Abstract
One-hundred twenty-eight subjects (64 female, 64 male) viewed either a babyfaced or maturefaced female speaker delivering a persuasive communication, and also received information designed to make the speaker seem either untrustworthy or inexpert. Subjects indicated how much they agreed with the speaker's position and completed other measures concerning her appearance and their perceptions of her speech. Babyfaced speakers induced more agreement with their position than did maturefaced speakers when trustworthiness was in question, presumably because babyfaced speakers still appeared honest due to their babyish facial features. Conversely, maturefaced speakers produced more attitude agreement as compared to babyfaced speakers when expertise was questioned, perhaps because knowledgeability was still communicated via their mature countenance. Attitude change was not related to perceived likability, age, attractiveness, or communication skills of the speakers, or subjects' interest in the topic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abelson, R.P., Kinder, D.R., Peters, M.D., & Fiske, S.T. (1982). Affective and semantic components in political person perception.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 619–630.
Berry, D.S. (1990). Taking people at face value: Evidence for the kernel of truth hypothesis.Social Condition, 8, 343–361.
Berry, D.S., & Brownlow, S. (1989). Were the physiognomists right? Personality correlates of facial babyishness.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 266–278.
Berry, D.S., & McArthur, L.Z. (1985). Some components and consequences of a babyface.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 312–323.
Berry, D.S., & McArthur, L.Z. (1986). Perceiving character in faces: The impact of age-related craniofacial changes on social perception.Psychological Bulletin, 100, 3–18.
Brownlow, S., & Zebrowitz, L.A. (1990). Facial appearance, gender, and credibility in television commercials.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 51–60.
Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1387–1397.
Chaiken, S. (1986). Physical appearance and social influence. In C.P. Herman, M.P. Zanna, and E.T. Higgins (Eds.),Physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior. The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 3. (pp. 280–308). NY: Academic Press.
Cunningham, M.R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 27–41.
Davis, D.K., & Baran, S.J. (1981).Mass communication and everyday life: A Perspective on Theory and Effect. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company
Dion, K.K., & Stein, S. (1978). Physical attractiveness and interpersonal influence.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 97–108.
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1984). Cognitive theories of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 17 (pp. 280–308). NY: Academic Press.
Efran, M., & Patterson, E. (1974). Voters vote beautiful: The effects of physical appearance on a national debate.Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 6, 352–356.
Fridlund, A.J. (1991). Evolution and facial action in reflex, social motive, and paralanguage.Biological Psychology, 32, 3–100.
Hovland, C.I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influences of source credibility on communication effectiveness.Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.
McGinnies, E., & Ward, C.D. (1980). Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 467–472.
McGuire, W.J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 262–276). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
Pallak, S. (1983). Salience of a communicator's physical attractiveness and persuasion: A heuristic versus systematic processing interpretation.Social Cognition, 2, 158–170.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855.
Rosenberg, S.W., & McCafferty, P. (1987). The image and the vote.Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 31–41.
Smith, H.J., Archer, D., & Costanzo, M. (1991). “Just a hunch”: Accuracy and awareness in person perception.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 3–18.
Sternthal, B., Phillips, L.W., & Dholakia, R. (1978). The persuasive effect of source credibility: A situational analysis.Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 285–314.
Walster, E., Aronson, E., & Abrahams, D. (1966). On increasing the persuasiveness of a low-prestige communicator.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 325–342.
Wixon, D.R., & Laird, J.D. (1976). Awareness and attitude change in the forced compliance paradigm: The importance of when.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 376–384.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Over 80 million people watched at least one of the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon television debates. Those who listened to them on the radio tended to think Richard Nixon had outdone the youthful, inexperienced JFK. The Republican's words carried more weight. Those who watched on television, however, proclaimed Kennedy the winner. His words were less important than his warmth [and] his sincerity. ... all of these qualities came across on television.
—Krauss, in Davis & Baran (1981, pp. 103–104)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brownlow, S. Seeing is believing: Facial appearance, credibility, and attitude change. J Nonverbal Behav 16, 101–115 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990325
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990325