of Janet C. Vidal, 1984. Figure 9.4 © 1982 Nancy Burson in collaboration with Richard Carling and David Kramlich. Figure 9.9 Courtesy Soloflex, Inc.

Figure 12.1 Courtesy Baker-Van Dyke collection.

FOREWORD

It is a pleasure to be asked to say a few prefatory words to this volume, which brings together under one cover for the first time what behavioral scientists have learned about the effects of physical attractiveness. Writing this introduction is a special pleasure because the book's senior author, Elaine Hatfield, has played a major and seminal role in the development of this knowledge.

Because the general public has shown a great deal of interest in information about the effects of beauty, in the recent past many journalists, freelance writers, and others have requested reprints of studies for writing their own books about the impact of physical appearance in our lives. However admirable these efforts may be, it is safe to say that none can have the authority and perspective of the pages that follow.

For one thing, researchers in an investigative area know where the bodies are buried—the "reasonable" hypotheses that turned out not to be so reasonable after all and whose disconfirming data now languishes

Al *

in dark file drawers, never to see the light of publication and dissemination. For another, researchers know how to evaluate and weigh the quality of data and know where the subtle interpretive traps lie. Most importantly, researchers who have worked on a problem for a long time remember when what seems so obvious and readily accepted today was not only not obvious in the past but even failed to meet rudimentary standards of common sense. In the case of the effects of physical attractiveness, they remember when there was a scientific taboo against recognizing and systematically studying this variable at all.

This taboo against the investigation of appeariential variables upon human behavior reigned not in psychology's dim and distant past, but was alive and well until relatively recently. Just twenty years ago, Gardner Lindzey, president of the Division of Personality and Social Psychology of the American Psychological Association, took the field to task for ignoring the influence of morphological variables, "even aesthetic attractiveness," upon behavior. His remarks, many of which were scathing, detailed many reasons for the then prevalent belief in the scientific community that the study of appeariential variables was an "unsanitary practice," one that relegated those who persisted in exploring them to the tawdry side of the street in the social and behavioral sciences.

A few years after Lindzey's comments, Elliot Aronson (1969) an eminent researcher in the area of interpersonal attraction, commented upon the curious absence of systematic examination of the effect of one morphological variable, physical attractiveness, upon behavior. He also offered one possible reason for its neglect. "It may be," he said, "that, at some level, we [researchers] would hate to find evidence indicating that beautiful women are better liked than homely women— somehow this seems undemocratic." Presumably, it would have been equally uncomfortable for researchers, most of whom at that time were male, to find that handsome men were better liked than homely men. His comment, however, reflected the belief of the day (still covertly held by some researchers in contrary to established fact) that if physical attractiveness did by any chance have some impact, that impact was probably confined to women—and to women of dating and mating age at that.

These professional injunctions to those attempting to understand the dynamics of human social behavior had little noticeable effect. Then, in 1966, Elaine Hatfield and her colleagues published a study whose findings could not be ignored. The occasion for the study was Hatfield's employment by the University of Minnesota Student Activities Bureau, requiring her to help construct the university's program for "Freshman Welcome Week". That this new Ph.D., a top-rated graduate of the Stanford doctoral program in psychology, found employment only in

an auxiliary service agency while her fellow male students secured prestigious professorships in psychology departments reflected the times and a different kind of societal taboo. Trained as a researcher and given a benevolent head of the bureau (who later recalled to a group of Minnesota faculty some of the unusual requisitions for research materials he signed while Hatfield was in his employ, including one, he remembered, for "chocolate-covered grasshoppers"), Hatfield saw her assignment to "do something" for Welcome Week as a research opportunity.

So, interested in the dynamics of interpersonal attraction, Hatfield decided to put together a "computer dance" for the incoming freshmen, a dance where purchase of a ticket would guarantee the student a date. The research question she asked was simple: Which dates, randomly paired, would like each other? Her hypothesis also was simple: People of relatively equal "social desirability" would hit it off better than people mismatched in social assets. But what determines a person's social desirability? "Personality" surely would be important, she reasoned. Fortunately, all incoming freshmen had completed various kinds of personality assessment devices, so information on this score was available. "Social skills," too, could be expected to play a role, and information on this dimension was also available. "Intelligence," especially in the college setting, undoubtedly would be an important asset, and, of course, all freshmen had submitted grade averages and completed aptitude tests to gain admittance to the university. These attributes headed the lists of all previous studies asking people what they looked for and valued in a date or mate. Thus, personality, social skills, and intelligence were to be combined into a "Social Desirability" score for each person buying a ticket to the dance.

At the last minute, however, Hatfield had an afterthought. She asked the students selling tickets to the dance to jot down their impressions of the physical attractiveness of the purchaser. Needless to say, these impressions provided only rough assessments. In the general confusion surrounding the ticket sale and in the few seconds it took to take money, make change, and issue a ticket, the ticket-taker's impression could not have much reliability and validity and thus could not be expected to predict much of anything. Nevertheless, the data were collected and analyzed.

I was a graduate student in the Laboratory for Research in Social Relations at the time and remember well when Hatfield was asked how the computer dance study had "turned out". "It was a flop," she said. Her "matching hypothosis" had not been confirmed. People of equal social desirabilities did not like each other better than mismatches. In fact, she went on, there was only one predictor of whether a person would like his or her date and, in the case of men, whether he would actually make an effort to contact the date again. That predictor was

those rough physical attractiveness assessments. The more physically attractive a person was, the more they were liked by their date. This predictor held true whether the person was a woman or a man.

This news was greeted by total silence. Finally, someone said, "That was it?" "That's it," she replied. "Intelligence, social skills, personality— they didn't predict." Needless to say, these results cast a pall over the lab. The finding was embarrassing. Among other things, it gave the lie to our collective professions that what we really valued in potential dates and mates was a good personality—honesty, kindness, and all the other sterling virtues. The finding also mocked the advice, then routinely given to those who found themselves lonely and rejected, to wit: "Improve your personality and your character!"

It was not, of course, that we didn't suspect appearance played some role in how a person was regarded by others. But this was the early sixties—when appearance was almost universally regarded as a frivolous and superficial attribute. At this time people requesting plastic surgery to modify some aspect of their appearance were routinely subjected to tests to ascertain that they were free of psychopathology— a certification difficult for the candidate to achieve since a request for plastic surgery was itself considered a symptom of neuroticism. During this era the only reasonable justification for orthodontal surgery and treatment, or indeed routine dental treatment, was considered, by insurance companies, dentists, and clients alike, to be improvment of "function"—not aesthetic appearance.

All that, and more, has changed. For example, judges, juries, and lawyers representing clients whose appearance has been adversely altered through the negligence of others now take into consideration more than just impaired physical function. The probability that a disfigurement also leaves the victim with impaired self-esteem and impaired social and economic opportunities is also considered. The dental profession now worries about more than whether their treatment will leave the patient with the perfect "bite". Finally, therapists and counselors do not automatically conclude that social rejection is always the result of unattractive interior qualities.

Many of these changes can be traced back to that first uncomfortable and embarrassing finding, and to the fact that Elaine Hatfield was not content to bury her data. Against the advice of some senior colleagues, who believed the finding was "theoretically uninteresting" and therefore unworthy of consideration by professional journals, she wrote up her "serendipitous finding," as she called it then, and so the effort to trace the dimensions of this variable upon people's lives began in earnest.

All good researchers must be willing to observe not only that the emperor's new clothes are not magnificent but, when necessary, to call

attention to the fact that he seems to be parading around in his underwear. Fortunately, researchers are not often called upon to make such assertions. When they are, however, and when they persist in their contention that we seem to be kidding ourselves, our understanding of our world changes; thus, our ability to make reasonable and considered choices for ourselves and for our own lives expands.

Since providing better information for making life choices is the bottom line of all research, I was particularly pleased to see that the relative importance of physical attractiveness is not ducked in the final chapters of this book. Just as it was wrong and misleading to underestimate the impact of physical attractiveness in peoples' lives, it is surely equally wrong to overestimate it—to forget that decisions on expending time, money, and energy to improve or maintain attractiveness have to be made in the context of many other considerations, and that while making gains on the attractiveness dimension, other things, often of greater value, may be lost.

I cannot resist concluding these comments with the most recent example of the effects of a single-minded determination to place beauty above all other considerations. The example comes not from the United States, with its multibillion dollar cosmetic industry and infinite numbers of diet centers, fat farms, and physical fitness and rejuvenation spas. It comes from Communist China. Concerned with the growing number of unwed men and women in their country, the Chinese government recently sponsored a nationwide campaign to "pair them off". To that end, "night dancing parties," marriage introduction services, and organized singles outings were introduced. The government's campaign, however, was a failure. Why? Apparently there are not enough "beautiful people" to go around. The People's Daily (as reported by the Associated Press in The Minneapolis Star and Tribune, August 31, 1984) complains: "Men's and women's criteria for selecting mates are not practical. The situation is unsettling. When matchmaking workers ask a man what kind of mate he desires, he says, T want a beautiful woman.' The result is they do not find anyone suitable." Apparently the joys of marriage and parenthood combined with governmental sanction and enticement do not outweigh, at least in contemporary Chinese eyes, the discomfort of being paired with someone who does not meet their high standards of beauty.

Is this subject "theoretically uninteresting"? That apples fall down, rather than up, must have seemed just as theoretically uninteresting at one time. But no one interested in predicting the trajectory of an apple loosed from its bough could afford to ignore that mundane fact, and

no effort to understand human behavior in general, and social interaction in particular, can afford to overlook the factor of appearance.

Ellen Berscheid

Minneapolis, Minnesota September, 1984

PREFACE

We all face a fundamental paradox. We have to admit that appearances matter. We know that small details of our appearance can be critical determinants of how well we will do in love, at work, and in life. And yet . . . and yet. Each of us knows we do not really "measure up," and we feel slightly ashamed that we expect other people to do so. How can we deal with this dilemma? This book will attempt to address that issue.

In chapter 1 we ask, "What is good looks?" and review what anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists know about that question. We examine whether there is any agreement both between and within cultures as to what is considered beautiful or handsome.

In chapters 2 and 3, we review the evidence that, in the main, people believe "what is beautiful is good and what is ugly is bad." We will discover that people believe good-looking people possess almost all the virtues known to humankind, and that, as a consequence, they treat the good-looking/ugly very differently.

In chapters 4, 5, and 6, we discuss how well attractive versus unattractive persons fare in the dating, mating, and sexual marketplaces. We review several studies indicating that although most people desire attractive partners most often, because of the dynamics of supply and demand, they end up pairing with someone of about their own level of attractiveness.

We turn to more specific physical characteristics in chapter 7. We discuss the stereotypes held about people with specific physical characteristics. We explore the impact of height, weight, and such incidentals as hair color, eyes, and beardedness on our social encounters.

In time, most people come to see themselves as others see them— to act as others expect them to act. Eventually, good-looking and unattractive people become different types of folk in their self-images, personalities, and interactional styles. In chapter 8, we examine this reality of physical attractiveness.

In chapter 9, we trace the impact of beauty through the life cycle. We examine what happens to our bodies as we age and how this change affects other areas of our lives. We discover that beauty begins to matter in the nursery and continues to matter through old age.

Throughout the majority of the book we discuss the pleasant aspects of being attractive. Yet every silver lining has its cloud. The ugly truth about good looks, the disadvantages, are discussed in chapter 10.

This discussion leads us to the question of what to do if we are unattractive. Is it worth it to try every means to make ourselves more appealing? Cosmeticians, beauticians, orthodontists, and plastic surgeons would lead us to believe that we can (and should) do all we can to improve our looks. But such enterprises have serious costs even in the short run. They are expensive, exhausting, and require us to focus almost every waking moment on being something we are not. Worse yet, people banking everything on looks may find they have won the battle but lost the war. In the end, and in spite of evidence we have cited heretofore, factors other than beauty turn out to be important in producing life-long happiness. In chapters 11 and 12, we present what social psychologists and therapists have to say about the advantages and disadvantages of trying to improve our appearance. We learn that most of us do our best if we engage in fulfilling activities—concentrating on sharpening our skills in intimacy, pursuing friendship, investing energies in our careers. Apparently, what is important is to accept ourselves as we are and to set out on a search for what life has to offer.

Chapter 1

GOOD LOOKS— WHAT IS IT?

When we were deciding how to write this book, our first step was to gather a great sampling of people. We sought people very different from one another—men and women of various races, ages (3 to 97), and occupations; people strikingly good-looking to downright homely; people who had very different life experiences. These are the people who make up THE GROUP. We began by asking THE GROUP: "If you came upon a 2,000 ad. computer capable of answering your deepest, most hidden questions about beauty and handsomeness, what would you ask?"

THE GROUP'S reply was quick: "What is it?" They mentioned people they thought were strikingly beautiful or handsome ... or painfully ugly—"What makes these people so distinctive?" Then, THE GROUP began, shyly, to ask more personal questions: "Do you think I'm good-looking?" "What's my best feature?" "My worst?" "What would I have to do to be really good-looking?" "What's it like to be extraordinarily good-looking?"

Figure 1.1. A tribesman admires his ceremonial appearance. Photograph by Jack Fields, 1969.

In this book, we will try to provide social psychologists' answers to all these questions and more. But first, we will have to begin at the beginning and discuss, "What is this thing called good looks?"

• How would you define good looks? Could you explain what a "beautiful woman" and "handsome man" are to a blind person?

• Who are the most attractive men and women you ever saw? What makes them so appealing?

• Who is the homeliest person you ever saw? What made him or her so unappealing?

GOOD LOOKS—WHAT IS IT?

Webster's New World Dictionary defines good looks as:

BEAU TI FUL (byoot'e fel) adj. having beauty; very pleasing to the eye, ear, mind, etc. —interj. an exclamation of approval or pleasure —the beautiful 1. that which has beauty; the quality of beauty 2. those who are beautiful — beau'tifully (-e fie, -e fel e) adv. SYN.—beautiful is applied to that which gives the highest degree of pleasure to the senses or to the mind and suggests that the object of delight approximates one's conception of an ideal; lovely refers to that which delights by inspiring affection or warm admiration; handsome implies attractiveness by reason of pleasing proportions, symmetry, elegance, etc. and carries connotations of masculinity, dignity, or impressiveness; pretty implies a dainty, delicate, or graceful quality in that which pleases and carries connotations of femininity or diminutiveness; comely applies to persons only and suggests a wholesome attractiveness of form and features rather than a high (From D. B. Guralnik, Webster's New Simon and Schuster, 1982], 124, 634.)

degree of beauty; fair suggests beauty that is fresh, bright, or flawless and, when applied to persons, is used esp. of complexion and features; good-looking is closely equivalent to handsome or pretty, suggesting a pleasing appearance but not expressing the fine distinctions of either word; beauteous, equivalent to beautiful in poetry and lofty prose, is now often used in humorously disparaging references to beauty—ANT. ugly HAND-SOME (han'sem) adj. [orig., easily handled, convenient < ME. handsom: see hand & some¹] 1. a) [Now Rare] moderately large b) large; impressive; considerable [a handsome sum] 2. generous; magnanimous; gracious [a handsome gesture] 3. good-looking; of pleasing appearance: said esp. of attractiveness that is manly, dignified, or impressive rather than delicate and graceful [a handsome lad, a handsome chair] —SYN. see beautiful —hand'somely adv. — hand'someness n. World Dictionary: Edition 2 [New York:

By physical attractiveness we mean that which best represents one's conception of the ideal in appearance and gives the greatest pleasure to the senses.

At first glance, it seems easy to say what is appealing, what is not. For example, early I.Q. testers assumed that any intelligent person could easily tell which is which. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (1937 edition) asked children to look at two line drawings and to indicate which woman was pretty and which was ugly. The "pretty" face had fine, delicate features and a neat hairdo, while the "ugly" face had a large nose, a large mouth, and unkempt hair. Obviously, the test constructors assumed they knew what beauty was and that any "bright" child would agree with them. Unfortunately, however, things are not so simple. The search for a standard of beauty has been a long one.

The Search for a Universal Beauty

Thoughtful people have spent an enormous amount of effort trying to discover what is universal about beauty. Greek philosophers were convinced that the Golden Mean was the basic standard of beauty (see Hambidge 1920; or Plato 1925). The Golden Mean represented a perfect balance. To be extreme was to be imperfect. (So much for the rare and exotic.) The Greeks' theory was elegantly, brilliantly simple. Unfortunately, it was wrong. The Romans were more interested in the rarities of particular faces and persons. Conceptions of ideal beauty resurfaced in the Christian era (see Figure 1.2).

In more recent times, Charles Darwin's efforts to define beauty are worth noting. Charles Darwin realized it was critically important for anthropologists to know what various peoples considered sexually appealing. Only then could they predict the course of sexual selection and, ultimately, human evolution. Darwin tried but failed. After surveying the standards of various tribes throughout the world, Darwin concluded: "It is certainly not true that there is in the mind of many any universal standard of beauty with respect to the human body" (1952, 577).

Henry T. Finck (1887) was the first early psychologist to pose a theory of beauty. Finck is a delight to read. It makes one feel smugly superior to encounter someone so self-righteous, so opinionated . . . and so wrong. Finck's singular thesis was that primitive people were nature's "experiments." Humankind started out, he thought, exceedingly ugly. But humankind continued to evolve, becoming more perfect, better-looking, all the time. Finally, evolution and good looks reached a pinnacle in the upperclass English gentleman. (Luckily, Henry Finck happened to be in just this category.)

Figure 1.2. Leonardo da Vinci, Illustration of Proportions of the Human Figure, c. 1485-1490, pen and ink, 13% X 9%.

This tendency—to assume our own group contains the best of everything—is common. One example: Dental surgeons face the extraordinarily difficult task of developing a universal standard of beauty. (The only way to know whether orthodontics has helped or hurt is to have a standard of perfection against which to compare your work.) Most orthodontic indices, beginning with E. H. Angles' classification in 1908, have used an arbitrary classification standard. In each case, the test constructors selected their own face as the ideal! This unconscious chauvinism has had an ironic result. Since the dentists involved in scale development have been Europeans, when dentists in Hawaii tried to use the scales with Asian or black populations they soon discovered almost all their clients needed their teeth straightened. Finckism strikes again! (See Giddon [1980] or Uesato [1968] for a further discussion of this point.)

Finck attempted to provide a feature by feature analysis of what is good-looking. He began his dissertation with "The Evolution of the Big Toe" and moved slowly upward. The flavor of Finck's appalling Victorian smugness is recaptured in his opening passage:

. . . Concerning savages, there is a prevalent notion that, owing to their free and easy life in the forests, they are healthier on the average than civilized mankind. As a matter of fact, however, they are as inferior to us in Health as in Beauty. Their constant exposure and irregular feeding habits, their neglect and ignorance of every hygienic law, in conjunction with their vicious lives, their arbitrary mutilations of various parts, and their selection of inferior forms, prevent their bodies from assuming the regular and delicate proportions which we regard as essential to beauty. (1887, 76)

Finck then itemized each trait—the feet, limbs, waist, chest, etc.— and explained why the Victorian gentleman surpassed all others in beauty appeal. (In a short 467 pages, he managed to insult every existing ethnic group.) The Hungarians are "of a repulsive ugliness in the eyes of all their neighbors." "The typical Jew is certainly not a thing of beauty. The disadvantages of genuine separation are shown not only in the long, thick crooked nose, the bloated lips, almost suggesting a negro, and the heavy lower eyelid, but in the fact that the Jews have proportionately more insane, deaf mutes, blind, and colour-blind" than other Europeans (p. 89). "The women of France are amongst the ugliest in the world" (p. 390).

What about the Americans? Finck quotes Lady Amberley:

They all looked sick. Circumstances have repeatedly carried me to Europe, where I am always surprised by the red blood that fills and colours the faces of ladies and peasant girls, reminding one of the canvas of Rubens and Murillo; and I am always equally surprised on my return

by crowds of pale, bloodless female faces, that suggest consumption, scrofula, anaemia, and neuralgia, (p. 445)

Such was the tenor of Finck's scientific discussion. The problem with Finck's careful enumeration of ideal traits is that nowhere can we take him seriously.

The dream of anthropologists of discovering what constituted "universal beauty" was finally laid to rest in a landmark survey. Clelland Ford and Frank Beach (1951) studied more than two hundred primitive societies. They were unable to find any universal standards of sexual allure. Different cultures could not even agree completely as to what parts of the body were important. For some peoples, the shape and color of the eyes was what really mattered. For others, it was height and weight. Still others went right to the center of things—what mattered was the size and shape of the sexual organs.

To complicate things still further, even if two societies agreed on what was important, they rarely agreed about what constituted good looks in that area. For example, in some societies (like our own), a slim woman is the ideal. The opposite, however, is true in most other societies—the fatter the better. Table 1.1 lists traits people in various societies have considered hallmarks of beauty.

TABLE 1.1 Societies' Preferences in Appearance

NUMBER OF SOCIETIES THAT ADMIRE THIS TRAIT

Slim body build Medium body build Plump body build	5 5 13
Narrow pelvis and slim hips Broad pelvis and wide hips	1 6
Small ankles Shapley calves	3 5
Upright, hemispherical breasts Long and pendulous breasts Large breasts	2 2 9
Large clitoris Elongated labia majora	1 8

Note: Although Ford and Beach discuss the impact of "man's" appearance on sexuality, in this case "man" means "woman." Although the authors do not itemize the traits constituing handsomeness, other information makes it clear that in various societies there is equal disagreement as to what handsomeness is.

THE FACE

In many societies, the face—delicate boned or broad and sensual—is all that really counts.

Anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski (1929) observed that, for the Trobriand Islanders: ", . . It is a notable fact that their main erotic interest is focused on the human head and face. In the formulae of beauty magic, in the vocabulary of human attractions, as well as in the arsenal of ornament and decoration, the human face—eyes, mouth, teeth, nose and hair—takes precedence" (pp. 295-296).

Those societies that are experts on the face do not agree as to what kind of face is best. Most peoples consider light skin to be most appealing. But many, like the Pima, prefer dark skin; some, like the Dobuans, consider albinos to be particularly repulsive. For the Wogeo, things are even more complicated: tawny-colored Wogeoians prefer light-skinned mates; the cocoa colored prefer dark-skinned mates.

Figure 1.3. In some African tribes, the women insert pieces of wood as large as plates behind their lips. Ubangi women.

THE BODY

In many societies, good looks equals a good body. But again, even the societies that worship fine bodies do not agree on what constitutes a good body. In most societies, robust women are seen as possessing the most sex appeal. Clelland Ford and Frank Beach observe:

[Holmberg writes of the Siriono:] Besides being young, a desirable sex partner—especially a woman—should also be fat. She should have big hips, good sized but firm breasts, and a deposit of fat on her sexual organs. Fat women are referred to by the men with obvious pride as EreN ekida (fat vulva) and are thought to be much more satisfying sexually than thin women, who are summarily dismissed as being ikdNgi (bony). In fact, so desirable is corpulence as a sexual trait that I have frequently heard men make up songs about the merits of a fat vulva .... (1951, 88-89)

In many primitive societies, people are balanced on the fine edge of survival. A fat wife is a status symbol. She graphically illustrates her husband's ability to provide ... to excess.

SEXUAL TRAITS: GETTING DOWN TO FUNDAMENTALS

It is easy for us to understand how critically important sexual characteristics are. The question "Are you a breast man, a leg, or an ass man?" attests to Americans' focus on sexual traits. American men have long been fascinated by big breasts (Morrison and Holden 1971). In 1968, Francine Gottfried of Brooklyn—a twenty-one-year old whose measurements were 43-25-37—generated a riot among staid, Wall Street businessmen simply by walking to work in the morning. At first, only a few bankers, brokers, and clerks waited on the street corner to watch her walk by. Then the crowds grew. The news media began to report on the phenomenon. The crowds swelled. On September 21, 1968, a cheering crowd of more than 10,000 jammed Broad Street (in front of the New York Stock Exchange) and nearby Wall Street. Newspapermen and cameramen from as far away as Australia waited for pictures. Ticker tape floated down from the buildings. Police stood by with bullhorns. In the pushing and shoving, some in the throng were nearly trampled. There was the distinctive thumping sound as the metal roofs of four automobiles buckled under the weight of excited spectators, who had climbed on top for a better view. Francine Gottfried of Brooklyn did not enjoy the spectacle as much as the bankers. She failed to put in an appearance (New York Times, 21 Sept. 1968).

Americans' obsession with breasts might tempt you to assume the fixation is a cultural universal. It is not. In different cultures, the "ideal"

±\J .....--------

size and shape of a woman's breasts vary. Some peoples prefer small, upright breasts. (The Wogeo think breasts should be firm with the nipples facing outwards. A young girl with pendulous breasts, "like a grandmother," is pitied.) Other peoples like long and pendulous breasts. For some peoples the external genitals, the labia majora and minora and the penis, are important. In many societies, elongated labia majora are considered erotically appealing. Young girls are advised to pull the clitoris and the vulvar lips to enhance their sex appeal. Before puberty, girls on Ponape undergo treatment designed to lengthen the labia minora and to enlarge their clitoris. Impotent old men pull, beat, and suck the labia to lengthen them. The girls put black ants in their vulva so that their stinging will cause the labia and clitoris to swell. In America, most men are not particularly focused on this area. Pornographic magazines featuring "beaver shots" appeal to a minority. (Another society's obsessions always seem strange to us.)

In many societies, men's sexual organs are equally important. In the New Hebrides, men choose to emphasize their sexual appeal (see Figure 1.4). Anthropologist B. T. Sommerville (1984) observed:

The natives wrap the penis around with many yards of calico, and other materials, winding and folding them until a preposterous bundle of eighteen inches, or two feet long, and two inches or more in diameter is formed, which is then supported upward by means of a belt, in the extremity decorated with flowering grasses, etc. The testicles are left naked, (p. 368)

In the 1600s European men often wore codpieces in a similar effort to emphasize their assets. Originally, a codpiece was a metal case to protect men's genitals in battle. Eventually it became a gaudy silk case of colors contrasting with the rest of the costume. Sometimes it was enlarged with stuffing and decorated with ribbons and precious stones (see Figure 1.5).

Lest other society's obsessions with men's genitals seem exotic, note that Rolling Stone once devoted an entire issue to describing how magazines such as Playgirl and Viva test, cajol, and massage the centerfold's penis to just the right stage of arousal (McCormack 1975). Elvis Presley often used a toilet paper tube under tight pants while performing on stage to augment his penis size (Wallace 1981).

As we have seen again and again, however, only a few societies focus on the external genitals, and those that do fail to agree on what constitutes beauty. The New Hebrides model and the Marlboro man are miles apart.

Figure 1.4. In the New Hebrides, men wrap their penes in cloth to form an impressive bundle, held in place with a leather belt. Courtesy Muse'e de 1 Homme, Paris.

Figure 1.5. Portrait of Antonio Navagero by Giovanni Battista Moroni, 1565.

IN SUMMARY

Today, scholars have admitted defeat in their search for a universal beauty. After a painstaking search, after numerous false leads, all their hopes of uncovering such ideals have been shattered. Anthropologists have ended where they began—able to do no more than point to the dazzling array of characteristics that various people in various places, at various times, have idealized.

(Reading this research, one feels a sense of irony. Most of us spend so much time worrying about our bodies, trying to emphasize our "good points" and minimize our "bad" ones. It is disconcerting to realize that with a slight change of time or place all these standards would be turned topsy-turvy.)

Although anthropologists have also been unable to unearth any universal standards for good looks (or for bad looks) within any society, there is, however, considerable agreement on what is appealing and what is not.

The Search for a Local Beauty

In Western society, the media promotes a standard of beauty. Gerald Adams and a colleague (Adams and Crossman 1978) describe television's image of beauty:

Masculinity is judged by overall appearance and impression. The commercials on television will suggest the main attributes a man needs to be considered attractive and desirable. "The dry look" is important. "Reaching for the gusto" is absolutely essential. Using Right Guard and smelling of Brut, English Leather, Old Spice, Musk or one of a half dozen other men's colognes are also necessary. And depending upon the "type", he will drive a certain make and model of car, smoke a certain brand of tobacco, and above all, read "Playboy" magazine. He doesn't have to have a face like Paul Newman or Robert Redford, or a physique like Adonis, though it won't hurt if he does. Primarily, he must be trim, rugged but not too rugged, manly, and have a nice smile. Femininity, on the other hand, is characterized by perfection in every detail. Unlike masculinity, femininity cannot be acquired merely by using the right deodorant and applying a number of external props. A woman must have hair with body and fullness that is marvelously highlighted. Each feature must be an equal contributor to her pretty face. She must have eternally young and blemish-free skin. Her figure must not only be trim, but meet certain "idealized" standards to be considered beautiful. Her hands must be silky soft and not too large. Her nails must be long and perfectly trimmed. Her legs must be shapely, firm, and preferably long. To attain all this, she must "enter the garden of earthly delights" and use "Herbal Essence Shampoo"—hair conditioners scented with lemon, strawberry or apricot, which give marvelous body . . . and rinse or dye, which will make her the "girl with the hair". Her skin must be nurtured with moisturizers and emollients so she can look eternally young. Her figure should surpass that of a Greek goddess by being amply bosomed and slim waisted, but rounded in the hips. As for her legs, "gentlemen prefer Hanes." For finishing touches, she should use "sex appeal toothpaste" and put her "money where her mouth is". She should know that "Blondes have more fun" and Lady Clairol blondes have the most fun of all. For a foundation, she should wear the "cross

your heart bra" and never be without her "18-hour girdle". Finally, above all else, her beauty must look natural, (pp. 21-22; reprinted by permission of Libra Publishing)

Americans and Europeans agree with the media on what is appealing and what is not. In a typical study (this one conducted in Great Britain), Iliffe (1960) asked readers of one of the large newspapers how "pretty" they thought twelve women's faces were. The photos where chosen to represent as many types as possible—they varied in slope of eye, coloring, shape of face, etc. Thousands of readers replied, the critics ranging in age from eight to eighty. They came from markedly different social classes and regions, yet they had similar ideas about what is beautiful. (Additional evidence that, within a society, there is consensus on what is beautiful comes from the work of Cross and Cross [1971] and Kopera, Maier, and Johnson [1971].)

We asked THE GROUP what traits they thought made men and women appealing. Here are some of their answers.

A physically attractive woman is someone with beautiful hair, expressive eyes, high cheekbones, perfect breasts, great ass and legs.

Beautiful people have distinctive features.

Figure 1.6. Charles Dana Gibson, The Jury Disagrees

A beautiful woman is someone with big eyes, a pretty smile, a thin tapered nose, oval-shaped face, perfect teeth. Usually women have to be perfect to be beautiful. Men don't have to be perfect.

Distortions are ugly. Someone who has a very large nose or big forehead, a lot of freckles, or something like that, is unappealing.

I'm thinking of a man I know who is gorgeous. He has blond hair, light blue eyes, high cheekbones, a long face, and a perfect nose.

I don't like the 5'11" All-American blond with voluptuous curves. It's boring, I like the unusual—a German look ... a beautiful Scandana-vian look.

When I think of beauty, I think of Vogue and high fashion. Since I don't like that, I don't know what beauty is.

No fat chicks here.

I think men whose bodies have gone to seed are a little disgusting.

Beauty is perfection. That perfection can manifest itself in a variety of ways—first and foremost would be in physical aspects.

Though there are differences among these statements, the similarities and agreements are more common.

Several studies have examined how people react to different body configurations. Nancy Hirshberg and her colleagues (Wiggins et al. 1968) conducted the most careful study of what men think is beautiful in women. They prepared 105 nude silhouettes like those in Figure 1.7.

The first silhouette had a Golden Mean sort of body—she had average-sized breasts, buttocks, and legs. (If the Greeks were right, men should have preferred her—they didn't.) The remaining silhouettes' assets were systematically varied. For example, the silhouettes were given unusually large breasts (+2), moderate-sized breasts (+1), standard breasts (0), moderately small breasts (-1), or unusually small (-2) breasts. The silhouettes' legs and buttocks were varied in the same way. Young men were asked to pick the figures they liked best.

The Golden Mean theory turned out to have some validity. Most men thought the women with medium-sized breasts, buttocks, and legs were more attractive than those with unusually small or large features. The men's ideal, however, was a woman with oversized breasts (+1), medium to slightly small buttocks, and medium-sized legs. (Similar results were secured by Beck et al. [1976] and Horvath [1979].)

What about women? What do they find appealing in men? Paul Lavrakas (1975) followed the procedure we have just described in order to find out. He constructed nineteen different types of men's bodies on

Very recently, a new type of ideal has begun to emerge—a more muscular, healthy, functional beauty. Time magazine (Corliss 1982) devoted a cover story to this "New Ideal of Beauty." Time argued that women are reshaping Americans' notions of beauty. The new woman is natural—graceful, slim, and far stronger than before. Their bodies are streamlined for motion, for purposeful strides across the mall, around the backcourt, and into the board room.

Ideals of beauty for women and men may be merging. For men, attractiveness has traditionally been equated with strength, stamina, fitness—all of which allowed men to be more functional. Women are finally joining men in the exercise gym and in corporate chambers (See Figure 1.9).

Summary

Scientists have found no universal beauties. People in different cultures do not even agree on which features are important, much less what is good-looking and what is not.

Within a culture, however, there is considerable agreement about looks. Luckily for the vast majority of us, there is not complete agreement. For example, Cross and Cross (1971), after reporting that Americans and Europeans agree, to some extent, on what kinds of faces are most appealing, report: "The most popular face in the sample was chosen as best of its group by 6 of 207 judges but there was no face that was never chosen, and even the least popular face was picked as best of its group (of six portraits similar in age, sex, and race) by four subjects" (p. 438).

The optimistic hope that someone, somewhere, sometime will think we are irresistible seems a realistic one.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOURSELF?

Now that we have discovered what Americans and Europeans think is good-looking, we can turn to the most personal questions THE GROUP faced:

• How good-looking do you think you are?

• If you could enter one part of yourself in a beauty contest, what would that be?

• Are there certain parts of your body that are especially ugly?

• What do other people think of your looks?

Figure 1.9. Ms. University of Hawaii, Janet C. Vidad, at a beauty and physical fitness contest, 1984.

• Do they ever tell you you're physically appealing? Make cruel comments about your looks? How do you react to such comments?

• How self-conscious are you about your looks?

Scientists have developed a variety of techniques for assessing "Body Image."

We all know about "The Perfect 10". At the University of Wisconsin (Madison) sits The Pub, overlooking State Street. The front wall is solid glass. Men sit on stools, drinking beer, "watching all the girls go by." Each time a woman passes, men shout out "5" or "8" to indicate how good-looking they think she is. Madison women, a bit fiercer than most, occasionally retaliate. One Friday afternoon, a student named Leslie Donovan went down to The Pub with her Alpha Chi Omega sorority sisters, each armed with a stack of flash cards numbered 1-10. When a man shouted his rating, they held up a card indicating his score. (Ms. Donovan once held up a flash card with a "10" on it plus a note attached which said, "My name is Leslie. You can reach me at 222-0101.")

Generally, researchers use a straightforward technique for finding out how people rate themselves. They simply ask them. For example, we (Hatfield [Walster] et al., 1966) asked teenagers: "All in all, how good-looking do you think you are?"

I___I___I___I___I___I___I___I___I___I___I___I___I___I___I___I___I___I___I___I___I

-10 0 +10

Extremely Average Extremely

Unattractive Attractive

In this study, most teens thought they were less than a perfect 6.

Surprisingly, even though this method sounds simplistic, it is an effective way to find out what people think of themselves. This straightforwardness is as good as some of the more elaborate scaling techniques that have been devised. Sometimes, simple is best. Usually, such rough and ready estimates have been enough. On occasion, researchers want to know more about the details of beauty. In such cases, they have proceeded to ask men and women how they felt about almost every feature of themselves—their face, height, weight, and other details.

For example, we asked readers of Psychology Today (a popular magazine) how they felt about their bodies (Berscheid, Hatfield [Walster], and Bohrnstedt 1973). More then sixty-two thousand readers replied. Take a moment to answer our Body Image questionnaire.

Body Image How satisfied are you with the way your body looks?

1. Height:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

2. Weight:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

3. Hair:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

4. Eyes:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

5. Ears:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

6. Nose:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

7. Mouth:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

8. Teeth:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

9. Voice:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

10. Chin:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

11. Complexion:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

12. Overall facial attractiveness:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

13. Shoulders:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

14. Chest (males), Breasts (females):

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

15. Arms:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

16. Hands:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

17. Size of abdomen:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

18. Buttocks (seat):

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

19. Size of sex organs:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

20. Appearance of sex organs:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

21. Hips (upper thighs):

O A Extremely satisfied. O B Quite satisfied. O C Somewhat satisfied. O D Somewhat dissatisfied. O E Quite dissatisfied. O F Extremely dissatisfied.

22. Legs and ankles:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

23. Feet:

O A Extremely satisfied. O B Quite satisfied. O C Somewhat satisfied. O D Somewhat dissatisfied. O E Quite dissatisfied. O F Extremely dissatisfied.

24. General muscle tone or development:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

25. Overall body appearance:

O A Extremely satisfied.

O B Quite satisfied.

O C Somewhat satisfied.

O D Somewhat dissatisfied.

O E Quite dissatisfied.

O F Extremely dissatisfied.

(Berscheid, Hatfield [Walster] and Bohrn-stedt 1972; Reprinted from Psychology Today July, 1972, pp. 58-59.)

Now you know how satisfied you are with your appearance. Do you have more self-confidence than most? ... or less? Let's find out.

Lest We Forget: A Note

You might have felt—as you struggled through the Body Image questionnaire—that we asked too much. Not so for most people. Many people who responded complained we had neglected to ask about the very traits they thought were most important: "I thought your quiz very odd," wrote one New York man. "Nothing about chest hair, pubic hair, or beards." "How one sees oneself in motion—awkward, graceful, rigidly erect, slumping. . . ." "Why didn't you ask about physical deformities?" asked one unhappy man. "My rib cage is deformed as a result of rickets (not to mention a curvature of the spine and a short leg)." "How about blindness?" . . . "bowlegs?" . . . "deafness?" . . . "mastectomies?" One man was annoyed that we did not ask how people felt about their colon, what with constipation and such! Granted we did not ask everything, but we can see how people feel about the things we did ask about.

To find out how people in general felt about themselves, we selected a sample of two thousand questionnaires for closer scrutiny. We selected a sample that came as close to the national statistics as possible. It consisted of 50 percent men and 50 percent women. Forty-five percent were 24 years old or younger, 25 percent were between 25 and 44, and the rest were 45 or older. Table 1.2 shows how satisfied most people are with themselves.

Appearance

American society places so much emphasis on looks. How do most people feel they measure up overall? Only about half the people are extremely or quite satisfied with their looks. Slightly more men than women (55 percent versus 45 percent) are this satisfied. One California man, who was extremely satisfied with his looks, observed: "I have to admit that I consider myself to be a gorgeous person. Your questionnaire made me aware of my body, not just a finely crafted machine, but as a being that is beautiful in an artistic way."

A trivial 4 percent of men and 7 percent of the women are quite or extremely dissatisfied with their overall appearance. The following replies are typical of people in that category:

What we ugly people need is a special book of etiquette that advises us how to behave under the following circumstances: How to respond to remarks like "you sure are ugly." When you see all the easy jobs go to

TABLE 1.2 Satisfaction with Body Parts

	QUITE OR						QUITE OR
	EXTREMELY		SOMEWHAT		SOMEWHAT		EXTREMELY
	DISSATISFIED WOMEN MEN		DISSATISFIED WOMEN MEN		SATISFIED		SATISFIED
	DISSATISFIED WOMEN MEN		DISSATISFIED WOMEN MEN			WOMEN	MEN	WOMEN	MEN
Overall
Appearance	7%	4%	16%	11%	32%	30%	45%	55%
face
overall facial
attractiveness	3	2	8	6	28	31	61	61
hair	6	6	13	12	29	22	53	59
eyes ears	1 2	1 1	5 5	6 4	14 10	12 13	80 83	81 82
nose	5	2	18	14	22	20	55	64
mouth	2	1	5	5	20	19	73	75
teeth	11	10	19	18	20	26	50	46
voice	3	3	15	12	27	27	55	58
chin	4	3	9	8	20	20	67	69
complexion	8	7	20	15	24	20	48	58
extremities
shoulders	2	3	11	8	19	22	68	67
arms	5	2	11	11	22	25	62	62
hands	5	1	14	7	21	17	60	75
feet	6	3	14	8	23	19	57	70
mid torso
size of
abdomen	19	11	31	25	21	22	29	42
buttocks
(seat)	17	6	26	14	20	24	37	56
hips (upper thighs)	22	3	27	9	19	24	32	64
legs and ankles	8	4	17	7	23	20	52	69
height, weight and tone
height weight	3 21	3 10	10 27	10 25	15 21	20 22	72 31	67 43
general mus-
cle tone or
development	9	7	21	18	32	30	38	45
sex organs chest/breast	9	4	18	14	23	24	50	58
size of sex
organs	1	6	2	9	18	19	79	66
appearance of sex organs	2	3	5	6	18	19	75	72

the pretty girls, when they are no more capable than you [sic]. What are you supposed to do when people stare at you? When little children run when they see you! When, as a child, you have to listen to people say that your parents must have committed some grave sin. When you realize that hardened criminals are better off than you because they can at least go to a big city and get lost in the crowd. When people mistreat you and accuse you of being evil. And finally, how are you equipped to behave, when you cannot see any evidence that God loves you?

At the age of twelve, I realized that I was a homosexual. To relieve my tension, I ate and ate until, at the height of five-seven, I weighed 180 pounds and became known as "Fats." At the age of 14, while taking a shower, I realized that no one, absolutely no one would ever love me— I was a fat slob. The next month I lost 30 pounds. It worked. I am now 23 and am 6 foot and weigh 155. I have a lover for the first time in my life who is more than a one-night stand. I am glad that I had that experience. I somehow appreciate inner beauty more than the plastic, store-bought, television ad beauty that drives so many in this world. (P.S. My lover is beautiful. I refuse to answer if I was attracted to his inner or outer beauty first.)

In general, then, men do have better body images than do women. This finding is especially disturbing in light of the fact that women are those most likely to believe that "physical attractiveness is very important in day-to-day social interaction."

For most women, the longing to be beautiful runs deep.

Throughout my childhood I was praised as the intellectual, quiet, thoughtful, conscientious, humorous child of the family—but I desperately wanted to be pretty. I am nearly thirty years old, a "success" in a field few women enter, a "good" speaker, conversationalist, and clown, in a mild sort of way. I am happily married and feel "valued" by my family, but I'd chuck it all if some Mephistophelian character offered me the option of the kind of long-legged, aquiline, tawny beauty praised in myth and toothpaste ads.

A few women noted they were trying to overcome their obsession with beauty:

At a consciousness-raising session, several friends and I decided to go around in a circle and name our most hated features. Hearing each other, we realized how minutely our "ugly" features were noticed. It was definitely a good thing to do.

One's Face Is One's Fortune

Almost everyone was happy with his or her face; only 11 percent of the women and 8 percent of the men expressed any dissatisfaction.

People were not uniformly delighted with every aspect of their faces, however. Both men and women were unhappiest with their teeth— almost one-third were dissatisfied—one-fourth of the respondents complained about their complexions, and one in five did not like their noses.

Sexual Characteristics: How Do You Stack Up?

Given Americans' preoccupation with sex and sexual performance, we thought it possible that most men would be worried about the size of their penises and most women would complain about the size of their breasts. Sex researchers have often observed that couples are unduly worried about just that (Masters and Johnson 1970; Zilbergeld 1978). In fact, Masters and Johnson (1970) were so apprehensive that if word leaked out as to what constituted the "average" breast or penis size, those who fell short would have great difficulty dealing with the facts. Thus, these advocates of academic freedom refused to publish this information.

Ann Landers (1979) receives many, many letters from women worried that their breasts are too large or too small. In 1979 she ran a letter from a woman in Cincinnati who was painfully self-conscious about her small breasts. (A boyfriend had just taken a look at her breasts and told her to "put some calamine lotion on them and they would be gone by morning." She was humiliated and hurt.)

Her letter stimulated a flurry of letters from women suffering from too much of a good thing. One woman reminded her that both psychological and medical problems came with big breasts. Men were only interested in one ("or should I say two") things. She had to dress carefully, avoiding low necklines, clingy fabrics, and knits. Her brassiere required special padding on the strap, and the straps still cut into her shoulders. Ann suggested surgery for breast reduction.

We received many such letters, but they are the exception. Only 9 percent of women are very dissatisfied with their breasts. One woman in four is dissatisfied.

What about men's concern about their sexual endowments? We discovered that only 15 percent of men are at all dissatisfied with the size of their penises; barely 6 percent are "extremely" or "quite dissatisfied". Evidently, only a few men worry about such things. However, we got letters from men concerned about other aspects of their masculinity:

You ask men how they feel about the size of their sex organs. But this is not the crux of the problem. No doubt millions of men, and I among them, have fretted endlessly over the size of their penises, but after all,

except among nudists, this isn't a very crucial matter in day-to-day interaction. It is a secret that can be fairly well kept. There is one secret that can't be kept—how masculine your secondary sex characteristics are—the amount and distribution of your hair, the broadness of your shoulders, narrowness of hips, etc. When I was an adolescent, I had the misfortune to see a sex manual which showed male and female-pubic hair distribution. Horrors—my own pubic hair was the perfect model of the feminine pattern—and still is!

I am going through severe depression, for the following reason: I am extremely unattractive. By 22, a man should look very different from the opposite sex. I don't. My beard growth is nil. The texture of my skin on my face is, if anything, softer and smoother, more "feminine" than most women's. Indeed, on first glance, I am often mistaken for a girl by store clerks and others. This has had a devastating effect on my life. I am a musician, and until I was about 18, when I still looked like a kid, I was able to play with musicians older and more experienced than I, because of my talent. It was assumed that I would "grow out of it." Now, I cannot manage to get into a band, even when the musicians are inferior to me. Needless to say, my social life is just as depressing. In fact, I have none to talk about. My dermatologist sent me to an endocrinologist, as he suspected there might be a hormonal imbalance, but the tests were all negative. I am truly desperate!

There is, however, one group of men exceptionally concerned with their looks and with penis size: gay men. Ten percent of the men and 5 percent of the women who answered our Psychology Today questionnaires had some experience with homosexual activity. Those men who had never experimented with homosexual activity were likely to have a higher body image score than were gay men (33 percent versus 25 percent). Fully 45 percent of the gay men had below average images of their penises on a two-item measure ("satisfaction with size" and "appearance of genitals"), compared to only 25 percent of the other men.

Apparently, gay men, because of men's emphasis on looks in sexual encounters (see Hagen 1979; Symons 1979), become unusually concerned about their bodies. Unlike other men, gay men may have discovered how important beauty is in attracting men; thus, they become as concerned as women have always been about "measuring up." Consistent with that argument is the finding that only gay men are so concerned with appearances. Lesbians are as likely to have a positive body image as other women.

Are women concerned about their genitals? Only 3 percent of the women were dissatisfied with the size of their sex organs. Only 7 percent were dissatisfied with the appearance of their sex organs. A few women worried about having a vagina too small or too large for

their mate's penis. One woman complained that, while having a pelvic examination, her gynecologist observed: "Your husband must complain about sex with you. You are very large, you know."

Weight

To say that most people are generally satisfied with their bodies overall is not to say they are happy with every aspect of their looks. Society places an enormous emphasis on a trim figure. One man volunteered: "As for me, FAT people make me sick. I've never had a fat friend or bedded a fat woman." Almost half of the women and about one-third of the men said they were unhappy with their weight. Twice as many women as men were very dissatisfied (21 percent versus 10 percent).

Perhaps because excess weight tends to settle in the mid-torso area—abdomen, buttocks, hips, and thighs—people worried about their weight were also unhappy about these particular body parts. Some 36 percent of the men fret over that spare tire problem. Women worry about the size of their hips—49 percent were dissatisfied. (We will discuss this issue in greater detail in chapter 6.)

Women are sensitive to the issue of weight. Wardell Pomeroy, who collaborated with Alfred Kinsey in their early interviews (Kinsey et al. 1948, 1953) on sex, discovered that the most embarrassing question he could ask women was: "How much do you weigh?" (This question was more embarrassing than "How often do you masturbate?" "Have you ever had an extramarital affair?" "A homosexual affair?")

When women try to ignore their weight problem, the "bare" facts can suddenly strike them, as Ellen Goodman (1980) describes:

In my life as a clothing consumer I have been subjected to a series of sudden visions known as Dressing Room Revelations. . . . Most of them were unpleasant . . . brought to me by that demon of technology, the three-way mirror. ... It was in a dressing room, for example, that I discovered what I look like from the back. This is something I really didn't have to know. I could have led a decent, understanding life blissfully ignorant of this information, (p. 11)

Height

There is a great deal of evidence that, in our society, height—especially for men—is extremely important. (We will discuss this issue, too, in chapter 7). We had expected to find widespread dissatisfaction with height—we thought men would want to be taller and women would be afraid of being too tall. Not so. Only 13 percent of both sexes expressed any discontent with their height, and actual height was not related to body satisfaction.

ARE YOU AS GOOD-LOOKING AS YOU THINK YOU ARE?

When you filled out the Body Image questionnaire, you had a chance to say how good-looking you think you are. Would most people agree with you? To find out how objective men and women are about themselves, researchers' first step was to develop an "objective" measure of looks. This test turned out to be surprisingly difficult. After several false starts, scientists finally settled on a well-worn method—the method of consensus (see Berscheid and Hatfield [Walster] 1974). Researchers simply ask a number of judges to rate men and women's looks. Judges have their own biases, of course. One judge may like tall, Nordic types, another, short, athletic types, but if you get enough judges, these biases tend to cancel out one another. The method of consensus may be a form of shared ignorance . . . but it is a form of "ignorance" that works (Hatfield [Walster], Aronson, Abrahams, Rottmann 1966).

Scientists have asked, "Do people see themselves as others see them?" The answer appears to be, "through a glass, darkly." There is some correspondence between people's ideas on how good-looking they are and the opinions of more objective judges, but the relationship is far from perfect (see Berscheid et al. 1971; Huston 1972; or Stroebe et al. 1971). Two contradictory processes—the Modesty effect and the Henry Finck syndrome—combine to reduce our ability to see ourselves as others see us.

The Modesty Effect

Cavior (1970) asked fifth-grade girls and boys how they rated compared to other boys and girls in their classes. He found that 75 percent of the girls thought they were the least attractive girl in their class! The girls were not just being modest. They were simply focusing on defects in their appearance that the more objective judges thought were trivial. The girls had adopted an absolute standard of attractiveness—they compared themselves to a "perfect 10" and concluded they did not measure up. The judges, less ego involved, had adopted a relative standard. They asked themselves: "How good looking is this girl compared to other fifth grade girls?"

Cavior also found that fifth- and sixth-grade boys' and girls' guesses as to how their classmates would rank them were almost always wrong. These eleven to twelve year olds had little idea how they rated with their friends. They had a slightly better idea about how relative strangers would feel about them.

The Henry Finck Syndrome

Sometimes false modesty is not the problem—sometimes it's just the opposite. Like Henry Finck, we take it for granted that our country, our race, our family look as people ought to look. For example, Malff (reported in Huntley 1940) found that young adults rated their own thinly disguised profiles, hands, faces, etc. more favorably than others rated them, even though they were unaware it was their own features they were rating. These two opposite processes—false modesty and unconscious arrogance—both contribute to people's inabilities to see themselves as others see them.

As we get older, we do get a little wiser. With age people get to be somewhat better at guessing how others see them. Somewhat better . . . but far from perfect. For example, Berscheid et al. (1971) found that adults' self assessments on the Secord and Jourard Body Cathexis Scale (a type of body image scale) had no relationship to outside observers' judgments about their appearance! Other researchers have found only a minimal relationship (see Huston 1972; Murstein 1972; Stroebe et al. 1971).

So, if you want to know what other people like or dislike about you, you better ask them.

A Note: If you arrange things properly, you can guarantee you will rate a "perfect 10".

1. Ask people with high esteem what they think of your looks. Scientists have found that people who rate themselves highly are equally generous in rating others (Morse, Reis, Gruzen, and Wolff 1974).

2. Avoid beautiful people. They have been found, to be harsher in their judgments. They consider themselves to be the Golden Mean and, in contrast, you lose (Hatfield [Walster] et al. 1966; Tennis and Dabbs 1975).

3. Avoid critics who spend a lot of time thumbing through movie magazines, watching "Charlie's Angels" on television, etc. When they compare the stars to you, you lose out in luster. The contrast effect again (Kenrick and Gutierres 1980; Melamed and Moss 1975). This observation may be reason enough to cancel your date's Playboy or Play girl subscription.

4. Ask men or women who are sexually aroused what they think of you. While aroused, men and women have been found to be unusually appreciative of the opposite sex's looks . . . and unusually harsh in their judgments of the same sex, who are potential rivals. This fact may be reason enough to present your date with a subscription to Playboy or Playgirl.

5. Ask someone of the opposite sex who has been drinking in a singles bar, just before closing time. Scientists have found that people

do get better-looking just before closing time, probably because men and women are eager for company and can afford to be generous (Pennebaker et al. 1979).

6. Ask someone who owes you money.

7. Ask people who look like you. If they have the same color hair, the same body frame, and a mole in the same place, they are going to think you are gorgeous (D. Byrne 1971).

8. Ask people who know you. They are going to be more lenient in judging you (Cavior 1970; Cavior, Miller and Cohen 1975).

9. Be sure to ask your mother! It's her obligation to think you are good-looking.

Chapter 2

WHAT IS BEAUTIFUL IS GOOD: THE MYTH

Most of us feel a little uneasy about our feelings toward attractive versus ugly people. On one hand, we know that beauty should not be important. (We are a little ashamed when we remember how we teased a fat "mama's" boy in grade school or stood by while others did so. We blush when we recall what fools we made of ourselves over a good-looking athlete in high school, and how we persevered in spite of our shame because he was so good-looking.) On the other hand, in our hearts, we know beauty is important to us . . . sometimes very important.

You may get some sense of how complicated your feelings are about beauty and ugliness by sorting through your reactions to two cases illustrating the strong effect physical appearance may have. How do you react to the following cases?

EXAMPLE 1:

Recently (Van Buren 1976), a mother wrote that, although she knew that she should be grateful to have a thirteen-year-old daughter who was healthy and bright, she found it impossible to love her daughter because the girl was so ugly. The mother felt guilty because she could not help but be cruel to the girl. The mother and father were attractive. They had done everything they could to help the daughter look better— she had a good hair cut, her teeth were straightened, she had been treated for acne, she had nice clothes, but still, she was searingly homely. The mother asked "What can I do?" Abby's answer was swift and sharp. "You are the ugly one, only your ugliness doesn't show." Is Abby right? Or is this mother simply more honest about her feelings than most of us are? Or, consider this case:

EXAMPLE 2:

Candace (Candy) Weatherby Johnson was a dazzling blonde model when she married multimillionaire Jacques Mossier. Soon thereafter, Candy and her nephew, Lane Powers, stood accused of murdering Mossier. The press labeled the murder trial "the trial of the century." It's no wonder. The prosecution dwelt on Candy's incestuous relationship with her nephew, her shady associations with the underworld, and her involvement in murky Texan politics. Percy Foreman, the flamboyant lawyer for the defense, dwelt on Mossler's "Jekyll and Hyde" personality, his "insatiable sexual appetite—his transvestitism, voyeurism, masochism, and sadism; his adulterous and homosexual encounters—his ruthless business dealings;" all of which, Foreman contended, gave hundreds of people a motive to kill him.

The jury deliberated for three days. Finally, they found Candy "not guilty." The press continued to question the verdict. Did the all-male jury let Candy off because they could not believe so beautiful a woman could commit so violent a crime? Had Candy's beauty worked against her? Would she never have been brought to trial if she were not so beautiful, so rich, and politically well connected (see Dorman 1969)?

Do you think beauty affects judgments of character and innocence? In general, how much of an advantage is beauty? Is it ever a disadvantage? In the next few chapters, we will review the evidence scientists have collected to help us answer such questions.

AN OVERVIEW

Scientists find that most people, most of the time, are favorably biased in their reactions to good-looking people. This discovery is certainly

not new. The Greek philosopher Sappho (1965) stated, "What is beautiful is good." Schiller (1982) added, "Physical beauty is a sign of interior beauty, a spiritual and moral beauty. . . ." Today's scientists, however, have come to a little better understanding of just how, where, when, and why physical appearance is important.

There seem to be four steps in the stereotyping process that ensures that beauty equals goodness.

1. Most people feel that discriminating against the ugly is not fair, but yet. . . .

2. Privately, most of us simply take it for granted that attractive and unattractive people are different. Most often we perceive that attractive people have the more desirable traits.

3. As a consequence, we treat good-looking versus ugly people quite differently; the good-looking get the better treatment.

4. How does such prejudice affect the victims of our discrimination? Over time, a sort of "self-fulfilling prophecy" occurs. The way we treat attractive versus unattractive people shapes the way they think about themselves and, as a consequence, the kind of people they become.

In the next few chapters, we will present an encyclopedic review of the evidence that, in general, good looks are an enormous advantage.

SIDENOTE: THE EXPERIMENTAL METHOD

Scientists have discovered most of what they know about society's biases in favor of the attractive by conducting experiments. Most people, however, do not have a very clear idea about what actually happens in a psychology experiment. What about you? What images come to your mind?

Basically, the raison d'etre of an experiment is to answer a question. For example, in the early 1970s, scientists were interested in the question, "Do most of us perceive attractive versus unattractive people differently?"

First, scientists shaped the question into a hypothesis—a specific prediction. Early scientists predicted that "attractive men and women will be perceived as more appealing in every way than the unattractive."

The next step in an experiment is to arrange things so that one can determine whether or not the hypothesis is true. An experiment can be conducted almost anywhere. The experiments we describe in

this book have been conducted in a variety of settings—in universities, laboratories, supermarkets, classrooms, bars, and telephone booths.

In experiments, three key concepts are independent variables, dependent variables, and randomization. The experimenter manipulates the independent variable. In the experimental group, the experimenter manipulates the variable he is interested in. For example, an experiment might ask people to look at a picture of Brooke Shields and to speculate about what she is like personally. Other people, those in the control (or comparison) group, might be asked to look at a picture of a Plain Jane and to guess about her personality and character. Here, the experimenter is manipulating the independent variable—beauty.

The experimenter suspects that people's guesses about the girls' personalities and characters will depend on which picture they have seen—the gorgeous girl or the plain one. For this reason, men and women's reactions in an experiment are called dependent variables. By comparing people's ideas on what a beautiful Brooks versus a Plain Jane is like, scientists can get some hunches about the stereotypes about beauty.

Another characteristic of a good experiment is that subjects are randomly assigned to different conditions. In the above experiment, the experimenter might toss a coin and decide which picture the judges receive. There is a 50-50 chance any judge will end up judging Brooke Shields. Of course, there is also a 50-50 chance it will be Plain Jane. Such randomization is critically important. It insures that the experimenter cannot, consciously or unconsciously, bias the results. For example, the experimenters could assign generous-spirited people to judge

Brooke and crotchety ones to judge Plain Jane to insure they get the results they expect.

We have talked about experiments in abstract terms, but what would it be like to actually participate in an experiment? Let's find out: Walking past the library one day, you see a sign:

VOLUNTEERS WANTED FOR A

FIRST IMPRESSION STUDY

Please sign up below

Just for the fun of it, you decide to sign up for the experiment. A few days later you find yourself in the psychology building at the University of Hawaii. When you report, you find that two other volunteers have been scheduled for the same time. The laboratory is cozily furnished— it contains portraits of King Kalakaua and Queen Liliuokalani, a table, three chairs, and a thick, beige carpet.

The experimenter, a graduate student, tells the three of you a little more about what you are about to do.

We are interested in how accurate people can be when required to form first impressions of others on the sketchiest of information. We'd like to show you some photographs of students—Hawaiians, Japanese, Chinese, and Haoles [a Hawaiian expression for "Caucasian"]—enrolled at the University of Hawaii. Since they've lived in Hawaii all their lives, we know a great deal about them. Better yet, we plan to keep in touch with them, so eventually we'll be able to find out how things worked out for them in the long run. We'll be able to compare your first impressions with the factual information we have about them. Do you have any questions?

No one can think of anything to ask, so the exercise begins. The experimenter hands each of you a packet. Your packet contains two photographs—one of a strikingly good-looking man and one of an equally good-looking woman. It also contains two rating forms on which you can indicate your impressions. For a split second, you wonder if there is more to this task than meets the eye. You try to catch a glimpse of the contents of the packets given to the other two subjects, but they are too far away . . . and already busy at work. Your suspicions evaporate as you become engrossed in trying to accurately guess what these strikingly good-looking people are like.

To make it really seem like you are participating in this study, we have included some photographs (Figures 2.2 and 2.3) and one of the two rating forms below. What impressions does each person give you? Choose one of the pictures and fill out the checklist of adjectives.

What sort of impr	ession did he		or she make		on '	you?
Altruistic	1 2	3	4	5	6	7	Selfish
Exciting	1 2	3	4	5	6	7	Boring
Genuine	1 2	3	4	5	6	7	Phoney
Sexually permissive	I 2	3	4	5	6	7	Sexually conservative
Sincere	1 2	3	4	5	6	7	Insincere
Warm	1 2	3	4	5	6	7	Cold
Modest	I 2	3	4	5	6	7	Conceited
Happy	I 2	3	4	5	6	7	Sad
Submissive	1 2	3	4	5	6	7	Assertive
Self-confident	1 2	3	4	5	6	7	Self-doubting
Weak	I 2	3	4	5	6	7	Strong

"*u ......*-----' ........".....

Finally, the hour is up. The experimenter gathers up the packets. As she delivers them to an adjacent room, you steal a chance to talk to the other two students. You discover that one had been asked to give her first impressions of what she describes as an "average-looking" couple. The third volunteer, on the other hand, reveals that his couple had been extraordinarily unappealing.

The experimenter returns, and so do your suspicions. You are convinced there is more to this experiment than you have been told. You are about to interrogate the experimenter, but she is one step ahead of you. She coughs, smiles mischievously, and begins a revealing discourse. You discover your hunch—that there was more to the experiment—was right. No one was interested in comparing your first impressions with factual information about the people in the photographs. Even if someone had been interested, no information existed on the individuals! That introduction was a "cover story" to prevent you from guessing the true purpose of the experiment.

What, then, was the true purpose? To discover whether or not people are biased in favor of the good-looking. The photographs of the three couples were different in attractiveness. One couple was extraordinarily good-looking (you got that one), one average, and one ugly in appearance (This was the independent variable). The experimenter was interested in people's first impressions of these couples (the dependent variable). The experimenter can get a hint about the stereotypes the three of you (and others, as well) hold about beautiful people by comparing your reactions. By the way, you have just been debriefed— you have been told the true purpose of the experiment.

A Look Behind the Scenes

Before an experiment begins, a great deal of preparatory work must be done. In the above experiment, the investigator began by assembling a set of photographs of men and women varying in appearance. Where do such photographs come from? In many studies, researchers have selected photos of good-looking, average, and ugly men and women from college or high school yearbooks. In other studies, researchers have searched for appropriate models and taken photographs of them. For example, when Elaine Hatfield began beauty research back in the 1960s, she would stop people on the street she thought were good-looking (or homely) and ask if they would allow her to take their picture for use in her research.

She quickly learned an unexpected lesson. Occasionally, when she stopped someone she thought was unusually handsome or beautiful and lured him or her back to the laboratory, she found that not everyone agreed with her evaluation. The first time this happened she was stunned. She hauled in a man she thought was breathtakingly handsome, and her colleague, Dr. Ellen Berscheid, bluntly asked which group he was intended for—good-looking, average, or ugly. Dr. Hatfield was dumbfounded! Surely Dr. Berscheid was kidding. She wasn't. Eventually they discovered they had opposite, but predictable, biases. Dr. Hatfield tended to think that dark, muscular, athletic men and women were good-looking; Dr. Berscheid liked tall, thin, ethereal blonds.

After researchers have assembled photographs they think are appropriate, therefore, their next step is to make sure other people agree with their impressions. Researchers use the "truth by consensus" method to settle disputes about how good-looking people are. If virtually all "judges" rate certain photographs as "attractive," then they can confidently be denned as attractive. Similarly, if almost everyone rates the photographs as "unattractive," they can be labeled that way. Luckily, as we observed in chapter 1, people generally agree about who is attractive and who is not.

While most studies have used photographs or slides of only the face, in a few studies experimenters have studied people's reactions to the entire body. For example, one investigator had his graduate students bring in photographs of their parents in bathing suits. Occasionally, videotapes are used. One investigator, for example, prepared a videotape of a beautiful versus a homely young woman stealing a book from the bookstore. Given the chapter 1 definition of beauty, videotapes have an obvious advantage. Videotapes allow us to respond to several aspects of good looks—vivaciousness, posture, style of movement, and so on— rather than limiting response to structural beauty.

Live models have been used in a few experiments. For example, in the study you just participated in, you could have received a note in your packet like this:

The other volunteers think you are rating photographs in your packet, as they are. However, as you have noticed, you don't have any photographs. We want you to rate the other two volunteers. Inconspicuously, study them. What are your first impressions of them?

You might have noticed a lot about the other volunteers. Certainly you would have noticed how good-looking they are. But you would also notice how they are sitting, whether they look bored or interested in

what they are doing, and perhaps most importantly, how they respond to you (did they smile or ignore you?).

To insure that it is looks (and not boredom or friendliness) that matters, researchers generally use the same person as the appealing and unappealing model. Sometimes, the model is made as unappealing as possible. She looks like the "before" picture in the magazine ads. She has an unflattering makeup, mismatched clothes, and is wearing a stringy, dirty-haired wig. At other times, she is made extremely good-looking. For example, in the "after" condition, the model should be beautifully made up, fashionably dressed, and have neatly styled hair. If you're curious about how the same person can look either attractive or ugly, see Figure 2.4.

Getting the photographs, slides, videotapes, or actual models for the experiment is the biggest job. There are many other tasks involved in conducting an experiment however. For example:

1) The investigator must get permission from a University Ethics Committee to conduct the experiment. Such committees are formed to protect participants from any physical or psychological harm. The investigator has to convince the committee that participants will not be harmed in any way, and. that, if deception is involved, participants will be thoroughly debriefed. The experiments reported in this book were all screened to insure that none of the participants were embarrassed or hurt in any way.

Figure 2.4. Before and after photos, courtesy Frances Loo (stylist). Makeup, Lyle Nelson; photography, Gerald Bishop (Tiare Lee, model).

2) The investigator must decide what questions to ask the subjects— exactly what kinds of "first impressions" he's interested in. Two compulsive researchers (Allport and Odbert 1936) once compiled a list of all possible adjective pairs that could be used to describe people. Their list contained 18,000 items! Good luck to researchers who think people will respond to such lists! All seasoned researchers know there is a limit to how much can be asked of people. Quality not quantity of data is the goal.

3) If an experiment is to be realistic, the "setting" has to be carefully prepared. In one study we will discuss later, dimes were placed in pay telephones. In another experiment, a car with a flat tire was left "stranded" on the highway.

4) Participants have to be found. Sometimes, investigators solicit volunteers from classes. Sometimes, signs (similar to the one illustrated earlier) are used. At other times, participants are whoever happens to be around, e.g., whoever enters the phone booth or drives by the car with a flat tire.

In conclusion, an enormous amount of work went into preparing each of the experiments in this book. Space does not permit detailing each experiment, but now you can fill in those details yourself.

BEAUTY = THE BEST OF EVERYTHING

How biased are you in favor of the good-looking?

Do you generally react differently to good-looking people than to ugly ones? How? For example: Do you have a better impression of good-looking people than ugly ones? Did you ever dislike someone just because of his or her looks?

Do you generally treat good-looking people differently than ugly ones? How?

Can you think of any time when good looks are a disadvantage?

Most people believe you should not "judge a book by its cover"; but, most of us do. Why? Perhaps because often we have no real alternative. When we have to make a quick decision about who to sit next to at lunch, who to hire to run errands, who to share a cab with in the train, or who to ask out, sometimes appearance is all we have to go on.

Appearance is the sole characteristic apparent in every social interaction. Other information may be more meaningful but far harder to ferret out. People do not have their IQ's tattooed on their foreheads, nor do they display their diplomas prominently about their persons. Their financial status is a private matter between themselves, their bankers, and the Internal Revenue Service. And scientists would not

know how to interpret the structure of someone's genes, even if they could be presented for inspection. Thus, it is not surprising that, like it or not, beauty counts.

Classic Beauty Studies

Two early experiments were the first to verify that most people do assume, "What is beautiful is good, what is ugly is bad."

In one experiment, Elaine Hatfield, Karen Dion, and Ellen Berscheid asked college men and women to look at pictures of good-looking, average, or homely men and women. They discovered that most people assumed good-looking men and women possessed nearly all the good traits known to humanity. The good-looking were supposedly more sexually responsive, warmer, more sensitive, kind, interesting, strong, poised, modest, sociable, and outgoing, were more "exciting dates" and more "nurturant," and had a "better character" than less appealing persons.

Not only were beautiful people expected to have better personalities, they were also expected to have more fulfilling lives! The researchers asked respondents to guess what lay ahead for the individuals they saw pictured. Without fail, people predicted the beautiful and handsome would have happier marriages, would secure better jobs, and would have happier and more fulfilling lives. On only one dimension were people suspicious of beauty—they did not expect attractive people to make especially good parents. This classic study convinced social psychologists that people do have stereotypes about the beautiful/ugly (Dion, Berscheid, Hatfield [Walster] 1972).

Other researchers have confirmed that people generally believe in the "goodness of beauty." Miller (1970a) documented that good-looking people are assumed to be more appealing on the following dimensions: curious, complex, perceptive, confident, assertive, happy, active, amiable, candid, serious, pleasure seeking, outspoken, flexible.

The attractive are also perceived as creators of their own destinies. Attractive men and women are seen as "masters of their own fate, as individuals who behave with a sense of purpose and out of their own volition." Unattractive men and women are seen as "coerced and generally influenced by others or by environmental conditions" (Miller 1970b).

The Ugly Truth About Beauty

Most people give the beautiful rave reviews, but not everyone. Tolstoy once observed cynically: "What a strange delusion it is to fancy beauty is goodness!" Most of the time, we are caught up in beauty's lure, but

in a few instances, we cannot help but recognize that the beautiful's shining armor has a few chinks.

For example, in a study titled, "When Beauty May Fall," Dermer and Thiel (1975) asked women to rate the beautiful on a few more traits than researchers had studied in the classic studies described above. As before, this study showed that attractive women were judged more favorably on most dimensions. They were expected to be "more sociable, sexually alluring, successful professionally, and personally happy." However, attractive women were also expected to be more vain, egotistical, materialistic, snobbish, likely to get a divorce, and likely to have extramarital affairs. The researchers predicted that unattractive women would be particularly jealous of attractive women and especially harsh in their judgments. They found some evidence for this prediction.

One attractive twenty-four-year-old woman from THE GROUP described how such jealousy led her friends to mistreat a beautiful woman:

There's a woman I work with now, who's extraordinarily beautiful—Italian, very dark, and her features are well-proportioned. But I think she has a disadvantage. When you are an especially beautiful woman, other women tend to treat you badly. Unattractive women can be very catty toward a beautiful woman. This woman doesn't have very many women friends. Even her sister is jealous of her! But she is extremely pretty. I noticed that right away. Even I reacted that way to her. I remember thinking, "Oh, she's really pretty, but she's probably not the kind of girl I like."

We will focus on the special problems attractive men and women confront in chapters 10 and 12.

BEAUTY = THE MOST LIKELY TO SUCCEED

Do you know anyone who was given special advantages at school or work because he or she was good-looking?

Do you know of anyone discriminated against because he or she was "funny-looking"?

Do you think there is ever a disadvantage (at school or work) in being too good-looking?

Contrary to the popular belief that "beauty and brains don't mix," there is considerable evidence that parents, teachers, and employers equate "looks" with creativity and intelligence.

Discrimination in Educational Settings: The Book Is Judged by Its Cover

GRADE SCHOOL

Teachers take it for granted that beauty and brains go together, and they grade accordingly. Are good-looking people, in fact, smarter than others? (Some of the early eugenicists certainly thought so.) Or is grading simply prejudiced? The evidence suggests the latter.

Dr. Margaret Clifford, an educational psychologist, and Elaine Hatfield found such a bias in their research (Clifford and Hatfield [Walster] 1973). They asked four hundred fifth-grade teachers to take a look at children's academic files. Inconspicuously pasted in the corner of one of the report cards was the child's photograph. As you might expect, the class photograph was a bogus one. Some teachers saw a picture of a quite attractive boy or girl. Others saw an exceedingly plain child. Except for the picture, teachers received identical information about the children, and there was a great deal of it. The academic record revealed the student's grades in reading, language, arithmetic, social studies, science, art, music, and physical education. It reported on their attitudes and work habits. It even contained a tally of their absences during the school year.

The "insignificant" class photo had a great impact on the teachers' attitudes, in spite of the abundance of information about the child. Teachers assumed that cute boys and girls were more intelligent, that their parents were more interested in their educations, and that these children were more likely to get advanced degrees than the homely boys and girls. Teachers expected cute students to be popular and to get along unusually well with their classmates, as well as being brainy. All this, when according to the facts, the children's records were identical! (Similar results were secured by Adams [1978]; Adams and Cohen [1976]; and Clifford [1975]. However, studies by Adams and LaVoie [1974] and LaVoie and Adams [1974] failed to replicate these results.) It has also been found that physical education teachers expect attractive children to perform better in physical activities (as well as to be better teammates) (Martinek 1981).

In the above studies, the children were average to good students. What about children with special disabilities? In one study, elementary teachers were shown the record of an attractive or unattractive eight-year-old boy or girl. Once again, except for the photograph, the children's academic records were identical. This time, however, the student had a low IQ (78), below average academic functioning, and seemed immature: Would the teachers recommend the child be placed in a class for the mentally retarded? Teachers were more likely to recommend the child be placed in a class for the mentally retarded if he/she was unattractive. They also believed unattractive children would have poorer psychological functioning and would experience more academic and social difficulties (Ross and Salvia 1975).

Teachers are not the only ones expecting more from cute children. Parents do too. In one study, 106 mothers and 91 fathers of elementary schoolchildren were shown a hypothetical student progress report, accompanied, of course, by a photo of either a cute or a rather homely child. Parents assumed the cute children had better personalities, were more popular, and were more likely to be elected to class offices. However, the parents did not expect attractive children to be better academically than unattractive children (Adams & LaVoie 1975).

Teachers expect good-looking children to be brighter than homely ones, but do they grade accordingly? The evidence suggests they might. Recently, several investigators have set out to examine what actually goes on in the classroom. Apparently, better-looking students do get better report cards. Researchers found this is true in Michigan (Felson 1980; Lerner and Lerner 1977), in central Pennsylvania (Salvia, Algoz-zine, and Sheare 1977), in fact, almost everywhere except, for some reason, in Muscatine, Iowa (Clifford 1975).

Faced with this real world evidence, we are motivated to return to our original question and ask why beauty and brains go together. Are

good-looking people smarter? Or are teachers prejudiced? Again, the evidence suggests the latter. Researchers find a link between beauty and brains only when teachers have a chance to influence grades—i.e., when grades are based on the teacher's general impressions or on essay exams. When performance is measured by IQ scores or scores on standardized objective tests (Clifford 1975), the homely student suddenly "blossoms," and they do just as well as anyone else. Thus, clearly prejudice, not performance, links beauty and brains (Clifford 1975).

THE PYGMALION EFFECT

There is some evidence that sometimes teachers' expectations affect even IQ scores. How do parents and teachers' biases affect children? G. B. Shaw had an answer. He argued that people become what they are expected to become.

You see, really and truly, apart from the things anyone can pick up (the dressing and the proper way of speaking, and so on), the difference between a lady and a flower girl is not how she behaves, but how she's treated. I shall always be a flower girl, and always will; but I know I can be a lady to you, because you always treat me as a lady; and always will. (Quoted in Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968, 183)

A classic experiment (Rosenthal & Jacobson 1968) dramatically demonstrated the operation of just such a "self-fulfilling prophecy." The experimenters were convinced that teachers' expectations about what students will become have a dramatic impact on what they do become. They arranged an ingenious experiment to demonstrate this occurrence.

Oak School is in the midst of a working class community. Many of the children are from broken homes. Fathers, when around, are mostly unskilled or semiskilled workers. Mothers and children often subsist on welfare funds. The Harvard professors contacted Oak School and offered to give first- to fifth-grade children the "Harvard Test of Inflected Acquisition". The professors claimed the test could identify students who would show unusual academic progress during the coming year.

The scientists administered an IQ test to the Oak School students. They then simply chose 20 percent of the children at random (pulling names out of a hat) and announced to the teachers that the IQ test had identified these children as special students. They were the "late bloomers," destined to show marked intellectual improvement within the year.

George Bernard Shaw would have smiled at the results. When the psychologists returned to Oak School a year later, and again two years

later, and gave the same IQ test to all the same children, they discovered that the "late bloomers" had done just what they had been expected to do. Their IQ's had risen dramatically. These gains seemed especially pronounced for first and second graders (perhaps their self-concepts were still in the formative stage), but considerable effects were detected even among the fifth graders.

How could this phenomenon have happened? Perhaps Oak School teachers were more pleasant, friendly, and enthusiastic toward the children they expected great things from. Perhaps they paid more attention to them.

If "attention" is an advantage (and surely it must be), attractive children again have the advantage. Attractive children are unusually likely to be referred for special supplemental services—such as psychological, speech, reading, or testing services (Barocas and Black 1974). Attractive children are also more likely to receive encouragement from their teachers. Investigators observed teacher-student interactions in kindergarten, fourth, and seventh grades. Teachers' biases could not be detected with younger children, but by the seventh grade, their biases began to show. By the seventh grade, teachers were simply more

receptive to and supportive of the attractive children (Adams and Cohen 1974).

The above research evidence is reflected in a comment made by a thirty-two-year-old male elementary teacher from THE GROUP:

I've taught first, fourth, and sixth graders. I hate to admit it, but the attractiveness of the children is probably important in how I react to them. For first grade, however, I don't think it was that important. Probably because they were all so cute and energetic. But when you're dealing with fourth and sixth grades, there starts to be variation in how they look and develop. And I have found that I may call on the attractive kids more often than the unattractive ones. But it's hard to separate attractiveness from personality. If the child is outgoing—and often cute kids are outgoing—then I'm going to interact with them more.

If students have the abilities, they are going to make it regardless of what they look like. But if they are average or below in abilities, it may help to be attractive. I found myself working very hard to draw out a sixth-grade girl who was shy and withdrawn. But I probably worked this hard because she was so pretty. I might not have worked as hard with an ugly child.

Perhaps teachers are more demanding, perhaps teachers try harder themselves with attractive children. In any case, research in this area provides compelling evidence that teachers' expectations (whether generated by physical appearance or "special tests," as in the Oak School study, can spark a self-fulfilling prophecy. More discussion of how the self-fulfilling prophecy operates awaits in chapter 8.

HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE

In a revealing biography of rock star Janis Joplin, Myra Freidman (1974) describes how Joplin's unattractiveness affected her school life. Before adolescence Janis had been chubby. At adolescence, her chubbiness bloated to heft. She developed a disfiguring case of acne, severe enough to require sanding.

Janis became hated. She recalled that other teens threw things at her and called her names ("pig" was the favorite). Parents warned their children to avoid Janis' bad influence. Her teachers? In spite of the fact that she was smart and got good grades, they too disliked her personality. Her appearance was contemptible. She had repulsive body mannerisms. Friedman observes that Janis, to protect herself from disintegrating under the pressures, handled her conflicts, terrifying as they were, by acting them out.

Are teachers prejudiced in high school and college? Unfortunately, little empirical research has been done to examine this question. But we can speculate about what happens . . .

By high school, teacher-student interactions probably become a little more complicated than ever before. For example, women teachers may be biased in favor of handsome, athletic boys; but, for the first time, men teachers may be a little jealous of all that youthful virility.

Similarly, the reverse would be true—women teachers may be envious of good-looking girls, while men teachers favor them. There is no evidence, however, that such a jealousy effect operates.

The stereotypes about various kinds of beauty may get more differentiated in high school. For example, the beautiful blonde cheerleader may be stereotpyed for the first time as a dumb blonde, having little dedication to scholarly endeavors. A brawny, six-foot football player may be victimized by similar stereotypes.

What about college? In college, classes are often large. There may be four hundred to five hundred students in a single, large lecture hall. On first thought, you would think that in a large, impersonal class, where grades are given mechanically on an objective basis, all bias would disappear. Finally, the good-looking and the homely would have an equal chance. Ironically, the impersonality of large classes may make good looks essential. There is some evidence that in college, where most professors are men, the better-looking the college woman, the better grades she gets (Singer 1964). One reason for this result may simply be that pretty women are easier to remember. Singer (1964) describes what may happen:

Attractive girls get the benefit of doubts in grades. This would require two assumptions. First, faculty give the benefit of the doubt when grading to those whose names and faces they associate and remember. Second, there are none so likely to have their names and faces remembered as attractive girls in the class. Although we have no evidence directly relating to this point, many of our colleagues acknowledged that they can recall the names of pretty girls in their classes, (p. 144)

WHAT IS BRAINY MAY BE BEAUTIFUL AS WELL

The preceding evidence indicates that good looks are an important determinant of teachers' attitudes toward students. Can anything be done to help teachers behave more fairly—to lessen beauty's impact? Just reminding people of their biases probably helps to some extent. There is evidence that as teachers become better acquainted with their students, they are better able to view them as people rather as stereotypes. For example, when teachers learn not just what their students look like but a little about them—their sex, academic standing, race, and IQ—physical attractiveness becomes far less important (Kehle, Bramble, and Mason 1974). In one study (Solomon and Saxe 1977), people knew both how good-looking and how bright a college woman was (her grade point average and Graduate Record Examination scores were said to be either high or quite low). Looks were important, but not as important as IQ and performance. The bright woman was judged as having a more appealing personality and was expected to have greater occupational success and happiness.

Clifford (1975), an educational psychologist, has commented:

Although attractiveness may be a reliable determinant of an individual's initial impression formation, it is not necessarily a predictor of long-term academic effects. It may well be that as educational discriminators (e.g., verbal classroom behavior, conduct patterns, assignment scores) become available, teachers' initial expectations based on attractiveness are altered, (p. 208)

In other research, scientists made a fascinating discovery that we will discuss at greater length later. Apparently, students' intelligence and personality characteristics influence their attractiveness! Judgements of beauty (theoretically only "skin deep") are profoundly affected by inner beauty! For example, children thought to have academic or athletic assets are perceived as more attractive, at least by other children (Felson and Bohrnstedt 1979). In other words, although the beautiful are perceived as being talented, it is also true that the talented are perceived as being beautiful.

In summary, the "superstar," not the "superbeauty," gets to the head of the class. However, the path to the top may be somewhat

rocky. The superbeauty is more easily noticed than the superstar. Children's IQ scores are not brazen in bold letters on their T-shirts; they do not wear good conduct medals. So it is easy for teachers to forget the objective evidence when coming face-to-face with the child's appearance everyday. Superstars may have to prove themselves over and over again.

AN APPLE FOR THE TEACHER

Teachers are not the only ones prejudiced . . . their little charges are too (Chaikin et al. 1978). In one study, nine-to thirteen-year-old boys and girls watched a videotape of a teacher presenting a lecture on basic concepts in psychology. The teacher was made to look either attractive or homely (her hair was pulled back tightly, dark circles were smudged under her eyes, her face was pale, shadows on her face were used to make her look "hard"). After the lecture, the students were asked to evaluate the teacher. The teacher's attractiveness had a dramatic impact on the ratings. They rated the attractive teacher as a "better teacher," "more enjoyable to have as a teacher," "more interesting." They also thought that, with an attractive teacher, it was easier to concentrate on the lesson, that the lesson was more enjoyable and more interesting to listen to, and that the teacher had tried harder (even though the teacher had behaved identically in the different videotapes). The students were also given a quiz testing their comprehension and retention of the lecture. In this case, teachers' looks did not matter. The students performed equally well—or poorly—regardless of how their teacher looked.

In another study (Goebel and Cashen 1979), it was found that students from second grade through college thought attractive teachers did their job better than did unattractive teachers. Attractive teachers were seen as more friendly, better organized, more likely to encourage students to interact—in short, as being better teachers overall. Worst yet, students suspected that the homely teachers would be most likely to load them up with too much work.

Possibly, a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs with teachers as well as with students. Children expect more from attractive teachers—and get more! Interactions between attractive students and attractive teachers must be especially rosy.

On-the-job Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids job discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. It says nothing, however, about attractiveness. Perhaps it is not surprising that Title VII

fails to prohibit such discrimination-the Federal government itself has long been a blatant offender government itselt has

legendty"¹³⁵⁶⁵ °' '' ^ ^ ^f°^rmer ^director <* the FBI, were

wra e ail male, and any deviation from the norm could cost an aeent his ,ob, from being overweight to bald ⁸

eleva^oTatTh/FRrT¹¹;?' ^aCCOrding ^t0 ^the ^t3P^6S' ^Hoover was on an man w _th V ^ * ^Washin§^ton when he spotted a young

man with acne wearing a red vest. Hoover ordered the man fired and he said that whomever hired him was to be punished. "We're noi 2L to have anybody working for us who wears a red vest and has a £ ^§ply face," he said. (Thomas 1982, 6) ^P

Today, in government circles, little has changed. Nancv Reagan ST ^yT°H^PP_R°^Sed *⁶ ^aPP°^intment of Presidential pLs SecretL James Brady ( The Bear") (later seriously wounded by an assassin) because he was not good-looking enough to fit the Reagan image After Brady was Mred anyway, his press colleagues surrounded him with "She's grown accustomed to my face" (Time, 13 April 1981 p 4^

DISCRIMINATION IN HIRING

Most of us would be willing to concede that, in some occupations, it is legitimate for employers to make good looks a prerequisite for employment. For example, it seems reasonable that the Charles Stern Agency of Los Angeles would insist (as they do) that the men they hire for television commercials be over six feet, athletic-looking, and weigh 150-170 pounds, that Vogue would insist their models be stunningly beautiful. We do not mind if coaches insist on tall basketball players, if circus owners prefer midgets, or if dentists hire dental assistants with straight teeth.

For most occupations, however, it seems unfair for employers to discriminate. Generally, there is not an obvious link between good looks and competence. Elegant secretaries can not type faster than plainer ones. Tall executives can not think faster than short ones. Yet, employers often do use looks as a hiring standard, even in these situations.

Several years ago, Time magazine carried a little blurb about "Equality for Uglies" (21 February 1972). It presented an observation by Washington Post Columnist William Rasberry:

According to Rasberry, discrimination against ugly women ("there's no nice way to say it") is the most persistent and pervasive form of employment discrimination. Men, he argues, face no bias, except in the movies and in politics. Rasberry's sympathies lie not with the "mere Plain Janes, who can help themselves with a bit of pain and padding " but with the losers, the "real dogs," who supposedly would be working full-time if their features were more regular. Such discrimination, he insists, is all the more insidious because no one will admit that it exists No personnel officer in his right mind will tell a woman, "Sorry, lady but you need a nose job, and your lips don't match." And a woman so insulted would not be likely to publicize it. (p. 8)

Most often, employers' biases in favor of good-looking candidates are probably unconscious. Sometimes, however, personnel managers' biases are fully conscious. Hiring on the basis of looks may be especially pervasive when a job requires employees to deal with the public. The employer may know there is no real difference in competence between an attractive and an unattractive employee, but there may be a difference in how they are received by the public or by clients that could mean a difference in profit.

A twenty-one-year-old waitress from THE GROUP described the hiring procedures in the large restaurant where she works-

At my restaurant, I can see that the better looking waitresses get the job. Hostesses especially are known for being "cute" and having great bodies—that's the reason they are hired. A couple of hostesses were fired right off the bat—even though they were doing an O.K. job. But you could tell they weren't drawing men. The managers were keeping records. And they found that when certain "cute" hostesses were working, more customers came in and kept coming back. These hostesses were promoted and the others were let go.

I know a lot of people who have applied at our restaurant—stacks and stacks of applications. And a lot of people are turned away who are competent. The ones who are hired have to be attractive.

SUCCESS: WHAT THEY SEE IS WHAT YOU GET

Personnel managers are consistent in their biases; they are willing to admit they discriminate against everyone on the basis of looks—male and female. In one study, 60 percent of personnel managers stated that when deciding to hire a manager, they tried to determine whether or not the prospective manager looked like a manager (Quinn, Tabor, and Gordon 1968). Most personnel managers consider a "good appearance" even more important than a college education or being innovative, loyal to the firm, or sensitive to others (Bowman 1962, 1964).

There is also good evidence that this bias is not just "talk." Managers do not just say they prefer good-looking applicants; they put their biases into practice. In the typical experiment, personnel interviewers are asked to work through a pile of job applications. The set is "rigged"—the applicants' sex, competence, and physical attractiveness have been systematically varied. Which applicants are hired? The compent were preferred to the incompent, men were preferred to women, the good-looking to the less attractive.

In one study (Dipboye, Fromkin, and Wiback 1975), thirty male industrial management students and thirty professional personnel interviewers from a wide range of companies evaluated a batch of resumes for the position of head of a furniture department. Each of the men received twelve resumes. A photograph (of either a good-looking or an unattractive applicant) was attached to each resume. Some of the applicants were women; some were men. The applicant's scholastic standing varied. Some of the applicants had good grades in their high school and college marketing classes; others did not. Some applicants were just average scholastically.

Who was hired? Even today, it is still a man's world—men were far more likely to get the position than were women, (additional evidence for this contention comes from Cash, Gillen, and Burns 1977; and Schuler and Berger 1979). Competence was the most important factor

in determining who was hired. Applicants with good scholastic qualifications were preferred over those with low standings. Finally, for both men and women, it was an enormous advantage to be good-looking. Even professional interviewers, who had training and experience, discriminated on the basis of sex and physical attractiveness.

We interviewed one male recruiter for a large firm. He admitted that discrimination on the basis of physical attractiveness does occur:

I don't do it overtly, perhaps I inadvertently do it—weigh looks. But I know a lot of guys really do it. They'll say, "Boy, she's good looking." They'll even put it down right on the recruiting papers—"nice looking."

Good looks has become an attribute. In other words, it doesn't hurt. If you have two women walk into your office to be recruited, and both have the same grades, the nice looking one will get hired and that's a simple fact. Probably because the nice looking one can do more things than the not nice looking one—i.e., use her sex appeal, etc. to smooth over some clients.

"I'VE BEEN THERE"—AND IT DOES NOT HELP

Most personnel directors are biased, then. But certainly personnel interviewers of mediocre appearance themselves, who have personally suffered from injustice, can identify with "flawed" applicants. Surely, they would not discriminate in hiring. They must prefer someone of about their own level of attractiveness.

In "Know How to Interview for a Job," Milton Rockman (Wisconsin State Journal, 18 July 1982) argues that interviewers look for others similar to themselves in appearance:

It is unfortunate, but true, says Donald H. Sweet, vice-president of Cos-tello-Erdlem & Company, a Wellesley, Mass. consulting firm and former personnel director of the Celanese Company, that interviewer biases affect their hiring practices. Despite frequent disclaimers, many tend to hire on the basis of superficial first impressions involving appearance, clothes, height, or personal chemistry. They look for individuals much like themselves with whom they can feel comfortable. Sweet calls it "clonal hiring." (p. 22)

The evidence indicates that first impressions do count . . . but that everyone prefers the attractive applicant. So much for the kinship of suffering.

In one study, "personnel interviewers" (college students) were asked to evaluate a series of applicants for a managerial job. At the time they began their research, scientists expected the "interviewers" to be most biased in favor of those looking like themselves—no better and certainly

no worse. Attractive interviewers were expected to prefer attractive applicants, and unattractive interviewers to prefer unattractive applicants.

This optimistic prediction, however, was soon disconfirmed. Everyone preferred the good-looking applicants. Both attractive and homely interviewers were more likely to recommend hiring the attractive applicant . . . and at a higher starting salary (both men and women were biased in favor of male applicants also) (Dipboye, Arvey, and Terpstra 1977). Job discrimination seems to occur regardless of who is sitting behind the desk.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE ELDERLY—IS THE SIN BEING OLD OR

UNATTRACTIVE?

Older workers confront overpowering discrimination. A Department of Labor survey found many jobs only open to people fifty-five-years of age and younger. Sometimes even people in the forty-five to fifty-five age range are discriminated against. At times it is not clear why older people are discriminated against. Sociologist Inge Powell Bell (1979) argues that physical attractiveness could be important:

The problem of discrimination against older men and women is complicated by the fact that a study would have to take into account whether discrimination was practiced because of expected lack of physical strength, long training or internship programs, or physical attractiveness. The former two considerations figure much more frequently in the case of men and certainly have more legitimacy as grounds for discriminating than the factor of physical attractiveness, which usually arises solely because the woman is seen as a sex object before she is seen as a productive worker. As long as this is the employer's orientation, it will probably do little good to cite him the studies proving that middle aged women office workers are superior to young women in work attendance, performance and ability to get along agreeably with others, (p. 241)

WHEN BEAUTY="DON'T CALL US, WE'LL CALL YOU"

Of course, there are some instances when great beauty can be a handicap in getting a job. Marilyn Monroe, for example, was turned down for the part of Grushenka in Dostoyevsky's (1958) The Brothers Karamazov because she was too beautiful to be credible. Actress Morgan Fairchild has said, "I've lost a lot of parts because they said I was too beautiful, too classic, too glamorous. One producer told me, 'No one will identify with you' " (Kramer, Parade, 4 July 1982).

TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING

Psychologists (Heilman and Saruwatari 1979) have speculated that in traditional business circles, although dazzling women may have an advantage in securing traditional, low-paying, "feminine" jobs, they may have a distinct disadvantage in competing for traditional "men's jobs." To determine if this assumption is true, the researchers asked men and women to evaluate a collection of applications for a white-collar job. In some cases, the job was clerical; it was described as a Level 8 job with a salary of $6,000-$8,000. In other cases, the job was a managerial position—a Level 6 job, with a salary of $14,000-$16,000. Attached to the employment form was the applicant's photograph. The man or woman's photo, a bogus one, was either attractive or homely.

If the applicant was a man, good looks were an advantage in getting hired, regardless of whether the job was clerical or managerial. If the applicant was a woman, however, beauty only helped when the job was clerical. When the job was a high-status managerial one, "beauty was beastly." Interviewers assumed homely women were more qualified for the managerial job; they were more eager to hire them and at a higher starting salary.

Why would traditional employers discriminate against beautiful women for "fast track" positions? Apparently, a woman's attractiveness enhances the perception of feminity, and for these traditional men, feminity is supposedly incongruent with the skill and talent required in high-status managerial jobs. Beautiful women may seem ill suited for men's work. Homely women, on the other hand, are apparently seen as "one of the guys." The researchers concluded, "This finding sadly implies that women should strive to appear as unattractive and as masculine as possible if they are to succeed in advancing their careers by moving into powerful organizational positions" (p. 371).

In another study (Cash, Gillen, and Burns 1977), unattractive women were more likely to be considered for the traditional men's jobs of automobile salesperson and wholesale hardware shipping and receiving clerk than attractive women. On the other hand, attractive women were more likely to be considered for the "feminine" jobs of telephone operator and office receptionist.

Obviously, in traditional circles there seems to be a stereotype that high-status and "masculine-type" jobs may not be appropriate for women—particularly for attractive women (viewed as the epitome of all that is feminine). A note: We suspect the preceding studies might exaggerate the problems beautiful career women face. Our own exploratory work has begun to reveal two factors executive women must consider in dressing for success—good looks and appropriateness. (This last factor may be of overriding importance.) We suspect that women

can look as beautiful as they want, as long as their hair is arranged in a businesslike style and they are dressed appropriately for the job.

In some of the preceding research (which seemed to depict beauty as a disadvantage) there was some confusion between beauty and appropriateness. The stimulus pictures showed that apparently a few of the beautiful women did not appear as businesslike as the plainer women. (Their hair was too long and sultry; they wore the wrong kind of eye makeup.) They were beautiful, but subtly wrong for an executive position. We suspect that beautiful women may actually be more marketable than plainer women, if everyone is dressed appropriately.

In any case, even if subsequent research shows we are wrong and that, currently, beauty and success do not mix, there is some suggestion that this situation may be changing. Recently, some educators became concerned that traditional sterotyping (i.e., that beauty and professionalism do not mix) might be preventing young women from pursuing careers in professional fields. They found, however, that among young people no such stereotyping exists. For example, in one study (Lanier and Bryne 1981), a group of high school students was shown twenty slides of beautiful to ugly women. They were told that some of these women were engineers, lawyers, doctors, oceanographers, architects, and executives. Could they guess which women were the professionals? A second group was shown slides of the same women and was told that half the women had taken some of the following courses in high school: mechanical drawing, physics, calculus, chemistry, and political science. Which women had taken these courses? Both high school boys and girls took it for granted that beauty and brains do mix. The new generation simply assumed the attractive women had the professional careers and had taken the traditionally masculine high school courses.

CONFLICTING MESSAGES TO WOMEN: HOW TO LOOK MASCULINELY FEMININE AND NOT COMPROMISE YOUR VALUES

For the moment, however, career women seem caught in a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't world. On the one hand, sometimes they are encouraged to look very feminine—if it helps get the job done. On the other hand, they can not be too attractive or they may not be taken seriously by those in power (as the previous studies indicate). Furthermore, if they are to be prepared for the world of tomorrow, they should always try to look their best. Career magazines—such as Savvy and Working Woman—reflect this confusion. Their ads suggest women should be softly feminine, muskily sexy, and relentlessly dominant, all at the same time (a hard bit of advice to follow).

Given this confusion, how should a woman dress for a job interview? Just what "look" is right will depend on the occupation, of course. The

good looks that land a man a job as a United States senator or as a cowboy in a movie (i.e., tough, decisive, and virile) is different from the look that will land him a job in a male fashion magazine (pretty and elegant). The good looks that help get a woman a job on the floor of the stock exchange are different from the look that will get her a job as a bar girl in a Hotel Street dive.

Investigators have examined what people should wear when job hunting. (Rucker, Taber, and Harrison 1981) In a study sponsored by the Research Committee of the Western College Placement Association (Anton and Russell 1974), college recruiting officers and managers assessed applicants' job potential. Male applicants were most appealing when wearing suits, ties, sport coats, slacks, and dress suits in contrast to T-shirts, shorts, jeans, and sandals (as you might guess, the latter were taboo). Recruiters preferred women who wore blouses, heels, and nylon stockings when applying for a job. (They reacted negatively to sandals, shorts, jeans, and the "bra-less look.")

Kelley et al. (1976) found much the same thing. They concluded that dressing for the office should be a "conservative but fashionable look with an emphasis on being neat and well-groomed." Molloy in his books, Dress for Success (1975) and The Woman's Dress for Success Book (1977), has said, "Dressing to succeed in business and dressing to be sexually attractive are almost mutually exclusive." He suggests long sleeves and high necklines for women.

What a woman wears for a job interview and what she wears when secure in her job, however, are two different things. We conducted an interview with Brian Shapiro, a top accounting executive from a "Big 8" accounting firm in Los Angeles. He describes what happens in his profession:

In the Big 8, there has always been a myth that you have to dress like "an accountant" to succeed. Of course, the question is, What do accountants look like? . . . and then, Why should they dress like that? There has always been a kind of "militarism" in the Big 8. You have to wear a suit. That was fine for years, but about the mid-70s, the women's movement finally began to infiltrate the previously untouched accounting community. There started to become a number of women accounting majors—and, of course, the large firms started hiring them. Now the problem became—We know that the men should dress in dark, conservative suits, but how should the women dress? We didn't know. On the one hand, we thought women should look professional. But on the other hand, shouldn't they look feminine too? Why can't accountants be feminine?

Over the last six years, I have seen the predominantly male partner group adopt a double standard in what is demanded of women. On one hand, they want women to look old and conservative. On the other

hand, suddenly, they would like women accountants to look "sexy," because they think that's what the clients want to see. If you are going to hire women, why not use their sex appeal for professional gain—to obtain rapport with the clients? I hate to admit it, but I have seen it used. I have seen partners suggest that one woman, who is extremely well-endowed, wear certain outfits to certain jobs, when they know that, for instance, professionally teasing an "old letch" would help the firm. And it works ... I have seen it done. If women auditors can learn to use their femininity, it seems to loosen up the clients. Like it or not, it works.

DISCRIMINATION IN SALARY AND PROMOTION

Not only are good-looking applicants more likely to be hired, but they are more likely to be hired at a higher starting salary. In one study, interviewers were told an applicant had been hired; they were asked merely to recommend a starting salary. Who were given higher salaries? Once again, the physically attractive, the highly qualified, and, of course, the men (Dipboye, Arvey, and Terpstra 1977). Another researcher (Waters 1980) discovered a "Cinderella syndrome." She found that personnel managers and employment counselors from Los Angeles to Chicago to New York gave a higher starting salary to a woman when she was made up attractively than when the same woman appeared to be plain. It was most important to be beautiful in secretarial positions, least important in managerial ones.

BEAUTY PAYS

Given all these considerations, the discovery that the good-looking are likely to end up with jobs higher in pay and prestige than their less appealing competitors probably comes as no surprise. In 1971-1973, Robert P. Quinn (1978) examined data from three national surveys conducted at the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center. All in all, more than 800 men and 470 women ranging in age from sixteen up and employed full-time were interviewed. Interviewers rated the person's physical appearance (were they "strikingly handsome or beautiful," "good-looking," "average-looking," "quite plain," or "homely?"). Interviewers recorded what participants' jobs were, and how much they got paid for doing them. They found that, for both men and women, physical attractiveness was tightly linked with income and occupational prestige (see Table 2.1).

The income of "handsome/good-looking" men was $1,869 higher than that of "plain/homely" men. The income of "beautiful/good-

TABLE 2.1 The Relationship Between Looks and Career Success

RATINGS OF YEARLY OCCUPATIONAL

ATTRACTIVENESS INCOME PRESTIGE

Men

"Strikingly handsome" or

"good-looking" $10,093 49.6

"Average" $ 9,216 42.4

"Quite plain" or "Homely" $ 8,224 31.4

Women

"Strikingly beautiful" or

"good-looking" $ 5,874 50.8

"Average" $ 5,043 42.0

"Quite plain" or "Homely" $ 4,647 33.6

source: Table based on data available in Quinn (1972)

looking women was $1,227 higher than that of their "plain/homely" counterparts.

The researchers measured occupational prestige by Duncan's Socioeconomic Status Scale (Reiss, Duncan, Hatt, and North 1961). This scale lists almost every conceivable job (on a scale of 1 to 100) according to how much prestige people, in general, attach to the occupation. They found that good-looking men and women tended to have jobs rated around 49-50 in prestige. (The jobs in that range include clergymen, music teachers, floor managers, bookkeepers, photographers, student nurses, and managers of food stores.) Homely men and women held jobs of lower prestige, in the 31-34 range (including housekeepers, building superintendents and managers, boilermakers, machinists, and gasoline service sation managers). Obviously, good looks pay—in money and in prestige.

DISCRIMINATION IN EVALUATIONS OF ON-THE-JOB PERFORMANCE

If you are not much to look at, getting a job is difficult in the first place. If you do get a job, you may have to work extra hard to get a good evaluation. Considerable evidence exists documenting that teachers and employers treat plain women's (and perhaps men's) efforts with less respect than they deserve—especially when judgments have to be subjective.

WHEN PERFORMANCE IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

In one study (Landy and Sigall 1974), college men were asked to judge how "compelling," "logical," and "convincing" an essay was (the essay was on the role of television in society). Attached to most of the essays was a photograp