Advertisement

Gender Issues

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 266–278 | Cite as

You’re OK Until You Misbehave: How Norm Violations Magnify the Attractiveness Devil Effect

  • Jeremy L. GibsonEmail author
  • Jonathan S. Gore
Original Article

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 effect 

References

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 6.
    Dion, K. (1972). Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children’s transgressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dion, K. (1973). Young children’s stereotyping of facial attractiveness. Developmental Psychology, 9, 183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 14.
    Kaplan, R. (1978). Is beauty talent? Sex interaction in the attractiveness halo effect. Sex Roles, 4, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kruger, D. (2006). Male facial masculinity influences attributions of personality and reproductive strategy. Personal Relationships, 13, 451–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Larose, H., & Standing, L. (1998). Does the halo effect occur in the elderly? Social Behavior and Personality, 26, 147–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. 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. 19.
    Miller, A. (1970). Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic Science, 19, 241–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 25.
    Thorndike, E. (1920). A constant error on psychological rating. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. 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. 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. 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. 30.
    Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eastern Kentucky UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations