by: Laura Donadio
Thank you for visiting my site. I hope you develop an interest in this field of research as well as having fun while doing so.Menu
Welcome Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Relevant Links email:
ldonadio@anselm.edu
AbstractIntroductionThis study was a replication of a previous study, “First Impressions and Hair Impressions: An Investigation of Impact of Hairstyle on First Impressions” conducted by Dr. Marianne LaFrance (2000) of Yale University. This replication was designed to gain substantial information to see if professors tend to stereotype students with specific hairstyles in the classroom. The particular aim was to examine the relative influence of appearance on impression formation. There were sixteen professors who were issued packets of facial images to rate personality traits based on visual appearance. Deception was used in this study as the facial images were of the same person simply “wearing” different hairstyles. The results indicated that there was no significant evidence that professors tend to form first impressions or stereotypes based on hairstyles. In future research a larger sample size may be used to find more significant results. Moreover, other facial features, such as the eyes, seemed to be a more indicative feature of impression formation.
Impression Formation, Attractiveness Halo Effect, Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, Personality Ratings, Hairstyle, Stereotype
In today’s society appearance plays a significant role in how people develop and interact. Specifically, there has been a focus placed on the relationship between appearance and personality. There are certain theories that describe how specific appearances influence the development and prediction of personality traits. These theories provide evidence that appearance stereotypes do exist; thus creating self-fulfilling and self-defeating prophecies. Such theories include the attractiveness halo effect and the baby-face overgeneralization effect.
There have been various studies conducted that support the relationship of
appearance and impression formation. One theory postulates an attractiveness halo effect, whereby people who are physically attractive are perceived more positively on a variety of levels (Zebrowitz, 1998). A study titled “The Relationship between Appearance and Personality across the Life Span”, presented by Leslie Zebrowitz and Mary Ann Collins (1998) supports this attractiveness halo effect. The study displays evidence of facial stereotyping shown by and about individuals of all ages and races, and it has been demonstrated to have significant social consequences in many domains (Zebrowitz, 1998). The strongest component of the attractiveness halo is the view that attractive individuals are more sociable, socially skilled, and popular than their less attractive peers are. They are also viewed as more dominant and more competent. In addition, whereas a component of the competence attributed to attractive individuals is being ambitious and hardworking, there is a bay-face overgeneralization effect in which baby faced individuals with more neotenic (round face, big eyes, small nose and chin, etc.) facial structures tend to be seen as naïve and irresponsible. Such judgements were rated on how much participants were smiling, how old they looked, how flattering their hairstyles were and how much care and effort their hairstyle showed (Zebrowitz, 1998). Moreover, the manner in which a person is judged can influence the development of their personality. If attractive people respond to these social pressures with behavior that confirms other’s expectancies, they may, over time, develop personalities that match the stereotypes associated with their appearance, otherwise known as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Also, such expectancies can lead to what psychologists term the Dorian Gray effect, in which personality can influence the development of facial appearance. An optimistic person tends to portray such positive attitudes through generally attractive facial expressions. The attractiveness halo effect is viewed on the other end of the spectrum, as appearance has an affect on later personality. A person who is physically attractive may be portrayed as optimistic and thus develops optimistic personality traits. Both the Attractiveness Halo effect and the Dorian Gray effect contribute to appearance stereotypes over time.
In American society, there are advantages to being physically attractive. As stated by Ritts, Patterson, and Tubbs (1992), attractive students are judged more favorably by teachers in a number of dimensions including intelligence, academic potential, grades, and various social skills. This article examines the effects of students’ physical attractiveness on a variety of judgments made in educational settings. Highly physically attractive students, compared to their unattractive counterparts, receive more favorable judgments by teachers. This attractiveness effect is reflected in teachers’ selective treatment of physically attractive students in terms of their intelligence, academic achievement, social skills, and other judgements (Ritts&Patterson& Tubbs, 1992).
Attractive students receive the benefit of the doubt across all of these attributes. Research clearly shows that teachers expect physically attractive students to be more intelligent and to attain a higher level of education than less physically attractive students (Adams, 1978). Students who were rated as more physically attractive also were expected to have higher academic potentials than less attractive students. Teachers also expect reasonably attractive male and female students to have better work habits. There has also been gender differences concerning the treatment of male and female students in the classroom. Males are called on more frequently and given more attention. Girls tend to be favored by their teachers, possibly because of the stereotype of the passive and quiet female (Adams & Lavoie, 1974). There is research that has been conducted indicating physically attractive students have more favorable social skills. Attractive students were rated friendlier, more attentive, more popular, and more outgoing (Adams & Cohen, 1974). There are also other judgements made about physically attractive students that are not related to academia such as special referrals, conduct, and miscellaneous attributions.
In a study by Ross and Salvia (1975), the opportunity for a student with low intellectual functioning to be placed in a special education course was compromised in two different scenarios for the physically attractive student. In one scenario, teachers more readily placed the unattractive student in the special education course, which displayed that the attractive student was given the benefit of the doubt in proving his or her academic ability. However, in another scenario the attractive students were more readily placed in the special education courses, as their attractiveness created additional opportunities to receive help. In both scenarios the attractive students received special referrals based on their appearance.
In addition to academic and special referral biases that attractive students receive there are also disciplinary benefits attractive students receive. Adam and LaVoie (1974) conducted a study in which photographs of an attractive and an unattractive student were presented to a teacher attached to a progress report. When the progress report contained negative feedback the teachers assumed that the unattractive students were antisocial in their everyday behavior. This assumption was not made for the report that contained a picture of the attractive student. In such cases, it was assumed that the attractive student was having a bad day. The physical attractiveness effect not only predicts certain behaviors and expectations for the attractive student, but for the parents as well. In two studies, teachers judged that parents of attractive students care more about education, set high education goals for their children, stress the importance of successful grades, and expect their children to excel (Adams & Cohen, 1974).
It can be questioned whether or not the physical attractiveness effect is simply a perceiver bias or if physically attractive students attract more favorable judgements. Results of studies on attractiveness and actual achievement show that, across grade levels, more attractive students receive higher grades and higher scores on standardized achievement tests than do less attractive students (Eltis, 1982). It seems more likely that a self-fulfilling prophecy initiated by teachers can actually result in performance improvement by attractive students. Social psychologists are still postulating how much of the attractiveness effect seen in academic settings is the result of self-fulfilling prophecies on the part of the teachers and how much reflects a preexisting reality (Ritts, 1992). It must be noted that if teacher’s do hold stereotypical views of students, that this view must be determined if it is really a stereotype or simply the teacher’s experience within the classroom over a number of years. It is important to determine if the attractiveness effect is the product of even earlier self-fulfilling expectancies by parents or if attractiveness might be innately related to intellectual and social skills.
There is much research that indicates there are stereotypes held concerning appearance and impression formation, however there is little attention dedicated towards why this stereotypical behavior occurs. As a culture, people rely on appearances to create vivid images in their mind. For instance, a writer may use the power of appearance to create distinct impressions with which to manipulate our feelings towards a certain character in a book. Not only do people rely on such impressions, but research has revealed that people reach strong and similar conclusions about impressions on the bases of facial appearance (Berry & Brownlow, 1989). Personality judgements seem to be more objective than subjective, as a high level of consensus exists among strangers’ when asked to rate personality traits.
Why do people exhibit consensus in their impressions of other people when they have little more than physical appearance on which to base their judgements? One explanation is that this consensus is a learned cultural stereotype in which certain appearances are connected to certain personality traits (McArthur, 1982). A more explicit explanation concerning such similar ratings of impression can be justified with the “kernel of truth” hypothesis, which states that consensus is revealed because such perceptions are particularly accurate (Alley & Hildebrandt, 1988). This hypothesis did not receive much support for a number of reasons. First, many theoretical perspectives have been based on the study of trial and error rather than on the question of accuracy. The concept of justifying impression formation on accuracy alone was not supported enough to stand on its on. Second, some may feel personally uncomfortable with the proposition that impressions based on facial appearance are particular accurate. If so, then we could judge a book by its cover; a cultural phrase that many were told to never do. Finally, the kernel of truth hypothesis has been linked to mystical beliefs between character and appearance (Berry, 1990). The acceptance of a scientific hypothesis is based on scientific facts and can not be valid if connected to mystical beliefs. The kernel of truth hypothesis may not be a universally held proposition; but it’s predictions of the relationship between appearance and personality has led to other logical propositions such as the self-fulfilling prophecy.
This study focuses on the importance of a person’s appearance in relation to impression formation. This study is an extension of a previous study conducted in January of 2000 by Dr. Marianne LaFrance, a professor of Psychology and Women’s Gender studies at Yale University, in which she found that certain hairstyles had a unique effect on first impressions. LaFrance’s (2000) study supports the theory that hairstyle determines the first impression you make, significantly more so than the impact of facial features. There is now clear evidence that hairstyle does dramatically affect first impressions and is linked to perceived personality traits. In summation of LaFrance’s study in which different hairstyles are linked to personality traits, I am interested to find how this categorization of hairstyles will determine if professors discriminate against certain students with a specific hairstyle.
The Physique Corporation, a hair care corporation, commissioned LaFrance’s study to understand whether one’s choice of hairstyle impacts their first impression. LaFrance used a baseline photo, which removed any and all hairstyle information by creating a cameo picture where all information beyond the external boundary of the face was removed. Then, different hairstyles were morphed or affixed to each face so that they looked completely natural. LaFrance selected average looking people, in which three female and three male models “wore” all hairstyles. The four female styles that were used were “long, dark and curly”, “long, straight and blond”, “medium-length, dark, casual looking”, and “very short, high-lighted hair.” The four styles for men were “long, shoulder length”, “medium-length side parted”, “medium-length with middle part”, and “short, combed-forward with a front flip.” The task for the observers in this study was to rate all photos on all ten characteristics (outgoing, confident, narrow-minded, self-centered, careless, intelligent, sexy, poor, polished, and unpleasant). The participants rated each picture on a six-point scale and only had two seconds to look at the picture and make their ratings on a computer generated program directly after viewing the picture. LaFrance found that the amount of time the participant viewed the picture makes no difference in their impression formation, as we are capable of forming an opinion based on appearance in just that amount of time. The study was based on 183 American adults, ranging in age from 18-57. They viewed a total of 330 photo-rating presentations in which 30 of them were practice trials to familiarize them with the computer system and 300 were the actual test trials.
LaFrance formed key findings for men and women’s hairstyle and the personalities perceived to accompany such hairstyles. Women wearing short, tousled hairstyles (think Meg Ryan) are seen as the most confident and outgoing. Women with long, straight, blond hairstyles, like Christina Aguilera, are perceived as the sexiest and most affluent. By contrast, women with medium-length, casual looking hairstyles, like Sandra Bullock, are viewed as more intelligent and good-natured. Men wearing short, front-flip hairstyles (think Brad Pitt) are perceived as most confident and sexy. It is not surprising that men with this hairstyle are also perceived as the most self-centered. Men with medium-length, side-parted hair are viewed as the most intelligent and affluent. However, men with these styles are also seen as the most narrow-minded. Men with long hair (think Fabio) seem to be all brawn and no brains and are perceived as less intelligent and more careless. However, they are also seen as the most good-natured (Physique & LaFrance, 2001).
This study focuses on two hypotheses. First, categorizing certain hairstyles with certain personalities will predetermine a person’s judgement of another person. Second, this categorization of hairstyles will determine if professors have tendencies to discriminate against students with a specific hairstyle. Among the female models, using LaFrance’s key findings, it was predicted that the hairstyle rated most extroverted was “short and styled”. The hairstyle that was rated least extroverted was “short and unkempt”. All other hairstyles were neither more nor less extroverted. The hairstyle that was rated least open was “long and wavy”.
The hairstyle that was rated as most open was “short and styled”. All other hair-styles were neither more nor less open. The hairstyles that were rated as most conscientious were “short and styled” and “short and unkempt”. The hairstyle that was rated least conscientious was “updo messy”. All other hairstyles were neither more nor less conscientious. The hairstyles that were rated most neurotic were “updo” and “long and wavy”. All other hairstyles were neither
more or less neurotic. The hairstyles that were rated most agreeable were “long and wavy”, “short and unkempt”, and “short and styled”. The “updo” hairstyle was neither more or less agreeable.
Among the male models, using LaFrance’s key findings, it was predicted that the hairstyles rated most extroverted were “side-part” and “short and styled”. The hairstyles rated as least extroverted were “partially bald” and “long and messy”. The hairstyle rated most open was “short and styled”. The hairstyles rated as less open were “partially bald” and “long and messy”. The hairstyle that was rated neither more nor less open was the “side-part”. The hairstyle rated as most conscientious was “long and messy”. All other hairstyles were neither more nor less conscientious. The hairstyle rated as most neurotic was “long and messy”. All other hair styles were rated as neither more nor less neurotic. The hairstyles rated most agreeable were “long and messy” and the “side-part”. All other hairstyles were rated as neither more nor less agreeable.
Methods
ParticipantsResults
The participants in this study were professors at a small liberal-arts
college, that were not members of the Psychology department. In accumulating a
sample of professors, there were fifty professors that were randomly asked to
participate, in which sixteen of them agreed to participate. The final study was
based on a sample of sixteen professors, which was composed of seven male
professors and nine female professors.Materials
In this study there was a self-generated packet that contained computerized facial images of both male and female models. (See Appendix E) The computerized facial images were created using “Faces” computer program, in which all-facial characteristics (head shape, eyes, eyebrows, jaw shapes, lips, and hairstyle) were created by the experimenter. All characteristics were kept neutral, avoiding highly attractive features, as well as less attractive features. There were a total of twenty-four facial images, that included three male models and three female models all “wearing” four different hairstyles. The hairstyles that were composed for the male models were long and messy, short and side-parted, partially bald, and short and styled. The hairstyles that were composed for the female models were long and wavy, short and styled, hair that was off the face or an updo, and short and unkempt. All twenty-four facial images were presented in a randomized order.
There was also a personality rating scale used in this study derived from “The Big Five” personality traits. (See Appendix C) These personality traits were extroversion, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism and were rated on a five-point scale.Procedure
In this study there were a total of sixteen participants. Each participant
was mailed an envelope containing a consent form (see Appendix A), a
specialized consent form (see Appendix B) and a packet of the twenty-four
computer-generated facial images with a rating scale at the bottom of each page.
There were three male “models” and three female “models” that were viewed. .
All of these models were average looking men and women; therefore extremely
attractive facial qualities did not influence how the models were perceived. Each
model “wore” all four hairstyles. The female styles that were used were “long and
wavy”, “up-do”, “short and styled” and “short and unkempt”. The four styles for
men that were used were “long and messy”, “partially bald”, “short and side-
parted” and “short, combed-forward with a front flip.” There were a total of six
models, wearing four different hairstyles each, totaling twenty-four picture
images that were arranged in a pre-determined random order for each professor to
view.
Each professor was given an instruction sheet that they read prior to
viewing the facial images. (See Appendix D) The instruction sheet gave a brief
over-view of the purpose of the study and provided the professors with a sample
of the rating scale and characteristics they would be using. The rating scale was
based on a five point scale, one meaning “not at all” and five meaning “most
likely”. The five characteristics were listed and defined to familiarize the
professors with the meaning of each. Extroversion was described as having a
preference for social interactions and a tendency to be active, talkative, optimistic,
and affectionate. Openness was described as having interests in new experiences
and a tendency to be creative, curious, and untraditional. Agreeableness was
described as being compassionate, trusting, and tender-hearted. Conscientiousness
was described as being well-organized, dedicated to work, and ambitious.
Neuroticism was described as having a tendency to experience negative emotions
such as anxiety, anger, and distressed thinking. The instruction sheet specified
that the professors view each facial image for no longer than a few seconds, as
their first impression was very important. The professors viewed each facial
image and rated each image accordingly by circling the score of all five
characteristics for all twenty-four models. The professors were asked to not flip
back to a previous facial image once they had rated each one. Once the professors
completed the packet they were instructed to mail it back to the experimenter, in
which they were then mailed a debriefing statement explaining the purpose of the
study in further detail. (see Appendix F)
In this study the independent variables were hairstyles. There were four different hairstyles for both the male models (short and styled, partially bald, short and side-part, and long and messy) and the female models (short and styled, short and unkempt, long and wavy, and a hairstyle worn off the face). The dependent variables were the personality traits used to rate each model. There were five personality traits used in this study, which were extroversion, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism. This study was a within subject design, as each professor was exposed to each treatment or version of the computer-generated facial images. In determining significance a repeated measures design was used.
The results displayed in Figure 1 showed no significance among the
female ratings. There were no differences in ratings across all five-personality
traits for all four female hairstyles. All four hairstyles were consistently rated
across all five personality traits. There was small significance among two of the
hairstyles. The “short and unkempt” hairstyle was rated as more extroverted,
open, and conscientious than the “short and styled”, “long and wavy”, and
“updo”. The “updo” hairstyle was rated as more open than the “short and styled”,
“short and unkempt”, and “long and wavy” hairstyles. However, these differences
did not fluctuate from the mean drastic enough to produce valid significance.
The results displayed in Figure 2 showed no significance among the male
ratings. There was no difference in ratings across all five-personality traits for all
four male hairstyles. All four hairstyles were rated an average mean of three
across all five personality traits.
Discussion
This study focused on the role of appearance in relation to the formation of first impressions. The original hypothesis stated that certain appearances (hairstyles) influenced the formation of one’s impression. Therefore, if the professors’ impressions were swayed by different hairstyles then the second hypothesis would be supported in that the professors would be seen as displaying stereotypical behaviors in the classroom. However, the results indicated that neither of these hypotheses were true. The results displayed that different hairstyles did not influence the impressions that were made of others. The professors gave all hairstyles an average rating across all five-personality traits, which did not support the postulation that professors held stereotypical views based on appearance in the classroom. The results pointed to just the opposite; professors hold no stereotypical preconceptions related to appearance in their classroom. According to these results, these professors were as unbiased as they come.
Over the last decade, research has demonstrated the existence of a variety of stereotypes concerning the physical appearance of individuals. Stereotypes had direct implications for first impressions and for broader personal and social evaluations (Patterson, Ritts & Tubbs 1992). There has been much research dedicated in interpreting the powerful non-verbal messages that physical attractiveness has on the creation of first impressions. However, there has been no systematic investigation of whether hairstyle uniquely affects first impressions. This study aimed to determine whether different hairstyles were judged differently and lead to distinct first impressions. The results of this study displayed no significant difference in the judging of hair styles; therefore postulated that professors do not stereotype certain characteristics based on appearance. There are many possible explanations for such discrepancies between these findings. Such possibilities included the small sample size tested, the design of the materials presented to the participants, the amount of teaching experience the participants have had in the past, and other characteristics the participants mentioned to be more telling of personality traits than the hairstyles.
One reason for the discrepancy between the results was the small sample size of the participants. There were initially fifty professors asked to participate in the study and only sixteen responded. LaFrance’s study involved one hundred and eighty three participants in which she found significant results among all four hairstyles. It was difficult to obtain significant results with a sample of so few.
LaFrance used a computer-morphing procedure in her study to compose each facial image and presented these images to her participants via the computer. This program and procedure of administering the packet of facial images was of a high quality and controlled for more confounding variables. (professors looking back to prior facial images) The computer program used in this study produced facial images of reliable quality, however the facial images were administered to the professors in a composed packet rather than on a computer program, which may have been the reason for inconsistent ratings. Moreover, proportionate samples of the professors were drawn to the models eyes more than the hairstyles as a predictor of personality characteristics. This observation served as a significant factor related to impression formation that can be further looked at in future studies.
In forming an impression there were different processes in which people based their judgements on. This study focused on depicting first impressions from a concrete angle, in which the person rated was not physically present to the participant. “The fact that we are ourselves changed by living people, that we observe them in movement and growth, introduces factors, and forces of a new order concerning impression formation” (Asch, 1946). It was a feature of this experiment that pre-determined traits were presented to the participant to rate each model based on their observance of the pictures. Since observation gave us only concrete qualities, the application of a trait to a person became itself a problem. This pairing of traits to observed physical characteristics may not be a strong tool of studying the relation of appearance and impression formation.
There have been studies conducted looking at how professors form initial impressions of students, as it is important to know what influenced professors when they made initial judgements. In a study that focused on deciphering what factors influenced the formation of a teacher’s impressions, photographs were shown to have significantly influenced both master and student teachers’ perception of the friendliness and enthusiasm of students (Eltis, 1982). The study provided information about the manner in which experienced and inexperienced teachers were influenced in their initial impressions of students. It was suggested that experienced teachers made judgements involving first impressions with greater reservation than did the student teachers. Teachers with more experience recognized a greater need for more information over a longer time to form any concrete impressions of a student (Eltis, 1982). Teaching experience was a rater variable that significantly contributed to the non-stereotypical judgements made in this study.
In American society, professors have a higher level of education than they had twenty years ago. Professors may have had been prone to stereotypical behavior twenty years ago, but it seems professors today were not prone to focus on stereotypical characteristics as they may have been in the past. Teaching experience had much to do with these unbiased judgements, as the more time professors dedicated to the education field; the more prone they were to realize that education was about academic fairness not physical characteristics.
There were personality traits that displayed no relation to hairstyle in this study, as well as LaFrance’s study. The comparison of results between both studies displayed there were particular hairstyles that were not rated as more or less extroverted, conscientious, open, agreeable, or neurotic. There was no significant relation between personality trait and hairstyle in this study across both male and female models. LaFrance also found no significance among certain hairstyles, which supported that certain hairstyles were not stereotyped as being paired with a certain personality trait. LaFrance’s findings that were neither more nor less of a specific personality trait were viewed in relation to a baseline control she held for each rating.
Among the male models in LaFrance’s study, hairstyle did not affect the impressions of how outgoing or extroverted a man was. Men with a short and side-parted hairstyle were seen as neither more nor less extroverted. There were no comparisons in LaFrance’s study that pertained to the results of this study concerning the ratings of openness. Men with a short and styled and short and side-parted hair style were seen as neither more nor less conscientiousness. Men with short and styled and short and side-parted hairstyles were seen as neither more or less self-centered nor neurotic. Men with a short and styled hairstyle were seen as neither more nor less agreeable. According to this small-scale comparison between both studies, it seemed that men with short hairstyles were perceived as possessing neutral traits. They were rated as neither more or less of a given trait, which indicated that short and styled hair and short and side-parted hair were hair- styles that were least likely to be judged.
Among the female models in LaFrance’s study, all hairstyles were seen to be more outgoing or extroverted compared to the baseline. Females with a short and unkempt hairstyle came across as the least extroverted between all the groups in LaFrance’s study. In this study, the short and unkempt hairstyle was rated as the most extroverted between all groups, which seemed interesting as these results went in two completely different directions on the rating scales of both studies. The short and unkempt hairstyle was seen as the most extroverted in LaFrance’s study and as the least extroverted in this study. There were no comparisons in LaFrance’s study that pertained to the results of this study concerning the ratings of openness and conscientiousness. Women with a long and wavy hairstyle were rated neither more nor less neurotic. There were no comparisons in LaFrance’s study that pertained to the ratings of agreeableness in this study. In general there were not any similarities in the ratings for the female hair styles between both studies.
In the world today, societies have become solely impressionistic. One’s first impression with a business manager is critical in obtaining a job. When two people go out on a date for the first time they are both concerned with their appearance, as first impressions are important on the first date or the first time a person meets anyone. First impressions are extremely important in the classroom, as the first impression we make of someone when we meet them we tend to keep despite obtaining other impressions of that person later on in life. Therefore, coming from an impressionistic society it was postulated in this study that a student wore their hairstyle neat and symmetrical; therefore making a good first impression. However, the results displayed contradictory evidence that professors do not look to hair style as a determinant of one’s personality. The results did however point to a possible relationship between how professors perceive their students based on the appearance of their eyes. Therefore, instead of getting up an hour earlier to perfect one’s hair style to make a good impression maybe we should be focused on eye makeup to get the A.
Relevant LinksReturn to top
St. Anselm College
Hairstyle First Impressions
APA