Skip to main content

Full text of "Physical appearance and personality"

See other formats

Presented by 

Mary-Somers Knight 
Class of 1975 






Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2010 with funding from 

Lyrasis Members and Sloan Foundation 

Physical Appearance and 



M. - Somers Knight 


Approved : 

h™ /I. / 97<r 

/ Outside Readerf 

A Thesis 

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the 

Requirements for the Degree with Honors 

in Psychology 

Sweet Briar College 

Sweet Briar, Virginia 

May, 1975 



Table of Contents 

Chapter Page 

Introduction I 


Personality and Appearance in Literature 2 

Aristotle' s ' Physiognomica' 5 

Phrenology and Physiognomy: Gall and Lavater 6 

Constitutional Psychology: Sheldon and Kretschmer 11 


Inter oersonal Attraction 27 

Person Percpetion 28 

Experimental Research 51 

Impression Formation 40 


Deformity and the Social Context 50 

The Self Image 52 

Personality Problems Associated with Deformity 55 

The Family and the Deformed Child 55 

The Benefits of Plastic Surgery 57 

Body Image and Self Image 60 


Body Image 64 

Cultural Norms 66 

The Self Image 70 

Self Image and Body Image 72 

Cone lusion • Ik 




VIII APPENDIX: photographs used in study 

The object of osychology is to give us a totally- 
different idea of the things we know best. 

Paul Valery, Tel Quel, 194j 


America is unique in being the culture which is the most 
thoroughly pervaded by visual media. We are exposed to a 
steady stream of faces and bodies which meet us each time 
we open a magazine, watch television or go to the movies. 
Women are incessently reminded that "the wrinkles that spell 
character in a man's face, spell disaster in a woman's". 
The clothes make the man; so do his teeth, his tan and the 
width of his shoulders. It is no wonder that American social 
psychologists have pounced upon physical attractiveness as a 
variable to play around with in their studies of human interaction; 
no wonder that plastic surgeons do a booming business. 

But this fascination with the way we look, although it may 
sometimes seem like another product of Madison Avenue, is not 
an American invention. If advertising that advises us "be 
beautiful and you will be loved" is successful it is because 
it strikes upon a very human tendency to be concerned about 
physical appearance. The concern has often manifested itself 
not only in the desire to present oneself well to others but 
in attempts to find out what other people's appearance tell 
about their characters. 

Human beings have always sought links between physical 
appearance and character. The purpose of this paper is to 


put all of the studies, ancient and recent, plausible and 
ridiculous, which have tried to show the relationship be- 
tweensome aspect of physical appearance and personality, 
into some sort of a framework. What I am building up to 
is support for a 'social response' explanation of the re- 
lationship. The relevance of physical appearance comes of 
course within the social sphere. And it is the social 
response to physical appearance (and to the total person) 
that is a significant factor in personality development. 
Whatever connection there is, it originates in this social 
process . 

The word that for brevity's sake I will use to describe 
"any personality theory that attempts to show a connection 
between physical appearance and character" is "physical 
characterology". And the different systems of physical 
characterology that have been brought together here are 
classified as one of the three types of approach: intuitive- 
observational; scientific-biological; and social-develop- 
mental. An example of the first type is physiognomy and of 
the second, Sheldon's constitutional psychology. The third 
is not easily narrowed down to one example but discussion 
of the studies that come under it fills most of this paper. 
The social -developmental approach governs the research behind 
the social origin theory. The first two types of explanation 
are both essentially nativistic; I have introduced the 


separation as an acknowledgement of differences in method, 
The social -developmental is an environmentalist^ view. 

My material has come from related but varied fields. 
The assumptions of an experimental social psychologist 
and of a counseling psychiatrist are not always the same, 
although in this context they shouldn't seem wholly 
exclusive. However I hope I will be forgiven for a 
modicum of eclecticism. 

I. A History of Physical Characterology 

Chapter I 

- but that the size and jollity of every individual nose, 
and by which one nose ranks above another, and bears a 
higher price, is owing to the cartilaginous and muscular 
parts of it, into whose ducts and sinuses the blood and 
animal spirits being impelled, and driven by the warmth 
and force of the imagination, which is but a step from 

it - it so happens, and ever must, says Prignitz, 

that the excellency of the nose is in a direct arithmetical 
proportion to the excellency of the wearer's fancy. 

(Laurence Sterne, Tristram Shandy 
1767, Chapter XXXVIII) 

Form is power, because being a promise of good, it re- 
commendeth men to the favor of women and strangers. 

(Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan 
1651, Chapter 10) 

There has always been the tendency for people to make judgements of 
character which are at least in part based upon the appearance of the 
person being judged. There are numerous adages in our society that warn 
about "judging a book by its cover" or being "deceived by appearances". 
They are designed to curb the habit of forming preconceived notions about 
the inner qualities of someone based upon their external qualities. 
Ethologists would explain the phenomenon of judging by appearance 
as the product of innate propensities; Social Psychologists would look 
for reasons somewhere in the socialization process. Whatever the 
explanation, there is a part of human tradition which allows for the 
possible connections between physical appearance and personality. People 
with small eyes are shrewd; fat people are jolly; thin lips denote severity; 
blondes have more fun. Good people are beautiful people; bad people are 
ugly people. 

Personality and Appearance in Literature 
Conventional wisdoms about appearance are dotted throughout literature 
and folklore. An example comes from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar : 

"Let me have men about me that are fat; 
Sleek -headed men and such as sleep o' nights; 
Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look; 
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous." 

(Julius Caesar, Act 1, Sc.2) 

Heros and heroines, outstandingly in Victorian and pre-Victorian literature, 
are usually striking in appearance because of the association of what is 

good with what is beautiful. Their beauty is in contrast to the un- 
attractiveness of literary villains who are portrayed as ugly through 
and through. In fairy tales it is the swans who are the honoured ones; 
frogs must be satisfied with anti-hero status at best. The description 
of Juanito, the protagonist in Fortunata and Jacinta , is typical of 19th 
century conceptions of heros: 

"Don Baldomiero's son was very good looking and moreover very pleasant. 
He was one of those men who attract by their appearance before captivating 
with their manner, one of those who gain more friends in an hour of conversa- 
tion than others who confer positive favours." 

(Perez Galdos, Fortunata and Jacinta, 
1887, trans. Lester Clark, pt.l, chap.l) 

Charles Dickens is known, among other things, for his caricature-like des- 
criptions of characters. For this reason he is a good author to pick on 
to show the contrast between the way a 'good' character is described as 
opposed to the way a 'bad' one is . The passages below are portrayals of 
two characters from Bleak House . The first is Ada Claire who is the em- 
bodiment of goodness and purity; the second, Krook, is certainly among 
Dickens' more villanous creations. 

" I saw in the young lady with the fire shining upon her, such a 

beautiful girl.' With such rich golden hair, such soft blue eyes, 

and such a bright, innocent, trusting face.'" 

(Charles Dickens, Bleak House, 1853, 
p. 28) 

"[He was] an old man in spectacles and a hairy cap... He was short, 

cadaverous and withered, with his head sunk sideways between his 

shoulders and the breath issuring in visible smoke from his mouth, 
as if he were on fire within. His throat, chin and eyebrows were 
so frosted with white hairs and so gnarled with veins and puckered 
skin, that he looked from his breast upward like some old root 
in a fall of snow." 

(Ibid, p. 48) 

These three passages are only a suggestion of the stereotypes of appearance 
which writing has both reflected and perpetuated. In terms of the three 
main approaches to physical characterology, the assumptions about physical 
appearance and personality contained in literature are the result of in- 
tuituion and observation; on the part of the author and on the part of the 
culture . 

The other means by which writers have set down observations on the 
connections between character and personality has been in developing 
actual theories of the relationship and devoting formal writings to 
the topic. Some of the earliest forms of personality theory included 
attempts to show the relationship between personality and the shape of 
the nose, the size of the eyes, the width of the forehead or the basic 
body type. Sometimes the writers described people who looked like 
various animals and concluded that they must therefore have temperaments 
similar to those of the animals. They also drew out the association between 
a particular physical feature and a specific group (for example, Jews, 
philosophers, thieves) with the implication that possessing the features 


that members of the group possess is a sure sign of the possessor's having 
the type of personality generally ascribed to the group. The different 
explanations were legion and not usually too highly correlelated especially 
since they were based strictly on intuitive-observational evidence. 

Aristotle's 'Physiognomica' 
Probably the first formal piece of writing on the relationship between 
physical appearance and character has been attributed to Aristotle under 
the title "Physiognomica". Aristotle believed that: 

" instances of the fundamental connexion of body and soul and their 
very extensive interaction may be found in the normal products of nature. 
There never was an animal with the form of one kind and the mental character 
of another; the soul and body appropriate to the same kind always go 
together, and this shows that a specific body involves a specific mental 
character." (W.D. Ross Ed, 1913, 805a) 

Many of Aristotle's conclusions about the meaning of physiognomy 
were drawn from observations of animals. For example: 

"Soft hair indicates cowardice and coarse hair courage. This in- 
ference is based on observations of the whole animal kingdom. The 
most timid of animals are deer, hares, and sheep, and they have the 
softest coats; whilst the lion, and wild boar are bravest and have 
coarsest of coats." (Ibid., 806b) 

He also makes generalizations based upon racial characteristics and stereo- 
types, as in this sentence: The Small-Minded have small limbs and small 
delicate lean bodies, small eyes and small faces, just like a Corinthian 
or Leucadian." (ibid., 808a) The reasoning behind some of the observations 
in "Physiognomica" is slightly more obscure. "Gluttony is indicated when 

the distance from navel to chest is greater than that from chest to neck." 
(Ibid., 808b) 

The writer concludes the work by stating that: 
It will be found, moreover, in every selection of signs 
that some signs are better adapted than others to indicate 
the mental character behind them. The clearest indications 
are given by signs in certain particularly suitable parts 
of the body. The most suitable part of all is the region 
of the eyes and forehead, head and face..." 

It would be interesting to know how this particular writing was 
received by Aristotle's contemporaries. Certainly theories of physical 
characterology have always had great popular appeal. There is something 
enticing about being able to read character from a face or body type. 
But the history of the 'sciences' of physical characterology is fraught 
with hostilities, to some extent due to the fact that they are so appealing 
to the layman. The field has swarmed with quacks and charlatans. In fact, 
the pervading charlatanism was enough to drive George II to threaten, by 
act of Parliament/ all self-acclaimed physiognomists with public whipping 
and terms in houses of correction. 

Phrenology and Physiognomy - Gall and Lavate 

There is a gap between Aristotle's writings and the inception of further 
major written theories of physical characterology. Folk wisdoms prevailed, 
Ballads and fairy tales continued to favor blond, blue-eyed and above all 
beautiful heroines but very little was published that included any direct 


examination of physique and character. Then in 1598 an Italian, Baptista 

Porta published "De Humana Physiognomica" which made him the first of the 

modern physiognomists. However it was in the 18th and 19th centuries that 

the strongest revival of formal physical characterology began. Franz Josef 

Gall, who did most of his writing in French, began to lecture on his science 

of phrenology during the late 18th century. And in Germany in 1789, J.C. 

Lavater published Essays on Physiognomy . These two were followed by a host 

of lesser nasologists, phsiognomists and phrenologists (for example, the 

Fowler brothers who plugged phrenology in the United States) and this celebration 

of physical characterology lasted a little over a century. 

Phrenology (sometimes referred to by its antagonists as 'bumpology') 
was not concerned with interpreting overall physical appearance or the face. 
It dealt specifically with the configuration of the skull and how scrutiny 
of it could reveal the talents and dispositions. I think phrenology should 
be included in any discussion of systems which tried to take specific aspects 
of physical appearance as signs for reading character. It differs from other 
systems of physical characterology mainly in its specificity of method. 

Gall believed the brain to be compartmentalized into separate and distinct 
faculties. According to him, the crebral cortex could be schematically divided 
up into sections, each of which was in charge of one personality function. 
Examples of the traits in Gall's system are: Philoprogenitiveness, Cautiousness, 
Tune, Veneration and Causality. One of Gall's major premises was that form reveals 
function. Therefore he examined skull shape to discover the size of the different 
faculties which would then tell which areas a person was most and least well 
endowed in. He said that by carefully measuring the skull it was possible to 
determine anyone's personality, talents and disabilities, strengths and weaknesses. 

Phrenology differs from other forms of physical characterology in that it 
does not build upon skills that a layman would be expected to possess. Its pre- 
tensions to being a science were stronger if still based on quite erroneous con- 
ceptions. Gall at least tried to incorporate measurement in his system. It is 
also true that he made an effort to obtain the bodies of men that he had studied 
while still alive in order to examine the brain and see how well its shape conformed 
to expectations. If considered in a somewhat more abstract sense. Phrenology 
foreshadows the social psychological view of impression formation which postulates 
that physical appearance may suggest a series of related traits to the perceiver. 
But Gall's system, while verging on a nativistic approach employing scientific 
methods, was really more of the intuitional -observational variety. 

Lavater 's physiognomy took overall physical appearance as the basis for 
analysis with attention focused on the face. "...there are foreheads, noses, 
lips, eyes, which singly betoken strength, weakness, ardour, phlegm, acuteness, 
dullness, wrath, revenge, as far as they express certain other determinate parts." 
(J.C. Lavater, 1789, p. 56) 

The 'science' of physiognomy, and related 'sciences' like nasology flourished in 
the 19th century. Sporting ornate titles like "Nasology; hints towards a class- 
ification of noses" or "New physiognomy: Signs of Character as manifested through 
Temperament and External Forms and especially in The Human Face Divine", scores of 
books were published on the topic and scores of lectures given. Tangled in his 
century's benevolent religious views, Lavater writes, "Oh physiognomy! What a 
pledge art thou of the everlasting clemency of God toward man." (Ibid, p. 12) 
And similar is this passage from Warwick (1848 p. 4) "We may feel assured that He 
who gave the os sublime to man, did not place, as its foremost and most prominent 
feature, a ridiculous appendage." (Warwick, 1848, p. 4) 

With metaphysical overtones like these, and fraught with contradictions and false 
assumptions, physiognomy became a murky field indeed. 

In the view of physiognomists, faces revealed things deeper than the mere 
play of emotions. Given the right guidance, anyone could read a face like a 
book. Lavater writes, "...what Goethe has somewhere said [is] true, and in 
my opinion nothing can be more true, ...the best text for a commentary on man 
is his presence, his countenance, his form..." (J.C. Lavater, 1789, p. 74) Books 
on physiognomy often contained a feature by feature run down of the meaning of 
different facial features. Examples from Lavater are: "Blue eyes are generally 
more significant of weakness, effeminacy and yielding, than brown and black." 
(Ibid, p. 171) 

"Eyebrows regularly arched are characteristic of feminine youth." (Ibid, p. 181) 

"The hair of man is strong and short - of woman more long and pliant. (Ibid, p. 210) 

Physiognomists used both of the Aristotelian methods of associating facial con- 
figuration with animal characters and racial types. 

Some of the physiognomists were specialists. Eden Warwick (1848) was 
one who believed that the nose was the most important index to character. Many 
of the characters which he assigns to one of his five nasal types are obviously 
built upon racial or cultural sterotypes. This passage from Warwick's Nasology 
describing the personality that goes along with the 'Jewish Nose' is an example 
of this kind of reasoning: "Considerable Shrewdness in wordly matters; a deep 
insight into character, and facility of turning that insight to profitable account." 
(Warwick, 1848, p. 8) 


The assumption underlying most of these physiognomal systems of 
character analysis was that appearance of the face completely and 
accurately reflects character, and, implicitly, that both physiognomy 
and character are provided by gentic heritage and are interdependent 
for that reason. However some writers were so sure that there was a 
direct and necessary association between face and personality that they 
went so far as to state that character can shape appearance. A change 
in character would have to produce the accompanying physical change so 
that face and personality would continue to correspond in expected 
fashion. This belief is shown in a classification of Milton's nose in 
Warwick's book: 

"Milton in youth possessed a "Greek Nose... his portrait, taken at 
23, shows that his nose was not then developed in to the cogitative 
form which it assumed in later years, when troublous times and anxious 
care caused him to reflect profoundly on events around him. Then it 
expanded at the base and became, like the Noses of all the great men 
of these stirring times, largely and compounded with the cogitative..." 
Ibid, p. 83) 

Later in the book, the author gives instructions on "How to Get a Cogitative 
Nose ." 

The conclusion of the physiognomists were based upon knowledge of 
acquaintances and of any other people within their field of experience, 
and often upon observation of men well-known for an ability of abilities. 
The following description by Lavater of Haller should clarify the latter 
method of physiognomists: 

"For example, Haller, certainly, in many respects, was an extraordinary 
man. Among other remarkable features which he had in common with other 


men of understanding, I observed a trait, a line, a muscle, below the 
eye, which I never saw, after this form, in any other man. I do not 
yet know what it denotes, but I pay attention to all countenances, and 
the first which I shall meet with this trait, I shall carefully examine, 
shall turn discourse on those subjects in which Haller excelled, or 
on such as will easily make it visible whether a person with such a 
trait possesses any portion of the spirit of Haller." (J.C. Lavater, 
1789, p. 27) 

Although phrenology had some beneficial influence on the development of 
psychophysiology (probably not directly but through Gall's interest in the 
accompanying physiology) neither phrenology nor physiognomy proved to be 
of any long range help in understanding human character. The flaws in the 
systems are obvious and these so-called sciences were never fully accepted 
even in their century-long hey-day. The men who compiled Casaubonistic 
piles of data and wrote vague pompous tomes were accused of quackery or 
just plain uselessness . But the flowering of physical characterology 
does provide an interesting historical perspective to the discussion of 
physical appearance as a variable in 20th century psychological theory, 
and some insight into human tendency. 

Constitutional Psychology: Sheldon and Kretschmer 

The early (pre-20th century) men who developed systems of physical 
characterology relied upon a sort of inductive reasoning built upon the 
association of physical types with character types. The gentic component 
(if any) was assumed to be implicit. In the early 20th century, 
notably with Kretschmer's and Sheldon's constitutional psychologies, 
someone again was trying to pinpoint a relationship between physical 
appearance and personality. But these two, who were both doctors, were building 


their theories on the results of more precise scientific methods. They were, (and 
Kretschmer emphasized this more than Sheldon) indicating that if over a period 
of human history certain body types have been consistently paired with specific 
temperaments, there must be a common biological or physiological cause. Their 
method of attacking the problem was through thorough study of multiple cases 
to determine first, how to classify physical appearances into several basic 
types and second, to determine the sort of personality which accompanied each 
case. By contrast with earlier writers, they were interested in somatotypes 
and not as much concerned with the arrangement of facial features or the 
shape of the nose. 

E. Kretschmer, a German psychiatrist, devised a theory of constitution 
and temperament from the medical-psychiatric point of view. Although he 
does not exclude his system ' s being applicable to so called 'normal' types 
(and to geniuses) his main work lay in elucidating the relation between physique 
and character in two main psychiatric groups: schizoid and cycloid (manic 
depressive) . 

The three types of physical constitution around which Kretschmer built 
his theory are the asthenic, the athletic and the pyknic. The way Kretschmer 
arrived at these three types was by tracing morphological similarities through 
large numbers of individuals (patients) and taking their average value. The 
characteristics of each type are as follows: 

Asthenic: "the male asthenic type [has] ...a deficiency in thickness 
combined with an average unlessened length. This deficiency in the thickness 
development is present in all parts of the body - face, neck, trunk, extre- 
mities and in all the tissues - skin, fat, muscle, bone and vascular system 

throughout. On this account we find the average weight, as well as the total 
circumference and breadth measurements, below the general value for males. 

We have therefore, in the clearest cases the following general impression...; 
a lean, narrowly-built man who looks taller than he is, with a skin poor in 
secretion and blood, with narrow shoulders from which hang lean arms with thin 
muscles, and delicately boned hands; a long narrow, flat chest, on which we 
can count the ribs, with a sharp rib-angle. A thin stomach devoid of fat, and 
lower limbs which are just like the upper ones in character." (E. Kretschmer, 
1926, trans. W.J.H. Sprott, p. 21) 

Athletic: "A middle sized to tall man with particularly wide projecting 
shoulders, a superb chest, a firm stomach and a trunk which tapers in its 
lower region so that the pelvis, and the magnificent legs, sometimes seem 
almost graceful compared with the size of the upper limbs and particularly 
the hypertrophied shoulders . 

"The solid long head is carried upright on a free neck so that the sloping 

linear contour of the firm trapezius looked at from in front, gives that part 

of the shoulder which is nearest the neck, its peculiar shape. The outlines 

and shadings of the body are determined by the swelling of the muscles of the 

good or hypertrophied musculature which stands out plastically as muscle-relief. 

The bone relief is specially (sic) prominent in the shape of the face. The 

coarse boning throughout is to be seen particularly in the collar bones, the 

hand and foot-joints and the hands... The length of the extremities is rather 

long and short... the fat is relatively only moderately developed, and, speaking 
absolutely, is more or less normal." (Ibid., p. 24) 

Pyknic: "The pyknic type, in the height of its perfection in middle-age, 

is characterized by the pronounced peripheral development of the body cavities 

(head, breast and stomach), and a tendency to a distribution of fat about the 
trunk, with a more graceful construction of the motor apparatus (shoulders 
and extremities) 

"The rough impression in well-developed cases is very distinctive: middle 
height, rounded figure, a soft broad face, a short massive neck, sitting between 
the shoulders; the magnificent fat paunch protrudes from the deep vaulted chest 
which broadens out towards the lower part of the body. (Ibid, p. 29) 

Kretschmer concentrates on male types, but amends these descriptions to 
include female types, as in, the following passage on the female asthenic: 

"The asthenic women, as far as the type shows itself clearly among them, 
are, in their general appearance, like asthenic men, up to an important point: 
they are not only thin, but also of very small growth. This group of women 
is thus not merely asthenic, but asthenic-hypoplastic; and in this work by 
asthenic, we mean merely underdevelopment of the body and the parts of the 
body, especially with reference to the height." (Ibid, p. 23) 

And although Kretschmer' s interest was in physiques he did not exclude 
general physiognomy from his system. In fact, he placed some importance on the 
face since it is one physical aspect with the least susceptibility to change 
(as a result of lack of exercise, weight gain etc.). 

Through the thorough examination of the psychiatric cases that confronted 
him, Kretschmer drew the following conclusions: 

"1) There is a clear biological affinity between the psychic 
disposition of the manic-depressives and the pyknic body 


2) There is clear biological affinity between the psychic disposition 
of the schizophrenes and the bodily disposition characteristic 

of the asthenics, athletics and certain dysplastics. 

3) And vice versa, there is only a weak affinity between schizophrene 
and pyknic on the one hand, and between circulars and asthenics, 
athletics and hysplastics on the other." (Ibid, p. 36) 

Kretschmer is very clear about where he thinks the relationship between 
constitution and temperament originates. 

"It is an empicical fact that the endocrine system has a fundmental influence 
on the mentality and especially on the temperamental qualities ... [In] the great 
schizothymic and cyclothymic temperamental groups [we see] the correlation 
between physique and temperament, that is to say, that very biological relation 
which also forces itself so much on one's attention in gross glandular disturbances, 
when we observe the parallelism between psychic malformation and hypoplastic 
physique among cretins and between abnormal length of the extremity bones, and 
displacement of the psychic temperament among people who have been castrated young 
and eunuchoids, phenomina indeed, which can be seen ocurring under fixed biological 
laws even among higher animals .... 

"It is not a great step to the suggestion that the chief normmal types of 
tempermant, cyclothymes , and schizothymes, are determined, with regard to their 
physical correlates, by similar parallel activity on the part of the secretions..." 
(Ibid, p. 254) 


Kretschmer, seeing that there were body types and character types that 
kept recurring with each other realized that he would have to come up with 
some sort of explanation for this recurrence. The cause he names in his 
writing is the endocrine gland system which, through the chemistry of 
the blood, affects body growth and temperaments simultaneously. As a 
result of this parallel effect, it is possible to read with more or 
less accuracy (Kretschmer never claims his system is infallible) one of 
the three body types as predictive of one of the psychiatric or normal 
temperaments . 

Casting aside the intuitive sort of system propagated by the phreno- 
logists and physiognomists, Kretschmer did an about face to put a system 
of parallel body type and temperament on a more scientific basis, to explain 
the common cause in physiological terms and to finally, as he put it, "... 
instead of the one-sided parallel: Brain and mind, put one and for all the 
other: soma and mind." (Ibid, p. 255) 

W. H. Sheldon is an American physician who also devised a system 
incorporating three body types and related temperaments. (The magic number 
for physical types seems to be three). He presented his theory in two books, 
T he Varieties of Human Physique (1940) and The Varieties of Temperament (1942). 
His research team photographed some 4,000 male college students and found that 
there were "obvious dimensions of variation" in their physiques. They narrowed 
the variation to three primary morphological axes around which all physiques 
varied. The three types that appeared were endomorphic, mesomorphic and 
ectomorphic. The physical characteristics of these types are: 


" When endomorphy predominates, the digestive viscera are massive and 
highly developed, while the somatic structures are relatively weak, and 
undeveloped. .. [Endomorphs] are usually fat but they are sometimes seen 

"When mesomorphy predominates the somatic structures (bone, muscle, 
and connective tissue) are in the ascendency ... [The body is] hard, firm, 
upright and relatively strong and tough. Blood vessels are large, especially 
the arteries. The skin is relatively thick with large pores and it is heavily 
reinforced with underlying connective tissue. The hallmark of mesomorphy 
is uprightness and sturdiness of structure, as the hallmark of endomorphy 
is softness and sphericity. 

"Ectomorphy means fragility, linearity, flatness of the chest, and 
delicacy throughout the body. There is relatively slight development 
of both visceral and somatic structures. The ectomorph has long, slender, 
poorly muscled extremities with delicate, pipestem bones, and he has 
relative to his mass, the greatest surface area and hence the greatest 
sensory exposure to the outside world. He is in this one sense overly 
exposed and naked to the world." (W.H. Sheldon, 1942, pp. 389-390) 

Using these three types as a base Sheldon could classify any physique on 
a seven point scale for each type. The scale was arranged in the order 
endomorph, mesomorph, ectomorph so that, for example, an extreme endomorph 
would have the rating 7-1-1, an extreme ectomorph would be rated 1-1-7 
and a more 'average' type might be 3-4-4. 


Then, by working out the correlations between personality traits in a list of 
50 traits Sheldon and his workers found three groups of traits highly 
correlated among themselves but with low intercorrelations. The result 
was three 20-trait clusters. Below are the short and picturesque summations 
that Sheldon gives of the basic temperaments: 

"Viscerotonia, the first component, in its extreme manifestation 
is characterized by general relaxation, love of comfort, sociability, 
conviviality, gluttony for food, for people, for affection. The viscero- 
tonic extremes are people who 'suck hard at the breast of mother earth' and 
love physical proximity with others. The motivated organization is dominated 
by the gut and by the function of anabolism. The personality seems to center 
around the viscera. The digestive tract is kind, and its welfare appears to 
define the primary purpose of life. 

"Somatotonia, the second component, is roughly a predomince of muscular 
activity and of vigorous bodily assertativeness . The motivational organization 
seems dominated by the soma. The people have vigor and push. The executive 
department of their internal economy is strongly vested in their somatic 
muscular systems. Action and power define lifes primary purpose. 

"Cerebrotonia, the third component, is roughly a predominance of the 
element of restraint, inhibition and of the desire of concealment. These 
people shrink away from sociability as from too strong a light. They 
'repress' somatic and visceral expression, are hyperattentional, and 
sedulously avoid attracting attention to themselves. Their behavior seems 
dominated by the inhibitory and attentional functions of the cerebrum and 


their motivational hierarchy appears to define an antithesis to both of 
the other extremes." (Ibid, pp. 10-11) 

After these gargantuan classification and sorting tasks, to establish 
the connection between physique and temperament Sheldon conducted extensive 
evaluation of 200 cases in terms of morphology and temperament. The correlations 
that he found are summarized in the following table: 


















+ .82 







+ .83 

(Sheldon, 1942, p. 400) 

Morphology, or somatotype, Sheldon called the static element, and 
temperament, the dynamic one. He thought they were both part of the same 
unit and said, "we are not surprised if we are led to expect that the 
dynamics of an individual should be related to the static picture he 
presents. It is the old notion that structure must somehow determine 
function." (Ibid, p. 4) 


It is never stated in his book how the relation comes about but the 
unspoken assumption is that both components are inherited. The clearest 
allusion to this belief is where Sheldon writes: 

"From the immediate, materialistic or purely somatotomic point of view, 
it may be true that the constitutional outlook is fatalistic and pessimistic, 
the way of escape would seem to be the extension of a general understanding 
of the elements, both static and dynamic, whose patterning constitutes the 
individual. .. If constitutional studies can lead to the establishment of a 
rational foundation for a science of heredity and eugenics, we may then 
hope, for example, to eliminate the principal constitutional and degenera- 
tive physical scourges of the race... But of greater importance than that, 
it might then also be possible by discriminate breeding to strengthen the 
mental and spiritual fiber of the race. This is optimistic enough." 

Sheldon's system was not saved by its optimism and his constitutional 
psychology saw its end not long after its inception. The system, like many 
other attempts to fit human beings into a neat taxonomy, because of the 
predominance of exceptions, the questionable nature of the trait constructs 
and the subjectivity of the judgements just faded out of importance. 

Gordon Allport includes a chapter on characterology in his 1937 book 
Personality : a psychological interpretation . Basically, he holds up earlier 
theories as effigies to batter against preparatory to stating his views on the 
relation between physique and personality. For he does allow that a 
relationship does exist and can exert an influence on the developing 


personality. I include the following paragraph because it is the first 
of any of the theories listed to hint at social-developmental influences 
on the personality. 

"Within the normal range, physical build is associated only indirectly 
with personality. Strong bodies, well-formed, and socially approved, 
predispose people (especially in youth) to develop extroverted, real- 
istic, sociable traits; conversely, frail, malformed or markedly 
atypical physiques tend (in response to social and environmental stan- 
dards) to produce introverted, intellectual, or autistic personalities. 
This finding takes care of much of Kretschmer's evidence, but offers 
a totally different theory (one that is environmentalistic rather 
than nativistic) to account for the association of physique and per- 
sonality within the normal range." (G. Allport, 1937, p.78) 

Allport did not develop this idea further. Obviously he was more 
concerned with developing a complete personality theory. Sheldon and 
Kretschmer, as carefully thought out as their systems were, foundered 
in technicalities. Earlier types of physical characterology went the 
route of snake oils and guaranteed aphrodesiacs . Their reliability was 
easily disputed, their falsity easily discovered. Their value is purely 
historical. I have included this chapter to show how history reveals 
examples of man's preoccupation with finding a concrete correlation 
between the external appearance and the internal character and how 
two types of explanation - the intuitive and the nativistic (scientific- 
biological) - have for various reasons failed. The body of the paper 
will now be devoted to elaborating on the environmentalistic or social- 
developmental approach which is the approach I believe has been best 
able to suggest valid explanations for any correspondence between physical 
appearance and personality. 

21. b 


Allport, G.W. , Personality - a psychological inter- 
pretation. N.Y.: Henry Holt & Co., Inc., 1937. 

Combe, G., Lectures on Phrenology , 1847. 

Dickens, C. , Bleak House , N.Y. : Books, Inc. 
(orig. pub., 1853) 

Galdos, P., Fortunata & Jacinta , Middlesex, 

England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1973, trans. Lester 
Clark, (orig. pub., 1887) 

Kretschmer, E. , Physique and Character , London: Harcourt 
Brace & Co., Inc., 1926, trans. W.J.H. Sprott. 

Lavater, J.C., Essays on Physiognomy for the promotion 
of the Knowledge and the love of mankind Vol. II, 
London, G.N.J. & J. Robinson, 1789. 

Loveday, T., & Forster E.S. trans, "Physiognomonica" 
in W.D. Rossied, The Works of Aristotle , London: 
Oxford University Press, 1913. 

Sheldon, H. , The Varieties of Temperament , New York: 
Harper & Brothers Pub., 1942. 

Warwick, E., Nasology - or hints towards a classification 
of noses , London: Richard Bentley, 1848. 

Watson, R.I., The Great Psychologists , N.Y. : J. B. 
Lippincott Co., 1963. 

II. Physical Attractiveness and Inter- 
personal Attraction 


Beauty is nothing other than the promise 
of happiness . 

Stendhal, "On Love" (1822) 

beauty gets the best of it/in this world 

Don Marquis, "unjust" (1927) 


The remainder of this paper will be devoted to the social- 
developmental approach to physical appearance and character. 
In this chapter I will go into the social psychological research 
on physical attractiveness and interpersonal attraction with a 
discussion of the role of impression formation. 

The following two chapters will cover findings on the 
influence of physical deformity on the personality and theories 
of the interdependence of body image and self image. 

A person is socially defined as a physical as well as a 
behaving entity. After all, those behaviors have to emanate 
from somewhere. Thus a person is a combination of both static 
and dynamic elements Jand showing the relevance of the static 
element - appearance - to the more dynamic component - personality 
is the main thrust of this paper. 


People meeting other people are initially confronted with each 
other's physical appearances. Consciously or unconsciously, we base 
our first judgment of another person on the way he or she looks to 
us. Our concern over making a good appearance shows in the vast 
amount of effort we put into preparing ourselves for presentation. 
We constantly attempt to improve our physical appearance - adding 
what is desired, deleting what is undesired. We want to be attrac- 
tive, to be presentable at least. Everything from turtlebased night 
creams to tinted contact lenses to radical plastic surgery is aimed 
toward this end. Businesses capitalize on this desire to be beautiful 
and some wealthy Americans attend health spas to lose five pounds at , 
$400 a pound. In some parts of California even the dead must be made 
beautiful. Ugliness is an undefined stigma; a subtle curse. People 
feel sorry for the ugly members of society in the same cringing way 
they pity the blind or the crippled. 

Yet, in the face of abundant intuitive evidence that where 
human relationships are concerned physical attractiveness is by no 
means irrelevant, social psychologists have until recently been 
rather coy about examining this intuition. Aronson neatly describes 
the dilemma involved: 

It is difficult to be certain why the effects of 
physical beauty have not been studied more system- 
atically. It may be that, at some levels, we would 
hate to find evidence indicating that beautiful women 
are better liked than homely women — somehow this seems 
undemocratic. In a democracy we like to feel that with 
hard work and a good deal of motivation, a person can 
accomplish almost anything. But, alas (most of us be- 
lieve), hard work cannot make an ugly woman beautiful. 
Because of this suspicion perhaps most social psycholo- 


gists implicitly prefer to believe that beauty is in- 
deed only skin deep — and avoid the investigation of its 
social impact for fear they might learn otherwise, 
(cited in Dion et al, 1972, p. 285) 

Whatever unadmitted fears and hedging may have been involved, 
there is now a growing body of experimental literature examining 
the role of physical attractiveness in interpersonal attraction. 
Moreover, the findings confirm the belief that physical attractive- 
ness influences the course of social interaction and interpersonal 
attraction. Attractive people are better liked (Walster et al, 
1966; Byrne et al, 1968; Stroebe et al, 1971), more desirable to 
work with (Byrne et al, 1968; Stroebe et al, 1971) and have more 
control over their own actions (A.G. Miller, 1970b). More 
people would like to date someone who is attractive than someone 
who is not (Walster et al, 1966; Byrne et al, 1968; Byrne, 1970; 
Walster, 1970; Stroebe et al, 1971). Attractiveness seems to cast 
a halo over the individuals involved. They are not only attractive 
but are believed to possess a host of other virtues as well (A.G. 
Miller, 1970 a). 

According to a study by Dion et al (1972) , attractive people are ex- 
pected to lead better lives, to have more opportunities in business 
and the choice of a career, to be more likely to get married. 

In short, there is quite a lot which seems to indicate that 
attractive people will have an easier time socially than unattractive 
people. Certainly, being attractive is not the only means of achieving 
social success, but perhaps it is more important than we have previously 
been willing to admit. 



People vary in their potential rewardingness to others. Rewarding- 
ness will from now on be referred to as "social desirability" which, as 
defined by Berscheid and Walster, "...includes such attributes as physical 
attractiveness, personableness , intelligence, fame, material resources, etc." 
(Berscheid and Walster, 1969, p. 108) 

The aspect of social desirability which this chapter is most concerned with 
is, of course, physical attractiveness. I believe that the influence of 
physical attractiveness or interpersonal attraction comes in terms of 
potential reward value. Physical beauty (and probably some personality 
correlates, to be discussed later) increases the social desirability 
of attractive individuals. Whether this comes from the mere status 
involved in being seen with an attractive person (which would not seem 
unrelated to Elder's (1969) finding that attractive women are more socially 
mobile) or a belief that attractive people are better conversationalists or 
better workers will depend on the people and the situation involved. If 
attractive people have greater social desirability, their social life will 
not be the same as that of unattractive people with less social value. During 
interaction the person with more rewards on his side has more control over 
the situation. He is more likely to be able to determine the outcome, to 
"call the shots". As in any bargaining situation, the person with the greater 
amount of assets has the advantage. And, most important, when it comes to 
interpersonal attraction, this person will be more likely to be sought out on 
the basis of these social assets. To apply this to the question of physical 


beauty, take the example of two girls of dating age — one highly attractive 
and the other not much to look at at all . Boys are more likely to want to 
date the attractive girl as, they believe, she has much more to offer. She 
will be more popular, better liked. Taking out the other girl means running 
the risk of being exposed to comments like "Is that all he could get?" Dating 
her would be less rewarding; hence she would be less popular. Of course to 
some extent a boy's approach will be limited by what he thinks he has to offer. 
There is a greater risk that the pretty girl will turn him down — she has more 
options available and can afford to be choosy or playful. But, as far as 
sheer potential reward value goes, the attractive girl should be better liked. 

The assumption throughout the remainder of the paper will be that 
attractive people are inherently more rewarding people and therefore they 
are liked more. And there is no dearth of evidence to show that physical 
attractiveness can cause liking, as will be evident in the section reviewing 
experimental literature. 


Before proceeding to discuss the experimental work, it is necessary 
to say something about the process of person perception. When two people 
meet, carry on a conversation, or just pass each other walking down the hall, 
each is perceiving the other in some way. That sounds simple enough. However, 
it is extremely important to realize that a study of person perception must 
consider not only the qualities of the person being perceived but also the 
attributes of the one doing the perceiving. How another person is perceived 
depends on the perceiver's past experiences, his categorizations of people, 
his goals, his view of his own role in relation to the other person and the 


situation they are in. Jones and Thibaut write that: 

Inter-personal perception can most fruitfully be treated 
as both instrumental to social interaction and conditioned 
by it. Thus the strategic focus in social perception will 
vary as a function of the type of social interaction it 
supports . If we can successfully identify the goals for 
which an actor is striving in the interaction situation 
we can begin to say something about the cues to which 
he will attend and the meaning he is most likely to 
assign them. (Jones and Thibaut, 1958, p. 152) 

People provide cues to others as to how to act and the first 

cues come of course from their physical appearance. What a perceiver 

infers from another person's appearance will help to guide him in any 

subsequent interaction. But while we hope to find general laws governing 

patterns of inference, allowance must be made for individual differences. 

Originally researchers in the field of person perception 
concerned themselves with seeing how effective people were at judging 
personality or with finding out who could judge emotions accurately. 
But it soon became evident that there were rather serious difficulties 
with the results they were obtaining. There was little consistency 
among different subjects trying to assess the emotion being expressed 
in a photograph — where one saw surprise another saw fear, and meanwhile 
the experimentor had instructed the subject in the photograph to look 
joyful. In order for there to be a criterion against which subject responses 
could be measured for accuracy in judging personality , psychologists 
had to agree on foolproof unbiased methods for assessing actual per- 
sonality traits. They found that such foolproof methods were rather 
hard to come by. And some researchers began to realize that what 
they were actually measuring was how well subjects were able to see 


what they thought they should see. Hastorf et al said about this 
problem, "In other words, the experimenter has set the categories 
the subject must employ with little concern for the relevance of 
these to the subject's cognitive map of other people." (Hastorf et 
al, 1958, p. 56) 

The trend in person perception now is to pay closer attention to the 
perceiver. In their book on person perception, Hastorf states the 
main argument as follows: "The research in person perception has 
shifted in interest from the stimuli and the accuracy with which 
they are recorded to the ways that perceivers actively process those 
stimuli to create interpersonal meaning." (Hastorf et al, 1970, p. 91) 

There are two reasons for mentioning the above. One is that 
it presents some cautions to be kept in mind in the examination of the 
role of physical attractiveness in interpersonal attraction. The con- 
cern of this chapter is not to point out why people idiosyncratically 
consider certain individuals to be attractive but to show whether they 
more or less uniformly respond differently to attractive individuals as 
opposed to unattractive ones; whether they are more attracted to them 
and like them better. Earlier it was mentioned that a boy of low social 
desirability might be reluctant to approach a highly attractive girl. 
In the studies by Walster, Berscheid and others (1966; 1970; 1971) one 
of the main hypotheses was that individuals would like others near their 
own level of social desirability best. Although I hope to show that 
attractiveness does produce more liking and generally positive reactions 
from others, the nature of the reaction must depend to some extent on 


who these "others" are and what attractiveness in another person implies 
to them. Differences may be individual or even tied to various socio- 
economic levels but they will exist and must be taken into account. 

The other reason for this discussion on person perception is 
to say a bit more about inference processes. Each individual has an 
"implicit personality theory" against which he judges others — what 
people have what sorts of personalities, and what traits go with what. 
Since first-.encounter situations are so common and the first aspect of 
another person which is encountered is his physical appearance, what 
someone perceives in another person is actually what he first infers 
from the cues at hand. This will depend on which cues he chooses to 
pay attention to and what his experiences — some unique, some part of 
living in a particular society — tell him that these cues mean. Some 
inferences may be very straightforward and simple (all redheaded people 
like carrots) to more complex distinctions (intelligent people are more 
socially aware than non-intelligent) . The proposal I want to make here 
is that part of the social desirability of attractive people is linked 
to an implicit personality theory, in general use, that attractive 
people possess many desirable qualities in addition to mere attractive- 
ness — a sort of attractiveness halo effect. Some preliminary evidence 
supporting this will be mentioned in later sections. 


To begin by answering the inevitable challenge to defend the 
investigation of something as amorphous as "physical attractiveness", 


there is evidence that certain standards of beauty do exist across 

populations. Staf fieri (1967) showed that elementary school age 

boys (6-10 years) preferred mesomorph body types over endomorphs and 

ectomorphs. Jourard and Secord (1940) found that groups both of men 

and women had highly correlated conceptions of the ideal body type 

for their sex. In an experiment by Cavior and Lombardi (1973) children 

as young as six years old agreed highly on the attractiveness of 11- 

and 17-year olds in photographs; there was almost no difference between 

the ratings of eight-year olds and older groups. If a definition of 

attractiveness is needed it is based on agreement among observers. This 
agreement will be reviewed in more detail in Chapter IV. 

In 1966 Elaine Walster and three colleagues staged a computer 
dance during Freshman "Welcome Week" at the University of Minnesota. 
Students were enticed with the idea of being scientifically matched 
to "someone who has the same expressed interests as yourself". The 
dance was designed to test the proposal that an individual would expect 
to date and would therefore like better someone at his own level of 
social desirability. The proposal was an application of Level of 
Aspiration theory (Lewin et al, 1944) to the dating situation. Level 
of Aspiration theory states that an individual establishes two goals: 
an ideal goal which depends on the desirability of the goal itself and 
a realistic goal which is limited by the chances of achieving that goal. 
An ideal goal for a meagre man about 5 ' 1" would be to be the strong man 
in a circus. A slightly more realistic goal would be to aspire to be a 
seal -trainer , assuming he had some affinity with seals. Students who 
attended the dance were scaled according to their level of physical 
attractiveness by four "beaureaucrats" (also students) when they bought 
their tickets. Personality and intelligence measures were also taken 


and the subjects were asked to give their expectations as to the sort of 
date they would like to be paired with. Couples were assigned to each 
other on a random basis. During an intermission at the dance, subjects 
were rounded up (including any who had wandered away to fire escapes 
or nearby buildings) and asked to fill out a brief questionnaire assessing 
their dates. Although attractive students had had higher expectations 
for their dates (whom they assumed would be more attractive, personable 
and considerate) , there was no other support of Level of Aspiration 
theory in this study. The attractive people were better liked regardless 
of the attractiveness of the partner. Subjects were also more inclined 
to want to date attractive people again. In a follow-up study, it was 
the attractive girls who had been most often asked out after the dance. 
Liking was not always equally reciprocated — in many cases partners' feelings 
for each other were quite anthithetical. Intelligence and personality didn't 
seem to be highly related to liking. Quite simply, the students liked a 
good-looking date better than one who was not. These results are interesting 
not only because they did not support the hypothesis but also because the 
authors found something that they had not been looking for. 

In a later study, ElaincWalster (19 70) again attempted to test 
Level of Aspiration theory in a romantic situation. It was a bit 
puzzling that something which appealed so much to common sense had 
not been demonstrated at the computer dance. So subjects were presented 
with a booklet containing five photographs of people of the opposite 
sex at five levels of attractiveness. Each subject was asked to say 
how he felt romantically toward the people in the photograph. Then 
during a coffee break the experimentor handed subjects the ostensible 
results of earlier personality tests. These results were designed to 


either assure the subject that he had a fine personality and so 
raise his self esteem or convince him that his personality was in 
pretty sorry shape and so lower his self esteem. A third group 
served as a control. After the coffee and esteem manipulation 
subjects were given a second booklet similar to the first and again 
asked how each person impressed them romantically. Berscheid had 
predicted that subjects whose self esteem had been lowered would 
lower any romantic aspirations as well. But again there was "striking" 
non-support of the hypothesis and the author bemusedly concludes that 
"the matching hypothesis, which seemed so plausible, is not an important 
determinant of romantic perference." (E. Walster, 1970, p. 253) 

Physical attractiveness, on the other hand, apparently was an important 

Undaunted, Berscheid and some collaborators went ahead and 
produced still another test of the matching hypothesis in 1971. They 
introduced a new element by varying the possibility of rejection by 
a chosen date. The study was divided into two parts. In Part I the 
computer dance idea was repeated but the couples were to meet before 
the dance. Some subjects were assured that they stood a good chance 
of being rejected by their date; others were told that the risk of 
rejection was slight. The estimate of individual social desirability 
was based on Rosenf eld's fear of rejection scale and on how socially 
desirable a subject saw himself as being. Then subjects were asked to 
specify the sort of date they would prefer. For the first time the 
matching principle seemed to be guiding the subjects and it was in 


full play under both conditions. In the second experiment, subjects 
first answered questions about their dating experiences, self per- 
ceptions, body cathexis and self cathexis . They themselves were 
classed as being physically attractive or unattractive. Each one 
had the opportunity to choose one of six potential dates represented 
by photographs. In the "realistic" condition there was a catch — 
subjects would receive the date of their choice only if the choice 
were reciprocated. In the "idealistic" condition, the subject would 
receive whichever date he chose. And for both conditions, there 
was still more support for the matching hypothesis. Maybe people 
do aim no higher than their own level of desirability. Some of 
the other findings were interesting. Attractive girls reported 
themselves as being more popular in the dating field. Men tended 
to set higher expectations as to the good qualities they wanted 
in their dates. 

Once the experimenters had obtained the results they of 
course had to ask themselves why no one had been acting according 
to the matching principle in the earlier experiments. They con- 
cluded that, "Perhaps timing is extremely important in detecting 
operation of the matching principle. . .dating choice in these (past) 
studies was one of maintaining a social contact rather than attempting 
to achieve contact. It may be that the matching principle is a more 
potent determinant of how desirable a person one will be willing 
to approach..." (E. Berscheid et at, 1971, p. 188) 

Another major difference between studies, is that in this one the 
individual's level of social desirability was self-determined. It 


isn't unreasonable to suppose that someone acts according to his 
own self-concept rather than someone else's estimation of it. 

These three studies show not only that physical attractiveness 
can generate liking for someone but also that being attracted to a 
person in an ideal sense does not mean that you will be willing to 
approach them. Some of the major effects of physical appearance will 
be the ones which precede actual interaction. Once two people have 
gotten into conversation, other factors will be present - attitude 
similarity, need complementarity, whatever. But if a man enters a 
room where a woman is already seated and he is attracted to her, the 
way he evaluates himself and his appearance in his mind will affect 
the way he approaches the woman, what he anticipates from the interaction, 
or whether he may decide to go back out the door again. 

Don Byrne, satisfied that, "The effect of attitude similarity/ 
dissimilarity is sufficiently well established to constitute an empirical 
law" (D. Byrne, 1965, p. 254) went on to examine the effect of attitude 
similarity and physical attractiveness in interaction (as positive rein- 
forcements) . His subjects were given photographs coupled with 
attitude statements of varying levels of attractiveness and similarity. 
The subjects rated these stimulus people on an Interpersonal Judgment 
Scale (liking, desirability as a date or spouse, desirability as a 
work partner). Similarity and attractiveness in combination constitute 
high reward value and as predicted, high similarity and attractiveness 
pushed up ratings on the IPJ scale; unattractiveness had a slight negative 
effect. Stroebe et al in a similar study supported these findings and added 


some new material. They found, for one, that if a female were attractive, 
men did not concern themselves so much with whether or not they had similar 
attitudes. However, similarity became much more important in the case of 
evaluating homely girls. Physical attractiveness was also judged more 
important for dating than for liking or marrying. The authors believe 
that probably "the decision to date someone is not only affected by 
liking but also by considerations of possible status gains or losses 
through being seen with them". (Stroebe et al, 1970, p. 90) 

What is important in marriage is also determined by the goals of the 
individuals involved; compatability is probably emphasized more but 
there is status to be gained through marriage to someone attractive 
as well. For instance, there is evidence that attractive women are 
more upwardly mobile (1969, Elder). (And what better social accoutre- 
ment could a rising young business executive have, in addition to the 
right sort of house and the right sort of car, than the right of sort of 
attractive personable wife?) 

Since there were murmurs of discontent with previous dating 
studies (how far can we generalize from the relationships between 
subjects and photographs or mimeographed lists of attitudes to 
real life?), Byrne in 1970 set up an experiment designed to demonstrate 
continuity between a lab study of attraction variables and how these 
variables work in the field. Twenty-four of the couples studied were 
put together on the basis of high attitude similarity and twenty because 
they were relatively dissimilar. Some of the couples in each condition 
were told to imagine they were similar or dissimilar, and some were told 
they actually were similar or dissimilar. Then they were sent to get 


to know each other on a 30-minute "coke" date. Subsequent measures 
(for example, how far apart the couple stood when they returned to 
talk to the experimentor) showed that, as in paper and pencil studies, 
liking was based on similarity and attractiveness. Byrne's claim that 
the coke date was a "real life" situation is open to some question. 
But it is a study worth mentioning. Although Miller (1972) suggests 
that attitude similarity may act as an "open gate" for people to be 
more receptive to other cues about a person, it is another person's 
physical appearance which we become acquainted with initially and it 
is just as likely that attractiveness is an open gate. 

Many conclusions about the significant role of physical beauty 
in interpersonal relations are based on studies conducted in a dating 
situation. This makes it possible for someone to claim that nothing 
has been shown except a little about the dating habits of American 
college students. Probably physical attractiveness is more important 
for people when they are dating. It is during adolescence that 
children first become really aware of their own, and others' physical 
appearance. Attracting the opposite sex becomes a pervading raison d'etre 
for many. But there is evidence which suggests that attractive people 
have got the edge over unattractive people in other situations and 
attributes . 

In 1970 Miller found attractive people to be perceived as more 
internally controlled than unattractive people. Miller defines internal 
control as "the extent to which an individual feels that he has control 
over the reinforcements that occur relative to his behavior" (A.G. Miller, 
1970, p. 103) 


Considered in terms of reward value, attractiveness, as has been pointed 
out, gives the attractive person more social power. An attractive woman 
accepts a date with an ugly man for whatever peculiar reasons of her 
own. An unattractive girl accepts the date because she doesn't have any 
choice . 

Subjects in an experiment by M.J. Lerner (1965) watched two people 
doing anagrams. One of the people, a robust young man with a deep voice, 
was much more attractive than the other, who was thin and wore glasses. 
Although the subjects knew the winner of the task was decided entirely 
by chance, when the attractive young man was the one who went unrewarded, 
they tended to knock the performance of both of them. Physical attractiveness 
was also found to influence opinion change (Mills and Aronson, 1965). 
An attractive man or woman who admitted to a desire to change a group's 
attitude was much better received than an unattractive person who tried 
to do the same thing. (Certainly on any given day of commercial television, 
products are more likely to be endorsed by good-looking people) . 

Sigall and Aronson (1969) had subjects given positive or negative 
ratings of their personality by a young woman who was either attractively 
or unattractively dressed. Subjects liked the woman who told them were 
"well adjusted, mature and insightful" much better when she was attractive 
than unattractive. But to be labeled "immature, shallow, lacking in insight" 
by a dingy woman sporting a frizzy blond wig was not as bad as being told 
the same by a highly attractive young woman apparently, as the latter was 
liked least in this situation. This is another example of attractiveness 


working in terms of potential reward value. "...with a physically attractive 
person, a greater drive is aroused to be well received..." (Sigall and 
Aronson, 1969, p. 9 3) 

The subjects had much more to gain from a positive evaluation by an attractive 
woman; and therefore, more to lose when she didn't think as much of them. 

The title of an article by Dion et al (1972) that "What is Beautiful 
is Good" seems to sum up the sense of the accumulating experimental findings. 
According to the subjects in this experiment, attractive people have better 
personalities and lead better lives. Good-looking men and women will have 
more prestigious occupations, more prospects and likelihood of marrying, 
better marriages, better prospects for happy social and professional lives 
and more total happiness in their lives. 


Not only do attractive people stand to be better liked by others, 
but they seem to have increased chances to attain life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness. In this section I will outline one explanation 
for the high degree of social desirability of attractive people, and 
hence their social success . 

Walster (1966) wondered if the results of the computer dating 
study were due to some of the correlates of attractiveness since "we know 
from developmental studies of intelligent individuals (Terman, 1925, 1947, 
1959) that intelligence, physical attractiveness, 'creativity, and certain 
personality traits are often positively correlated'" (E. Walster, 1966, 


p. 514). 

In 1970 Miller showed that subjects rating photographs at three 
levels of attractiveness on an adjective checklist, associated 
the attractive people with more positive traits. In other words 
(Miller's, to be exact) " a first impression situation, a 
person s level of attractiveness may evoke in a perceiver a 
consistent set of expectancies by a process of trait inference." 
(A.G. Miller, 1970, p. 241) 

According to earlier work done by W.E. Asch (1946), impression 
formation is an organized process. In his experiments, subjects were 
presented with lists of personality traits and asked to form an impression 
of a person possessing those traits. Changing one word in the list (from 
'warm' to 'cold' for example), depending on whether it was a 'central' or 
'peripheral' trait, changed the nature of the entire impression. For 
example, consider ugly and beautiful as traits. Following Asch's idea 
the same traits in an ugly and a beautiful person would not produce the 
same impression. Wishner (1960) extended Asch's research by pointing out 
that the centrality of a trait depended on how strongly it was related 
to each of the other traits in the list. And you might expect that 
attractiveness would in most people's minds be more strongly related 
to attributes like 'friendliness' or 'sociability' and less obviously 
connected to 'piety' or 'perserverance' . In some work I did earlier 
with impression formation, subjects in four different groups were 
presented with printed lists of physical traits describing a man who 
was made out to be progressively less attractive in the four conditions. 


Subjects were asked to form an impression of his personality and to rate 
him on 30 adjective traits which were on a six-point scale. Not all 
differences between the groups on mean adjective ratings were significant 
but those that were tended to be with adjectives relating to ease in 
social interest (eig, humorous, warm, popular). 

It has been suggested that people carry with them an "implicit 
personality theory" for attractiveness. Based on what has been discussed 
in the paragraph above, I am proposing that physical beauty generates 
positive impressions and trait inferences. People on the verge of 
interaction search for cues as to how to behave, what they can expect 
the other person to be like. The first impression we form of someone 
will be based on the other person's physical appearance since that is 
the first thing we see. We would expect quite a different encounter 
with someone in a major-general's uniform than with someone in a tutu. 
If an attractive individual, as well as being desirable as a potential 
date because of the status conferred by being seen with someone attractive, 
promises to be witty, light-spirited and able to converse intelligently 
on current topics, they could be very rewarding. On the other hand, a 
person who is homely, and will most certainly be dull, generally un- 
interesting and perhaps not inclined to talk, does not promise 
as rewarding an interaction. What should be emphasized is the traits 
a perceiver believes someone to possess. He will act according to 
the impression he has. 

Much of this is speculative but there is evidence for the 

existence of an attractiveness cum personality syndrome supported 
by its own implicit personality theory. This will affect first 
impressions and again it should be said that the immediate social 
value of physical attractiveness lies in anticipated rewards. 


Physical attractiveness is one of the important determinants 
of liking and probably of personality development. It is not the only 
reason people like each other. Attractiveness should be stressed as 
a pre-interaction variable. There are the other previously mentioned 
factors which go into making up someone's social worth. An individual 
of low attractiveness but radiant personality may be as likeable as 
a highly attractive person who is somewhat less charming: it will 
depend on who is doing the juding. An attractive man interested in 
his public image as opposed to a plain man in search of sympathy and 
good cooking are looking for different things in the women they meet. 

If research into the social implications of physical attractive- 
ness is to continue, we must pay more attention to age factors, same- 
sex attraction, individual idiosyncracies . Meanwhile the evidence is 
strong in support of the claim that in the course of social events it 
helps significantly to be physically attractive. 



Argyle, M. , The Psychology of Interpersonal Behavior , Middlesex, 
England : Penguin Books Ltd., 1967. 

Argyle, M. , Social Interaction , London: Methuen & Co., 1969. 

Asch, S. E. , "Forming impressions of personality", J. Abnormal and 
Soc. Psych. , 19^6, Ul, 258-290. 

Berscheid, E. and Walster, E., Interpersonal Attraction , Reading, 
Mass.: Addison Wesley Pub. Co., 1969. 

Berscheid, E. , Dion, K. , Walster, E. and Walster G. W., 

"Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the 
matching hypothesis", J. Exper. Soc. Psych. , 1971, 17, 

Bruner, J. S. and Tagiuri, R., "The perception of people" in 
G. Lindzey ed. , Handbook of Social Psychology , Vol. II, 
Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley Pub. Co., 195 1 *, 277-288. 

Bruner, J. S. , Shapiro, D. and Tagiuri, R. , "The meaning of traits 
in isolation and in combination" in R. Tagiuri & L. Petrullo 
eds., Person Perception and Interpersonal Behaviour , Calif.: 
Stanford University Press, 1958, 277-288. 

Byrne, D. , "interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity", 
J. Abnormal and Soc. Psych. , 196l, 62, 713-715. 

Byrne, D., London, 0. and Reeves, K. , "The effects of physical 
attractiveness, sex and attitude similarity on interpersonal 
attraction", J. Personality , 1968, 36, 259-269. 

Byrne, D., "Continuity between the experimental study of 
attraction and real life computer dating", J. Pers. 
and Soc. Psych. , 1970, 16, 157-165. 

Byrne, D. and Nelson, D., "attraction as a linear function of 
proportion of positive reinforcements", J. Pers. and Soc. 
Psych. , 1965, 1, 659-663. 

Cavior, N. and Lombardi, D. A., "Developmental aspects of 

physical attractiveness in children", Developmental Psych. , 
1973, 8, 167-171. 


Dion, K. , Berscheid, E. and Walster, E., "What is beautiful is 
", J. Pers. and Soc. Psych. , 1972, 2k, 285-290. 

Elder, G. H. , Jr., "Appearance and education in marriage 
mobility", Am. Soc. Rev. , 1969, 3h , 519-533. 

Goldstein, J. W. and Rosenfeld, H. M. , "Insecurity and prefer- 
ence for persons similar to oneself" , J. Personality , 
1969, 37, 253-268. 

Guthrie, E. R., The Psychology of Human Conflict, New York: 
Harper, 1938, cited in Argyle, op. cit. , 1969» 36U. 

Hastorf, A. H. , Richardson, S. A. and Dornbusch, S. M. , 
"The problem of relevance in the study of person 
perception", in R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo eds . , 
Person Perception and Interpersonal Behaviour , Calif.: 
Stanford University Press, 1958, 5^-62 . 

Hastorf, A. H. , Schneider, D. J. and Polefka, J., Person 
Perception , Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley Pub. Co., 

Hays, W. L. , "An approach to the study of trait implication 
and trait similarity" in R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo 
eds., op. cit. , 1958, 287-299. 

Heider, F. , "Perceiving the other person", in R. Tagiuri and 
L. Petrullo eds., op. cit. , 1958, 22-26. 

Jones, E. E. and Thibaut , J. W. , "Interaction goals as bases 
of inference in interpersonal perception" in R. Tagiuri 
and L. Petrullo eds., ibid . , 151-178. 

Jones, E. E. and Gerard, H. B. , Foundations of Social 
Psychology , New York: J. Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967 . 

Lerner, M. J. , "Evaluation of performance as a function 
of performer's reward and attractiveness", J. Pers . 
and Soc. Psych. , 1965, 1, 355-360. 

Lewin, K. , Dembo, T., Festinger, L. and Sears, P., "Level 
of aspiration" in J. McV. Hunt ed. Personality and the 
Behaviour Disorders , Vol. I, New York: Ronald Press 
Co., 19^ • 

Miller, A. G. , "Role of physical attractiveness in impression 
formation", Psychon. Science , 1970a, 19, 2l*l-2U3. 


Miller, A. G. , "Social perception of internal-external 
control", Percep. and Motor Skills , 1970b, 30, 

Miller, A. G. , "Effect of attitude similarity-dissimilarity 
on the utilization of additional stimulus inputs in 
judgments of interpersonal attraction", Psychon. Science , 
1972, 26, 199-203. 

Mills, J. and Aronson, E. , "Opinion changes as a function 
of the communicator's attractiveness and desire to 
influence", J. Pers . and Soc . Psych. , 1965, 1, 173-177. 

Secord, P. F. , "Facial features and inference processes in 
interpersonal perception" in Tagiuri and L. Petrullo 
eds., op. cit. , 1958, 300-315. 

Sigall, H. and Aronson, E. , "Liking for an evaluator as a 
function of her physical attractiveness and the nature 
of the evaluation" , J. Exp. Soc. Psych. , 1971 , 5 , 

Staffieri, J. R., "A study of social stereotype of body 
image in children", J. Pers. and Soc. Psych. , 1967, 
7, 101-10^. 

Stroebe, W. , Insko, C. A., Thompson, V. D. and Layton, B. D., 
"Effects of physical attractiveness, attitude similar- 
ity and sex on various aspects of interpersonal attraction", 
J. Pers. and Soc. Psych. , 1971, 18, 79-91. 

Tagiuri, R. and Petrullo, L. eds., Person Perception and 
Interpersonal Behaviour. , Calif. : Stanford University 
Press, 1958. 

Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D. and Rottman, L. , 
"The importance of physical attractiveness in 
dating behavior", J. Pers. and Soc. Psych. , 1966, 
h, 508-516. 

Walster, E. , "The effect of self-esteem on liking for dates 
of various social desirabilities", J. Exper. Soc. Psych. , 
1970, 6, 2U8-263. 

Wishner, J., "Reanalysis of 'Impressions of Personality'", 
Psych. Reports , i960, 67, 96-112. 

III. Physical Deformity and Personality 

Chapter 3 

Philip saw a boy running past and tried to catch him, 
but his limp gave him no chance; and the runners, taking 
their opportunity, made straight for the ground he covered. 
Then one of them had the brilliant idea of imitating Philip's 
clumsy run. Other boys saw it and began to laugh; then they 
all copied the first; and they ran round Philip, limping 
grotesquely, screaming in their treble voices with shrill 

W. Somerset Maugham Of Human 
Bondage , 1915, Chapter, XI 

What sort of a creature are you?" they inquired, as the 
duckling turned from side to side and greeted them as well 
as he could. "You are frightfully ugly," said the wild ducks, 
"but that does not matter to us so long as you do not marry into 
our family. 

Hans Christian Anderson, The 
Ugly Duckling 


"When and if by virtue of accident or disease, something occurs 
that destroys any of our body, we need to completely reorganize our 
body image and self -concept ." (Schecter, in Knorr et al, 1968, p. 248) 

It has already been established in the previous chapter that the 
person in society is identified as a physical entity as well as a 
behaving entity. The dichotomy of appearances which has been the 
focus of study with social psychologists over the last ten years is 
that of at tractive /unattractive. And the general finding has been 
that people perceive beauty as being somewhat more than just skin 
deep. I have said that there is a state of positive trait association 
with attractive people and negative trait association with unattractive 
people. People tend to react more positively to someone who is attractive 
and negatively to someone who is unattractive. Further evidence of this 
proposition can be drawn from the medical profession, surprisingly enough. 
Physical appearance has become an important part of medical practice in 
recent years not because of the rebirth of any constitutional or humoral 
psychologies, but because of advances in plastic surgery and increasing 
demands for these surgical procedures. 

The demand itself is indicative of how important people feel it is 
to have a satisfactory physical appearance. And the work that plastic 
surgeons and psychiatrists, have done with plastic surgery patients has 
provided some striking insights into the relations between body image 
and self image. What many of their studies have shown is that there 
most assuredly are negative prejudices brought out by any physical 


deformity and that having to contend with these prejudices affects 
the experience and personality of deformed and disfigured people with 
some very serious consequences. Social psychologists have been looking 
more at interpersonal attraction and particularly at the advantages of 
being attractive. Plastic Surgeons and counseling psychiatrists are 
concerned with social facility and particularly with the disadvantages 
of being unattractive. The psychiatrist who works with the patients, 
has had the opportunity to see first hand the effect of deformity on 
the personality. I want to concentrate on the dynamics of this effect 
within the social context. 

There are varied reasons why people seek out a Plastic Surgeon. 
They may have experienced long term dissatisfaction with a too large 
nose or a receding chin. There may have been a drastic alteration 
in physical appearance due to accident or disease. Someone may be 
in the throes of an emotional crisis and decide that a breast augmenta- 
tion or a nose bob would improve the situation. Women worried about 
growing old may try to stave the years off by having a face lift. Many 
people want their noses changed in accordance with the preferences of 
the dominant culture; and to prevent their being identified with a 
stereotyped sub-group and exposed to the accompanying prejudices (MacGregor, 
1967). Whatever the reason, these people have the idea that a change in 
appearance will somehow improve their lives and themselves. They are 
often not far wrong. 

Most plastic surgery is done upon the face for as MacGregor has said, 
"Perhaps nothing is so eloquent and significant as the human face." 


(MacGregor, 1951, p. 630). And to add another opinion, "Family and society 
react to any body part of the child but the reaction tends to be greater 
to the facial and genital appearance." (W.M. Easson, 1967, p. 453-459). 
The face is usually the first part of physical appearance that is noticed. 
And since the face is of prime importance, facial deformity would be the 
most significant. A severe burn scar on the shoulder is not as distressing 
as one on the face — if nothing else, the shoulder can at least be covered 
up, the face cannot. Throughout the rest of the chapter, unless otherwise 
specified, any mention of disfigurement should be taken to mean facial 
disfigurement . 

Deformity And The Social Context 

For a long time medical practitioners looked askance at requests for 
cosmetic surgery. Since there was usually no real physical trauma involved 
in a disfiguring facial injury or a congenital deformity, such requests 
seemed superfluous and self-serving. This attitude is changing. Knorr 
and Edgerton write that "the patient who inquires about cosmetic surgery 
may have been more hesitant than most. He's apt to feel guilty about 
his "vanity" and thus needs to be reassured that the desire to be found 
attractive is characteristic of any healthy, normal person." (Knorr and 

Edgerton, 1971, p. 141). And beyond this, Brown points out that " 

there is an increasingly widespread realization among general practitioners 
that defects can do their patients tremendous psychological damage." 
(W.E. Brown, 1970, pp. 12-13). The problem for the disfigured child or 
adult is not impairment of his body but impairment of his social life. 
The deformity becomes associated with negative affect in the face of 


adverse social reactions. What is the nature of these reactions? Mac- 
Gregor describes some of the prejudices that dog people with deformities. 

"Myths and misconceptions regarding the man whose face is scarred 
or misshapen by disease whose expression is distorted or who was 
born with a harelip or without an ear are legion. He has been 
stereotyped in folklore, literature and the movies. He is the 
"evil one" or the gangster; he is diseased or has led an "immoral" 
life; he is a "freak" paying for the sins of his father or for the 
things his mother saw while she was pregnant. He is to be shunned, 
regarded with curiosity, or ridiculed and made a social outcast". 

(F.C. MacGregor, 1951, p. 631) 

This is quite an imposing list. Again and again writers discussing 
the problems of the disfigured indicate that it is other people who 
cause the real damage. Often the hope that a patient places in plastic 
surgery is not to acquire striking good looks but to be less noticeable. 
He wants to attract less attention in the streets and subways, to be 
able to sit on a bus without feeling the necessity of burying his head 
in a newspaper that he doesn't even feel particularly like reading. 
In an article on the social psychological problems associated with 
disability, Meyerson says, 

1) "The problem of adjustment to physical disability is in large 
fact, a problem is creating favorable social situations. 

2) The problem of adjustment to physical disability is as much or 
more a problem of the non-handicapped majority as it is of the disabled 
minority.: (L. Meyerson, 1948, p. 6) 


In an extensive psychosocial study of facial disfigurement and plastic 
surgery, MacGregor and her associates emphasized this role of others in 
creating an uncomfortable social atmosphere for deformed people. One 

of their concluding statements is that " it is the non -handicapped 

who, by their negative attitudes and prejudices, help to create and per- 
petuate many of the difficulties of the facially deformed." (MacGregor 
et al, 1951, p. 216). 

The Self Image 

If at all possible, an effort is made to correct physical defects 
while a child is still young. This prevents his incorporating the defect 
and all of its negative consequences into his developing body and self 
images. In a statement referring directly to ear anomaly but applicable 
to most deformities, Knorr writes: 

"The full effect of the deformity may not be felt until the child 
comes under the influence of peers who may reject ridicule and 
alienate the child as someone diff erent . . . . the impaired self 
image proves substantially more disabling than the physical 
defect." (N. J. Knorr et al , 1968, p. 250). 

Apparently between the ages of 7 and 10, children are less aware of 
deformity; subsequently adolescence is an especially traumatic time for 
a child with any appearance deficiency. The self-image is still developing 
and the need to be accepted by the peer group is stronger than ever. According 
to Brown, " more operations [are] performed while the patient is still in 


his early teens, before there is a chance of the deformity's causing serious 
psychological damage." (W.E. Brown, 1970, p. 69) Knorr says that "The 
adolescent body image is in a constant state of change. These changes must 
gain internal acceptance and also must be sanctioned by the external environ- 
ment." (N.J. Knorr et al, 1968, p. 251) What is involved in these situations 
is essentially a realization of Mead's mirrored-self hypothesis. People 
see themselves through the reactions of others and these reactions, in the 
case of someone who is noticeably unattractive, are not usually good ones. 
As MacGregor aptly puts it, "Not only [are] they daily dismayed by the 
reflection of their own mirrors but, more damaging to their ego esteem, 
they [see] their handicaps reflected in the reaction of others towards 
them." (F.C. MacGregor, 1951, p. 633). Under these circumstances, the 
self image takes quite a battering. 

Personality Problems Associated With Deformity 

Although I have been emphasizing the fact that society's reaction 
to physical deformity is psychologically damaging I have not yet been 
explicit as to what that damage is . Many of the character traits of 
the deformed person represent adaptation to undifficult situations. Some 
handicapped people are able to handle their strained interactions by 
returning stares directed at their deformity or through flippant remarks, 
like the young man with a severe facial disfigurement who when questioned 
about it, would reply, "Oh I stepped on my face going up the stairs" or 
"I got it for sticking my nose in other people's business." (MacGregor et 
al, 1953, p. 84). 

But generally the strain results in a loss of social adeptness. The 
researchers who have done the most with examining and evaluating the psychological 
damage that accompanies damaged appearance are MacGregor on the one hand and 
Knorr and Edgerton on the other. All have been involved in extensive hospital 
studies of plastic surgery patients and their work has revealed basic personality 
syndromes which occurs as a result of physical deformity and the adverse reactions 
to it. In one of her earlier papers, MacGregor describes the personality of 
patients who over a period of time came into the hospital for plastic surgery: 
"The majority of patients suffered from behaviour difficulties which 
ranged from feelings of inferiority, self -consciousness, frustration, 
preoccupation with the deformity, hypersensitivity, anxiety, hostili- 
ty, paranoid complaints and withdrawal from social activities that 
varied from partial to complete, to anti-social behavior and psychotic 
states." (F.C. MacGregor, 1951, pp. 628-629.) 

Later, in publication of the extensive psychosocial study which she 
carried out with a large team of collaboraters, MacGregor lists more outline form 
these common ways facially disfigured people have of adjusting: Withdrawal, agressive- 
ness; putting blame for their faults on external factors such as parents, en- 
vironment and society; using the deformity as inner defense against emotional 
disturbance; and denying the reality of appearance. Knorr and his 
associates made a study of adolescents who for varying reasons were 
about to undergo plastic surgery. Among the group about to undergo 
rhinoplasty, they found that "most prominent are depressive themes 
related to interpersonal relationships." (N.J. Knorr et al, 1968, p. 248) 


The patients with cogenital deformities either tended to overcompensate 
for the deformity through intellectual achievement, or else, lacking 
the ability or situation for that sort of outlet, to show extreme social 
and intellectual retardation. Those who had acquired facial deformities 
(facial scars) showed acute depression with "intense feelings that the 
body has been violated." (N. J. Knorr, et al, 1968, p. 250) 

The Family and the Deformed Child 

The strongest influences that anyone exercises over the child while 
he is still young come initially from the family and after that from 
his peers. I have already cited how the peer group's intolerance of abnormality 
is a reason for having the child undergo surgery as early as possible. 
I have not elaborated on the role the family can play in generating 
symptoms like those listed above. The mother of a deformed child may 
treat the child in one of several ways. She may totally reject him. 
There is one case record (and probably many more which were not recorded) 
where the grandmother of a severely deformed little boy requested that 
the doctor just do away with him shortly after birth. When the request 
was denied the mother took the child home where he was systematically 
starved to death. This of course is an extreme example and most mothers 
do not react in this fashion. However evidence is that there are tensions 
within the family which contribute to the maladjustment of facially deformed 
or disfigured children. 

The 1953 MacGregor Psychosocial study included observation of the 
patients at home and in school. The home studies were fruitful in laying 
bare some of the intra-familial conflicts. MacGregor states that "The 


records of the investigation suggest that not one mother of a congenitally 
deformed child is without feelings of guilt or resentment, or both." It's 
true that the mother as well as her child is open to social criticism for 
having a child "like that". She may wonder if she is being punished or 
what she did to cause her child to be disfigured. She often feels 
ashamed of the child or else sees it as an affront to her. The same 
sorts of feelings will affect other members of the family. The child 
is often either rejected and abused or protected to the point of being 
smothered. W. M. Easson writing about the psychopathological reactions 
to congenital defects points out that "Parents need to have their child 
near the culturally established physical norm; variation, disease and 
deformity tend to be viewed with repugnance and rejection." (W.M. 
Easson, 1967, p. 453) Knorr says that "Parental guilt and anxiety 
over their child's deformity and their need to overprotect their 
child will often lead to pathologic interactions between the child 
and parent." (N.J. Knorr , reprint , p. 185)". .. the emotional investment in the 
physical self, the body image, is to a large part due to the pleasure 
or displeasure emotionally significant people find in the child's 
appearance" (W.M. Easson, 1967, p. 453) Children younger than four 
years old have been observed to cover a deformed ear with their hands 
or to pull and tear at it. It is probable that this action is in 
imitation of the parents who have been able by words and gestures to 
communicate to the child that he has something to hide. (N. J. Knorr 
et al, reprint, p. 184; G. Aufricht, 1957, p. 398) If the parents find 
displeasure in their child's appearance inevitably the child will too. 
Couple this with an attitude of rejection and it is a foregone conclusion 


that the deformed child will have a difficult time at home. As Watser 

and Johnson express it, " the child perceives and imitates parental 

attitudes towards his body and its parts and perceives and imitates 

the defenses against anxiety utilized by the parents." (p. 96) Both Knorr (1968) 
and MacGregor (1953) have found patterns of conflict in the families of 
their patients. Mothers were often openly hostile to their deformed 
child and made a point of comparing him or her to another non-deformed 
sibling . 

Of course these statements are generalizations. Obviously some 
families could better handle the problem of bringingup a disfigured or 
deformed child. But it is safe to say that in any case there will be 
at least some strain, whether minimal or extreme, within the family. 
And even with the best family situation the deformed child still has 
his peers and the rest of the world to contend with. It is no surprise 
that behavioral maladjustments do appear. 

The Benefits of Plastic Surgery 

Plastic surgeons are aware of the problems of those who come under 
their care. The question is whether or not the surgery helps to alleviate 
these problems. The answer seems to be that to a very great extent it 
does. For several reasons, improved physical appearance does improve 
the lives of those who have undergone plastic surgery. In questioning 
female rhinoplasty patients, following surgery, Knorr found the following 
statements true of the majority: 


"1) they would seek surgery again; 2) they felt less psychologically 
inhibited ('freer') after surgery; 3) they gained social confidence; 
4) they became less dependent on the family." (Knorr, 1968, p. 248) 

Patients in the same study, but being treated for congenital deformities, 
generally had modest expectations for surgery. All were pleased with the 
results and experienced increased "self confidence". 

In a John's Hopkins study (cited by Brown, 1970), 55% of the post- 
surgery patients experienced one or more of the following shortly after 
surgery: a new job, marriage, a promotion or raise in salary, a merit 
award, a new close relationship, termination of an old detrimental 
relationship. In addition, 85% developed more personal comfort, less 
personal criticism, better satisfaction with their lives, less self- 
consciousness, more social ease, more self-esteem and greater happiness. 
An interesting statistic mentioned by Brown concerns convicts. Apparently 
"disfigured offenders who do not undergo surgery return to prison at a 
10% higher rate than those who have had cosmetic surgery." (Brown, 1970, 
p. 161). The MacGregor psychosocial study of facial disfigurement revealed 
the following about the post-surgery patients: 

"In some cases there was immediate and marked overt improvement 
from previous social and emotional maladjustment. In many 
instances individual behavior became more spontaneous and this 
resulted in more satisfactory social interaction. . .patients 
claimed that the reactions of other people changed. . .As for 


the patients themselves, feelings of shame, self -consciousness, 
inferiority, and social inadequacy were mitigated, and there 
was a marked rise in self-esteem and self-confidence." (F.C. 
MacGregor et al, 1953, p. 89) (Patients also saw in retrospect that 
their inhibited and constrained behavior had brought on some of the social 
discomfort.) One case study, a woman about 50 years old who had been 
disfigured when the distal portion of her nose was amputated, felt that 
after reconstructive surgery "her status as a 'human being' [was] restored' 

Not all patients in any study were satisfied with the results of 
surgery or felt that their lives had improved sufficiently to warrant 
having had it. However these people usually tended to have some sort 
of personality disorder, to entertain unrealistic expectations or to be 
able to relate to society only through a disability. One type of patient 
that has appeared in enough plastic surgeons' offices to have stimulated 
the writing of several papers is the ambulatory male schizophrenic who 
has had a faulty body image which he keeps trying to change. It is 
interesting, in fact, that the majority of male patients seeking plastic 
surgery (and they are far outnumbered by female patients) are party to 
this syndrome. This is mainly in the case of those asking for cosmetic 
surgery and not reconstructive surgery. Edgerton explains the phenomenon 
this way: "Beauty and handsomeness are recognized as interpersonal 
attributes. These attributes are less important for men than women. 
This contributes to the smaller number of male patients. The male 
patient who seeks cosmetic surgery moves against strong social pred- 
judice." (M.T. Edgerton et al, 1960, pp. 366-367). 


Body Image and Self Image 

In this chapter the definition of body-image that I am employing 
is Cath's: "By body-image we mean that composite picture which the 
individual has of his own body." The proposition is that body image 
is an extremely significant part of the total self-image and that 
deficiencies in it lead to low self-esteem, feelings of social in- 
adequacy and similar deficiencies in the self -concept . Fischer states 
that "the close correlation of specific body image attributes to 
specific classes of social experience is the child's earliest method of 
adjusting to his environment." (M.T. Edgerton et al, 1960, p. 369) If 
the social experience is negative, as is the case with a person who has 
some sort of physical deformity, this will lead to maladjustment in an 
effort to adapt to the negative social environment. It is with his 
body that a child begins to realize the reality of his environment, both 
physical and social. The social milieu remains important throughout life 
with peaks of importance at the time of a child's first extensive peer 
contact and during adolescence. The affective nature of the body image 
comes through social interaction. The reactions of other people to 
physical appearance influences body image and concordantly the self 
image . 

I think that the psychosocial studies of plastic surgery patients, 
people with pronounced facial deformity whether congenital or traumatic, 
are a convincing demonstration of the very powerful effect that physical 
appearance in the active social context can have upon personality and 
self-concept . 



Aufricht, G. , "Philosophy of cosmetic surgery", Plastic and 
Reconstructive Surgery , 1957, 20(5), 397-399- 

Brown, W. E., Cosmetic Surgery , N. Y.: Stein and Day Pub- 
lishers, 1970. 

Cath, S. H., "The role of the body-image in psychotherapy 
with the physically handicapped", Psychoanalytic Rev. , 
1957, lMl), 3U-U0. 

Easson, W. M., "Psychopathological environmental reaction to 
congenital defect", J. Nervous and Mental Disorder , 1967, 
1^2(5), U53-1+59. 

Jacobson, W. E., Edgerton, M. T., Meyer, E., Center, A. and 
Slaughter, R., "Psychiatric evaluation of male patients 
seeking cosmetic surgery", Plast. and Reconstr. Surgery , 
i960, 26(U) , 361-370. 

Knorr, N. J., Hoopes, J. E. and Edgerton, M. T. , "Psychiatric- 
surgical approach to adolescent disturbance in self-image", 
Plast. and Reconstr. Surgery , 1968, 1+1(3), 21+8-253. 

Knorr, N. J. and Edgerton, M. T., "Cosmetic surgery: Not for 
everybody", Consultant , 1971, 11(6), 1+1+-1+6. 

Knorr, N. J., Hoopes, J. E. and Edgerton, M. T., "Psychologic 
factors in reconstruction of the ear, reprint (source 
unknown ) . 

MacGregor, F. C, "Some psycho-social problems associated with 
facial deformities", American Sociological Review , 1951, 
16, 629-638. 

MacGregor, F. C, Abel, T. M., Brut, A., Lauer, E. and 

Weissman, S. , Facial Deformities and Plastic Surgery - 
A Psycho-social Study , Illinois: Charles Thomas 
Publisher, 1953. 

MacGregor, F. C, "Social and cultural components in the 
motivations of persons seeking plastic surgery of the 
nose", J. Health and Social Behavior , 1967, 8(2), 

Meyerson, L. , "Physical disability as a social psychological 
problem", J. Social Issues , 19I+8, (M, 2-10. 

Richardson, S. A., "Some social-psychological consequences 
of handicapping", Pediatrics , 1963, 32, 391-397. 


Watser, E. and Johnson, A. M. , "The emotional significance of 
acquired physical disfigurement in children" , American J . 
Orthopsychiatry , 1958, 28, 85-97- 

IV. Self Image and Body Image in 
the Social Context 


What is more important in life than our bodies or in the 
world than what we look like? 

George Santayana, "My Sister 
Susana", 1944 

Six quiet years.... I had passed at Greenleaf, seeing in those 
around me, as it might be in a looking glass, every stage of my own 
growth and change there. 

Charles Dickens, Bleak House , 
Chapter HI 


Body Image 

In the last chapter I briefly sketched the relationship between 
body image and self image. In this chapter, the concepts will be 
expanded upon in more detail. Cath's definition of body image has 
already been cited. To this I want to add another definition from 
Kaufman and Heims (1958), "It is the ego which perceives the body 
and determines the conscious awareness of its form and function along 
with the associated affects. The totality of this perception and the 
affective association is what we mean by body image." It should be 
indicated here, before continuing, that much of the material on body 
image is based on psychoanalytic theory. (This was evident in chapter 
III with so much of the data coming from psychiatrists notebooks) . 
Because of the Freudian emphasis on body and states of bodily pleasure 
and frustration, it follows that the body image concept would come 
out of and largely draw from that tradition. However I want to employ 
the concept with as few Freudian overtones as possble. For example, 
in the above definition the word "ego" is superfluous. 

Without a doubt, some of the best descriptions of personality can 
be found in novels. The following passage about the child's developing 
awareness of himself comes from Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage : 

"The new-born child does not realize that his body is more a part 
of himself than surrounding objects, and will play with his toes without 
any feeling that they belong to him more than the rattle by his side; 
and it is only by degrees, through pain, that he understands the fact 
of the body. And experiences of the same kind are necessary for the 


individual to become conscious of himself..." 

(Chapter XIII) 

Gordon Allport writes that "Probably the first aspect of selfhood 
to evolve is the sense of a bodily me." (G. W. Allport, 1961, p. 113). 
The body is obviously a very important part of self. The body image can 
be divided roughly into two parts: awareness of physical self in relation 
to the environment and affective awareness of physical self (appearance) 
in relation to the social environment. Chronologically, awareness of 
the body in relation to the environment comes first - the child comes 
to realize that his body is distinct and separate from the environment 
and that it is an active force in the environment. (Allport gives the 
example of a child biting a block and then its finger) . But it is the 
second kind of awareness that I want to deal with. The way that society 
(peers, parents) reacts to physical appearance will consciously or 
unconsciously be incorporated into body image and hence into self-image 
as well. Much social approval or disapproval of the body will not be 
overt - the positive reaction generated by an attractive child may simply 
produce more positive behavior toward the child. But the reaction may also 
take the form of a comment like "My what a pretty little girl" or, in the 
case of a less than attractive child, "I really don't see how Mrs. McAubrey 
could have had such a homely child." Through remarks like this, there will 
be an association of one's appearance with positive or negative affect. The 
most striking examples of this association come with children who have 


deformities. As children grow older, they will also, through expanded 
social experience, become aware of cultural norms for appearance and 
develop an idea of what an ideal body type is. Not measuring up to this 
ideal can be another cause for dissatisfaction with the body. Where the 
attitude toward someone's physical appearance is implied in behavior the 
effect on the self image will be direct and on the body image, indirect; 
where it directly reflects an evaluation of the appearance the initial 
effect is on the body image and correspondingly on the self image. Body 
image and self image are combined in the global awareness of self. The 
combined force of these two ways that physical appearance can influence 
the behavior of people who perceive it is the prime factor shaping the 
body image . 

Cultural Norms 

In order for cultural norms the social reaction to bodily appearance 
to have any salience for a growing child it must be part of a general 
cultural pattern, shared by parents and peers alike. The following pages 
will cover some of the studies that give evidence of such a cultural pattern. 
Then the discussion will turn to the development of self and the connections 
between body image and self image. If the evidence leans more towards 
examples of the implications of physical deviance (deformity, obesity) that 
is because the majority of research with children's judgments of physical 
appearance has leaned in that direction. In fact it seems that unattractive- 
ness is much more tangible for subjects in studies than is attractiveness. 
In my own research with children's perceptions of attractiveness in photo- 


graphed faces the greatest amount of interrater agreement within the two 
groups (4-6 year olds and 10-11 year olds) came with the pictures of 
children who were rated unattractive. There was some disagreement as 
to which of six pictures of boys and six of girls were the most attractive 
but the subjects were almost unanimous in their agreement as to which 
child in each set was the most unattractive. 

Children acquire social standards of attractiveness at a fairly 
early age. Sheldon's tripartite classification of body types (endomorphic, 
mesomorphic and ectomorphic) has been pulled out as a variable in several 
studies that have demonstrated this fact. Lerner and Gallut (1969) showed 
photographs of chubby, average and thin peers to a group of kindergarten 
children (5-6 years old) . Two of the questions they were asked were which 
one they would most like to look like and which one they would least like 
to look like. Although there was no general preference for one particular 
body type there was a general aversion to looking like the chubby child ; 
86% of the children said that that child was the one that they would 
least like to look like. In another study employing the three body types, 
Staffieri (1967) had boys from 6-10 years of age assign 39 personality 
traits in an adjective list to silhouettes representing the three body 
types. He found that the children applied favorable adjectives to the 
mesomorph type and unfavorable adjectives to the endomorph. Also, 
unlike the subjects in the Lerner and Gallut study, most of these 
children said they would prefer to look like the mesomorph type. In a 
major study of the perception of facial beauty in photographs Cross and 
Cross, 0.971) showed that with subjects in four age groups from age 7 through 


adult there were no major differences in judgment due to age. 

So it is around the age of five that children are assuming the standards 
of their culture. The developmental aspects of judgment of physical 
attractiveness in children were studied by Cavior and Lombardi (1973) . 
They took children at four age levels (5 -8-year s-old) and had them rank 
full-length photographs of 11 -and 17-year-olds on their physical attractive- 
ness. Interrater reliability was statistically significant among the 6-year 
olds and by the age of 8 the reliability was at the same level as that shown 
by older comparison groups. Agreement came initially with the photographs 
of children to their own age and increased until they were using the same 
internal standards for older children as well. The authors conclude that 
"What should be emphasised is that the culteral criteria used by older 
persons begin to be acquired at age 6." (Cavior and Lombardi, 1973, p. 69) 

There are a number of examples in the experimental literature of 
agreement among children when rating or otherwise reacting to physically 
disabled children. Centers and Centers (1963) demonstrated that children 
expressed more rejecting attitudes toward an amputee than a non-amputee 
child. Part of the reaction was that an amputee child in a classroom was 
often considered to be the "saddest" child. Richardson et al (1961) asked 
children to rank pictures of children with various disabilities. The order 
the authors hypothesized that they would produce was: 1. no handicap; 
2. crutches and brace; 3. wheelchair; and blanket; 4. left hand missing; 
5. facial disfigurement; 6. obesity. The hypothesis was supported and there 
were no different rankings due to the characteristics of the raters (i.e., race, 
sex, etc.) In a later (and related) study, Goodman et al., cited explicitly 


two factors that they believed important in the acquisition of a pervading 
cultural value. These are the child's exposure to the value and the ability 
of the child to learn the value. Using the same procedure they showed that 
children from subcultures (Jewish and Italian) who had not been exposed to 
the values of the dominant culture and retarded and emotionally disturbed 
children who were not able to assimilate the values produced different 
rank orderings . 

The implications that such values hold for influencing behavior 
and social interaction have not been as thoroughly examined experimentally. 
However there are two studies that can be mentioned. In 1974, Kleck et al 
conducted a camp study to find out the relationship between attractiveness 
and sociometric status (how well a child was known, liked etc.) among the 
children. The subjects were 9-14 year-old boys whose attractiveness had 
been earlier determined by having an independent group of peers rate 
photographs. After two weeks at the camp two groups of high and low 
socially accepted boys were selected by questioning all of the boys as 
to their friendship choices. The results showed that the photographs of 
the five children with the highest social acceptance also occupied the 
first five ranks in the hierarchy of social preference. This is an 
especially important finding in light of the consideration that attractive- 
ness seems to be an important factor in liking even after two weeks of inter- 
action. The authors suggest that the next step is to look for positive 
behaviors that might be associated with physical attractiveness. 


To step away from peer judgments for a moment and turn to adult-child 
judgments, an experiment by Karen Dion (1972) shows how adults may expect 
different behavior from children who are more or less attractive, in other 
words, there are cultural stereotypes which can influence adults so that 
they will perceive attractive and unattractive children differently. The 
adult subjects in the study were given identical case studies of delinquent 
children each of which had a photograph of a child^ previously rated either 
attractive or unattractive in the upper corner. In their judgements of the 
children for the same piece of misbehavior the adults tended to be much more 
harsh in estimating the seriousness of the act when the case referred to an 
unattractive child than when it concerned a more attractive child. They were 
also more likely to see the misdeed as predictive of a life of crime in the 
case of the unattractive child. 

The Self Image 

For present purposes the definition of self image that I am adopting 
is that of a collection of affectively coloured cognitions about non-physical 
(including behavioral) aspects of oneself, incorporating elements like self 
esteem. There has always been controversy over the development of self 
or even what self is. In an attempt to sidestep this labyrinth of theory 
I am employing the above more limited definition. 

The theories of the development of self image that are pertinent here 
are the social origin theories as presented by Cooley and Head. They 
believed that the children develop self awareness through the reactions 


of others; society acts as a form of mirror. In 1902 Cooley wrote: 

"In a very large and interesting class of cases the social reference 

takes the form of a somewhat definite imagination of how one's self - 

that is any idea he appropriates - appears in a particular 

mind and, the kind of self -feeling one has is determined by 

the attitude toward this attributed to that other mind. A 

social self of this sort might be called the reflected or 

looking glass self." 

(C.H. Cooley, Human Nature and the 
Social Order , N.Y.: Schocken Books 
Inc., 1964) 

Applying this to the concept of self image, it follows that attitudes anyone 

holds toward himself are derivative of the attitudes of others toward him. 

A child develops his self image in the presence of his parents first, and 

after that, largely from his peers. Allport (1937) suggests that the strength 

of the influence is partially due to the fact that the child is bound to 

the language of those who are surrounding him. Initially, most prominently 

in the early stages of language development, the child has no concepts to 

apply to himself other than those provided by the parents. This overwhelming 

influence of the parents is part of why the original stages of the developing 

self image remain so important throughout life that adults may often be trying 

to compensate for deficiencies in themselves that no longer exist. There is 

some experimental evidence that supports the fact that parental evaluations 

of their children are correlated with their children's self -evaluations . An 

example is a study by Helper (1958) in which he found small but still positive 

correlations between parents' rating of Favorability and Acceptance and 


their children's rating of Self-Favorability and Self -Acceptance. 

Self Image and Body Image 

It has been stated that body image and self image, as they have been 
defined, both develop out of social experience. The next step is to support 
the earlier claim that body image influences self image. It is possible to 
speak of body image and self image as overlapping, of being incorporated one 
within the other or being simply connected in neighborly fashion. However 
the connection is explained, the two are inter-dependent and intereffective. 
What affects one must necessarily affect the other. Fisher and Cleveland 
(cited in Wylie, 1968) talk about a body image which overlaps the self-concept. 
(Their definition of body image is "the body as a psychological experience, 
focusing on the individual's attitude's toward his own body.") They believe 
these attitudes are largely unconscious. 

Another view is offered by Watser et al (1958) writing about the emotional 
impact of acquired disfigurement on children: 


In the course of growth, development and interpersonal experience, each 

child forms a concept of self. The concept of self, the emotionally invested 
body image, is unique to its possessor since it derives from his own individual 
sensorimotor and affective experiences. Impending or actual traumatic or 
surgical disruption of the body surface represents such a loss and strangeness 
as to constitute a serious threat to basic body ego. The threat temporarily 
disrupts personality integration and evokes hostility with associated anxiety. f 


(Watser et al, 1958, p. 96) 

In this definition, the body image seems to be part and parcel of self image 

and no dividing line is possible. And indeed it is hard to conceive of the 

two as being separate. Rejection of someone because of their physical appearance 

is easily interpreted as rejection of the global self. 

Perhaps the best demonstration of a relationship between body and self 
images comes from work by Jourard and Secord. The terms they employ for 
satisfaction with the body and with the self are body cathexis and self 
cathexis . They found a more or less one-to-one relationship between the 
two. The method they used was to give male and female subjects a body 
cathexis and a self cathexis scale, a homonym test of anxiety-related body- 
cathexis , and the Maslow Test of Psychological Security-Insecurity. The 
authors write that "one of the most significant results is the demonstration 
that the body and the self tend to be cathected to the same degree. This 
supports the hypothesis that valuation of the body and the self tend to 
be commensurate." (Secord and Jourard, 1953, p. 346) In a later publication 
the same two researchers (Jourard and Secord, 1955) found the same correlation 
of self cathexis with body cathexis. They also found that the cathexis measures 
correlated with perceived parental attitudes to the self and the body. This 
is an interesting finding (it would be more convincing if a correlation were 
to be attempted using actual parental attitudes.) There was also evidence that 
each sex had a clear image of ideal body type. Men wished to be bigger than 
the average (taller, more muscular) , women wanted to be smaller than the 
average in all body parts except the bust size. This is more evidence for 
the existence of cultural stereotypes for what is to be considered attractive. 


(And these are stereotypes that clothing designers play along with, producing 
everything from padded bras to padded shoulders.) 


The evidence in this chapter supports the hypothesis that body image 
as composed from the experience gained in social interaction has a clear 
and direct relationship to self image. The implication of this hypothesis goes 
beyond the scope of this chapter but to allude to it I will go back to 
the Kleck (1974) study in which he suggested that what was needed is some 
studies of the behavior associated with attractiveness. This is probably 
the of the more important directions an argument such as the one being 
developed in this paper can take. Whatever a character is that is 
associated with attractiveness or unattractiveness , it will probably be 
a product of self image and of motivations and tendencies developed in 
it as a result of social approval or disapproval of the physical appearance. 



Allport, G. W. , Personality: A Psychological Interpretation , 
N. Y.: Henry Holt & Co., Inc., 1937. 

, Pattern and Growth in Personality , N. Y.: Holt, 

Rinehart & Winston Inc., 1961. 

Cavior, N. and Lombardi , D. A., "Developmental aspects of 
judgment of physical attractiveness in children", 
Developmental Psych. , 1973, 5(l), 67-71. 

Centers, L. and Centers, R., "Peer group attitudes toward the 
amputee child", J. Social Psych . , 1963, 6l, 127-132. 

Cooley, C. H. , Human Nature and the Social Order , N. Y.: 
Schocken Books, Inc., I96U. (orig. pub. 1902). 

Cross, J. F. and Cross, J., "Age, sex, race and the perception 
facial beauty", Devel. Psych. , 1971, 5(3), ^33-^39- 

Dion, K. , "Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children's 
transgressions", J. Pers. and Soc . Psych. , 1972, 2U(2), 

Goodman, N. , Richardson, S. A., Dornbusch, S. M. and Hastorf, A. H., 
"Variant reactions to physical disability", Am. Soc. Rev. , 
1963, 28(3), U29-^35. 

Helper, M. M. , "Parental evaluations of children and children's 
self-evaluations", J. Abnormal and Soc. Psych. , 1958, 
56, 190-19^. 

Jourard, S. M. and Secord, P. F. , "Body cathexis and personality", 
British J. Psych. , 1955, U6 t 130-138. 

Kaufman, I. and Heims , L. , "The body image of the juvenile 
delinquent", Am. J. Orthopsychiatry , 1958, 28, 1U6-159. 

Kleck, R. E., Richardson, S. A. and Ronald, L. , "Physical 
appearance cues and interpersonal attraction in 
children", Child Devel ., 191^, *+5, 305-310. 

Lerner, R. M. and Gallut, E., "Body build identification 
preferences and aversion in children" , Devel. Psych. , 
1969, 1(5), U56-U62. 

Richardson, S. A., Goodman, N. , Hastorf, A. H. and Dornbusch, S. M. , 
"Cultural uniformity in reaction to physical disabilities", 
Am. Soc. Rev. , 1961, 26, 2UI-2U7. 

Staf fieri, J. R. , "A study of social stereotype of body image 

in children", J. Pers. and Soc. Psych. , 1967 , 7(1), 101-lOU. 


Secord, P. F. and Jourard, S. M. , "The appraisal of body cathexis: 
Body-cathexis and the self", J. Consult. Psych. , 1953, 
17(5), 3U6-350. 

Watser, E. and Johnson, A. M. , "The emotional significance of 
acquired physical disfigurement in children" , Am. J. Ortho- 
psychiatry , 1958, 28, 85-97. 

Wylie, R. C, "The present status of self theory", in Borgatta 
and Lamhert , eds . Handbook of Personality Theory and 
Research, Chicago : Rand McNally & Co., 1968. 

V. Summary and Conclusion 


I built this paper on the premise that there has always been a 
human fascination with showing the ways that character is reflected 
in physical appearance, and that there must be some truth underlying 
such a universal and popular belief. The attitude has often been that 
personality sculpts the face in accordance with its own attributes, good 
or bad. A certain narrowness and closeness of the eyes is the metaphorical 
result of a certain narrowness and closeness of character. To some extent 
we are the victims of our own tendencies because although we tell ourselves 
that appearances may be deceiving, we are still easily deceived. One of 
the stock themes in the history of male/female relations concerns the man 
who is taken in by a woman's beauty only to find himself with a shrew on 
his hands . 

What I have been trying to show, however, is that appearances are not 
always deceiving. I put the mass of writing on the subject of physical 
appearance and personality into three categories. The first two - the 
intuitive-observational view common with novelists and physiognomists, 
and the scientific-biological (nativistic) view put forward by Sheldon 
and Kretschmer in their constitutional psychologies - is presented as a 
history. Literature has reflected and encouraged belief. Lavater, 
Gall, Sheldon and the rest tried to analyze the belief and failed. I 
reserve the third approach, the social -developmental (environmental) for 
the remainder of the paper. Since it is the one I consider the most 
reasonable view. It states that any relationship between appearance 
and character is the product of the development of self and body images 
in the social context. 


Social Psychological research on physical attractiveness is the core 
of chapter II and serves as example of the positive effect that physical 
attractiveness has in interpersonal relations. It is suggested that this 
effect is due to positive impressions generated in a perceiver. 

On the other side of the coin is physical unattractiveness, physical 
deformity, which is the subject of chapter III. Material from plastic 
surgeons shows how physical deformity can produce negative reactions in 
other people and how in turn the negative reactions affect self-esteem 
and personality development. 

The final chapter is an elaboration of social origin theories of the 
development of body and self images. The two are closely related and in 
fact inseparable, and so it is that the way significant people (and people 
in general) are influenced by physical appearance (whether they like 
someone's looks, whether they are repelled) can shape personality, the 
realization of the combined body/self image. In the face of staunch 
cultural support of what is attractive and what is not, children may 
walk into a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy which revolves around 
their appearance. I have purposely emphasized the extremes of appearance 
since these are the most easily (and frequently) studied and the most 
salient in social interaction. 

If, as I suggest at the end of the last chapter, attractive and 
unattractive people can be shown to exhibit different behavior, and I 
believe that this is the case, then we have come around full circle 
to an explanation of the connection between physical appearance and 
character, since character is merely the name we give to a set of 

behaviors and potential behaviors. Briefly, character is related to 
physical appearance through the differential effect that social response 
has on a person who is physically attractive or unattractive and the 
behavior he or she displays as a result of this response. 

This statement cannot of course go unqualified. There is a 
thundering herd of variables in the social situation and any attempt 
at producing a simple explanation of a social process is bound to leave 
something out. For example, I have been emphasizing the negative effect 
that physical appearance has on personality. However, since social 
desirability is composed of a number of factors, many unattractive 
people make up for what they lack physically in other areas. Another 
factor that is left out in any assumption of "all other things being 
equal" is the difference in families. There is no reason in the 
world why an attractive child can't develop a faulty personality and 
an unattractive child a healthy one, solely because of the nature of 
interaction within the family. 

There is also a significant difference in the relevance of attrac- 
tiveness for the different sexes. Traditionally, men have been considered 
the shapers of a society while women have merely adorned it. Attractiveness 
for men is more tied up with physique and promise of physical ability while 
for women it is a matter of being decorative; and hence the frantic attention 
to, for example, the facial appearance. (Please note the booming cosmetics 
industry) . This difference has cropped up in a number of studies - dating 
studies where males are more concerned with the appearance of their dates 
than are females; medical documents which show that most plastic surgery 
patients are female and the ones that are male are psychotic and trying 
to cut off their noses to spite their faces; in ratings of physical 
attractiveness where, as in the Cross and Cross (1971) study the most 


positive responses were to female faces. 

But I want to shove this heap of complications and qualifications 
aside. For what it may offer in understanding some part of human 
interactions and personality development, we do respond to physical 
appearance, in greater or lesser degrees, and it is this composite 
social response that leads to any correlations between physical appearance 
and personality. 

Agreement Between Children's Judgements of 

Attractiveness in Photographed Faces 

M. -Somers Knight 

Sweet Briar College 


Allport, G. W. , Personality - a psychological interpretation , U.S.A.: Henry Holt 
and Company, Inc., 1937. 

, Pattern and Growth in Personality , N.Y. : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 

Inc. , 1961. 

Argyle, M. , The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour , Middlesex, England: Penguin 
Books Ltd. , 1967. 

, Social Interaction, London: Methuen and Company, 1969. 

Asch, S. E. , "Forming impressions of personality", J. Abnormal and Soc. Psych. , 
19h6, Ul, 258-290. 

Aufricht, G. , "Philosophy of Cosmetic Surgery", Plast . and Reconstr. Surgery , 
1957, 20 (5), 397-399- 

Barker, R. G. , "The social psychology of physical disability" , J. Social Issues , 
19^5, k, 28-38. 

Berscheid, E. and Walster, E. , Interpersonal Attraction , Reading, Massachusetts: 
Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1969. 

Berscheid, E. , Dion, K. , Walster, E. and Walster, G. W. , "Physical attractiveness 
dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis", J. Exp. Social Psych. , 
1971, 17, 173-189. 

Brown, W. E. , Cosmetic Surgery , N.Y.: Stein and Day Pub., 1970. 

Bruner, J. S. and Tagiuri , R. , "The perception of people", in G. Lindzey ed. , 
Handbook of Social Psychology , Vol. II, Reading, Massachusetts : Addison 
Wesley Publishing Company, 195^, 63h-6^h. 

Bruner, J. S., Shapiro, D. and Tagiuri, R. , "The meaning of traits in isolation 
and combination" in R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo eds., Person Perception and 
Interpersonal Behavior , California: Stanford University Press, 1958, 277-288. 

Byrne, D. , "Continuity between the experimental study of attraction and real life 
computer dating", J. Pers. and Soc. Psych. , 1970, l6, 157-165. 

Byrne, D. and Clare, G. L. , Jr., "Predicting interpersonal attraction towards 
strangers in three different modes", Psychon. Science , 1966, h t 239-2^0. 

Byrne, D. and Nelson, D. , "Attraction as a linear function of proportion of 
positive reinforcements", J. Pers. and Soc. Psych ., 1965. 1> 659-663. 

Byrne, D. , London, 0. and Reeves, K. , "The effects of physical sttractiveness , 
sex and attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction", J. Personality , 
1968, 36, 259-269. 

Cath, S. H., Glud, E. and Blane, H.T. , "The Role of the Body-Image in Psychotherapy 
with the Physically Handicapped", Psychoanalytic Rev. , 1957, 1*+ (l), 3^-1+0. 

Cavior, N. and Lombardi , D. A., "Developmental aspects of judgement of physical 
attractiveness in children", Devel. Psych. , 1973, 5 (l), 67-71. 

Centers L. and Centers R. , "Peer group attitudes toward the amputee child", 
J. Soc. Psych. , 1963, 61, 127-132. 

Combe, G. , Lectures on Phrenology , 18U7, 

Cooley, C. H. , Human Nature and the Social Order , N.Y.: Schocken Books Inc., 
196U. (orig. pub. 1902) 

Cross, J. F. and Cross, J., "Age, Sex, Race and the Perception of Facial Beauty", 
Devel. Psych. , 1973,5 (3), U33->+39. 

Davis, F. , "Deviance Disavowal: the management of strained interaction by the 
visibly handicapped", Social Problems , 9 (2), 120-132. 

Dickens, C, Bleak House, N. Y. : Books, Inc. (orig. pub. 1853) 

Dion, K. , "Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children's transgressions", 
J. Pers. and Soc. Psych. , 1972, 2k (2), 207-2^3. 

Dion, K., Berscheid, E. and Walster, E. , "What is beautiful is good", J. Pers . 
and Soc. Psych. , 1972, 2k, 285-290. 

Duval, S. and Wickland, R. A., A Theory of Objective Self Awareness , N. Y.: 
Academic Press, 1972. 

Easson, W. M. , "Psychopathological environmental reaction to congenital defect", 
J. Nervous and Mental Disorders , 1967 , 1^2 (5), 1 +53- 1 +59- 

Elder, G. H. , Jr., "Appearance and education in marriage mobility", Am. Soc. Rev. , 
1969, 3k, 519-533. 

Farina, A., Sherman, M. and Allen, J. G., "Role of physical abnormalities in inter- 
personal perception and behavior", J. Abn. Psych. , 1968, 73, 590-593. 

Galdos, P., Fortunata and Jacinta , Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1973. 
trans. Lester Clark. (orig. pub. 1887) 

Gergen, K. J., The Concept of Self , N. Y. : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1971. 

Goffman, E. , Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity , Englewood Cliffs, 
N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963. 

Goldstein, J. W. and Rosenfield, H. M. , "Insecurity and preference for persons 
similar to oneself", J. Pers. , 1969, 37, 253-268. 

Goodman, N. , Richardson, S.A., Dornbusch, S. M. and Hastorf, A. H. , "Variant 
reactions to physical disabilities", Am. Soc. Rev. , 1963, 28 (3), ^29-^35- 

Hastorf, A. H. , Richardson, S. A. and Dornbusch, S. M. , "The problem of relevance 
in the study of person perception" in R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo eds . , 
Op. Cit. , 5^-62. 

Hastorf, A. H. , Schneider, D. J. and Polefka, J., Person Perception , Reading, 
Massachusetts: Addison Wesley Pub. Co., 1969. 

Heider, F. , "Perceiving the other person" in R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo eds . , 
Op. Cit. , 22-26. 

Helper, Malcolm M. , "Parental evaluations of children and children's self- 
evaluations", J. Abn. and Soc . Psych. , 1958, 56, 190-19 1 * . 

Jacobson, W. E. , Edgerton, M. T. , Meyer, E. , Canter, A. and Slaughter, R., 

"Psychiatric Evaluation of Male Patients Seeking Cosmetic Surgery", Plast . 
and Reconstr. Surgery , i960, 26 (1+) , 361-370. 

Jane, R. and Hanks, L. M. , Jr., "The Physically Handicapped in Non-Occidental 
Societies", J. Soc. Issues , 19I+8, k, 11-20. 

Jones, E. E. and Gerard, H. B. , Foundations of Social Psychology , N. Y.: J. Wiley 
and Sons, Inc., 1967. 

Jones, E. E. and Thibaut, J. W. , Interaction goals as bases of inference in 
interpersonal perception", in R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo eds., Op . Cit. , 

Jourard, S. M. and Secord, P. F., "Body Cathexis and Personality", Brit. J. Psych. , 
1955, U6, 130-138. 

Kagan, J., Henker, B. A., Hen-Tov, A., Levine, J., and Lewis, M. , "Infants' 

differential reactions to familiar and distorted faces", Child Devel. , 1966, 
37 (3), 518-532. 

Kaufman, I. and Heims, L. , "The body image of the juvenile delinquent", Am. J. 
Orthopsychiatry , 1958, 28, 1^6-159- 

Kleck, R. E. , Ono , H. and Hastorf, A. H. , "The effect of physical deviance upon 
face to face interaction", Hum. Rel. , 1966, 19 (M, 1 +25- 1 +36. 

Kleck, R. E. , Richardson, S. A. and Ronald, L. , "Physical appearance cues and 
interpersonal attraction in children", Child. Devel. , 197^, *+5, 305-310. 

Knorr, N. J., "Feminine loss of identity in rhinoplasty", Archives of Otolaryngology , 
1972, 96, 11-15. 

Knorr, N. J. and Edgerton, M. T., "Cosmetic surgery: Not for everybody", 
Consultant , 1971, 11 (6), kk-k6. 

Knorr, N. J., Edgerton, M. T. and Hoopes, J. E., "The 'insatiable' cosmetic surgery 
patient", Plast. and Reconstr. Surg. , 1967, ^0 (3), 28U-288. 

Knorr, N. J., Hoopes, J. E. and Edgerton, M. T., "Psychiatric surgical approach 
to adolescent disturbance in self image", Plast. and Reconstr. Surgery , 
1968, 1+1 (3), 2^8-253. 

Knorr, N. J., Edgerton, M. T. and Barberie, M. , "Psychologic factors in recon- 
struction of the ear", reprint . 

Kretschmer , E. , Physique and Character . London: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., 
1926, trans. W. J. H. Sprott . 

Lavater, J. C, Essays on Physiognomy , for the promotion of the knowledge and the 
love of mankind, Vol. II, London: G. N. J. and J. Robinson, IT89. 

Lerner, M. J., "Evaluation of performance as a function of performer's reward and 
attractiveness", J. Pers. and Soc . Psych. , 1965, 1, 355-360. 

Lerner, R. M. and Gallert, E. , "Body "build identification preference and aversion 
in children", Devel. Psych. , 1969, 1 (5), 1+56-1+62. 

Lewin, K. , Dembo , T. , Festinger, L. and Sears, P., "Level of Aspiration" in J. McV. 
Hunt ed. , Personality and the Behavior Disorders , Vol. I, N. Y. : Ronald 
Press Co., I9UU . 

Lomax, L. , Physiognomy : How to read character in the face and to determine the 
capacity for love, business, or crime, Philadelphia: the Penn Pub. Co., 1906. 

Loveday, T. and Forster, E. S. trans., "Physiognomonica" , in W. D. Ross ed., The 
Works of Aristotle , translated into English, London: Oxford U. Press, 1913. 

MacGregor, F. C, "Some psycho-social problems associated with facial deformities", 
Am. Soc. Rev. , 1951, 10, 629-638. 

MacGregor, F. C, "Social and cultural components in the motivations of persons 
seeking plastic surgery of the nose", J. Health and Soc. Behav. , 1967, 8 (2), 

MacGregor, F. C, Abel, T. M. , Brut, A., Lauer , E. and Weissman, S., Facial 
Deformities and Plastic Surgery - A Psychosocial Study, Springfield, 111.: 
Charles C. Thomas, Pub., 1953. 

Maugham, W. S., Of Human Bondage , N. Y. : Vintage Books, 1956 (orig. pub. 1915, 
Doubleday and Co. , Inc . ) . 

McKeachie, W. J., "Lipstick as a determiner of first impressions of personality", 
J. Soc. Psych. , 1952, 36, 2UI-2UU. 

Mead, G. H. , Mind, Self and Society , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 193*+. 

Meyerson, L. , "Physical Disability as a Social Psychological Problem", J. Soc. 
Issues , 19*+8, (1+), 2-10. 

Miller, A. G. , "Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation", Psychcn. 
Sci. , 1970a, 21+1-21+3. 

— , "Social perception of internal-external control", Perceptual and Motor 
Skills , 1970b, 30, 103-109. 

— , "Effect of attitude similarity-dissimilarity on the utilization of 
additional stimulus inputs in judgements of interpersonal attraction", 
Psychon. Sci. , 1972, 26, 199-203. 

Mills, Jr., and Aronson, E., "Opinion change as a function of the communicator's 
attractiveness and desire to influence", J. Pers . and Soc . Psych., 1965, 1, 

Richardson, S. A., "Some social-psychological consequences of handicapping", 
Pediatrics , 1963, 32, 391-397. 

Richardson, S. A., Goodman, N. , Hastorf, A. H. , and Dornbusch, S, M. , "Cultural 

uniformity in reaction to physical disabilities", Am. Soc. Rev. , 1961, 26, 2Ul-2l+7. 

Secord, P. F., "Facial features and inference processes in interpersonal perception", 
in R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo eds . , Op. Cit. , 300-315. 

Secord, P. F. , and Jourard, S. M. , "The Appraisal of Body-Cathexis : Body-cathexis 
and the self", J. Consult. Psych. , 1953, 17 (5), 3^6-3^9. 

Sheldon, W. H. , The Varieties of Temperament , N, Y.: Harper and Brothers 
Publishers, 19U2. 

Sigall, H. and Aronson, E. , "Liking for an evaluator as a function of her physical 
attractiveness and the nature of the evaluation", J. Exp. Soc. Psych. , 1971, 
5, 77-91. 

Staf fieri, J. R., "A study of social stereotype of body image in children", 
J. Pers. and Soc. Psych. , 1967, 7, 101-lOU. 

Stroebe, W. , Insko, C. A., Thompson, V. D. and Layton, B. D., "Effects of physical 
attractiveness, attitude similarity and sex on various aspects of inter- 
personal attractiveness", J. Pers. and Soc. Psych. , 1971, 18, 79-91- 

Tagiuri, R. and Petrullo, L. eds., Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior , 
California: Stanford University Press, 1958. 

Walster, E. , "The effect of self-esteem on liking for dates of various social 
desirabilities", J. Exp. Soc. Psych. , 1970, 6, 21+8-263. 

Walster, E. , Aronson, V., Abrahams, D. and Rottman, L. , "The importance of 

physical attractiveness in dating behavior", J. Pers. and Soc. Psych. , 1966, 
h, 508-516. 

Warwick, E., Nasology - or hints towards a classification of noses, London: Richard 
Bentley, 18U8. 

Watser, E. and Johnson, A. M. , "The emotional significance of acquired physical 
disfigurement in children", Am. J. Ortho-Psychiatry , 1958, 28, 85-97. 

Watson, R. I., The Great Psychologists , N. Y.: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1963. 

Wells, S. R., How to Read Character : A new illustrated handbook of phrenology and 
physiognomy, N. Y.: S. R. Wells pub., 1870. 

— , New Physiognomy or signs of character as manifested through temperament 
and external forms, and esp. in 'The Human Face Divine', N. Y.: S. R. Wells 
pub. , 1866. 

Wilcox, J. W. , "A Comparison of Body Image in Selected Facial Plastic Surgery- 
Patients", unpublished master's thesis, University of Virginia, 1973. 

Wishner, J., "Preanalysis of 'Impressions of Personality'", Psych. Reports , I960, 
67, 96-112. 

Wylie, R. C, "The Present Status of Self Theory", in E. F. Borgatta and W. W. 
Lambert eds . , Handbook of Personality Theory and Research , Chicago : Rand 
McNally and Company, 1968. 

Agreement Between Children's Judgements of 
Attractiveness in Photographed Faces 

M. -Somers Knight 
Sweet Briar College 


Subjects in two age groups - 4-6-years old and 10-11-years old - were 
individually shown six photographs of 11-year old boys and six photographs 
of 11-year-old girls by the method of paired comparisons. In a prior 
rating by college age subjects, three attractive photographs of each 
sex had been chosen, and three unattractive photographs had been chosen 
as well. The young subjects were asked to make judgements of the physical 
attractiveness of the stimulus children by stating which child in each 
paired presentation was better looking. Concordance of opinion within 
age groups was highly significant for judgements of both sets of photographs. 
Overall rank orders constructed for the two sets of judgements within each 
age group revealed differences in the ranking of the same photographs 
between the younger and the older subjects, although the rank orders of 
boys' photographs were most highly correlated. Results were interpreted 
as evidence for the existence of cultural standards for assessing attractive- 
ness and tied into a "social response" theory of the connection between 
physical appearance and personality. 

Review of the Literature 

In the history of personality theory there is one large segment encom- 
passing those theories which claimed to have found the true connection be- 
tween personality and body type. The men who made this claim were the phy- 

siognomists , the phrenologists , the constitutional psychologists who said 
that by measuring the nose, the skull or the length of the torso, it was pos- 
sible to come up with an accurate character analysis. T-iese theorists, 
guilty of faulty reasoning, over-generalization or just out-and-out quackery, 
fell by the wayside, remembered only as conspicuous and sometimes monumental 
f ai lures. 

However that does not mean that psychologists have totally discarded the 
possibility that a body- type/personality relation deos exist. Currently the 
most favored explanation is that they are related through the medium of social 
response to physical appearance which in turn influences personality develop- 
ment. Social psychologists like Walster (l c >66), Berscheid (1971)> and Byrne 

1 >) and a host of others have shown that physically attractive people 
are generally liked better than unattractive people. Psychiatrists working 
with plastic surgery patients have found that many of them have problems in 
social adjustment due to adverse social reaction to their deformities. 

In order to make use of the concept of the "social self" to explain how 
social response to physical anpearance can affect the personality, researchers 
must first have some basis for apsuming that there is some sort of consistent 
social response to physical appearance. If there are overriding cultural 
standards for iud :ing attractiveness, they should be increasingly apparent 
in children as their socialization into the culture becomes more complete. 
And this is what the present study set out to demonstrate. 

There have been previous studies within the last 15 years which have dis- 
covered some uniformity in children's judgements of other children in terms of 
physical appearance. The first of these looked at reaction to physical de- 
formity. It was found that young children ranked photographs of peers with 
various physical disabilities in a predictable and consistent (between raters) 

manner. (Richardson et al , 196l). And subjects who had less exposure to the 
cultural value because they belonged to a subgroup or were unable to learn the 

value because of mental disturbance or retardation, produced different rankings 
of the same pictures. (Goodman et al, 1^65) • In a study by Centers and Centers 
(1965) children held more rejecting attitudes toward amputee children than 
to non-amputees. And two researchers (Staffieri, 1967; and Lerner, 1969), 
using three body types (endomorph, mesomorph and ectomorph) found that chil- 
dren 6-10-years old preferred the mesomorphic type and showed general anti- 
pathy to the endomorpiic . 

The fascination of social psychologists with physical attractiveness as 

a variable has not left out children's perceptions either, although the body 
of research is not large. An example is the 197^- paper by Xleck in which he 
demonstrates that boys in a summer camp who had been rated attractive in a 
preliminary rating of their photographs were generally better liked by their 
campmates . Boys who had been iudged unattractive were less well lilced. 

Two studies which have revealed the most about standard cultural values 
nave used different age groups in their samples. Cross and Cross (1971) in 
an extensive study of 'udgement of attractiveness of faces in photographs, 

found no major differences in judgement attributable to age. Their subjects, 
placed in fiur groups, ranged in age from 7 through adult. The study closest 
to the Dresent one in format is one by Cavior and Lombard! ( 1975 ^ which fomises 
on the develoomental aspects of judgement of physical attractiveness. They 
had judges at f-ur age levels (5~3) who ranked full-length photographs of 11- 

and 17-year olds. Agreement was significant among the 6-year olds and increased 

until the 8-year olds showed as ~uch consistency as older comparison groups 
and also produced the same rank order. The changes were interpreted according 

to Piaget's theory of the stage of concrete operations. 

T lis paper is a somewhat altered version of the Cavior and Lombardi study. 

task, the experimenter took the pictures with the highest degrees of 
agreement (from 83 - 100%) and for each sex chose 3 attractive and 3 
unattractive children of the same age, which was 11. 

The result of the sorting was 2 sets (one of each sex) of 6 pictures 
each, labeled at A,B,C,D,E, and F. In each set, pictures of A,B, and C 
had been consistently chosen as being attractive and pictures D,E, and F 
had most often been placed into the category of 'unattractive'. Pictures 
C and F were black children. And the A and D pictures of both sexes 
were blond-haired children while the B and E pictures were dark haired 
children, with the exception of the subject of picture B in the girls' 
set, who was a redhead. 

Each subject went with the experimenter to an area separate from the 
classroom and set apart for the experiment. In the nursery school this was 
a small room next to the play area and in the elementary school it was a large 
open space with a counter on the side which formed the 'hub' for several 
classrooms which opened out into it. The experimenter brought the younger 
subjects to the area; the older subjects reported to the area themselves. 
The method of paired comparison was selected as the one requiring the least 
taxing decision on the part of the subject. With 6 pictures, this meant 
15 pairs of pictures of each sex to be presented. A different random order 
of the pairs was constructed for each subject; for half of the subjects 
the pictures of boys were presented first and for the other half, the pic- 
tures of girls were first. The experimenter and the subject sat next to 
each other at a table or counter and before instructing the subject how 
to go about doing the experiment, the experimenter asked the subject his 
or her name and age. The instructions given to the younger subjects were: 

Okay ( name) , now I'm going to show you some pictures of children just 
a little bit older than you. I'm going to show them to you two at a 
time here on the table and I want you to tell me which one you think 
is prettier (or handsomer). Do you think you can do that? We'll 
begin with pictures of girls (boys) . 

and when about to begin on the second series of pairs, the experimenter 
said: Now we will do pictures of boys (girls) and this time I want you 
to tell me which one you think is handsomer (prettier). 

The instructions given to the older subjects were: 

Okay ( name) , what I'm going to be doing is showing you pictures 
of some people about your age and I want to find out what you 
think about the way they look. I'll show you the pictures two 
at a time right here on the counter and you just point to the 
one you think is the best looking. Okay? Do you have any questions 
before we start? We'll be doing pictures of boys (girls) first 
and then some girls (boys). 

The experimenter laid out each pair of pictures facing the subject and 

waited for the subject to point to the one he or she chose. After 

every 5 pictures, the experimenter repeated, while presenting the 

6th pair, "Now which one of these two do you think is better looking." 

This was done to make sure that the subject kept the purpose of the 

task in mind. The entire procedure took, on average, 12 minutes per 



Two subjects had to be eliminated in the final data analysis. 

One 1 — year old girl claimed to know one of the girls in the photographs 

(well enough to name her) and when one 5-year old boy was judging the 

girls' photographs, in all but three presentations he chose the picture 

on the right side. This left N=20 for 4-6-year olds judging boys' 

photographs (group la); N=19 for 4-6-year olds judging girls (group 

lb); N=24 for 10-11-year olds judging boys (group Ila) ; and N=23 for 

10-11-year olds judging girls (group lib) . 

coeff iciencts is somewhat more difficult to interpret. The younger 
subjects show the most agreement in their judgements of girls' photo- 
graphs and the older subjects are more consistent when it comes to 
evaluating the attractiveness of boys. A possible explanation is that 
since the physical appearances of women are emphasized more than those 
of men in our culture, children would begin to learn the standards of 
judging women first. The depressed coefficient in group lib may be 
the result of other factors, for example, the predominance of females 
in group II and the fact that 11-year old girls are more responsive 
to boys than the reverse. 

The hypothesis that receives very little support in the findings is the 
second part of H^. Particularly in judgements of the girls' photographs 
the two age groups scarcely agree at all. The correlation between rank 
orders of the boys' photographs approaches significance even if it doesn't 
quite attain it. The other correlation is quite small. This seems to go 
contrary to what has been suggested above, for if standards for judging 
female beauty are the first learned then it should be the case that the 
highest agreement would be in these judgements. But there is another 
possible explanation. It may be that there are more complex standards 
for judging women than men. It may be that the difference is attributable 
to the fact that younger children have assimilated some but not all of their 
culture's standards. Thus they would show high agreement among themselves 
because these standards are important and highly emphasized but their 
judgements would not be the same as those of older children because of 
less complete assimilation of cultural standards. The greatest amount 
of disagreement over the girls' pictures is in the rank assigned to 
picture D, a blond, blue-eyed girl designated unattractive by 91% of 

the subjects in the preliminary sorting. In the rank order for the 4-6 
year olds, this picture was ranked first; the fifth graders gave the 
picture fifth place. The difference may make more sense if it is noted 
that the first ranks for both boys' and girls' pictures in the judgements 
of fifth graders belong to blonde blue-eyed children. Western culture 
has always valued the nordic type of beauty. It is probable that young 
children react to conspicuous features like hair color and eye color and 
only as they grow older begin to notice more detailed aspects of physical 
appearance, such as shape of face, size of mouth etc. 

One of the most striking findings here is the total agreement across 
all four sets of judgements as to which of the photographed children (the 
'F' pictures) were the most unattractive. The girl was obese and it is in 
keeping with the findings of earlier studies that she was not favored. 
The boy's picture prompted laughter in a number of subjects, and his 
appearance led to comments like "He looks like a monkey" or "He sure in 
funny looking." In fact, subjects were much more likely to show their 
negative feelings toward the unattractive children (making faces or 
stating their dislike) than they were to acclaim positive ones for an 
unattractive child. Their outspoken judgements are interesting in con- 
trast to the comments of the college age subjects involved in the pre- 
liminary sorting who often stated that they felt sorry or guilty about 
designating a picture as unattractive. There is apparently one cultural 
value that younger children have not picked up yet and that is that it is 
wrong (unfair, undemocratic) to judge people by appearances. 

It would be desirable in the future to have several older comparison 
groups in a study of this sort. And although it is unlikely that demographic 
variables like socio-economic status caused differences in judgements, it 


might be safer to use either all public school or all private school students 
as subjects. It is also possible that although there was no difference between 
the rank ordering by black and by white fifth-graders, the older white children 
may actually have been more favorable toward photographs of black children 
simply because the younger subjects have had less contact with black children. 
Finally, further studies of the perception of physical attractiveness should 
consider the merits of cross cultural comparison. 


The results give clear support to the hypothesis that there are cultural 
standards for judging attractiveness and that these standards are increasingly 
internalized by children as they grow older and are more immersed in their 
culture. These findings give strength to the theory that physical appearance 
and character are related through the social response to physical appearance 
which can influence personality development. 

Table 1 
Coefficients of Concordance 


Sex of . 

w • 


% 2 



4-6 yrs. 





< .01 


• 37 


< .001 


10-11 yrs. 




< .001 




< .001 

Table 2 
Rank Orders of Photographs 

Age Group 
4-6 yrs . 10-11 yrs . 

Sex of 













Berscheid, E. , Dion, K. , Walster, E. and Walster, G. W, , 
"Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of 
the matching hypothesis", J. Exp. Soc. Psych. , 1971, 
IT, 173-189. 

Byrne, D. , London, 0. and Reeves, K. , "The effects of physical 
attractiveness, sex and attitude similarity on interpersonal 
attraction", J. Pers. , 1968, 36, 259-269- 

Cavior, N. and Lomhardi , D. A., "Development aspects of judgement 
of physical attractiveness in children", Devel. Psych. , 
1973, 5(1), 67-71. 

Centers, L. and Centers, R. , "Peer group attitudes toward the 
amputee child", J. Soc. Psych. , 1963, 6l, 127-132. 

Cross, J. F. and Cross, J., "Age, sex, race and the perception 
of facial beauty", Devel. Psych ., 1971, 5(3), 1+33-U39- 

Goodman, N., Richardson, S. A., Dornbusch, S. M. and Hastorf, A. H. , 
"Variant reactions to physical disabilities", Am. Soc . Rev. , 
1963, 28(3), U29-U35. 

Kleck, R. E., Richardson, S. A. and Ronald, L. , "Physical 

appearance cues and interpersonal attraction in children , 
Child Devel. , 197^, ^5, 305-310. 

Knorr, N. J., Hoopes , J. E. and Edgerton, M. T., "Psychiatric- 
surgical approach to adolescent disturbance in self- image", 
Plast. and Reconstr. Surg. , 1968, Hl(3), 2U8-253. 

Lerner, R. M. and Gallert , E., "Body build identification 
preference and aversion in children" , Devel. Psych. , 
1969, 1(5), U56-1+62. 

Richardson, S. A., Goodman, N. , Hastorf, A. H. and Dornbusch, S. M. , 
"Cultural uniformity in reaction to physical disabilities", 
Am. Soc. Rev. , 196l, 26, 2U1-2U7. 

Siegel, S., Nonparametric Statistics , for the behavioral sciences, 
N. Y.: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1956. 

Staffieri, J. R., "A study of social stereotype of body image 

in children", J. Pers. and Soc. Psych. , 1967 , 7(1 ), IOI-IOU. 

Walster, E. , Aronson, V., Abrahams, D. and Rottman, L. , 

"Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior", 
J. Pers. and Soc. Psych. , 1966, 5, 508-516. 


.j 28-94 45190