On the Competing Roles of Attractiveness and Group Membership In

On the Competing Roles of Attractiveness and Group Membership in

Person Evaluations

Laura Tian

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology University of Toronto

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.

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

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

List of Figures Figure 1. …………………………………………………………………………………… 43 Figure 2. …………………………………………………………………………………… 44 Figure 3. …………………………………………………………………………………… 45 Figure 4. …………………………………………………………………………………… 46 Figure 5. …………………………………………………………………………………… 47

List of Appendices Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………… 48

vii

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).

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 and ends with analyses of the target’s specific attributes.

Both Brewer’s dual-process model and Fiske and Neuberg’s continuum model stress that category-based processes generally take priority over attribute-oriented processes. Accordingly, they agree that people automatically and implicitly extract social category information pertaining to “privileged” dimensions (e.g., age, race, and gender) during the earliest stages of impression formation. The result of this perception then determines their motivation to form a more detailed impression. Thus, social category biases should affect impression formation more than individuating information (such as an individual’s level of attractiveness) unless the perceiver is motivated to develop a deeper understanding of the target, or if the targets’ attributes cannot be pigeonholed into any known categories.

Group Membership Biases

Until recently, literature on group membership has agreed with impression formation models. Most evidence suggests that group membership biases appear early in the person

4 perception process. People often instantly and automatically extract social category or group membership information when perceiving others (Neuberg & Sng, 2013), which allows this information to influence how subsequent cues—such as facial affect (Hugenberg &

Bodenhausen, 2003), speech (Popp, Donovan, Crawford, Marsh, & Peele, 2003), and behavior

(Sagar & Schofield, 1980)—are processed and interpreted (Dovidio & Fazio, 1992; Greenwald,

Oakes, & Hoffman, 2003). Early findings also show that people are more likely to recall individuating information consistent with social group biases than to recall inconsistent information (Lui & Brewer, 1983), implying that group stereotypes may be difficult to discount once activated. And, as demonstrated by the fact that group membership biases can spontaneously arise for novel and arbitrary groups (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Brewer, 1979), people seem cognitively ready to identify and use group membership information when forming impressions of others.

Furthermore, differentiating between ingroup members (those who belong to the same social groups) and outgroup members (those who belong to different social groups) is a key component of group membership processes. This distinction leads people to form beliefs and attitudes that paint ingroup members in a favorable light and derogate outgroup members through negative biases and stereotypes (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002; Tajfel, 1979; Riek,

Mania, & Gaertner, 2006). Once formed, these intergroup biases can be difficult to undermine.

Incredibly, Urada, Stenstrom, and Miller (2007) found that the effects of outgroup derogation are so great that two ingroup memberships are often required to offset a negative bias from one outgroup membership. Moreover, ingroups and outgroups respectively take on strong positive and negative affective associations. Upon meeting ingroup members, people feel more empathetic, trusting, and friendly (Brewer, 1999; Brown, Bradley, & Lang 2005; Stürmer,

Snyder, Kropp, & Siem, 2006), whereas outgroup members often evoke feelings of anxiety, disgust, and fear (Buckels & Trapnell, 2013; Stephen & Stephen, 1985). Taken together, these findings have led to researchers deduce that—because individuals quickly become invested in meaningful and arbitrary group memberships—group membership biases must be highly resilient to change.

The Malleability of Group Membership Biases

Yet, in spite of impression formation models and intergroup literature, more recent research has argued that group membership biases are more malleable than previously believed

(Blair, 2002; Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001; Devos, 2008; Echabe, 2013). Far from being unyielding, several studies have demonstrated that situational context, perceiver motivations, and perceiver traits are all factors that can influence and mitigate intergroup biases (Devine, 1989;

Lepore & Brown, 1997). More important, however, not all group members evoke the same biases, or evoke these biases to the same degree.

For instance, intergroup biases differ depending on whether experimenters use positive or negative exemplars to represent the group. Specifically, Govan and Williams (2004) found that they could effectively eliminate implicit racial biases if they asked White participants to categorize names of admired Black individuals (e.g., Michael Jordan, Eddie Murphy) and disliked White individuals (e.g., Charles Manson, Hannibal Lechter). Likewise, Richeson and

Trawalter (2005) reported that White participants were slower to categorize admired Black individuals and disliked White individuals by race—implying that a group exemplar’s likeability may help or hinder social categorization.

Therefore, although intergroup biases may wield a large influence on impressions, these biases do not always dominate evaluations. This is especially evident in cases where targets

6 belong to multiple social categories—some of which elicit conflicting stereotypes. For instance, people may feel conflicted by the contradictory gender and race stereotypes associated with

Black females. Although Black individuals are often negatively stereotyped as “aggressive,”

“brutish,” and “dominant” (Amodio & Devine, 2006; Gaertner & McLaughlin, 1983), females are positively characterized as “gentle,” “refined,” and “submissive” (Eagly & Mladinic, 1989).

Since race and gender are both perceptually obvious, “privileged” categories, it is not immediately clear how perceivers reconcile these contradictory biases.

On one hand, one cue may dominate evaluations (Macrae, Bodenhausen, & Milne, 1995):

If gender dominates impressions, perceivers would evaluate Black females positively, whereas if race dominates impressions, Black females would elicit mostly negative evaluations.

Alternatively, perceivers may also treat multiple cues additively (Anderson, 1965, 1971, 1974).

As proposed by the double jeopardy hypothesis, people doubly penalize individuals who belong to multiple outgroups (Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Chappell & Havens, 1980; Dowd & Bengton,

1978; Kinzler, Shutts, & Correll, 2010; Stangor, Lynch, Duan, & Glas, 1992; for a review, see

Kang and Bohenhausen, 2014).

However, few studies have looked at whether “individualistic” traits can negate group membership biases. This is perhaps because, according to impression formation models, perceivers should disregard traits such as physical attractiveness when they are not motivated to form in-depth impressions—which is often the case when encountering outgroup members

(Judd, Park, Yzerbyt, Gordijn, & Muller, 2005; Park & Rothbart, 1982).

Physical Attractiveness Biases

Unlike other traits, however, attractiveness exerts robust and widespread effects on our impressions of others. Just as people often automatically categorize individuals by group

7 membership, people cannot help but judge the attractiveness of others (Van Leeuwen & Macrae,

2004; Zhang, Zheng, & Wang, 2016). Olson and Marshuetz (2005), for example, observed that participants judged facial attractiveness in 100 ms, and that these judgments subsequently biased perceptions of gender typicality, employability, and cooperativeness (Locher, Unger, Sociedad,

& Wahl,1993). Similarly, even when people are presented with severely degraded facial information (e.g., blurred photos or concealed facial features), their attractiveness ratings are surprisingly consistent with ratings of high-resolution face photos shown in their entirety (Sadr,

Fatke, Massay, & Sinha, 2002). Infants also show preferences for more attractive faces, which suggests that attractiveness standards and biases are less socio-culturally dependent than commonly believed (Coetzee et al., 2014; Cunningham, Roberts, Barbee, Druen, & Wu, 1995;

Ramsey, Langlois, Hoss, Rubenstein, & Griffin, 2004; Slater et al.,1998). Indeed, the mounting social, cognitive, and neurobiological evidence suggests that attractiveness may be one of the few individualistic traits salient enough to contend with intergroup biases.

Moreover, a wealth of literature suggests that attractiveness biases are by and large halo effects: Langlois and colleagues’ (2000) compilation of 11 meta-analyses concluded that people judge and treat attractive children and adults more favorably. The widely held belief that attractive individuals are more sociable, intelligent, moral, and honest leads to countless social consequences in everyday life and in society writ large (Eagly et al., 1991; Paunonen, 2006;

Tsukiura & Cabeza, 2010; Zebrowitz, Hall, Murphy, & Rhodes, 2002). Attractiveness predicts the success of electoral candidates (Verhulst, Lodge, & Lavine, 2010; White, Kenrick, &

Neuberg, 2013; Zebrowitz, Franklin, & Palumbo, 2015), evaluations in pedagogical contexts

(Lerner & Lerner, 1977; Salvia, Algozzine, & Sheare, 1977), peer preferences in children

(Langlois, & Stephan, 1997), and criminal sentencing decisions (Stewart, 1980). More important

8 still, the positive biases associated with attractiveness directly contradict the negative biases associated with many outgroups.

Combining Physical Attractiveness Biases and Group Membership Biases

As with multiple group memberships, indirect evidence suggests that attractiveness may interact additively with group membership (Park & Kennedy, 2007), and in some cases, supersede group membership altogether. When Benson, Karabenick, and Lerner (1976) observed the behavior of White adults who happened upon misplaced graduate school applications, they found that strangers were more likely to help attractive Black applicants than to help unattractive

White applicants. Similarly, Maruyama and Miller (1980) discovered that when participants scored the essays of Black and White students, the students’ facial attractiveness, but not race, predicted essay scores. Although the authors may have not found an effect of race because the participants wanted to appear unprejudiced (i.e., social desirability biases; Maruyama & Miller,

1980), racial biases may also have ceded to the powerful effects of attractiveness.

More recently, however, Agthe, Strobel, Spörrle, Pfundmair, and Maner (2016) reported that attractiveness halos only affected people’s desire to interact with opposite-sex, own-race individuals. The authors ground their findings in an evolutionary framework, arguing that only individuals of the same race activate attractiveness biases because these biases stem from intragroup mating motivations. Yet, considering that people automatically judge the attractiveness of outgroup members, and exhibit attractiveness biases in nonromantic situations

(Benson, Karabenick, & Lerner, 1976; Locher et al., 1993, Maruyama & Miller, 1980), I contend that attractiveness biases generalize widely and extend to outgroup members as well.

The Present Study

Thus far, literature from person perception research suggests that attractiveness biases may be able to compete with intergroup biases. To investigate this possibility, I examined how people evaluate ingroup and outgroup members of differing attractiveness levels. Given that people may be reluctant to explicitly derogate outgroup members—especially those of a different race—I asked participants to complete an Implicit Association Test (IAT) to probe whether their evaluations of Black and White targets differed as a function of attractiveness level. As a secondary, exploratory analysis, participants rated the same targets on a more explicit measure

(i.e., semantic differential scales; Study 1a and Study 1b). To generalize these results to social groups beyond racial groups, I also conducted the study using experimentally created groups

(Study 2). I hypothesized that attractiveness would take precedence over group membership biases, such that perceivers would evaluate attractive outgroup members more positively than unattractive ingroup members. Moreover, I also hypothesized that attractiveness would have a larger effect on evaluations than group membership.

Chapter 2 Study 1A

As demonstrated in the literature, attractiveness biases are nearly ubiquitous. They influence perceptions of job applicants, peers, students, politicians, and romantic interests

(Benson, Karabenick, & Lerner, 1976; Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979; Langlois et al., 2000).

Thus, it is somewhat surprising that studies on attractiveness biases on outgroup members have yielded mixed results. Whereas indirect evidence suggests that participants apply attractiveness biases to racial outgroup members (Benson, Karabenick, & Lerner, 1976; Maruyama & Miller,

1980), Agthe and her colleagues (2016) have recently found that attractiveness biases are activated exclusively for those of the same race.

If physical attractiveness biases do outrank group membership biases, this may indicate that an individualistic trait, such as attractiveness, can mitigate automatic intergroup biases.

Alternatively, if automatic racial biases are not mitigated by attractiveness, then this would suggest that—despite the robust halo effects of attractiveness—group membership information is ultimately prioritized during impression formation. In Study 1A, I investigated these questions by examining how White participants implicitly and explicitly evaluate White and Black targets of differing attractiveness levels.

Method

Participants and Design. I recruited 92 White participants (50 men, 42 women; Mage =

38.03 years, SD = 10.83) residing in the U.S. from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Given that previous race-based IAT studies have shown large effect sizes for White perceivers (r = .46;

Sabin, Rivara, & Greenwald, 2008), a power analysis indicated that the sample size was

11 sufficient to achieve more than 95% power for a two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance with a 5% false-positive rate.

I compensated participants $2.50 USD for completing the task, which took approximately half an hour and followed a 2 (Target Race: Black, White) × 3 (Target Attractiveness Level: attractive, average, unattractive) fully within-subjects design.

Stimuli. Targets consisted of 30 Black and 30 White headshot photographs of men and women posing neutral expressions without accessories (e.g., eyeglasses or piercings) from the

Chicago Face Database (Ma, Correll, & Wittenbrink, 2015). Using the database’s norming data, I selected targets perceived to be between 18 to 36 years old to prevent age from confounding attractiveness, as previous studies have shown that youth positively relates to attractiveness

(Henss, 1991; Jones & Hill, 1993; Sutherland et al., 2013).

Each level of Target Attractiveness consisted of 10 Black targets and 10 White targets, categorized according to the mean attractiveness data included in the database for each racial and gender group. Specifically, attractive targets consisted of those rated as at least one standard deviation above the group mean, average targets consisted of those within half of a standard deviation from the mean, and unattractive targets consisted of those at least one standard deviation below the mean (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics of target attractiveness ratings by race).

I cropped the target photos at the top of the head, bottom of the chin, and extremes of the ears, and then proportionally resized the photos to 250 pixels wide. The attractiveness ratings did not significantly differ between the Black and White targets overall, t(58) = 0.69, p = .50, d =

0.18, or between Black and White targets at each Target Attractiveness level, F(2, 54) = 0.12, p

2 = .89, ηp = .05.

Data Analysis. To measure the participants’ implicit evaluations, I calculated the IAT D scores following Greenwald, Nosek, and Banaji’s (2003) suggestions—deleting trials with response latencies greater than 10,000 ms and excluding altogether participants who responded faster than 300 ms on more than 10% of trials. I then computed mean latency differences between the positive and negative blocks, such that positive D scores indicated more positive valence evaluations and negative D scores indicated more negative valence evaluations, and divided the mean latency differences by the standard deviations inclusive across all of the positive and negative blocks to produce D scores for each Target Race × Target Attractiveness condition. I conducted all main data analyses using participants as the unit of analysis (see

Supplemental Materials for alternative multilevel mixed-effects analyses in which targets constitute the unit of analysis and attractiveness ratings substitute for attractiveness categories).

To measure the participants’ explicit evaluations, I averaged the four semantic differentiation scales of perceived goodness, pleasantness, honesty, and niceness to create a

Likeability measure (Cronbach’s α = .99). I then standardized the ratings to a normal distribution such that negative values represented stronger negative associations whereas positive values represented stronger positive associations.

Procedure. Participants first completed a screening questionnaire on Qualtrics that included demographics questions asking for age, race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status (household income and subjective social class), and country of residence. The survey deemed participants eligible for the study if they identified as White and resided in the US. After completing the questionnaire, the survey directed participants to the race IAT via a Web link hosted by Inquisit v4.0.

Following standard procedures (e.g,, Greenwald, McGee, & Schwatz, 1998), the IAT asked participants to categorize targets as Black or White and words as positive or negative.

Participants first completed two practice blocks in which they categorized only targets or words before completing two test blocks in which they categorized both (see Table 2). The first test block consisted of 30 target faces (15 Black, 15 White) and 30 written attributes (15 positive, e.g., marvelous, amazing; 15 negative, e.g., horrible, dreadful; see Table 3 for a complete list of attributes) whereas the second test block consisted of 60 target faces and 60 attributes.

Participants then practiced categorizing the stimuli with reversed key mappings and completed a second pair of test blocks using the reversed response keys. I randomly assigned participants to first complete the compatible test block (i.e., Black faces and negative words sharing the same response key) or to first complete the incompatible test block (i.e., Black faces and positive words sharing the same response key).

After the IAT, participants explicitly evaluated each target by indicating the degree to which they believed the target was “Good–Bad”, “Pleasant–Unpleasant”, “Honest–Dishonest”, and “Nice–Awful” along 7-point Likert-type scales.

Results

Implicit evaluations. The participants’ IAT D scores showed significant main effects of

2 Target Race, F(1, 91) = 47.04, p < .001, ηp = .34, and Target Attractiveness, F(2, 182) = 3.52, p

2 2 = .03, ηp = .04, but no interaction between the two, F(2, 182) = 0.83, p = .44, ηp = .01.

Specifically, participants evaluated White targets (M = 0.30, SD = 0.54) more positively than

Black targets (M = -0.29, SD = 0.56), and attractive targets (M = 0.06, SD = 0.55) more positively than average targets (M = 0.00, SD = 0.52) and unattractive targets (M = -0.04, SD =

0.58).

Explicit evaluations. The participants’ explicit evaluations significantly differed

2 according to Target Attractiveness, F(2, 182) = 166.54, p < .001, ηp = .65, but not Target Race,

2 F(1, 91) = 1.52, p = .22, ηp = .02. Moreover, Target Race and Target Attractiveness significantly

2 interacted, F(2, 182) = 13.15, p < .001, ηp = .13. Sidak corrected simple effects tests showed that participants evaluated attractive Black targets (M = 0.62, SD = 0.79) more favorably than attractive White targets (M = 0.45, SD = 0.86; t(91) = 1.98, p = .05, d = 0.42), and average Black targets (M = 0.23, SD = 0.92) more favorably than average White targets (M = 0.01, SD = 0.78; t(91) = 2.45, p = .02, d = 0.51). But participants did not discriminate between unattractive Black

(M = -0.71, SD = 0.94) and unattractive White targets (M = -0.61, SD = 0.91; t(91) = -1.29, p =

.20, d = -0.27).

To explicate the relative contributions of Target Race and Target Attractiveness more clearly, I subsequently compared the effect sizes of each factor. This showed that the difference based on Target Race significantly exceeded that based on Target Attractiveness for implicit evaluations, z = 4.62, p < .001, but that the difference based on Target Attractiveness significantly exceeded that based on Target Race for explicit evaluations, z = 9.65, p < .001.

Discussion

Because Study 1A and Study 1B used similar methods and showed a similar pattern of results, the discussion of both studies follows Study 1B.

Chapter 3 Study 1B

Given that I initially included the explicit measures as an exploratory measure, participants completed the implicit measure before the explicit measure. Recognizing that task order effects may have influenced explicit evaluations, I replicated the explicit evaluations with another participant sample. Because participants completed the IAT first, task order could not have influenced the results and consequently I did not replicate the race IAT.

Method

Participants and design. I recruited 80 U.S. raters (34 men, 46 women; Mage = 35.33 years, SD = 11.43) from MTurk. Participants were compensated $1.50 USD and completed the task in approximately 15 minutes. As in Study 1A, participants rated 30 Black and 30 White targets on four semantic differentiation scales. Given the typical effect sizes in social psychology research (r = .21; Richard, Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003), I conducted a power analysis that indicated that the sample size was sufficient to achieve more than 95% power for detecting an interaction with a two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance with a 5% false-positive rate.

Procedure. For Study 1B, I asked an independent set of participants to explicitly evaluate the targets from Study 1A. Participants rated each target as “Good–Bad,”, “Pleasant–

Unpleasant,” “Honest–Dishonest,” and “Nice–Awful” along 7-point Likert-type scales.

Results

As in Study 1A, I standardized the Likeability scores to a normal distribution. Using participants as the unit of analysis, I found no significant effect of Target Race, F(1, 79) = 0.49,

2 p = .49, ηp = .01, but a significant effect of Target Attractiveness, F(2, 158) = 146.22, p < .001,

2 ηp = .65. I also found a significant interaction between Target Race and Target Attractiveness,

2 F(2, 158) = 7.88, p < .01, ηp = .09. Simple main effect tests with Sidak corrections revealed that participants showed a marginal preference for average Black targets (M = 0.14, SD = 0.91) over average White targets (M = -0.05, SD = 0.81; t(79) = 1.95, p = .06, d = 0.44), but that participants did not discriminate between attractive Black (M = 0.55, SD = 0.96) and attractive

White targets (M = 0.52, SD = 0.80; t(79) = 0.32, p = .75, d = 0.07), or between unattractive

Black (M = -0.60, SD = 0.96) and unattractive White targets (M = -0.56, SD = 0.90; t(79) = -

0.50, p = .62, d = 0.11).

Although the analyses showed only one significant main effect of Target Attractiveness, I nevertheless compared the effect sizes of Target Race and Target Attractiveness to determine if they significantly differed. As expected, Target Attractiveness accounted for a significantly larger effect than Target Race in the Likeability ratings, z = 9.32, p < .001.

Discussion

The results of Study 1A and 1B suggest that attractiveness biases can overcome racial group membership biases, but this effect is contingent on how one measures person evaluations.

Whereas participants evaluate ingroup and outgroup members similarly by attractiveness level, they nevertheless implicitly prefer ingroup members over outgroup members—regardless of target attractiveness. This implies that race plays a larger role in determining implicit evaluations, yet attractiveness dominates explicit evaluations.

One possible explanation is that attractiveness accounts for a larger effect in explicit evaluations because people are less aware of attractiveness biases. Consequently, attractiveness biases are less prone to self-correction and may go unfettered when people express their judgments explicitly. In contrast, people’s heightened sensitivity to racial biases allows them to readily censor their explicit evaluations of intergroup members (Devine, 1989; Lepore & Brown,

1997). Indeed, the interaction between race and attractiveness in explicit evaluations in Studies

1A and 1B (see Figure 1 and Figure 3), where White participants report more favorable evaluations for Black targets than White targets, may result from prejudice-correction contrast effects (Carver, Glass, & Katz, 1978; Carver, Glass, Snyder, & Katz, 1977; Lepore & Brown,

2002). Interestingly, however, the results here would suggest this only occurs for targets of average attractiveness: Explicit preferences for Black targets over White targets disappear for attractive and unattractive targets. This may suggest that attractiveness biases mitigate prejudice- correction contrast effects—and perhaps, by extension, social desirability biases—when participants are evaluating attractive or unattractive ingroup and outgroup members.

Chapter 4 Study 2

By using Black and White targets, Studies 1A and 1B capitalized on real-world group biases to investigate how attractiveness biases interact with group membership biases. However, the complexity of real-world groups introduces possible confounds that may obscure the true effect of attractiveness. One possibility, for instance, is that participants may have preferred attractive Black targets over other Black targets because attractive Black faces are also low in racial phenotypic prototypicality, and therefore less likely to activate negative group membership biases (Blair, Judd, & Fallman, 2004; Livington & Brewer, 2002). Another possibility is that—as suggested by the explicit preference for other-race targets over own-race targets in Studies 1A and 1B—perceivers may have been especially motivated to censor racial prejudice when explicitly evaluating Black targets (Fazio & Dunton, 1997). Thus, participants may be more willing to express explicit prejudice towards outgroups based age or gender differences (Officer et al., 2016).

To address these possibilities and test if the results from Study 1A and 1B generalize to other types of outgroups, I used a minimal group paradigm in Study 2 to investigate how attractiveness interacts with group membership for other types of social groups (Bernstein,

Young, & Hugenberg, 2007; Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Brewer, 1979).

Method

Participants and Design. One hundred twenty White participants (63 males, 57 females;

Mage = 41.96 years, SD = 13.07) from the MTurk’s U.S. worker pool participated for $2.50 USD compensation. The study took approximately 40 minutes to complete. As in Study 1A, Study 2

19 used a 2 (Target Group: ingroup, outgroup) × 3 (Target Attractiveness: attractive, average, unattractive) fully within-subject design.

Based on effect sizes typically found in social and personality psychology (r = .21;

2 Richard et al., 2003) and the smallest significant effect size found in Study 1A (ηp = .02), I determined that the sample size was sufficient for over 99% power for a two-way repeated- measure analysis of variance with a 5% false positive rate. I excluded participants who did not reside in the US, and participants who failed the attention check at the end of the task.

Stimuli. Targets consisted of 60 headshots of White individuals from the Chicago Face

Database (Ma et al., 2015). Study 2 used the same target inclusion criteria as Study 1A, and each level of Target Attractiveness (as defined by Study 1A) was represented by 20 faces. Using

Adobe Photoshop CS4, I manipulated the background color of each target photo to change targets’ group membership for a fully crossed design, and resized photo dimensions to a height of 280 px and a width of 400 px.

Data Analysis. Data analysis for Study 1 followed the same analysis procedures as

Study 1A.

Procedure. As in Study 1, participants first completed a pre-screening demographics questionnaire in Qualtrics. The survey deemed them eligible if they were U.S. residents and identified as White/Caucasian. To create minimal groups, the survey assigned participants to experimentally created groups in the manner laid out by Bernstein et al. (2007): Participants completed a bogus personality test based on 20 randomly selected statements from the Big Five

Personality Inventory (see Appendix A for the statements used in the study; Goldberg, 1993).

On-screen instructions described the personality test as a good predicator of future social, romantic, and career success. I included all personality inventory items on one page, and asked

20 participants to indicate on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (Inaccurate) to 7 (Accurate) the degree to which they agreed with each statement. Although the survey recorded participants’ responses, I did not analyze the data from the bogus personality inventory. After completing the personality inventory, the survey randomly sorted participants into an “orange” personality group or “purple” personality group. Additional instructions informed participants that, in the second phase of the study, they would view photos of individuals with a similar or different personality, and that their personality type would be indicated by the photo’s background color.

In the second phase of the study, participants completed an IAT through Inquisit v4.0.

Before the task began, participants were reminded of their assigned group color. Participants then completed the 7 discrimination task blocks (see Table 3), where they categorized positive and negative valence words as Good or Bad, and photos of White targets with orange and purple background colors as Orange or Purple. An attention-check question at the end of the experiment asked participants which group they had been assigned to the beginning of the experiment.

Results

Implicit evaluations. Using participants as the unit of analysis, I found that when participants implicitly evaluated targets, their evaluations differed by Target Group, F(1, 119) =

2 2 34.23, p < .001, ηp = .22, and Target Attractiveness, F(2, 238) = 3.18, p = .04, ηp = .03.

However, Target Group evaluations did not differ as a function of Target Attractiveness, F(2,

2 238) = 0.04, p = .97, ηp < .001. Specifically, participants favored ingroup members (M = 0.16,

SD = 0.50) over outgroup members (M = -0.21, SD = 0.59), and marginally preferred attractive targets (M = .03, SD = 0.50) over average targets (M = -0.06, SD = 0.63) and over unattractive targets (M = -0.04, SD = 0.50).

Explicit evaluations. When participants explicitly evaluated the targets, their evaluations

2 differed by Target Group, F(1, 119) = 18.27, p < .001, ηp = .13, and by Target Attractiveness,

2 F(2, 238) = 266.38, p < .001, ηp = .69. I found no significant interaction between Target Group

2 and Target Attractiveness, F(2, 238) = 0.60, p = .55, ηp = .01. Participants preferred ingroup targets (M = 0.14, SD = 0.82) over outgroup targets (M = -0.14, SD = 0.83). Participants preferred attractive targets (M = 0.66, SD = 0.78) over average targets (M = 0.00, SD = 0.81) and, in turn, average targets over unattractive targets (M = -0.66, SD = 0.91).

I also compared the effect sizes for the implicit and explicit evaluations to examine the relative importance of each target cue during evaluation formation. I found that Target Group influenced evaluations more when participants implicitly evaluated targets, z = 3.75, p < .001, whereas Target Attractiveness influenced evaluations more when participants explicitly evaluated targets, z = -9.59, p < .001.

Discussion

Similar to Study 1, results from Study 2 showed that group membership influenced participants’ implicit evaluations of targets more than attractiveness. In contrast, participants weighed attractiveness more heavily when explicitly evaluating targets. However, by using the experimentally created groups, Study 2 generalized these findings to other types of social groups and ruled out possible confounds associated with racial biases.

Chapter 5 General Discussion

In spite of being classified as an individuating trait, attractiveness can improve evaluations of outgroup members. However, whether attractiveness biases dominate impressions depends on how people express their judgments. Whereas people explicitly expressed preference for those of greater attractiveness, they implicitly preferred members of the same race (Studies

1A and 1B). Moreover, these results extend beyond racial groups. Even when evaluating members of experimentally constructed minimal groups, participants demonstrated a similar pattern of preferences for ingroup and outgroup members (Study 2).

If, as many dual-process models propose, implicit processes represent earlier stages of social judgment (Morewedge & Kahneman, 2010), then group membership’s dominance over implicit evaluations would lend support to impression formation models; this would suggest that people do indeed prioritize social categories over individuating traits when forming impressions. Yet, the results found here also departed from impression formation models in an important way. Specifically, attractiveness still affected implicit evaluations— indicating that attractiveness did not necessarily follow social categorization in a serial manner. Rather, like multiple social categories, attractiveness and group membership influenced impressions additively and separately (Anderson, 1965; Berdahl, & Moore, 2006;

Dowd & Bengtson, 1978; Cummings, Kropf, & Weaver, 2000). When combined with studies that show that people may prioritize familiarity and likeability cues over group membership information (Govan & Williams, 2004; Quinn, Mason, & Macrae, 2009), the results here imply that impression formation may not necessarily start with social categorization and end with individuation. Instead, even when people are tasked with categorizing others by group

23 membership and unmotivated to form indepth social judgments, they incorporate individualistic traits, such as physical attractiveness, into their judgments of other individuals.

In the context of studies examining attractiveness and racial biases, the discrepancy between implicit and explicit evaluations may provide insight as to why results in the literature have been mixed. Whereas Maruyama and Miller (1980) found that students’ attractiveness, but not race, predicted essay scores, Agthe and her colleagues (2016) discovered that people only applied attractiveness biases to same-race others. These differences likely reflect the fact that, despite probing similar constructs (e.g., affective evaluations), different measures are sensitive to different biases.

Implications

Accordingly, researchers have theorized that implicit and explicit measures account for unique effects in attitudes and behavior. Whereas implicit evaluations better predict nonverbal and affective responses, explicit evaluations better predict verbal behavior and stereotype endorsement (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Beach, 2001; Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson,

Johnson & Howard, 1997; Gawronski & Bodenausen, 2011). Thus, implicit measures may detect subtle discrimination, even when participants express no overt prejudice. In the context of these implicit-explicit frameworks, the results of this thesis may imply that individuating traits, such as attractiveness, better predict overt, verbal behaviors, whereas group membership may better predict subtle, nonverbal discrimination.

This distinction may shed light on why—despite the social progress witnessed by the

Western world over the last century—discrimination continues to run rampant in many private sectors today (Brief, Dietz, Cohen, Pugh, & Vaslow, 2000). For instance, although women like Grace Jones and Naomi Campbell are now canonized icons, fashion and beauty

24 industries still afford women of color far fewer opportunities than their White counterparts

(Freeman, 2014; Graham, 2017; Hoskins, 2014). Thus, although industry moguls often publicly denounce discrimination (Larkin, 2017; Ryan, 2016), group membership biases may nevertheless govern their actions—preventing them from installing truly progressive policies and reforms.

Limitations and Future Directions

As with many social cues, there may be a question of whether group membership outranked attractiveness because of bottom-up processes (e.g., visual salience) or because of top-down processes (e.g., conceptual importance). Although group membership may appear more salient than attractiveness, it is unlikely that it dominated implicit evaluations because targets’ attractiveness escaped notice. Whereas participants often took longer than 600 ms to respond to the race IAT’s target trials, studies have shown that facial attractiveness biases can be activated within 100 ms (Locher et al., 1993). Thus, participants had ample time to consider and integrate attractiveness information into their impressions.

Another possibility is that task demands also exercised a top-down influence. Given that the IAT—by nature—emphasizes social categorization, this may prime the concept of group membership, rendering it more salient than it otherwise would be. However, the fact that Govan and Williams (2004) eliminated racial bias in IAT results by varying the likeability of group exemplars suggests that group membership need not always drive racial

IAT results. Nevertheless, future research may wish to address this confound by using other implicit evaluation tasks.

Finally, the target attractiveness ratings may also have influenced attractiveness halo effects. According to the Chicago Face Database’s norming data (Ma et al., 2015), raters

25 based their evaluations of each target on other targets of the same race and gender.

Consequently, although raters gave similar attractiveness ratings to attractive Black targets and attractive White targets, raters did not necessarily judge the attractive Black targets to be equally as attractive as the attractive White targets. Put differently, intergroup biases may have influenced attractiveness ratings; attractiveness halos for White targets may have been more robust than attractiveness halos for attractive Black targets (Moss, Miller, & Page,

1975).

Whereas attractiveness biases play an important role in social cognition and behavior, future research should also examine how other important social traits influence perceptions of outgroup members. Recently proposed three-dimensional models of social inference suggest that attractiveness, along with warmth and competence, is one of the three principle dimensions of social judgment (Hehman et al., 2017; Sutherland et al., 2013). It is possible that these three traits can influence intergroup biases in ways that most individuating traits cannot. For instance, despite being recognized by laymen and researchers as a ubiquitous trait that transcends group membership (Cunningham et al., 1995; Sutherland et la., 2013), people may form subgroups within superordinate outgroups using attractiveness information.

As such, investigating how warmth and competence cues interact with group membership may provide insight into the relationship between “privileged” social group categories (e.g., age, gender, race) and “privileged” social traits.

Conclusion

Given the many forces that guide people’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors, psychology researchers are tasked with the challenge of determining which forces dominate, and when they do so. Literature has shown, for instance, that the compelling forces of

26 attractiveness biases and group membership biases wield great influence over social judgment and behavior. The social consequences of attractiveness biases notwithstanding, attractiveness can serve as a powerful individuating trait that improves evaluations of outgroup members and, at times, even supersedes group membership biases altogether. This suggests that people are neither blinded by beauty nor group membership, but instead capitalize on myriad available social cues to form individuated impressions of others.

References

Agthe, M., Strobel, M., Spörrle, M., Pfundmair, M., & Maner, J. K. (2016). On the borders of

harmful and helpful beauty biases: The biasing effects of physical attractiveness depend on

sex and ethnicity. Evolutionary Psychology, 14, 1-14.

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of

Personality And Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.

Amodio, D. M., & Devine, P. G. (2006). Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias:

Evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 652-661.

Anderson, N. H. (1965). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression

formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 394-400.

Anderson, N. H. (1971). Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78, 171-

206.

Anderson, N. H. (1974). Cognitive algebra: Integration theory applied to social attribution.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 1-101.

Beck, J. H., Reitz, J. G., & Weiner, N. (2002). Addressing systemic racial discrimination in

employment: The Health Canada case and implications of legislative change. Canadian

Public Policy/Analyse de politiques, 28, 373-394.

Benson, P. L., Karabenick, S. A., & Lerner, R. M. (1976). Pretty pleases: The effects of physical

attractiveness, race, and sex on receiving help. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

12, 409-415.

Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority

women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 426-436.

Bernstein, M. J., Young, S. G., & Hugenberg, K. (2007). The cross-category effect mere social

categorization is sufficient to elicit an own-group bias in face recognition. Psychological

Science, 18, 706-712.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 7, 157-215.

Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business:

Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 72-97.

Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27-52.

Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 6, 242-261.

Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M., & Fallman, J. L. (2004). The automaticity of race and Afrocentric facial

features in social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 763-778.

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-

motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.

Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In R. S. Wyer, Jr., & T. K.

Srull (Eds.), A dual-process model of impression formation: Advances in social cognition

(pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate? Journal of

Social Issues, 55, 429-444.

Brown, L. M., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2006). Affective reactions to pictures of ingroup

and outgroup members. Biological Psychology, 71, 303-311.

Buckels, E. E., & Trapnell, P. D. (2013). Disgust facilitates outgroup dehumanization. Group

Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 771-780.

Carver, C. S., Glass, D. C., & Katz, I. (1978). Favorable evaluations of Blacks and the

handicapped: Positive prejudice, unconscious denial, or social desirability? Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 8, 97-106.

Carver, C. S., Glass, D. C., Snyder, M. L., & Katz, I. (1977). Favorable evaluations of

stigmatized others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 232-235.

Chappell, N. L., & Havens, B. (1980). Old and female: Testing the double jeopardy

hypothesis. The Sociological Quarterly, 21, 157-171.

Coetzee, V., Greeff, J. M., Stephen, I. D., & Perrett, D. I. (2014). Cross-cultural agreement in

facial attractiveness preferences: The role of ethnicity and gender. PloS One, 9, e99629.

Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., & Wu, C. H. (1995). “Their

ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours”: Consistency and variability in the

cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 68, 261-279.

Dasgupta, N., & Greenwald, A. G. (2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating

automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 800-814.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.

Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Vance, S. L. (2002). The

regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond without

prejudice. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 82, 835-848.

Devos, T. (2008). Implicit Attitudes 101: Theoretical and empirical insight. New York:

Psychology Press. pp. 62–63.

Dion, K. K., & Berscheid, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness and peer perception among children.

Sociometry, 37, 1-12.

Dovidio, J. F., & Fazio, R. H. (1992). New technologies for the direct and indirect assessment of

attitudes. In J. Tanur (Ed.), Questions About Survey Questions: Meaning, Memory,

Attitudes, and Social Interaction (pp. 204-237). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Beach, K. R. (2001). Implicit and explicit attitudes:

Examination of the relationship between measures of intergroup bias. Blackwell Handbook

of Social Psychology: Intergroup processes, 4, 175-197.

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B., & Howard, A. (1997). On the nature of

prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 33, 510-540.

Dowd, J. J., & Bengtson, V. L. (1978). Aging in minority populations an examination of the

double jeopardy hypothesis. Journal of Gerontology, 33, 427-436.

Echabe, A. E. (2013). Relationship Between Implicit and Explicit Measures of Attitudes: The

Impact of Application Conditions. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 9, 231-245.

Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is

good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype.

Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.

Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543-558.

Farina, A., Fischer, E. H., Sherman, S., Smith, W. T., Groh, T., & Mermin, P. (1977). Physical

attractiveness and mental illness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 510.

Fazio, R. H., & Dunton, B. C. (1997). Categorization by race: The impact of automatic and

controlled components of racial prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33,

451-470.

Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-

based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention

and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1-74.

Freeman, H. (2014, February 18). Why black models are rarely in fashion. The Guardian.

Retrieved August 06, 2017, from

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/18/black-models-fashion-

magazines-catwalks

Frieze, I. H., Olson, J. E., & Russell, J. (1991). Attractiveness and income for men and women in

management. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1039-1057.

Gaertner, S. L., & McLaughlin, J. P. (1983). Racial stereotypes: Associations and ascriptions of

positive and negative characteristics. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 23-30.

Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in

evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological

Bulletin, 132, 692-731.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist,

48, 26-33.

Goldman, W., & Lewis, P. (1977). Beautiful is good: Evidence that the physically attractive are

more socially skillful. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 125-130.

Govan, C. L., & Williams, K. D. (2004). Changing the affective valence of the stimulus items

influences the IAT by re-defining the category labels. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 40, 357-365.

Graham, C. (2017, February 15). Vogue under fire for ‘racist’ photoshoot as Karlie Kloss poses

as geisha in issue celebrating ‘diversity’. The Telegraph. Retrieved August 05, 2017, from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/15/vogue-fire-racist-photoshoot-karlie-kloss-

poses-geisha-issue/

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in

implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.

Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit

association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 85, 197-216.

Greenwald, A. G., Oakes, M. A., & Hoffman, H. G. (2003). Targets of discrimination: Effects of

race on responses to weapons holders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39,

399-405.

Hehman, E., Sutherland, C. A. M., Flake, J. K., & Slepian, M. L. (2017). The unique

contributions of perceiver and target characteristics in person perception. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology. 113, 513-529.

Heilman, M. E., & Saruwatari, L. R. (1979). When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearance

and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and nonmanagerial jobs.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 360-372.

Henss, R. (1991). Perceiving age and attractiveness in facial photographs. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 21, 933-946.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology,

53, 575-604.

Hoskins, T. (2014, August 12). No individual black model on cover of British Vogue since 2002.

The Guardian. Retrieved August 06, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-

business/black-model-british-vogue-naomi-campbell-racism

Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2003). Facing prejudice: Implicit prejudice and the

perception of facial threat. Psychological Science, 14, 640-643.

Jones, D., & Hill, K. (1993). Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Human Nature,

4, 271-296.

Judd, C. M., Park, B., Yzerbyt, V., Gordijn, E. H., & Muller, D. (2005). Attributions of

intergroup bias and outgroup homogeneity to ingroup and outgroup others. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 677-704.

Kinzler, K. D., & Spelke, E. S. (2011). Do infants show social preferences for people differing in

race?. Cognition, 119, 1-9.

Kang, S. K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2015). Multiple identities in social perception and

interaction: Challenges and opportunities. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 547-574.

Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000).

Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological

Bulletin, 126, 390-423.

Langlois, J. H., & Stephan, C. (1977). The effects of physical attractiveness and ethnicity on

children's behavioral attributions and peer preferences. Child Development, 48, 1694-1698.

Larkin, A. (2017, February 10). Vogue's ‘diverse’ March cover slammed as not so diverse. CNN.

Retrieved August 05, 2017 from http://www.cnn.com/style/article/vogue-diverse-cover-

trnd/index.html

Lepore, L., & Brown, R. (1997). Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice

inevitable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 275-287.

Lepore, L., & Brown, R. (2002). The role of awareness: Divergent automatic stereotype

activation and implicit judgment correction. Social Cognition, 20, 321-351.

Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (1977). Effects of age, sex, and physical attractiveness on child-

peer relations, academic performance, and elementary school adjustment. Developmental

Psychology, 13, 585-590.

Locher, P., Unger, R., Sociedade, P., & Wahl, J. (1993). At first glance: Accessibility of the

physical attractiveness stereotype. Sex Roles, 28, 729-743.

Lui, L., & Brewer, M. B. (1983). Recognition accuracy as evidence of category-consistency

effects in person memory. Social Cognition, 2, 89-107.

Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set

of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1122-1135.

Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Milne, A. B. (1995). The dissection of selection in person

perception: Inhibitory processes in social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social

psychology, 69, 397-407.

Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving

devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 66, 37-47.

Maret, S. M., & Harling, C. A. (1985). Cross-cultural perceptions of physical attractiveness:

Ratings of photographs of Whites by Cruzans and Americans. Perceptual and Motor Skills,

60, 163-166.

Maruyama, G., & Miller, N. (1980). Physical attractiveness, race, and essay evaluation.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 384-390.

Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., Carter, M. S., & Hinsz, V. B. (2010). Are sociable people more

beautiful? A zero-acquaintance analysis of agreeableness, extraversion, and

attractiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 293-296.

Moss, M. K., Miller, R., & Page, R. A. (1975). The effects of racial context on the perception of

physical attractiveness. Sociometry, 38, 525-535.

Morewedge, C. K., & Kahneman, D. (2010). Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends

in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 435-440.

Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and

status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-122.

Nelson, T. D. (2005). Ageism: Prejudice against our feared future self. Journal of Social Issues,

61, 207-221.

Neuberg, S. L., & Sng, O. (2013). A life history theory of social perception: Stereotyping at the

intersections of age, sex, ecology (and race). Social Cognition, 31, 696-711.

Officer, A., Schneiders, M. L., Wu, D., Nash, P., Thiyagarajan, J. A., & Beard, J. R. (2016).

Valuing older people: Time for a global campaign to combat ageism. Bulletin of World

Health Organization, 94, 710-710A.

Olson, I. R., & Marshuetz, C. (2005). Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion, 5,

498-502.

Parks, F. R., & Kennedy, J. H. (2007). The impact of race, physical attractiveness, and gender on

education majors’ and teachers’ perceptions of student competence. Journal of Black

Studies, 37, 936-943.

Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social

categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1051-1068.

Paunonen, S. V. (2006). You are honest, therefore I like you and find you attractive. Journal of

Research in Personality, 40, 237-249.

Popp, D., Donovan, R. A., Crawford, M., Marsh, K. L., & Peele, M. (2003). Gender, race, and

speech style stereotypes. Sex Roles, 48, 317-325.

Quinn, K. A., Mason, M. F., & Macrae, C. N. (2009). Familiarity and person construal:

Individuating knowledge moderates the automaticity of category activation. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 852-861.

Ramsey, J. L., Langlois, J. H., Hoss, R. A., Rubenstein, A. J., & Griffin, A. M. (2004). Origins of

a stereotype: Categorization of facial attractiveness by 6-month-old infants. Developmental

Science, 7, 201-211.

Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social

psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331-363.

Richeson, J. A., & Trawalter, S. (2005). On the categorization of admired and disliked exemplars

of admired and disliked racial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89,

517-530.

Ritts, V., Patterson, M. L., & Tubbs, M. E. (1992). Expectations, impressions, and judgments of

physically attractive students: A review. Review of Educational Research, 62, 413-426.

Ryan, L. (2016, December 06). Casting director James Scully calls for reform of the fashion

industry’s overt racism and discrimination. The Cut. Retrieved August 14, 2017, from

https://www.thecut.com/2016/12/fashion-casting-director-calls-out-industrys-racism.html

Sabin, J. A., Rivara, F. P., & Greenwald, A. G. (2008). Physician implicit attitudes and

stereotypes about race and quality of medical care. Medical Care, 46, 678-685.

Sadr, J., Fatke, B., Massay, C. L., & Sinha, P. (2002). Aesthetic judgments of faces in degraded

images. Journal of Vision, 2, 743-743.

Sagar, H. A., & Schofield, J. W. (1980). Racial and behavioral cues in Black and White

children's perceptions of ambiguously aggressive acts. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 39, 590-598.

Salvia, J., Algozzine, R., & Sheare, J. (1977). Attractiveness and school achievement. Journal of

School Psychology, 15, 60-67.

Shackelford, T. K., & Larsen, R. J. (1999). Facial attractiveness and physical health. Evolution

and Human Behavior, 20, 71-76.

Slater, A., Von der Schulenburg, C., Brown, E., Badenoch, M., Butterworth, G., Parsons, S., &

Samuels, C. (1998). Newborn infants prefer attractive faces. Infant Behavior and

Development, 21, 345-354.

Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., & Glas, B. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the basis of

multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 207-218.

Stewart, J. E. (1980). Defendant's attractiveness as a factor in the outcome of criminal trials: An

observational study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 348-361.

Sutherland, C. A., Oldmeadow, J. A., Santos, I. M., Towler, J., Burt, D. M., & Young, A. W.

(2013). Social inferences from faces: Ambient images generate a three-dimensional model.

Cognition, 127, 105-118.

Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned

and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199-214.

Tsukiura, T., & Cabeza, R. (2010). Shared brain activity for aesthetic and moral judgments:

Implications for the Beauty-Is-Good stereotype. Social Cognitive and Affective

Neuroscience, 6, 138-148.

Urada, D., Stenstrom, D. M., & Miller, N. (2007). Crossed categorization beyond the two-group

model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 649-664.

Van Leeuwen, M. L., & Macrae, C. N. (2004). Is beautiful always good? Implicit benefits of

facial attractiveness. Social Cognition, 22, 637-649.

Verhulst B., Lodge M., Lavine H. (2010). The attractiveness halo: Why some candidates are

perceived more favorably than others. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 111-117.

White A. E., Kenrick D. T., Neuberg S. L. (2013). Beauty at the ballot box: Disease threats

predict preferences for physically attractive leaders. Psychological Science, 24, 2429-2436.

Zarate, M. A., & Smith, E. R. (1990). Person categorization and stereotyping. Social

Cognition, 8, 161-185.

Zhang, Y., Zheng, M., & Wang, X. (2016). Effects of facial attractiveness on personality stimuli

in an implicit priming task: An ERP study. Neurological Research, 38, 685-691.

Zebrowitz, L. A., Franklin, R. G., & Palumbo, R. (2015). Ailing voters advance attractive

congressional candidates. Evolutionary Psychology, 13, 16-28.

Zebrowitz, L. A., Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Rhodes, G. (2002). Looking smart and looking

good: Facial cues to intelligence and their origins. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 28, 238-249.

Table 1 Target Attractiveness Ratings Studies 1A and 1B Study 2 Black White White

(n = 30) (n = 30) (n = 60) Attractiveness Level M SD M SD M SD Attractive 4.47 0.51 4.36 0.41 4.42 0.54 Average 3.24 0.39 3.02 0.29 3.14 0.26 Unattractive 2.38 0.38 2.18 0.30 2.18 0.28 Note. M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation.

Table 2 IAT Blocks for Study 1A and Study 2 Study 1A

Response key assignment Block N trials Discrimination task Left key Right key 1 24 Target practice White Black

2 24 Attribute practice Good Bad

3 24 Combined compatible test 1 White Black Good Bad 4 48 Combined compatible test 2 White Black Bad 5 24 Reverse target practice Black White

6 24 Combined incompatible test 1 Black White Good Bad 7 48 Combined incompatible test 2 Black White Good Bad

Study 2 1 60 Target practice Ingroup Outgroup

2 60 Attribute practice Good Bad

3 60 Combined compatible test 1 Ingroup Outgroup Good Bad 4 120 Combined compatible test 2 Ingroup Outgroup Good Bad 5 60 Reverse target practice Outgroup Ingroup

6 60 Combined incompatible test 1 Outgroup Ingroup Good Bad 7 120 Combined incompatible test 2 Outgroup Ingroup Good Bad Note. In lieu of “Ingroup” and “Outgroup” in Study 2, participants categorized images based on colors associated with group membership.

Table 3 Words Used in the IAT Positive Negative Amazing Agony Beautiful Awful Excellent Dreadful Glorious Horrible Joyful Humiliate Lovely Grief Marvelous Nasty Pleasure Painful Success Repulsive Superb Terrible Triumph Tragic Wonderful Vile

Figures

1 White 0.8 Black 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 score

D -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1 Attractive Average Unattractive Attractiveness Level

Figure 1. Implicit target evaluations for Study 1A. IAT D scores for targets by Target Race and Target Attractiveness. Results revealed a significant main effect of Target Race and a significant main effect of Target Attractiveness. Error bars represent ± 1 standard error.

White 1 Black 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6

StandardizedLikeability -0.8 -1 Attractive Average Unattractive Attractiveness Level

Figure 2. Explicit target evaluations for Study 1A. Standardized Likeability ratings of targets by Target Race and Target Attractiveness. Results showed a significant main effect of Target Attractiveness and a significant interaction between Target Attractiveness and Target Race. Error bars represent ± 1 standard error.

1 White 0.8 Black 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 StandardizedLikeability -0.8 -1 Attractive Average Unattractive Attractiveness Level

Figure 3. Explicit target evaluations for Study 1B. Standardized Likeability ratings of targets by Target Race and Target Attractiveness. Results showed a significant main effect of Target Attractiveness and a significant interaction between Target Attractiveness and Target Race. Error bars represent ± 1 standard error.

1 Ingroup 0.8 Outgroup 0.6

0.4

0.2

0 Score

D -0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1 Attractive Average Unattractive

Attractiveness Level

Figure 4. Implicit target evaluations for Study 2. IAT D scores for targets by Target Group and Target Attractiveness. Results showed a significant main effect of Target Group and a significant main effect of Target Attractiveness. Error bars represent ± 1 standard error.

1 0.8 Ingroup 0.6 Outgroup 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6

StandardizedLikeability -0.8 -1 Attractive Average Unattractive Attractiveness Level

Figure 5. Explicit target evaluations for Study 2. Standardized Likeability ratings of targets by Target Group and Target Attractiveness. Results showed a significant main effect of Target Attractiveness, a significant main effect of Target Group, and no interaction. Error bars represent ± 1 standard error.

Appendix A

Bogus Personality Test Items in Study 2 1. I often feel blue. 2. I feel comfortable around people. 3. I believe in the importance of art. 4. I have a good word for everyone. 5. I am often down in the dumps. 6. I make friends easily. 7. I tend to vote for liberal political candidates. 8. I believe that others have good intentions. 9. I am always prepared. 10. I dislike myself. 11. I don’t talk a lot. 12. I have a vivid imagination. 13. I make people feel at ease. 14. I pay attention to details. 15. I have frequent mood swings. 16. I am skilled in handling social situations. 17. I carry the conversation to a higher level. 18. I respect others. 19. I get chores done right away. 20. I panic easily.

Supplemental Materials

For each study, I have provided alternative target-level analyses and multilevel mixed-effects analyses where appropriate. For explicit evaluation analysis in Study 1A,

Study 1B, and Study 2, models treat targets and participants as random effects. For implicit evaluation results in Study 2, the model only treats targets as random effects. All analyses use centered attractiveness ratings in lieu of attractiveness categories. As a note, the supplemental analyses provided here are largely consistent with participant-level analyses provided in the main text. Moreover, for Studies 1A and 1B, the target-level results are also consistent when controlling for each target’s racial prototypicality.

Study 1A

Implicit evaluations. Using targets as the level of analysis, I found a significant main effect of Target Race, such that White targets (M = 0.20, SD = 0.12) were evaluated more

2 favorably than Black targets (M = -0.23, SD = 0.09; F(1, 54) = 232.81, p < .001, ηp = .81). I also

2 found a significant main effect of Target Attractiveness, F(1, 54) = 4.25, p = .04, ηp = .07.

2 Target Race did not interact with Target Attractiveness, F(1, 54) = .01, p = .92, ηp = .00.

Explicit evaluations. In contrast to the implicit evaluations, I found no significant main effect of Target Race for explicit evaluations: Participants did not evaluate Black Targets (M =

4.56, SD = 1.45) differently from White targets (M = 4.46, SD = 1.41; b = 0.00, SE = 0.11, t(56)

2 = -0.03, p = .98, R semi-partial = .00. However, a significant main effect of Target Attractiveness showed Target Attractiveness predicted Likeability ratings, b = 0.63, SE = 0.08, t(56) = 7.90, p <

2 .001, R semi-partial = .11. Finally, Target Race did not interact with Target Attractiveness, b = -.13,

2 SE = 0.11, t(56) = -1.13, p = .26, R semi-partial = .002.

Study 1B

As in Study 1A, I standardized the Likeability scores for Study 1B. Results showed no effect of Target Race. Participants did not evaluate Black targets (M = 4.25, SD = 1.57) differently from White targets (M = 4.18, SD = 1.51; b = 0.03, SE = 0.09, t(56) = 0.30, p = .76,

2 R semi-partial = .00). However, Target Attractiveness ratings did significantly predict Likeability

2 ratings, b = 0.60, SE = 0.07, t(56) = 9.19, p < .001, R semi-partial = .08. There was no significant interaction between Target Race and Target Attractiveness, b = -0.03, SE = 0.09, t(56) = -0.35, p

2 = .73, R semi-partial = .00.

Study 2

Implicit evaluations. Participants evaluated ingroup targets (M = 0.15, SD = 0.16) more favorably than outgroup targets (M = -0.12, SD = 0.15; b = 0.14, SE = 0.01, t(116) = 9.97, p <

2 .001, R semi-partial = .47) and evaluated targets differently by Target Attractiveness, b = 0.04, SE =

2 0.01, t(116) = 2.98, p < .01, R semi-partial = .05. There was no interaction between Target Group

2 and Target Attractiveness, b = 0.00, SE = .01, t(116) = 0.01, p = .99, R semi-partial = .00.

Explicit evaluations For explicit evaluations, participants evaluated ingroup members

(M = 4.43, SD = 1.34) significantly more favorably than outgroup members (M = 4.17, SD =

2 1.36; B = 0.26, SE = 0.05, t(236) = 4.95, p < .001, R semi-partial = .01. Target Attractiveness also

2 significantly predicted Likeability ratings, b = 0.56, SE = 0.04, t(236) = 14.95, p < .001, R semi- partial = .09. Lastly, Target Group did not interact with Target Attractiveness, b = 0.01, SE = 0.05,

2 t(236) = 0.28, p < .001, R semi-partial = .00.