Transcript Personality Traits & Attractiveness Ratings

The Effects of Personality Traits
on Attractiveness Ratings
PRESENTED BY:
SAMANTHA CAPPUCCINO
ALEXANDRA ADAMS
WILLIAM SALLOOM
 Previous Research:
Background
 Lewandowski,
(2007)
Aron, & Gee, study
 Purpose: To see if there was any
Abstract
effect of personality information
on perceived attractiveness.
Hypothesis
 Primary:
o
Attractiveness ratings would be influenced by personality
descriptions.
 Secondary:
o
Positive descriptions would increase ratings and negative
descriptions would decrease ratings.
Participants
33 CSUN students in Psy. 321 course
(22 Females & 11 Males)
Materials:
6-Point Likert Scale
 Rated impression of overall:
•
•
•
•
Strongly
Disagree
1
Intelligence
Approachability
Attractiveness
Outgoingness
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
2
3
4
5
6
Materials: Big Five Personality Descriptions
Positive Description
Negative Description
Example
Example
O – Is a deep thinker
O - Is not a deep thinker
C – Tends to be organized
C – Tends to be disorganized
E – Full of energy
E – Low energy
A – Is generally trusting
A – Is generally not trusting
N – Doesn’t worry too much
N – Worries a lot
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2009)
Materials: Sample Photos
University of Aberdeen http://www.faceresearch.org/demos/average
Procedure
 Three conditions
o
Control Group had no personality information
o
Positive Group read socially desirable traits
o
Negative Group read socially undesirable traits
Each group viewed the same 8 photos
o
4 female and 4 male faces
o
Alternating female and male photos
o
Shown in same order
Procedure: Continued
Had 45 seconds per photo
Rated 4 attributes on 6-point Likert scale
o
Intelligence
o
Approachability
o
Attractiveness
o
Outgoingness
Results: Descriptive Statistics
Mean and Standard Deviation Scores for Personality Descriptions
Attribute
Condition
Positive
Negative
Control
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Intelligence
4.64 (.52)
2.99 (.94)
4.22 (.85)
Approachable
4.71 (.56)
2.63 (.96)
4.46 (.87)
Attractive
4.41 (.81)
3.69 (1.12)
4.57 (.94)
Outgoing
4.38 (.41)
2.28 (.90)
4.16 (.65)
Mean Scores for Attribute Ratings
Overall
Rating
Results
 A between-subject, one-way
ANOVA was applied
Results
 Revealed no significant difference
for overall attractiveness ratings
o
F (2,30) = 2.61, p >.05
o
Female faces showed a significant
difference, F (2,30) = 5.49, p <.05
The remaining attributes were
influenced
Additional
Results
o
Intelligent F (2,30) = 12.29, p <.05
o
Approachable F (2,30) = 20.85, p <.05
o
Outgoing F (2,30) = 30.40, p <.05
Post hoc test results:
o
Negative group made a difference
o
No difference between positive and
control groups
Results failed to support
hypothesis
Discussion
o
Ratings depending on gender
o
Previous research suggests personality
does have an effect
Other attributes
o
Socially undesirable personalities carried
more weight
o
Less intelligent, approachable, and
outgoing
Gender difference
o
How we judge women may be different
than how we judge men
Implications
Halo effect (Moore, Filippou, & Perrett, 2011)
o
Reverse effect
Personality linked to intelligence
(Reeve, Meyer, & Bonaccio, 2006)
Limitations
 Uneven distribution of male and female participants
 Averaged Faces were too similar and too attractive
 Well-informed participants
 Small sample size
Reference
Debruine, l. L. M., & Jones, B. (2007, January 17). Face research: Demo, make an average. Retrieved from http://
www.faceresearch.org/demos/average
Lewandowski, G. Jr., Aron, A., & Gee, J. (2007). Personality goes a long way: The malleability of opposite-sex physical
attractiveness. Personal Relationships, 14, 571-585.
Moore, F. R., Filippou., D. D., & Perrett, D. I. (2011). Intelligence and attractiveness in the face: Beyond the
attractiveness halo effect. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 205-217.
Reeve, C. L., Meyer, R. D., & Bonacci, S. (2006). Intelligence-personality associations reconsidered: The importance of
distinguishing between general and narrow dimensions of intelligence. Intelligence, 34, 387-402.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2009). Ten facet scales for the Big Five Inventory: Convergence with NEO PI-R facets, self-
peer agreement, and discriminant validity. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 84-90.
Thank
You!
Any
Questions?