Advertisement

Mein(schöner)Prof.de

Die physische Attraktivität des akademischen Lehrpersonals und ihr Einfluss auf die Ergebnisse studentischer Lehrevaluationen
  • Ulrich Rosar
  • Markus Klein
Abhandlungen

Zusammenfassung

Die Evaluation der akademischen Lehre gewinnt im Rahmen des universitären Qualitätsmanagements immer mehr an Bedeutung. Diese Entwicklung ist dann unproblematisch, wenn man davon ausgehen kann, dass studentische Lehrveranstaltungsevaluationen die Qualität der Lehre valide erfassen. Angesichts der Tatsache, dass wiederholt ein Einfluss der physischen Attraktivität des Lehrpersonals auf die Bewertung von Lehrveranstaltungen nachgewiesen wurde, ist dies aber fraglich. Mit der Annahme einer validen Leistungsmessung wäre ein solcher Effekt nur dann vereinbar, wenn attraktive Lehrpersonen echte Produktivitätsvorteile in der akademischen Lehre besitzen und nicht einfach nur besser bewertet werden. Auf der Grundlage von Daten der Online-Plattform MeinProf.de wird gezeigt, dass Produktivitätsvorteile attraktiver Lehrpersonen aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach nicht existieren. So wirkt sich insbesondere die Attraktivität weiblicher Lehrpersonen in nicht-erwartungskonformer Weise auf die Bewertung ihrer Lehrveranstaltungen aus.

Schlüsselwörter

Evaluation Physische Attraktivität Geschlecht Diskriminierung 

Mein(schöner)Prof.de. The Physical Attractiveness of Academic Staff and Its Influence on Evaluations by Students

Abstract

Evaluations of academic teaching have become an instrument for the quality management in universities of constantly growing importance. This process is unproblematic as long as the quality of teaching is rated validly by the evaluations of students. The validity of the rating, however, becomes questionable as an influence of the teaching staffs’ physical attractiveness on the evaluation of teaching has been proved. This effect would only be compatible with an assumed valid rating of the teaching performance if attractive teachers would in fact show a better performance in academic teaching and are not just better rated for their attractiveness. We analyzed data from the German online platform MeinProf.de for the evaluation of academic teachers. The results show that attractive teachers very probably do not perform better. The attractiveness of female teachers does not have the expected influence on the evaluation of their teaching.

Keywords

Evaluation Physical attractiveness Gender Discrimination 

Literatur

  1. Aleamini, Lawrence M. 1999. Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation 13:153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambady, Nalini, und Robert Rosenthal. 1993. Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64:431–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asendorpf, Jens, und Harald G. Wallbott. 1979. Maße der Beobachtungsübereinstimmung: Ein systematischer Vergleich. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 10:243–252.Google Scholar
  4. Bassili, John N. 1981. The attractiveness stereotype: Goodness or glamour? Basic and Applied Social Psychology 2:235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benson, Peter L., Stuart A. Karabenic, und Richard M. Lerner. 1976. Pretty pleases: The effects of physical attractiveness on race, sex and receiving help. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 12:409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berry, Diane. 2000. Attractiveness, attraction and sexual selection: Evolutionary perspectives on the form and function of physical attractiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 32:273–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bian, F. 1997. The effects of attractiveness on helping behavior. Claremont: Harvey Mudd College.Google Scholar
  8. Braun, Christoph, Martin Gründl, Claus Marberger, und Christoph Scherber. 2003. Beautycheck. Ursachen und Folgen von Attraktivität. http://www.beautycheck.de/ (Stand: 15. März 2003).
  9. Brown, Timothy A., Thomas F. Cash, und Steven W. Noles. 1999. Perception of physical attractiveness among college students: Selected determinants and methodological matters. Journal of Social Psychology 126:305–316.Google Scholar
  10. Brunswik, Egon. 1956. Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Budesheim, Thomas L., und Stephen J. DePaula. 1994. Beauty or the beast? The effects of appearance, personality, and issue information on evaluations of political candidates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20:339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buck, Stephen, und Drew Tiene. 1989. The impact of physical attractiveness, gender, and teaching philosophy on teacher evaluations. Journal of Educational Research 82:172–177.Google Scholar
  13. Buss, David M. 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buss, David M. 1994. The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Buss, David M. 2004. Evolutionary psychology. The new science of the mind. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  16. Buss, David M., und David P. Schmitt. 1993. Sexual strategies theory – An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review 100:204–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chaiken, Shelly. 1979. Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37:1387–1397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cross, John F., und Jane Cross. 1971. Age, sex, race, and the perception of facial beauty. Developmental Psychology 5:433–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cunningham, Michael R., Anita P. Barbee, und Correna L. Philhower. 2002. Dimensions of facial physical attractiveness: The intersection of biology and culture. In Facial attractiveness. evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives, Hrsg. Gillian Rhodes, Leslie A. Zebrowitz, 193–238. Westport: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Cunningham, Michael R. 1986. Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:925–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cunningham, Michael R., Anita P. Barbee, und Carolyn L. Pike. 1990. What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cunningham, Michael R., Perri B. Druen, und Anita P. Barbee. 1997. Angels, mentors, and friends: Trade-offs among evolutionary, social, and individual variables in physical appearance. In Evolutionary social psychology, Hrsg. Jeffrey A. Simpson, Douglas T. Kenrick, 109–140. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Cunningham, Michael R., Alan R. Roberts, Anita P. Barbee, Perri B. Druen, und Cheng-Huan Wu. 1995. ”Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours“: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68:261–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dabbs, James M., und Neil A. Stokes III. 1975. Beauty is power: The use of space on the sidewalk. Sociometry 38:551–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dermer, Marshall, und Darrel L. Thiel. 1975. When beauty may fail. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31:1168–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dion, Karen K., Ellen Berscheid, und Elaine Walster. 1972. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Society Psychology 24:285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dion, Karen K., und Ellen Berscheid. 1974. Physical attractiveness and peer perception among children. Sociometry 37:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eagly, Alice H., Richard D. Ashmore, Mona G. Makhijani, und Laura C. Longo. 1991. What is beautiful is good, but …: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin 110:109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. El-Hassan, Karma. 1995. Students’ ratings of instruction: Generalizability of findings. Studies in Educational Evaluation 21:411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Elliot, Andrew J., und Daniela Niesta. 2008. Romantic red: Red enhances men’s attraction to women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95:1150–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Engel, Uwe, und Gaby Krekeler. 2001. Studienqualität. Über studentische Bewertungen und Rankings von Studienfächern einer Universität. In Hochschul-Ranking. Zur Bedeutung von Studium und Lehre, Hrsg. Uwe Engel, 121–176. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  32. Etcoff, Nancy. 2000. Survival of the prettiest. New York: Doubleday & Company.Google Scholar
  33. Feingold, Alan. 1988. Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin 104:226–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Feingold, Alan. 1990. Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:981–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Feingold, Alan. 1992. Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin 111:304–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Friedman, Heidi, und Leslie A. Zebrowitz. 1992. The contribution of typical sex differences in facial maturity to sex role stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18:430–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gangestad, Steven W., und Randy Thornhill. 1997. The evolutionary psychology of extra-pair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior 18:69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gillen, Barry. 1981. Physical attractiveness: A determinant of two types of goodness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 7:277–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Goebel, Barbara L., und Valjean M. Cashen. 1979. Age, sex and attractiveness as factors in student ratings of teachers: A developmental study. Journal of Educational Psychology 71:646–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Grammer, Karl. 2002. Signale der Liebe. Die biologischen Gesetze der Partnerschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: dtv.Google Scholar
  41. Grammer, Karl, Bernhard Fink, Astrid Juette, Gudrun Ronzal, und Randy Thornhill. 2002. Femal faces and bodies: N-dimensional feature space and attractiveness. In Facial attractiveness. Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives, Hrsg. Gillian Rhodes, Leslie A. Zebrowitz, 91–126. Westport: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Grammer, Karl, Bernhard Fink, Anders P. Møller, und Randy Thornhill. 2003. Darwinian aesthetics: Sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biological Review 78:385–407.Google Scholar
  43. Gründl, Martin, 2004. Was ist Schönheit? In Bodytalk. Der riskante Kult um Körper und Schönheit, Hrsg. Andrea Hauner, Elke Reichart, 9–33. Frankfurt a.M.: dtv.Google Scholar
  44. Gründl, Martin, 2007: Attraktivitätsforschung: Auf der Suche nach der Formel für Schönheit. In Die Macht der Schönheit, Hrsg. Cathrin Gutwald, Raimar Zons, 49–70. München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
  45. Hamermesh, Daniel S., und Jeff E. Biddle. 1994. Beauty and the labour market. American Economic Review 84:1174–1194.Google Scholar
  46. Hamermesh, Daniel S., und Amy M. Parker. 2005. Beauty in the classroom. Instructors’ pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity. Economics of Education Review 24:369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hartmann, Petra. 1999. Überlegungen zur Evaluation von Lehrveranstaltungen. In Soziologie in konstruktiver Absicht. Festschrift für Günter Endruweit, Hrsg. Gerhard Berger, Petra Hartmann, 283–298. Hamburg: Knut Reim Verlag.Google Scholar
  48. Hartnett, John J., Kent O. Balley, und Craig S. Hartley. 1974. Body height, position and sex as determinants of personal space. Journal of Psychology 87:129–136.Google Scholar
  49. Hassebrauck, Manfred. 1983. Die Beurteilung der physischen Attraktivität: Konsens unter Urteilern? Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 14:152–161.Google Scholar
  50. Hatfield, Elaine, und Susan Sprecher. 1986. Mirror, mirror: The importance of looks in everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  51. Heilman, Madeline E., und Lois R. Saruwatari. 1979. When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearance and sex on evaluation of job applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 23:360–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Heilman, Madeline E., und Melanie H. Stopeck. 1985. Being attractive, advantage or disadvantage? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 35:202–215.Google Scholar
  53. Henss, Ronald. 1987. Zur Beurteilerübereinstimmung bei der Einschätzung der physischen Attraktivität junger und alter Menschen. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 18:118–130.Google Scholar
  54. Henss, Ronald. 1992. „Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand …“. Geschlecht, Alter und physische Attraktivität. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
  55. Henss, Ronald 1998. Gesicht und Persönlichkeitseindruck. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  56. Hergovich, Andreas, Silke Hasenegger, und Katrin Koller. 2002. Eine empirische Studie zum Einfluss von Make-up auf die Beurteilung der Attraktivität. In Psychologie der Schönheit. Physische Attraktivität aus wissenschaftlicher Perspektive, Hrsg. Andreas Hergovich, 129–135. Wien: WUV-Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
  57. Hönekopp, Johannes. 2006. Once more: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Relative contributions of private and shared taste to judgments of facial attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology 32:199–209.Google Scholar
  58. Hosoda, Megumi, Eugene F. Stone-Romero, und Gwen Coats. 2003. The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology 56:431–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Iliffe, Alan H. 1960. A study of preferences in feminine beauty. British Journal of Psychology 51:267–273.Google Scholar
  60. Jackson, Linda A., John E. Hunter, und Carole N. Hodge. 1995. Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly 58:108–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jones, Doug. 1995. Sexual selection, physical attractiveness and facial neoteny: Cross-cultural evidence and implications. Current Anthropology 36:723–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Jones, Doug, und Kim Hill. 1993. Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Human Nature 4:271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kamenz, Uwe, und Martin Wehrle. 2007. Professor Untat. Was faul ist hinter Hochschulkulissen. Berlin: Econ.Google Scholar
  64. Klein, Markus, und Ulrich Rosar. 2006. Das Auge hört mit! Der Einfluss der physischen Attraktivität des Lehrpersonals auf die studentische Evaluation von Lehrveranstaltungen – eine empirische Analyse am Beispiel der Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität zu Köln. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 35:305–316.Google Scholar
  65. Krautmann, Anthony C., und William Sander. 1999. Grades and student evaluations of teachers. Economics of Education Review 18:59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Köhler, Bernd. 1984. Physische Attraktivität und Persönlichkeitsmerkmale. In Brennpunkte der Persönlichkeitsforschung. Bd. 1, Hrsg. Manfred Amelang, Hans-Joachim Ahrens, 139–153. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  67. Kowner, Rotem, und Toshiki Ogawa. 1995. The role of raters’ sex, personality, and appearance in judgments of facial beauty. Perceptual and Motor Skills 81:339–349.Google Scholar
  68. Kromrey, Helmut. 1994. Wie erkennt man „gute Lehre“? Was studentische Vorlesungsbefragungen (nicht) aussagen. Empirische Pädagogik 8:153–168.Google Scholar
  69. Kromrey, Helmut. 1995. Evaluation der Lehre durch Umfrageforschung? Methodische Fallstricke bei der Messung von Lehrqualität durch Befragung von Vorlesungsteilnehmern. In Universität und Lehre. Ihre Evaluation als Herausforderung an die Empirische Sozialforschung. 2. Auf., Hrsg. Peter Mohler, 105–127. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  70. Kromrey, Helmut. 1996. Qualitätsverbesserung in Lehre und Studium statt sogenannter Lehrevaluation. Ein Plädoyer für gute Lehre und gegen schlechte Sozialforschung. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 10:153–166.Google Scholar
  71. Kromrey, Helmut. 2001. Studierendenbefragungen als Evaluation der Lehre? Anforderungen an Methodik und Design. In Hochschul-Ranking. Zur Bedeutung von Studium und Lehre, Hrsg. Uwe Engel, 11–48. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  72. Kromrey, Helmut. 2004. Qualität und Evaluation im System Hochschule. In Evaluationsforschung. Grundlagen und ausgewählte Forschungsfelder. 2., überarbeitete und aktualisierte Aufl., Hrsg. Reinhard Stockmann, 233–258. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  73. Little, Anthony C., Ian S. Penton-Voak, D. Michael Burt, und David I. Perrett. 2002. Evolution and individual differences in the perception of attractiveness: How cyclic hormonal changes and self-perceived attractiveness influence female preferences for male faces. In Facial Attractiveness. Evolutionary, Cognitive, and Social Perspectives, Hrsg. Gillian Rhodes, Leslie A. Zebrowitz, 50–90. Westport: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  74. Langlois, Judith H., Lisa Kalakanis, Adam J. Rubenstein, Andrea Larson, Monica Hallam, und Monica Smoot. 2000. Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin 12:390–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Maner, Jon K., Douglas T. Kenrick, Vaughn D. Becker, Andreas W. Delton, Brian Hofer, Chris J. Wilbur, und Steven L. Neuberg. 2003. Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8:1107–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Marwick, Arthur. 1988. Beauty in History. Society, politics and personal appearance c. 1500 to the present. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  77. Mason, Paul M., Jeffrey W. Steagall, und Michael M. Fabritius. 1995. Student evaluation of faculty: A new procedure for using aggregate measures of performance. Economics of Education Review 14:403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mazzella, Ronald, und Alan Feingold. 1994. The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24:1315–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. McCabe, Viki. 1988. Facial proportions, perceived age, and caregiving. In Social and Applied Aspects of Perceiving Faces, Hrsg. Thomas R. Alley, 89–95. Hillsdale: Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  80. Menninghaus, Winfried. 2007. Das Versprechen der Schönheit. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  81. Miller, Arthur G. 1970. Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic Science 19:241–243.Google Scholar
  82. Mulford, Matthew, John Orbell, Catherine Shatto, und Jean Stockard. 1998. Physical attractiveness, opportunity and success in everyday exchange. American Journal of Sociology 103:1565–1593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Naumann, Frank. 2006. Schöne Menschen haben mehr vom Leben. Die geheime Macht der Attraktivität. Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer.Google Scholar
  84. Osborn, Don R. 1996. Beauty is as beauty does? Make-up and posture effects on physical attractiveness judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26:31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Patzer, Gordon L. 1985. The physical attractiveness phenomena. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  86. Podratz, Kenneth E., und Robert L. Dipboye. 2002. In search of the „Beauty Is Beastly“ effect. Paper presented at the 17th Annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Toronto, Canada. April 2002.Google Scholar
  87. Reis, Harry T., Ilona McDougal Wilson, Carla Monestere, Stuart Berstein, Kelly Clark, Edward Seidl, Michelle Franco, Ezia Gioioso, Lori Freeman, und Kimberly Radoane. 1990. What is smiling is beautiful and good. European Journal of Social Psychology 20:259–267.Google Scholar
  88. Rennenkampff, Anke von. 2004. You look so feminine! When did you fail the last time? Social interaction following the think manager – Think male stereotype. Brandeis Graduate Journal 2:1–7.Google Scholar
  89. Renz, Ulrich. 2006. Schönheit – Eine Wissenschaft für sich. Berlin: Berlin-Verlag.Google Scholar
  90. Rhodes, Gillian, Kate Harwood, Sakiko Yoshikawa, Miwa Nishitani, und Ian McLean. 2002. The attractiveness of average faces: Cross-cultural evidence and possible biological bias. In Facial attractiveness. Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives, Hrsg. Gillian Rhodes, Leslie A. Zebrowitz, 35–58. Westport: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
  91. Rhodes, Gillian, Kieran Lee, Romina Palermo, Mahi Weiss, Sakiko Yoshikawa, Peter Clissa, Tamsyn Williams, Marianne Peters, Chris Winkler, und Linda Jeffery. 2005. Attractiveness of own-race, other-race, and mixed-race faces. Perception 34:319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rindermann, Heiner. 2001. Lehrevaluation. Einführung und Überblick zu Forschung und Praxis der Lehrveranstaltungsevaluation an Hochschulen mit einem Beitrag zur Evaluation computerbasierten Unterrichts. Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik.Google Scholar
  93. Rindermann, Heiner. 2003. Lehrevaluation an Hochschulen: Schlussfolgerungen aus Forschung und Anwendung für Hochschulunterricht und seine Evaluation. Zeitschrift für Evaluation 3: 233–56.Google Scholar
  94. Riniolo, Todd C., Katherine C. Johnson, Tracy R. Sherman, und Julie A. Misso. 2006. Hot or not: Do professors perceived as physically attractive receive higher student evaluations? Journal of General Psychology 133:19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Ritter, Jean M., Rita J. Casey, und Judith H. Langlois. 1991: Adults’ responses to infants varying in appearance of age and attractiveness. Child Development 62:68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rosar, Ulrich, Markus Klein, und Tilo Beckers. 2008. The frog pond beauty contest. Physical attractiveness and electoral success of the constituency candidates at the North Rhine-Westphalia state election of 2005. European Journal of Political Research 47:64–79.Google Scholar
  97. Rosenberg, Shawn W., Shulamit Kahn, und Thuy Tran. 1991. Creating a political image: Shaping appearance and manipulating the vote. Political Behavior 13:345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Rosenberg, Shawn W., und Patrick McCafferty. 1987. The image and the vote. Manipulating voters’ preferences. Public Opinion Quarterly 51:31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Sczesny, Sabine. 2003. A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think-manager-think-male stereotype. Sex Roles 49:353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Shrout, Patrick E., und Joseph L. Fleiss. 1979. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 86:420–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Smith, Stephen M., William D. McIntoch, und Doris G. Bazzini. 1999. Are the beautiful good in hollywood? An investigation of the beauty-and-goodness stereotype on film. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 21:69–80.Google Scholar
  102. Snyder, Mark, Ellen Berscheid, und Peter Glick. 1985. Focusing on the exterior and the interior: Two investigations of personal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48:1427–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Spiel, Christiane. 2001. Der differentielle Einfluss von Biasvariablen auf studentische Lehrveranstaltungsbewertungen. In Hochschul-Ranking. Zur Bedeutung von Studium und Lehre, Hrsg. Uwe Engel, 61–82. Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  104. Spiel, Christiane, und Martin Gössler. 2000. Zum Einfluss von Biasvariablen auf die Bewertung universitärer Lehre durch Studierende. Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie 14:38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Süssmuth, Bernd. 2006. Beauty in the classroom: are German students less blinded? Putative pedagogical productivity due to professors’ pulchritude: peculiar or pervasive? Applied Economics 38:231–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Symons, Donald. 1995. Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In Sexual nature, sexual culture, Hrsg. Paul R. Abramson, Steven D. Pinkerton, 80–118. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  107. Synnott, Anthony. 1989. Truth and goodness, mirrors and masks, Part I: A sociology of beauty and the face. British Journal of Sociology 40:607–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Synnott, Anthony. 1990. Truth and goodness, mirrors and masks, Part II: A sociology of beauty and the face. British Journal of Sociology 41:55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Unger, Rhoda K., Marcia Hilderbrand, und Theresa Madar. 1982. Physical attractiveness and assumptions about social deviance: Some sex by sex comparisons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 8:293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. White Stephan, Cookie, und Judith H. Langlois. 1984. Baby beautiful: Adult attributions of infant competence as a function of infant attractiveness. Child Development 55:576–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wilson, Midge, und John F. Dovidio. 1985. Effects of perceived attractiveness and feminist orientation on helping behavior. Journal of Social Psychology 125:415–420.Google Scholar
  112. Wilson, Rick K., und Catherine C. Eckel. 2006. Judging a book by its cover: Beauty and expectations in the trust game. Political Research Quarterly 59:189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Zebrowitz, Leslie A. 1997. Reading faces: Window to the soul? Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  114. Zebrowitz, Leslie A., Jean-Marc Fellous, Alain Mignault, und Carrie Andreoletti. 2003. Trait impressions as overgeneralized responses to adaptively significant facial qualities: Evidence from connectionist modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 7:194–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Zebrowitz, Leslie A., und Joann M. Montepare. 2005. Appearance does matter. Science 308:1565–1566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Zebrowitz, Leslie A., und Joann M. Montepare. 2006. The ecological approach to person perception: Evolutionary roots and contemporary offshoots. In Evolution and social psychology, Hrsg. Marc Schaller, Jeffry A Simpson, Douglas T. Kenrick, 81–113. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  117. Zebrowitz, Leslie A, und Gillian Rhodes. 2004. Sensitivity to bad genes and the anomalous face overgeneralization effect: Cue validity, cue utilization, and accuracy in judging intelligence and health. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 28:167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© VS-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forschungsinstitut für Soziologie der Universität zu KölnKölnDeutschland
  2. 2.Institut für Politische Wissenschaft der Leibniz Universität HannoverHannoverDeutschland

Personalised recommendations