On the Competing Roles of Attractiveness and Group Membership In

On the Competing Roles of Attractiveness and Group Membership in Person Evaluations by Laura Tian A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology University of Toronto © Copyright by Laura Tian 2017 On the Competing Roles of Attractiveness and Group Membership in Person Evaluations Laura Tian Master of Arts Department of Psychology University of Toronto 2017 Abstract Individual preferences notwithstanding, studies on physical attractiveness have suggested that people largely agree about others’ attractiveness and favor attractive individuals. Though this attractiveness halo represents one of the strongest influences over social behavior, psychological literature has documented other robust biases as well. For instance, favoritism towards members of one’s own group guide much of a person’s thoughts and actions. Here, I investigated what happens when these two biases collide by examining how attractiveness affects implicit and explicit evaluations of ingroup and outgroup members. I hypothesized that group membership biases would cede to attractiveness biases; participants would prefer attractive individuals irrespective of group membership. However, whereas the results of Implicit Association Tests showed that participants’ evaluations of ingroup and outgroup targets differed more by group membership, semantic differential scales showed that explicit evaluations differed more by attractiveness levels. A person’s attractiveness and group membership therefore seem to separately affect others’ evaluations. ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank: my supervisor, Nick Rule, whom I will never feel deserving of; my lab mates, for their support day in and day out; my graduate cohort, for sharing my successes and struggles; my parents, for everything; my family and friends, who often feel like one and the same; Kirsti Toivonen, the rock on which I have built my achievements; my thesis committee, for their encouraging, kind words and guidance; and all the teachers, professors, teaching assistants, and faculty members that have allowed me to pursue my academic dreams. iii Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….. ii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………… iii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………... iv List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………. v List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………… vi List of Appendices…………………………………………………………………………. vii Chapter 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………..………… 1 Models of Impression Formation……………………………………………………….. 3 Group Membership Biases……………………………………………………………... 3 The Malleability of Group Membership Biases………………………………………... 5 Physical Attractiveness Biases…………………………………………………………. 6 Combining Physical Attractiveness Biases and Group Membership Biases…………... 8 The Present Study………………………………………………………………………. 9 Chapter 2. Study 1A………………………………………………………………..……… 10 Method………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 Participants and Design……………………………………………………………. 10 Stimuli……………………………………………………………………………... 11 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………… 12 Procedure………………………………………………………………………….. 12 Results………………………………………………………………………………..… 13 Implicit Evaluations……………………………………………………………….. 13 Explicit Evaluations……………………………………………………………….. 14 Discussion……………………………………………………………………………… 14 Chapter 3. Study 1B……………………………………………………………...………... 15 Method…………………………………………………………………………………. 15 Participants and Design……………………………………………………………. 15 Procedure………………………………………………………………………..… 15 Results……………………………………………………………………………….…. 15 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………….... 16 Chapter 4. Study 2…………………………………………………………………..…….. 18 Method…………………………………………………………………………………. 18 Participants and Design…………………………………………………………… 18 Stimuli…………………………………………………………………………….. 19 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………... 19 Procedure…………………………………………………………………………. 19 Results…………………………………………………………………………………. 20 Implicit Evaluations………………………………………………………………. 20 Explicit Evaluations………………………………………………………………. 21 Discussion……………………………………………………………………………... 21 Chapter 5. General Discussion………………………………………………..…………... 22 Implications……………………………………………………………………………. 23 Limitations and Future Directions……………………………………………………... 24 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………... 25 References………………………………………………………………………………… 27 Supplemental Materials…………………………………………………………………… 49 iv List of Tables Table 1. Target Attractiveness Ratings…………………………………………………… 40 Table 2. IAT Blocks for Study 1A and 2…………………………………………………. 41 Table 3. Words Used in IAT……………………………………………………………… 42 v List of Figures Figure 1. …………………………………………………………………………………… 43 Figure 2. …………………………………………………………………………………… 44 Figure 3. …………………………………………………………………………………… 45 Figure 4. …………………………………………………………………………………… 46 Figure 5. …………………………………………………………………………………… 47 vi List of Appendices Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………… 48 vii 1 Chapter 1 Introduction In the ancient Greek tragedy Medea, Euripides dramatizes the harrowing story of a handsome barbarian princess, who seeks revenge after her husband, the Greek hero Jason, abandons her to marry a proper Greek bride. Many centuries later, the Italian composer Puccini would tell a strikingly similar story. In Madama Butterfly, a naïve Japanese girl awaits the return of her American husband, only to discover that—during his absence—he has taken an American wife. As with all great works of art, these stories continue to resonate with audiences because they reveal a fundamental truth about human nature. Thematically, these works suggest that— despite their beauty and youth—neither heroine could overcome her husband’s deep-rooted contempt for her foreign heritage. Yet, oft-repeated legends of women like Helen of Troy would maintain that with great beauty comes great power. These stories therefore raise the question of whether powerful traits, such as attractiveness, can ever counteract the effects of group membership biases, or whether group membership reigns supremely over social judgment. Numerous psychology studies attest to the power of beauty. Rather than being in the eye of the beholder, for instance, research suggests that most people agree on who they deem to be physically attractive (Coetzee, Greeff, Stephen, & Perrett, 2014; Langlois et al., 2000; Maret & Harling, 1985). Moreover, those considered attractive by others reap tremendous social, financial, and health benefits (Dion & Berscheid, 1974; Frieze, Olson, & Russell, 1991; Farina et al., 1977), making the attractiveness halo effect one of the most powerful governing influences of interpersonal behavior (for reviews, see Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991; Langlois et al., 2000; Ritts, Patterson, & Tubbs, 1992). 2 Yet, people show heady preferences for those who share their group membership. Group membership biases—perceptual and evaluative biases based on social categories such as race, gender, age, religiosity, and political affiliation—take root quickly and resist disconfirmation (Allport & Ross, 1967; Brewer, 1999; Cohen, 2013; Nelson, 2005; Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995). People attach strong positive associations to those who share similar social identities and disparage those who do not (Hewstone, Rubin, Willis, & 2002; Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992). Regrettably, these biases are the basis of much intergroup conflict and have immeasurable social consequences—prompting many researchers to search for ways in which these biases might be mitigated. Given the importance of attractiveness to person perception and the strength of its biases, attractiveness may counteract biases associated with group membership. I therefore investigated the intersection of physical attractiveness and group membership biases to rank the influence of one over the other. Whereas models of impression formation and the literature on intergroup biases have traditionally suggested that group membership biases are salient and resilient to change (Brewer, 1988; Dovidio & Fazio, 1992), more recent findings suggest that they are more malleable than previously believed (Blair, 2002). Thus, I hypothesized that the attractiveness biases would overpower intergroup biases, leading people to evaluate attractive individuals more positively regardless of their group membership. However, this may depend on the nature of that evaluation. Although contemporary society admonishes negative attitudes towards others based on both how they look and the groups to which they belong, the latter typically carries greater censure because it can lead to systematic discrimination and social unrest (Beck, Reitz, & Weiner, 2002; Devine, Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, & Vance, 2002). Participants may therefore reveal biases favoring 3 attractive people in their explicit reports but nevertheless demonstrate favoritism towards ingroup members when evaluating them implicitly. Hence, I measured both explicit and implicit evaluations to explore potential ranking differences as a function of its level of disclosure. Models of Impression Formation Brewer (1988) theorized that people use two processes to form impressions of others. Upon automatically identifying targets’ social dimensions (gender, age and skin color), the perceiver processes the target in either a top-down (i.e., according to the person’s social category) or bottom-up fashion (i.e., according to the individual’s social attributes). Fiske and Neuberg (1990) offered an alternative roadmap for how impressions form. They suggested that Brewer’s dual processes might span a continuum that begins with categorization

Load more