40 subjects gave ratings of liking for photographs of 24 females who were either physically attractive or unattractive and who were described as having a favourable or unfavourable character. Contrary to expectancy-value theory, both attractiveness and character contributed significantly to the ratings of liking, although character had a stronger effect. In addition, females were more influenced by character than were males, while males were more influenced by attractiveness than were females. It is suggested that the joint effects of attractiveness and character on the ratings of liking can be accounted for by a general reward theory of interpersonal attraction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AjzenI.Effects of information on interpersonal attraction: Similarity versus affective value. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 374–380.
2.
AronsonE.The social animal. San Francisco: Freeman, 1972.
3.
BerscheidE.WalsterE. H.Physical attractiveness. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 7. New York: Academic Press, 1974. Pp. 158–215.
ByrneD.ErvinC. H.LamberthJ.Continuity between the experimental study of attraction and real-life computer dating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 157–165.
6.
ByrneD.LondonO.ReevesK.The effects of physical attractiveness, sex, and attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality, 1968, 36, 259–271.
7.
DionK.BerscheidE.WalsterE.What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 285–290.
8.
FishbeinM.An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 1963, 16, 233–240.
9.
KleckR.RubensteinC.Physical attractiveness, perceived attitude similarity, and interpersonal attraction in an opposite-sex encounter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 107–114.
10.
KrebsD.AdinolfiA.Physical attractiveness, social relations, and personality style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 245–253.
11.
LampelA.AndersonN. H.Combining visual and verbal information in an impression-formation task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, 1–6.
12.
LottA. J.LottB. E.ReedT.CrowT.Personality-trait description of differently liked persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 284–290.
13.
MillerA. G.Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 19, 241–243.
14.
PastoreN.Attributed characteristics of liked and disliked persons. Journal of Social Psychology, 1966, 52, 157–163.
15.
RosenbergM. H.Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 367–372.
16.
SpiveyJ.WilsonW.Attractiveness as a result of having certain personality traits. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973, 1, 229–230.
17.
StroebeW.InskoC. A.ThompsonV. D.LaytonB. D.Effects of physical attractiveness, attitude similarity, and sex on various aspects of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 18, 79–91.
18.
TesserA.BrodibM.A note on the evaluation of a “computer-date.”Psychonomic Science, 1971, 23, 300.
19.
WalsterE.AronsonV.AbrahamsD.RottmanL.Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behaviot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 508–516.
20.
WarrP.KnapperC.The perception of people and events. New York: Wiley, 1968.
21.
WinerB. J.Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.
