Subjects provided their impressions of stimulus faces that systematically varied in attractiveness and babyishness. The results indicate that variations in facial babyishness can qualify the effects of attractiveness on social perception. For example facially attractive people are thought to be more honest, warm, and sincere than average when facial babyishness is high but not when it is low. The data are consistent with the proposal that there are different types of facial attractiveness that yield different impressions. The data also revealed that the effects of facial babyishness on impressions can be modulated by variations in attractiveness. The implications of these data for our under-standing of the effects of facial appearance on social perceptions are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alley, T. R. (1988). Physiognomy and social perception. In T. R. Alley (Ed.), Social and applied aspects of perceiving faces (pp. 167-190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
Alley, T. R. , & Hildebrant, K. A. (1988). Determinants and consequences of facial aesthetics. In T. R. Alley (Ed.), Social and applied aspects of perceiving faces (pp. 101-140). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Berry, D. S. (1990). What can a moving face tell us?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1004-1014.
4.
Berry, D. S. (in press). Beyond beauty and after affect: An event perception approach to perceiving faces. In R. A. Eder (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on craniofacial problems: Insights into the function of appearance in development. New York: Springer-Verlag.
5.
Berry, D. S. , & Brownlow, S. (1989). Were the physiognomists right? Personality correlates of facial babyishness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 266-279.
6.
Berry, D. S. , & McArthur, L. Z. (1985). Some components and consequences of a babyface. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 312-323.
7.
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.
8.
Berry, D. S. , & McArthur, L. Z. (1988). What's in a face? Facial maturity and the attribution of legal responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 23-33.
9.
Broverman, I. K. , Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59-78.
10.
Bull, R. , & Rumsey, N. (1988). The social psychology of facial appearance. New York: Springer-Verlag.
11.
Carello, C. , Grosofsky, A., Shaw, R. E., Pittenger, J. B., & Mark, L. S. (1989) . Attractiveness of facial profiles is a function of distance from archetype. Ecological Psychology, 1, 227-252.
12.
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, 925-935.
13.
Cunningham, M. R. , Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want? Facial metric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 61-72.
14.
Dion, K. K. , Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
15.
Enlow. D. H. (1982). Handbook of facial growth (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Saunders.
16.
Keating, C. F. (1985). Gender and the physiognomv of dominance and attractiveness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 61-70.
17.
Langlois, J. H. (1986). From the eye of the beholder to behavioral reality: Development of social behaviors and social relations as a function of physical attractiveness. In C. P. Herman, M. P. Zanna, & F. T. Higgins (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma and social behavior: T he Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3, pp. 23-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
Lalnglois, J. H. , & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115-121.
19.
Langlois, J. H. , Roggman, L. A., Casey, R. J., Ritter, J. M., Reiser-Danner, L. A., & Jenkins, V. Y. (1987). Infant preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereotype?Developmental Psychology, 23, 363-369.
20.
McArthur, L. Z. (1982). Judging a book by its cover: A cognitive analysis of the relationship between physical appearance and stereotyping. In A. Hastorf & A. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology (pp. 149-211). New York: Elsevier/North-Holland.
21.
McArthur, L. Z. , & Apatow, K. (1983/84). Impressions of babyfaced adults. Social Cognition, 2, 315-342.
22.
McArthur, L. Z. , & Berry, D. S. (1987). Cross-cultural agreement in perceptions of babyfaced adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 165-192.
23.
Montepare, J. M. , & Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. (1988). Impressions of people created by age-related qualities of their gaits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 547-556.
24.
Moore, S. , Reis, H. T., Gruzen, J., & Wolff, E. (1974). The "eye of the beholder": Determinants of physical attractiveness judgments in the U.S. and South Africa. Journal of Personality, 42, 528-542.
25.
Reis, H. T. , & Hodgins, H. S. (in press). Reactions to craniofacial disfigurement: Lessons from the physical attractiveness and stigma literature. In R. A. Eder (Ed.), Psychological perspective on craniofacial problems: Insights into the function of appearance in development. New York: Springer-Verlag.
26.
Secord, P. F. (1958). Facial features and inferential processes in inter-personal perception. In R. Tagivri & L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior (pp. 300-316). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
