IB Docs (2) Team
Dion et al (1972)
Biologists argue that physical attraction is important because it communicates to us the health and reproductive potential of a partner. Cognitive psychologists, however, argue that physical attraction is more about information processing when choosing a partner.
Dion et al (1972) proposed the halo effect, a cognitive bias that influences our judgment by linking physical beauty with other positive traits.
This study may be used in discussing the cognitive approach to relationships, as well as cognitive biases on Paper 1.
The original study may be read here.
The halo effect is defined as the tendency for an impression created in one area to influence opinion in another area.
In the case of relationships, this means that a person's physical beauty influences our judgment with regard to their other qualities. In other words, beautiful people must be good people.
The following study by Dion et al (1972) wanted to test this hypothesis. They wanted to see whether physically attractive people, both male and female, are assumed to possess more "socially desirable personality traits" than unattractive people and whether they are expected to "lead better lives" than unattractive people. In other words, would attractive people be assumed to be better partners, parents, and more successful in the job market than unattractive people?
The sample was made up of 30 male and 30 female university students from an American university.
The participants were told that the researchers were carrying out a study of "accuracy in people perception." They were told that they were being compared to graduate students who had been trained in "people perception."
Each participant was given three envelopes. One contained a photo of someone their age that was physically attractive, one that was of moderate attraction, and one that could be considered unattractive. Half of the participants were given photos of the same gender and the other half was given the opposite gender. To determine the level of attractiveness, 100 students from the university were asked to rate the attractiveness of 50 yearbook photos of people of the opposite sex. 12 different sets of photos were used for the study. The set of photos, the gender received and the order in which they were to be opened were all randomly allocated.
Participants were asked to rate the person in the photo on 27 personality traits on a 6-point scale. After completing this task for all three photos, they were then asked to complete another survey in which they were asked which person would be the most likely (and least likely) to experience marital happiness, parental happiness, and overall happiness. The final task was to indicate which of the three people would be most likely to engage in 30 different occupations. The occupations were divided into "low status," "average status" and "high status."
The researchers found the following results:
| Trait | Unattractive photo | Average photo | Attractive photo |
| Positive personality traits (composite score) | 56.31 | 62.42 | 65.39 |
| Occupational status | 1.70 | 2.02 | 2.25 |
| Marital happiness | .37 | .71 | 1.70 |
| Parental happiness | 3.91 | 4.55 | 3.54 |
| Overall happiness | 1.52 | 1.82 | 2.17 |
From the data, it can be seen that attractive individuals were predicted to be significantly happier, more successful and also have more positive personality traits. However, notice that they were not predicted to be better parents!
- The researchers took measures to support the construct validity of "attractiveness" by having a sample of 100 students from the sample university population rank photos for attractiveness.
- The researchers used deception to carry out the study. Although this is ethically problematic, it helped to avoid demand characteristics. In debriefings, the participants indicated that they did not know the actual aim of the study.
- The study's ecological validity is questionable. When it comes to predicting how we would judge someone we meet online or when reading through job applicants' resumés, the study could be said to have high ecological validity. However, it is questionable how predictive the results are of real-life encounters between people.
- The study may be seen as rather reductionist. Researchers have found that the emotional state of the person making the judgment may influence the influence of the halo effect.
- Replications of the study have not been consistent, challenging the reliability of the findings. Dermer and Thiel (1975) found that unattractive undergraduates did not rate attractive individuals as highly. More attractive individuals of both sexes were expected to be higher in vanity and possibly egotistic.
- There have been practical applications of the findings. Efran (1974) found subjects were more lenient when sentencing attractive individuals than unattractive ones, even though exactly the same crime was committed.
- The cognitive arguments do not rule out biological arguments. They may only compliment them.
Dermer, M; Thiel, DL (1975), "When beauty may fail", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (6): 1168–76, doi:10.1037/h0077085.
Dion, K; Berscheid, E; Walster, E (1972), "What is beautiful is good", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24 (3): 285–90, doi:10.1037/h0033731.
Efran, M. G. (1974), "The Effect of Physical Appearance on the Judgment of Guilt, Interpersonal Attraction, and Severity of Recommended Punishment in Simulated Jury Task", Journal of Research in Personality, 8: 45–54, doi:10.1016/0092-6566(74)90044-0
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn