You’re OK Until You Misbehave: How Norm Violations Magnify the Attractiveness Devil Effect
- 4.2k Downloads
- 1 Citations
Abstract
Physical attractiveness has been known to act as a cue in determining perceptions of other individuals. Possession of a positive characteristic, such as attractiveness, results in a positive cognitive bias towards the individual. Similarly, possession of a negative characteristic, such as unattractiveness, results in the opposite effect. In addition to unattractiveness, the violation of social norms has been known to act as a cue for this negative bias. This experiment sought to examine how male facial attractiveness interacted with norm violation to alter females’ perceptions of males. Two male faces (attractive and unattractive) bearing similar features were paired with two scenarios of norm violation (high violation and low violation) while being rated on perceived personality characteristics. It was expected that halo/devil effects would occur based on facial attractiveness, and that norm violation would produce a devil effect in the men. An interaction effect between the two was also expected. Participants were 170 female college students. Results were analyzed using a repeated ANOVA and independent t tests. Findings show that a “double” devil effect occurred with the unattractive high violation condition. Norm violation also presented significant results, while facial attractiveness alone did not. Findings pose implications for online dating and jury deliberations.
Keywords
Face perception Physical attractiveness Norm violation Devil effect Halo effectReferences
- 1.Brand, R., Bonatsos, A., D’Orazio, R., & DeShong, H. (2012). What is beautiful is good, even online: Correlations between photo attractiveness and text attractiveness in men’s online dating profiles. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 166–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Brauer, M., & Chekroun, P. (2005). The relationship between perceived violation of social norms and social control: Situational factors influencing the reaction to deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1519–1539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Buss, D. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Chantal, Y., Bernache-Assollant, I., & Schiano-Iomoriello, S. (2013). Examining a negative halo effect to anabolic steroids users through perceived achievement goals, sportspersonship orientations, and aggressive tendencies. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54, 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.DeSantis, A., & Kayson, W. (1997). Defendants’ characteristics of attractiveness, race, and sex and sentencing decisions. Psychological Reports, 81(2), 679–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Dion, K. (1972). Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children’s transgressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Dion, K. (1973). Young children’s stereotyping of facial attractiveness. Developmental Psychology, 9, 183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Dooley, D., & Gliner, J. (1989). Perception of disability labels: Effect of attitude and stimulus presentation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 34(4), 259–270.Google Scholar
- 10.Downs, C., & Lyons, P. (1991). Natural observations of the links between attractiveness and initial legal judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 541–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Esses, V., & Webster, C. (1988). Physical attractiveness, dangerousness, and the Canadian criminal code. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1017–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ha, T., Berg, J., Engels, R., & Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A. (2012). Effects of attractiveness and status in dating desire in homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(3), 673–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Ha, T., Overbeek, G., & Engels, R. (2010). Effects of attractiveness and social status on dating desire in heterosexual adolescents: An experimental study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(5), 1063–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Kaplan, R. (1978). Is beauty talent? Sex interaction in the attractiveness halo effect. Sex Roles, 4, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Kruger, D. (2006). Male facial masculinity influences attributions of personality and reproductive strategy. Personal Relationships, 13, 451–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Larose, H., & Standing, L. (1998). Does the halo effect occur in the elderly? Social Behavior and Personality, 26, 147–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Lyman, B., Hatlelid, D., & Macurdy, C. (1981). Stimulus-person cues in first-impression attraction. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 52, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Macapagal, K., Rupp, H., & Heiman, J. (2011). Influences of observer sex, facial masculinity, and gender role identification on first impressions of men’s faces. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 5, 92–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Miller, A. (1970). Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic Science, 19, 241–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Quist, M., Watkins, C., Smith, F., Little, A., DeBruine, L., & Jones, B. (2012). Sociosexuality predicts women’s preferences for symmetry in men’s faces. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1415–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Shifrer, D. (2013). Stigma of a label: Educational expectations for high school students labeled with learning disabilities. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(4), 462–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Smith, E., & Hed, A. (1979). Effects of offenders’ age and attractiveness on sentencing by mock juries. Psychological Reports, 44(3, Pt 1), 691–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Sritharan, R., Heilpern, K., Wilbur, C., & Gawronski, B. (2010). I think I like you: Spontaneous and deliberate evaluations of potential romantic partners in an online dating context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 1062–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Thorndike, E. (1920). A constant error on psychological rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Tidwell, N., Eastwick, P., & Finkel, E. (2013). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed-dating paradigm. Personal Relationships, 20, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Weisbuch, M., Ambady, N., Clarke, A., Achor, S., & Weele, J. (2010). On being consistent: The role of verbal-nonverbal consistency in first impressions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 261–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Wenegrat, B., Abrams, L., Castillo-Yee, E., & Romine, I. (1996). Social norm compliance as a signaling system: I. Studies of fitness-related attributions consequent on everyday norm violations. Ethology & Sociobiology, 17, 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms Exposure to a Face. Psychological Science, 17, 592–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar