We tested whether the perceived physical attractiveness of a group is greater than the average attractiveness of its members. In nine studies, we find evidence for the so-called group attractiveness effect (GA-effect), using female, male, and mixed-gender groups, indicating that group impressions of physical attractiveness are more positive than the average ratings of the group members. A meta-analysis on 33 comparisons reveals that the effect is medium to large (Cohen’s d = 0.60) and moderated by group size. We explored two explanations for the GA-effect: (a) selective attention to attractive group members, and (b) the Gestalt principle of similarity. The results of our studies are in favor of the selective attention account: People selectively attend to the most attractive members of a group and their attractiveness has a greater influence on the evaluation of the group.
AndersonN. H. (1965). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 394-400.
2.
AndersonN. H.LindnerR.LopesL. L. (1973). Integration theory applied to judgments of group attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 400-408.
3.
BerryD. S. (2000). Attractiveness, attraction, and sexual selection: Evolutionary perspectives on the form and function of physical attractiveness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 273-342.
4.
BradyT. F.AlvarezG. A. (2011). Hierarchical encoding in visual working memory: Ensemble statistics bias memory for individual items. Psychological Science, 22, 384-392. doi:10.1177/0956797610397956
5.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
6.
CunninghamM. R.RobertsA. R.BarbeeA. P.DruenP. B.WuC.-H. (1995). “Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours”: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261-279.
7.
DionK.BerscheidE.WalsterE. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
8.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
9.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
10.
FordT. E.StangorC. (1992). The role of diagnosticity in stereotype formation: Perceiving group means and variances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 356-367.
11.
GangestadS. W. (1993). Sexual selection and physical attractiveness. Implications for mating dynamics. Human Nature, 4, 205-235.
12.
HabermanJ.WhitneyD. (2009). Seeing the mean: Ensemble coding for sets of faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35, 718-734. doi:10.1037/a0013899
13.
HamiltonD. L.ShermanS. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336-355.
14.
HewstoneM.HambergerJ. (2000). Perceived variability and stereotype change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 103-124.
15.
HydeJ. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581-592.
16.
JudgeT. A.HurstC.SimonL. S. (2009). Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 742-755.
17.
LandyD.SigallH. (1974). Beauty is talent: Task evaluations as a function of the performer’s physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 299-304.
18.
LangloisJ. H.KalakanisL.RubensteinA. J.LarsonA.HallamM.SmootM. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390-423.
19.
LangloisJ. H.RoggmanL. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115-121.
20.
LederH.TinioP. L.FuchsI. M.BohrnI. (2010). When attractiveness demands longer looks: The effects of situation and gender. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1858-1871.
21.
LevyL. H.RichterM. L. (1963). Impressions of groups as a function of the stimulus values of their individual members. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 349-354.
22.
ManerJ. K.GaillotM. T.RoubyD. A.MillerS. L. (2007). Can’t take my eyes off you: Attentional adhesion to mates and rivals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 389-401.
23.
ManerJ. K.KenrickD. T.BeckerD. V.DeltonA. W.HoferB.WilburC. J.NeubergS. L. (2003). Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1107-1120.
24.
MartinD. R.FowlkesC.TalD.MalikJ. (2001). A database of human segmented natural images and its application to evaluating segmentation algorithms and measuring ecological statistics. In Computer Vision, 2001. ICCV 2001. Proceedings. Eighth IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 416-423). IEEE.
25.
MeltzerA. L.McNultyJ. K.JacksonG. L.KarneyB. R. (2014). Men still value physical attractiveness more than women: Rejoinder to Eastwick, Neff, Finkel, Luchies, and Gunt (2014). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 435-440.
26.
MillerC. T.FelicioD. M. (1990). Person-positivity bias: Are individuals liked better than groups?Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 26, 408-420.
27.
NavonD. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353-383.
28.
PinnaB. (2012). Perceptual organization of shape, color, shade and lighting in visual and pictorial objects. i-Perception, 3, 257-281.
29.
PriceP. C.KimuraN. M.SmithA. R.MarshallL. D. (2014). Sample size bias in judgments of perceptual averages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1321-1331.
30.
PriceP. C.SmithA. R.LenchH. C. (2006). The effect of target group size on risk judgments and comparative optimism: The more, the riskier. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 382-398.
31.
RashidR., (Writer), & FrymanP. (Director). (2008). Not a father’s day [Television series episode]. In BaysC.ThomasC. (Creators), How I met your mother. New York, NY: CBS.
32.
RothbartM.FuleroS.JensenC.HowardJ.BirrellP. (1978). From individual to group impressions: Availability heuristics in stereotype formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 237-255.
33.
SchneiderD. J. (2004). The psychology of stereotyping. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metaphor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1-48.
36.
WagemansJ.ElderJ. H.KubovyM.PalmerS. E.PetersonM. A.SinghM.Von der HeydtR. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception I: Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1172-1217. doi:10.1037/a0029333
37.
WagemansJ.FeldmanJ.GepshteinS.KimchiR.PomerantzJ. R.Van der HelmP.Van LeeuwenC. (2012). A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception II. Conceptual and theoretical foundations. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1218-1252. doi:10.1037/a0029334
38.
WalkerD.VulE. (2014). Hierarchical encoding makes individuals in a group seem more attractive. Psychological Science, 25, 230-235. doi:10.1177/0956797613497969
39.
WatkinsL. M.JohnstonL. (2000). Screening job applicants: The impact of physical attractiveness and application quality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 76-84.
40.
WedellD. H.PettiboneJ. C. (1999). Preference and the contextual basis of ideals in judgment and choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 128, 346-361.
41.
WillisR. H. (1960). Stimulus pooling and social perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 365-373.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
