BlogEvolve.com

When two individuals are introduced they quickly form an impression of each other based on very little information. The first psychologist to investigate how we form these impressions of others was Solomon Asch (1946) who stated that the first information received about an individual is often more important than information gained later, which he called the primary effect. Asch conducted an experiment into this in which he gave participants a list of traits about a hypothetical person. The participants where divided into two groups, A and B. Group A’s list started with positive traits and ended in negative traits, with Group B’s list being the reverse of A’s. Participants had to write a description about this hypothetical person based on their traits. Asch found that group A (whose list began with positive traits) gave a more favourable description that group B (whose list began with negative traits). In a further experiment Asch took a group of participants and again divided them into two groups, A and B. They where both given a list of personality traits about a hypothetical person that were identical other than group A’s had ‘warm’ on the list whereas group B’s had ‘cold’ and were told to record their impressions of the hypothetical person. Asch found that the descriptions given of the ‘warm’ person where more positive than those given of the ‘cold’ person. Asch concluded that warm and cold where central traits as they influenced all other traits and suggested that once a central trait has being identified ‘the halo effect’ is applied and it is then assumed that all that persons traits are negative or positive.

Luchins (1957) also provided research into the primary effect. He gave participants a story about ‘Jim’ consisting of two paragraphs. One paragraph described Jim as sociable while the other described him as unsociable. Half the participants where given the story of Jim with the social paragraph first in the story followed by the unsociable paragraph. The other half of the participants where given the same story but the two paragraphs were reversed. Luchins found that 78% of participants who read the social paragraph first thought Jim was friendly compared to only 18% of the group who read the unsociable paragraph first.

The most significant influence affecting impression formation is ‘physical attractiveness’ and evidence has been used to prove that individuals who are more physically attractive receive preferential treatments. For example they are thought be more likeable, intelligent, are more likely to receive lenient prison sentences and are more likely to be promoted at work. Walster et al. (1966) conducted a study called ‘the computer dance study’ in which 752 students where used as participants. They filled out a questionnaire and where told that from this they had being allocated a partner for the dance. In fact, these partners had being picked at random by a computer and all participants had unbeknown to them being rated on their physical attractiveness. At the end of the evening the students were all asked how much they liked their date. The participants that had being rated highly on physical attractiveness were the ones most liked by their partner.

According to Dion et al. (1972) physically attractive individuals are more likely to be perceived as having more attractive personalities and stated that ‘what is beautiful is good’. In one study Dion showed that physical attractiveness does influence the impressions formed of a person. Participants rated photographs of unknown people on certain characteristics, none of which where related to physical attractiveness. Dion found that the more physically attractive people in the photographs had been rated more favourably. Participants had thought they would be more intelligent, sociable, kind, sensitive and have better job prospects. In a later study Dion went on to show that adults not only favour physically attractive adults but also children. In this study Dion gave participants photographs of seven year old children and accounts of their behaviour and found that participants where more likely state that unattractive children had antisocial tendencies. Feingold (1992) also found using a statistical technique to review evidence about physical attractiveness and found that physically attractive individuals are more likely to be perceived as more sociable, intelligent and psychologically healthy than individuals who are less attractive. Landy and Sigall (1974) conducted an experiment whereby male participants where asked to judge the quality of females essays that contained only a photograph of the author who was either very attractive or unattractive. The essays of the female students who were very attractive received a more favourable judgement than those of the unattractive students.

It is not just adults that favour more physically attractive people but children and even babies. Goebel and Cashen (1973) found that children as young as first and second graders believe that physically attractive teachers are more intelligent than unattractive teachers. Samuels and Ewy (1985) found that babies as young as 2 and 3 months gaze longer at adult faces that have being judged as attractive, rather than those judged as unattractive. Langlois, Roggman and Riesssaer-Danner (1990) conducted a study which showed that 12 month old infants exhibited more pleasure, more playfulness, less distress and less withdrawal when they where interacting with adults wearing attractive mask compared to adults wearing unattractive masks.

Despite all the evidence to suggest that physically attractive individual are viewed more favourably that unattractive individuals Dermer and Thiel (1975) found one exception to this. They found that extremely attractive women judged by female participants where found to be vain, materialistic, snobbish, egotistic and have less chance of being in a successful marriage.

References

Asch, S. (1946) ‘Forming Impressions of Personality’, in Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, pp258-90. Cited: Cullis, T., Dolan, L. & Groves, D. (1999) Psychology for You, pp 302-6. Nelson Thornes. United Kingdom.

Dion, K.K., Berschied, E. & Walster, E. (1972) What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 24, 285-290. Cited: Geoff, R. & Gross, R. (2004) Essential A2 Psychology for AQA (A). Hodder & Stoughton. London and Gross, R. (1996) Psychology the Science of Mind and Behaviour. Hodder & Stoughton. London

Dermer, M. & Thiel, D.L. (1975) When beauty may fail. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 31, 1168-76. Cited: Gross, R. (1996) Psychology the Science of Mind and Behaviour. Hodder & Stoughton. London

Feingold (1992) Cited: Cullis, T., Dolan, L. & Groves, D. (1999) Psychology for You, pp 302-6. Nelson Thornes. United Kingdom.

Goebel, B.L., & Cashen, V.M. (1973) Age, sex and attractiveness as factors in students ratings of teachers. A development study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 646-653. Cited: http://harcourtassessment.com/hai/images/dotcom/sciencedirect/j.intell.2004.03.003.pdf Accessed on 22/05/2006

Landy, D., & Sigall, H. (1974) Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer’s physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 29, 299-304. Cited: http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/Gwald_BullPsychonSoc_1990.OCR.pdf Accessed on 22/05/2006

Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L.A. & Riesssaer-Danner, L.A. (1990) Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115-121. Cited: http://harcourtassessment.com/hai/images/dotcom/sciencedirect/j.intell.2004.03.003.pdf Accessed on 22/05/2006

Luchins (1957) Cited: Cullis, T., Dolan, L. & Groves, D. (1999) Psychology for You, pp 302-6. Nelson Thornes. United Kingdom.

Samuels, C.A. & Ewy, R. (1985) Aesthetic perception of faces during infancy. British Journal of Development Psychology, 3, 221-228. Cited: http://harcourtassessment.com/hai/images/dotcom/sciencedirect/j.intell.2004.03.003.pdf Accessed on 22/05/2006

Walster, E., Aronson, E., Abrahams, D. & Rottman, L. (1966) The importance of physical attractiveness in dating behaviour. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 4, 508-516. Cited: Geoff, R. & Gross, R. (2004) Essential A2 Psychology for AQA (A). Hodder & Stoughton. London.