Impression Formation: Do Facial Features or Body Types have a Greater Influence on First Impressions?

Laura A. Mast
Missouri Western State College
December 5, 1996

Abstract

Previous studies in this area have looked at head, head and shoulders, or somatotypes only and how they effected impression formation. However, they have not studied the effects of the head (face) and body together. This study included both in order to determine whether one was more predominant than the other for impression formation. Additionally, it addresses which more greatly influences males and females. The effects appearance has on interpersonal issues was also explored. Participating in the study were 147 (52 males, 95 females) introductory and intermediate psychology students at Missouri Western State College in Northwestern region of the state. Each were given one of two sets of photos, four in each set, including two males and two females photographed seperately. Each photo subject was of approximately the same height, however they had a different somatotype. The difference between the sets was that they contained either the original photos or photos in which the head was superimposed onto the opposite somatotype (ie., female head A on female body B). A personality index, developed by S. E. Asch, was attached to each of the photos. A 2 x 2 x 2 analysis of variance was done to analyze the data; the primary considerations were the sex of the person photographed, their body type, and their facial features. Several significant relationships were found.

Introduction

Many researchers in the past have focused a great deal of attention on impression formation and the attractiveness biases that are attached to it. The effects that it has in numerous types of situations has also been a point of interest. Research has shown that attractiveness biases are prevalent in teacher evaluations of students (Clifford & Walster, 1973), voter preferences for political candidates (Efran & Patterson, 1974), and jury judgments in mock trials (Efran, 1974). It has further been established that attractiveness influences managerial decisions (Klassen, Jasper, & Harris, 1993) and employment interviewers' judgments of job applicants (Beehre & Gilmore, 1982; Benson, Severs, Tagenhorst, & Loddengaard, 1980; Cann, Siegerfried, & Pearce, 1981; Cash, Gillen, & Burns, 1977; Cash & Kilcullen, 1985; Dipboye, Arvey, & Terpstra, 1977; Dipboye, Fromkin, & Wiback, 1975; Gilmore, Beehr, & Love, 1986; Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979).

According to Shahanie, Dipboye, and Gehriein (1993), attractive applicants for college admission were evaluated as being better qualified than were the unattractive applicants. The applicants participated in face-to-face interviews and as the researchers pointed out, the bias may have been caused by the applicants level of confidence or ability to engage in conversation during the interview. Interestingly, the attractiveness or lack of it had no effect on the actual admission status of the applicants. The interviewer was not part of the selection committee, he only dealt with the preliminaries of the admission procedure. In a subsequent study, however, they found that portrait style photographs of these same applicants, either attractive or unattractive, were a good indicator of real-world judgments. They further concluded that biases regarding the unattractive are not short-lived and that they apply to many situation other than college interviews.

A study done by Squier and Mew (1981) examined whether or not a person's facial structure was an indicator of their personality. Using subjects with "long, angular faces" and "short, square faces" to test this, they had each of them complete a biographical data sheet and a personality questionnaire. What Squier and Mew reported was that "subjects with long, angular faces were found to be more responsive, assertive, and genuine than were subjects with short, square faces who were more restrained, conforming and shrewd." In their report, they noted that a study done by Allport (1937) showed that social expectations based on facial features may lead to shape personality traits. Further studies have shown that upper and/or lower facial structures (ie., slant of eyes, curvature of the mouth, and forehead height) contribute to inferences made about personality (Secord et al., 1954; Bradshaw, 1969; Bassili, 1979, as cited by Squire & Mew, 1981).

Klassen, Jasper, and Harris (1993) studied how obesity and extreme thinness effect the managerial decision making process. They contend that stereotypical beliefs are especially strong and negative for obese people. According to various researchers, some of the beliefs attached to obesity include: blameworthy, weak-willed, untrustworthy, and incompetent (DeJong, 1980; Lerner, 1969; Staffieri, 1967; Young & Powell, 1985, as cited by Klassen, Jasper, & Harris, 1993). Bellizzi, Klassen, and Bilonax (1989) found that the obese were more likely to be assigned to low volume, low competitive jobs because of their perceived lack of ability and initiative. Their study also reported that stereotyping and prejudice is much more negative for obese females.

Previous studies have not addressed the issue of how facial features and body types may work together in order to form first impressions or judge a personality. The purpose of this study was to examine this issue. Primarily, the relationship between facial features and body types were examined to see if one influenced the other or if one was more relevant than the other for impression formation. Furthermore, this study investigated whether or not sex differences existed in the perception of both male and female photo subjects and where those differences are (face or body). Although minimally, social or interpersonal ramifications were also addressed. It was hypothesized that female participants would be more greatly influenced by facial features and that the males would be more influenced by body types. Additionally, it was believed that both male and female subjects would more quickly deny friendship to the "less attractive" photo subjects.

Method

Participants

Participating in the study were 52 male and 95 female introductory and intermediate psychology students at Missouri Western State College. The average age of the subjects was 20.75 (males 20.01; females 21.16), the range was between 19 and 49 years old.

It was decided to use a large sample size in this study in order to compensate for any of the participants realizing the objectives of the study. Realizing the objectives may have led them to answer how they thought they should, or purposely give a rating of the personalities which would not truly represent how they would normally have perceived the person in the photograph. This control measure seems to have been successful.

Materials

Each subject was given one of two sets of four photographs, each showing one male and one female (four different people were photographed). The difference between the sets was the composition of the photo. Each male photo subject was approximately the same height but they had different somatotypes. The same held true for the females. Another condition was added by superimposing the heads onto the opposite somatotype, thus showing face A on body B, face C on body B and vice versa. Photo Set A consisted of the two original male photos and the two original female photos. Photo Set B consisted of the two male and two female photos that were superimposed.

Before seeing the photos, the participants were asked to provide demographic information (ie., gender, age, and race). Attached to each photo was a personality index, developed by S. E. Asch, containing warm and cold type words relating to personality. The personality index was used by the participants to assess the perceived personalities of the persons photographed. After the index, there was a yes/no question about the likelihood of them socializing with the person photographed.

Procedure

Participants were told that this study was looking at whether or not someone's personality could be determined from a photograph. The participants were given instructions as a group. They were told that there was no right or wrong answer with regard to the personality index, as well as assured that participating in the study was anonymous and that they may choose, without penalty, not to participate or to withdraw at any time.

Photo Set A and Photo Set B were then randomly given to the participants. The experimenter was unaware of which condition each participant was in. After viewing the photographs, the subjects completed the personality index for each of the persons photographed. After completing this index, the participants were asked to indicate whether or not they would socialize with the person in the photograph.

Upon completion, the participants were told the actual purpose of the study. The differences between the photos was also explained to them.

Results

Using SPSS, a 2 x 2 x 2 analysis if variance was calculated on the sex of the photo subject, face (thin or wide), and body (thin or wide). Differences between male and female responses, the relationship between face and body to particular personality characteristics, and the interpersonal aspects were also considered during data analysis. Concerning the hypothesis that facial features will have a greater influence on females during personality assessment, females should have negatively rated what they consider unattractive. Regarding the hypothesis that somatotype will have a greater influence on the male participants, they should have indicated that the persons photographed having a larger framed body have a negative personality. There were no significant finding with regard to either of the above two hypotheses. Finally, concerning the hypothesis that perceived personality based on what a person looks like having social and interpersonal ramifications, both male and female participants should reject the "less attractive" person photographed as a member of their social group. There was evidence supporting this.

Overall scores indicate main effects for the face and the sex of the photo subject; also indicated are two-way interactions between face/body [F(1,579) = 3.857, p &LT .01] and face/photo subject sex [F(1,579) = 123.887, p &LT .01]; a three way interaction was also found between face, body and sex of the photo subject, F(1,579) = 9.012, p &LT .01. Concerning the male photo subjects, a wide face and thin body is rated the highest; a thin face whether the body is thin or wide was rated the lowest; if a man has a wide body, he is rated more positively if he also has a wide face. The female photo subjects' rating were opposite of the males. Thin faced females are preferred overall, regardless of their body size; however, even though rated low, if a woman has a wide face it is better if she also has a wide body.

With regard to attractiveness, main effects were found for the body [F(1,580) = 6.567, p &LT.01] which indicates that a wide body is rated as being more attractive. Two-way interactions were found between photo subject sex and face [F(1,580) = 8.052, p &LT .01] and also between photo subject sex and body [F(1,580) = 3.419, p <.01]. This shows that wide faced/thin bodied males and thin faced/wide bodied females are considered to be more attractive. There was no significant difference between male and female participants' ratings of the face and/or body regarding attractiveness.

Concerning generousity, significant main effects were found for the sex of the photo subject [F(1,580) = 54.654, p &LT .01] and the face [F(1,580) = 4.420, p &LT .01]. Also found was a significant two-way interaction between the body and sex of the photo subject [F(1,580) = 5.733, p &LT .01] and also between the face and sex of the photo subject [F(1,580) = 40.172, p &LT .01]. Furthermore, a three way interaction was found between the body, face, and sex of the photo subject with regard to generousity, [F(1,580) = 16.347, p &LT .01]. Refer to the graphs for illustrations of the above results.

Finally, the greatest determining factor regarding whether or not the participants would socialize with the photo subjects was attractiveness. The calculated main effects are F(1,561) = 39.004, p &LT .01. However, no significant difference was found between male and female participants.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to expand on previous studies which only looked at facial features or body types but not the two together. This study also looks at whether males are more critical than females with regard to the face or the body, and vice versa. Another area of interest concerns the social and interpersonal ramifications that may be present based on perceived personality that is formed by what a person looks like. These social ramifications could include being denied acceptance into certain social groups, being denied jobs and/or career advancement and possibly even effecting how a person perceives him or herself.

The cumulative scores of all the personality characteristics, in relation to photo subject sex, face and body, produced several significant findings. It was found that the face is a better predictor of personality than is the body; the sex of the photo subject also produce a strong main effect. The two-way interactions between face and body and also between face and photo subject, in connection with the three-way interaction between face, body and photo subject sex, suggest the following: for male photo subjects, a wide face and thin body received the highest ratings, whereas, a thin face, whether the body is thin or wide received the lowest ratings but if a man has a wide body, he is rated more positively if he also has a wide face; the female photo subjects' ratings were opposite of the males. Thin faced females were preferred overall, regardless of their body size; even though they received lower ratings, if a woman has a wide face, it is better if she also has a thin body. There was no significant difference found between male and female participants' ratings of the face and/or body regarding attractiveness.

There were no significant differences between male and female participant responses regarding the relationship between face and body to the personality characteristics analyzed. However, it was found that, in general, female participants were more critical of the female photo subjects, in particular, the thin subject regardless of the face type.

When analyzing the attractiveness variable, it was found that the body has the biggest effect on whether or not someone is seen as attractive. Results indicate that a wide body, overall, is seen to be more attractive than a thin body. With regard to photo subject sex and face/photo subject sex and body, it was found that a wide faced, thin bodied male is considered to be more attractive than thin faced, wide or thin bodied male. However, if the male has a wide face, he is rated positively if he also has a wide body. Thin faced, wide bodied females were rated as being more attractive than thin or wide face, thin females. However, if the female had a wide face, she was rated as being attractive if she had a thin body. The indication that women with larger framed bodies are considered to be more attractive, I believe, is not consistent with the typical belief. Due to the fact that I have a large frame, the participants may have answered in this direction because they thought that this is what I wanted to hear. An expansion of this study may be done in the future to control for this.

One other personality characteristic analyzed was generosity. Significant main effects, two-way interactions, and three-way interactions were found between photo subject sex, face and body. These results indicate that males with wide faces and thin bodies are considered to be the most generous overall. There was no difference between males with thin or wide faces and wide bodies. For females, thin faces and thin bodies are rated as being more generous than other face/body combinations. There was an interesting finding concerning females with wide faces; both the thin and wide bodied were rated incredibly low, both scoring less than 10%. Wide faced and wide bodied females were seen as the least generous.

Regarding whether or not participants would socialize with the photo subjects, the greatest determining factor was attractiveness. There was, however, no significant difference found between male and female participants.

A replication of this study may be done in the future, adding several more controls. The controls that would be added include: similar clothing for the photo subjects so that it can be determined that clothing was not considered during evaluation of a personality; rather than using different backgrounds with each photo subject, in the next study, backgrounds would be the same for all photo subjects; and possibly use photos that have a clearer image, making it easier to see what each person looks like. Something else that may be done is having two different researchers conduct the study; using a thin researcher and a large research could show that the researchers own appearance could have an effect on how the participants respond to each of the photographs.

Further research in this area could include a study of whether or not, a person can overcome a negative first impression that has been formed solely by appearances and the difficulty of doing so. What may also be included in future studies of this nature are the stereotypes and biases associated with both physical and facial attractiveness or lack of attractiveness. Having already been established in previous research, there is evidence of discrimination in the hiring process based on appearance (face or body). A study on which has the greatest influence, facial features or body type, during the hiring process, would be an interesting topic to investigate.

References

Bellizzi, J. A., Klassen, M. L., & Belonax, J. J. (1989). "Stereotypical beliefs about overweight and smoking and decision-making in assignments to sales territories". Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 419-429.
Beehr, T. A., & Gilmore, D. C. (1982). "Applicant attractiveness as a perceived job relevant variable in selection". Academy of Management Journal, 25, 607-617.
Benson, P. L., Severs, D., Tagenhorst, J., & Loddengaard, N. (1980). The social costs of obesity: A non-reactive field study. Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 91-96.
Cann, A., Siegfried, W. D., & Pearce, L. (1981). "Forced attention to specific applicant qualifications: Impact on physical attractiveness and sex of applicant bias". Personnel Psychology, 34, 65-75.
Cash, T. F., Gillen, B., & Burns, D. S. (1977). "Sexism and beautyism in personnel consultant decision making". Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 301-310.
Cash, T. F., & Kilcullen, R. N. (1985). "The eye of the beholder: Susceptibility to sexism and beautyism in the evaluation of managerial candidates". Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 591-605.
Clifford, M., & Walster, E. (1973). The effect of physical attractiveness on teacher evaluation. Sociology of Education, 46, 248.
Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., & Terpstra, D. E. (1977). "Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of resume evaluations". Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 288-294.
Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. L., & Wiback K. (1975). "Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes". Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 39-43.
Efran, M. G. (1974). "The effect of physical appearance on the judgement of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated tury task". Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 8, 45-54.
Efran, M. G., & Patterson, E. (1974). "Voters vote beautiful: The effect of physical appearance on a national debate". Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 6, 352-356.
Gilmore, D. C., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. G. (1986). "Effects of applicant sex, applicant physical attractiveness, type of rater, and type of job on interview decisions". Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 103-109.
Heilman, M. E., & Saruwatari, L. R. (1979). "When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearance and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and non-managerial jobs". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 360-372.
Johnson, K. K. P. (1990). "Impressions of personality based on body forms: An application of Hillestad's Model of Appearance." Clothing & Textiles Research Journal, 8, 34-39.
Klassen, M. L., Jasper, C. R., & Harris, R. J. (1993). "The role of physical appearance in managerial decisions". Journal of Business and Psychology, 8, 181-198.
Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Gehrlein, T. M. (1993). "Attractiveness bias in the interview: Exploring the boundaries of an effect". Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 317-328.
Squier, R. W., & Mew, J. R. C. (1981). "The relationship between facial structure and personality characteristics". British Journal of Social Pyschology, 20, 151-160.

Back to MWSU Psychology Research Page
Back to PSY302 Research Page