Sex Roles

, Volume 19, Issue 5–6, pp 273–285 | Cite as

Effects of facial attractiveness and gender on causal attributions of managerial performance

  • Barbara A. Spencer
  • G. Stephen Taylor


The present study examined the effect of facial attractiveness and gender on raters' evaluations of and explanations for managerial performance. Results showed attractiveness to be a potential liability for both males and females. Good performance of attractive females was more likely than that of others to be attributed to luck or bias, while that of attractive males was viewed as occurring with little effort. In addition, the poor performance of attractive individuals was blamed on lack of effort (females) or lack of ability (males). Implications of these findings are discussed.


Social Psychology Poor Performance Managerial Performance Causal Attribution Facial Attractiveness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alicke, M. D., Smith, R. H., & Klotz, M. L. Judgments of physical attractiveness: The role of faces and bodies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1986, 12, 381–389.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein, V., Hakel, M.D., & Harlan, A. The college student as interviewer: A threat to generalizability? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 556–560.Google Scholar
  3. Berscheid, E., Dion, K. K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. Physical attractiveness and dating choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1971, 7, 173–189.Google Scholar
  4. Burger, J. M., Cooper, H. M., & Good, T. L. Teacher attributions of student performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1982, 8, 685–690.Google Scholar
  5. Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. Designing research for applications. Journal of Consumer Research, 1981, 8, 197–207.Google Scholar
  6. Cash, T. F., Gillen, B., & Burns, D. S., Sexism and “beautyism” in personnel consultant decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 301–310.Google Scholar
  7. Clifford, M. M., & Walster, G. W. The effects of physical attractiveness on teacher expectation. Sociology of Education, 1973, 46, 248–258.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, T. C., & Campbell, D. T. Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rank McNally, 1979.Google Scholar
  9. Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. Explanations of successful performance on sex-linked tasks: What is skill for the male is luck for the female. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 1, 80–85.Google Scholar
  10. Dickey-Bryant, L., Lautenschlager, G. J., Mendoza, J. L., & Abrahams, N. Facial attractiveness and its relation to occupational success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1986, 71, 16–19.Google Scholar
  11. Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 285–290.Google Scholar
  12. Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., & Terpstra, D. E. Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of resume evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 288–294.Google Scholar
  13. Etaugh, C., & Brown, B. Perceiving the causes of success and failure of male and female performers. Developmental Psychology, 1975, 11, 103.Google Scholar
  14. Feather, N. T., & Simon, J. G. Reactions to male and female success and failure in sex-linked occupations: Impressions of personality, causal attributions, and perceived likelihood of different consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 20–31.Google Scholar
  15. Feldman-Summers, S., & Kiesler, S. B. Those who are number two try harder: The effect of sex on the attribution of causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 30, 846–855.Google Scholar
  16. Freeman, H. R. Structure and content of gender stereotypes: Effects of somatic appearance and trait information. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1987, 11, 59–68.Google Scholar
  17. Gilmore, D. C., Beehr, T. A., & Love, K. G. Effects of applicant sex, applicant physical attractiveness, type of rater and type of job on interview decisions. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1986, 59, 103–109.Google Scholar
  18. Green, S. G., & Lidden, R. C. Contextual and attributional influences upon control decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980, 65, 453–458.Google Scholar
  19. Greenburg, J. The college sophomore and guinea pig: Setting the record straight. Academy of Management Review 1987, 12, 157–159.Google Scholar
  20. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. Multivariate data analysis. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987.Google Scholar
  21. Heilman, M. E., & Saruwatari, L. R. When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearances and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1979, 23, 360–372.Google Scholar
  22. Heilman, M. E., & Stopec, M. H. Being attractive advantage or disadvantage? Performance-based evaluations and recommended personnel actions as a function of appearance, sex, and job type. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1985, 35, 202–215.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, L. A. The influence of sex, physical attractiveness, sex role, and occupational sex-linkage on perceptions of occupational stability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1983, 13, 31–44.Google Scholar
  24. Jones, W. H., Hansson, R. O., & Phillips, A. L. Physical attractiveness and judgments of psychopathology. Journal of Social Psychology, 1978, 29, 299–304.Google Scholar
  25. Kaplan, R. M. Is beauty talent? Sex interaction in the attractiveness halo effect. Sex Roles, 1978, 4, 195–204.Google Scholar
  26. Kelley, H. H. The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 1972, 28, 107–128.Google Scholar
  27. Landy, D., & Sigall, H. Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer's physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 299–304.Google Scholar
  28. Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. Increasing Productivity Through Performance Appraisal. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981.Google Scholar
  29. Locke, E. A. Generalizing from laboratory to field: Ecological validity or abstraction of essential elements. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings. Lexington, MA: Lexington, Books, 1986.Google Scholar
  30. McHugh, M. C., Frieze, I. H., & Hanusa, B. H. Attributions and sex differences in achievement: Problems and new perspectives. Sex Roles, 1982, 8(4), 467–479.Google Scholar
  31. Mitchell, T. R., & Wood, R. E. Supervisors' responses to subordinate poor performance: A test of an attributional model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1980, 25, 123–138.Google Scholar
  32. Moore, D. P., & Rust, P. F. Attributional changes in occupational perceptions, 1974–1982. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1984, 363–367.Google Scholar
  33. Moore, J. S., Graziano, W. G., & Millar, M. G. Physical attractiveness, sex role orientation, and the evaluation of adults and children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1987, 13, 95–102.Google Scholar
  34. Schmidt, N. Social and situational determinants of interview decisions: Implications for the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 1976, 29, 79–101.Google Scholar
  35. Schoeneman, T. J., & Rubanowitz, D. E. Attributions in the advice columns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1985, 11, 315–325.Google Scholar
  36. Taynor, J., & Deaux, K. Equity and perceived sex differences: Role behavior as defined by the task, the mode, and the actions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 381–390.Google Scholar
  37. Travis, C. B. Sex comparisons in causal attributions: Another look at the null hypothesis. Sex Roles, 1982 8(4), 375–380.Google Scholar
  38. Unger, R. K., Hilderbrand, M., & Madar, T. Physical attractiveness and assumptions about social deviance: Some sex by sex comparisons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1982, 8, 293–310.Google Scholar
  39. Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. Kelly, R. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  40. Wong, P. T. P. Sex differences in performance attribution and contingency judgment. Sex Roles, 1982, 8(4), 381–388.Google Scholar
  41. Wood, R. E., & Mitchell, T. R. Manager behavior in a social context: The impact of impression management on attributions and disciplinary actions. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 1981, 26, 356–378.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara A. Spencer
    • 1
  • G. Stephen Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ManagementMississippi State UniversityMississippi State

Personalised recommendations