RUNNING HEAD: THE GROUP ATTRACTIVENESS EFFECT The Group Attractiveness Effect: How does it apply to less attractive groups? Bachelor thesis Myrthe van den Kieboom ANR: 740652 Supervisor: Yvette van Osch Tilburg University THE GROUP ATTRACTIVENESS EFFECT Abstract This thesis focused on the Group Attractiveness Effect (GA-effect). The GA-effect causes attractive groups to be rated as more attractive than the average physical attractiveness of their members. In addition, previous research indicated that people tend to give groups more ‘extreme’ ratings (both positive as negative) than they would when rating individuals separately. Hence, an effect occurred for relatively unattractive groups, the group scored lower on attractiveness compared to the average physical attractiveness of their members. In this thesis three groups were tested varying in physical attractiveness and formulated the following hypotheses: Firstly, there is expected that the high physical attractive group will score higher as a group, than the average of their members (consistent with the GA-effect). Secondly, there is expected that the low physical attractive group will score lower as a group, than the average of their members. The third and final hypothesis is that the effect in the medium physical attractive group will be smaller than the effect in the high and low physical attractive groups. Participants were asked to provide a rating, based on attractiveness, on female-only group photos, and subsequently rate the individuals in the group separately. A repeated measures ANOVA revealed results in favour of all three hypotheses. 2 THE GROUP ATTRACTIVENESS EFFECT The Group Attractiveness Effect: How does it apply to less attractive groups? How our impressions about groups and individuals are formed is more complex than we might expect. Impressions of an individual or a group are formed via the same fundamental information-processing system, however the outcomes can differ (Hamilton & Sherman, 1996). Previous research has shown that similar behavioural traits result in different impressions of a group versus individuals. Ratings of individuals might differ from group ratings based on what kind a trait is examined (for example physical attractiveness, clothes, language, et cetera). This thesis focuses on the trait physical attractiveness. Physical attractiveness is one important trait, because first impressions and evaluations can be formed based on this feature. However, little is known about how people perceive groups based on physical attractiveness. Therefore, Van Osch, Blanken, Meijs, and Van Wolferen, (2015) set out to examine this process. The study of Van Osch, et al. (2015) compared the impressions of groups when rated as a whole, and groups based on the average rate of their individuals. Van Osch, et al. (2015) found that the perceived physical attractiveness of a group is greater than the average physical attractiveness of their members. They named this effect Group Attractiveness Effect (GA-effect). However, according to the averaging rule, one expects to judge a groups’ physical attractiveness based on the average attractiveness of its members. Indicating that in rating a group, all members will be taken into account and the impression of the group is the weighted average of the individual scores (Anderson, 1965). Van Osch, et al. (2015) mentioned the averaging rule as the most supported claim for group impressions. However, this is not the case for the physical attractiveness trait in their research. The research showed that the group was rated higher on physical attractiveness than the averaged mean attractiveness of the group members. 3 THE GROUP ATTRACTIVENESS EFFECT Van Osch, et al. (2015) asked participants to rate groups and the individuals of groups separately based on their physical attractiveness. By averaging the scores of the individual group members a group’s mean attractiveness rating was formed to be compared with the group score. By using within-subject as well as between-subject designs, the GA-effect was found multiple times. For example, in their first study they used a within-subject factor for the five different groups of women they showed the participants, and the between-subject factor as the ratings for the women; group versus individuals. To check whether the presentation of the photos influenced participants in their ratings, the photos were presented in different ways throughout the studies. For instance, they were presented in isolation, as a cropped photo, with numbers above their faces, and with squares around their faces. Van Osch, et al. (2015) found that it did not matter how the photos were presented, in all cases the GA-effect occurred. Van Osch, et al. (2015) expected that selective attention is a key driver for the Group Attractiveness Effect. Selective attention could cause people to pay more attention to the most attractive group members, and take the less attractive members less into account. People spend more time looking at attractive faces, than at less attractive faces. This is consistent with results they found with eye-tracking data and with the “Whom Do You Remember?” study of Van Osch, et al. (2015). Hence, selective attention suggests that the group rating is skewed towards the more attractive group members. Earlier research by Willis (1960) tried to find the effect of stimulus pooling on judging attractiveness. This research tried to answer the question on whether the process of responding to composite stimuli by themselves is enough to declare the exaggeration of group differences, as found in social stereotyping. Willis’ (1960) experiments showed participants sets of two or three photos for which they had to rate the average attractiveness. The photos contained relatively 4 THE GROUP ATTRACTIVENESS EFFECT attractive and relatively unattractive faces. In his research no faces considered as averagely attractive were used. The sets were systematically varied by set size, mean attractiveness of the set components, heterogeneity, absence of presence of skewness, sex of the photographic subjects. Heterogeneity in this case can be defined as the average deviation of the mean of the set components. Willis used all same sex photographs. Some sets were assembled in subseries, which were sorted by a judge by matching females and males. The subseries, which were all matched by mean attractiveness and heterogeneity, thereby formed three different series. All series were judged by one or two participants together, and they were asked to sort and place each set. Willis (1960) found that the relatively attractive groups were rated as more attractive than the mean attractiveness of the group members, which is in line with the GA-effect. Willis found that for the relatively unattractive groups, that the group was rated as less attractive than the mean attractiveness of the group members. Willis (1960) found these results in the sets of two or three individuals. In addition, increasing the group sizes resulted in more polarized attractiveness ratings of the groups. As stated above, more research needs to be performed on how physical attractiveness influences people’s impressions on groups and individuals. Willis (1960) already showed that the evaluation of groups was more extreme than the average score of its individual members. Van Osch, et al. (2015) on their turn found the Group Attractiveness Effect (GA-effect). To contribute to the existing body of research this study combines the findings of the researches of and Willis (1960) and Van Osch, et al. (2015). As shown by the amount of time that passed between these two articles there is still much research to be done. This study defined three different groups that vary in physical attractiveness, ranging from high to medium and low physical attractiveness. In line with Van Osch, et al. (2015) the 5 THE GROUP ATTRACTIVENESS EFFECT study expects to find evidence supporting the GA-effect for the high attractive groups. This research will also include a medium attractive group, which differs from earlier research. Willis (1960) only used relatively attractive or relatively unattractive groups. Van Osch, et al. (2015) used different groups, they use female, male, and mixed-gender groups, but not groups that varied in attractiveness. Selective attention would suggest that more attention is to be paid towards the more attractive faces, which suggests that the medium attractive group also might score somewhat higher than the average individual score, but the expectancy is not to find significant effects for this group. The third group is the low attractiveness group; An effect is expected in line with Willis’ (1960) findings, that attractiveness of groups is evaluated more extremely than when evaluation its individuals separately. This will indicate a lower group score, than the averaged mean of the individuals. A difference with previous research is that this study used three groups that vary in attractiveness, it only contains all female groups, and the group sizes are larger. Where Willis only used photos of individuals matched together, this study uses real groups of females standing next to each other in the photo. In sum, research shows that there is a difference in how people rate a group versus how they rate the individuals belonging to that group. An attempt is made to find confirming or disconfirming evidence for the Group Attractiveness Effect (GA-effect). It tries to find if low, medium, and high physical attractiveness influences the way people perceive groups. The first hypothesis is that the high physical attractive group will score higher as a group, than the average of their members. The second hypothesis is the low physical attractive group will score lower as a group, than the average of their members. The third and final hypothesis is that the effect in the medium physical attractive group will be smaller than the effect in the high and low physical attractive groups. 6 THE GROUP ATTRACTIVENESS EFFECT Method The study investigated the Group Attractiveness Effect (GA-effect). This study compared three different groups that vary in attractiveness.