This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University] On: 02 December 2014, At: 07:22 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20
Physical Attractiveness, Personality, and Social Reactions to Peer Pressure Gerald R. Adams
a
a
Utah State University , USA Published online: 02 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Gerald R. Adams (1977) Physical Attractiveness, Personality, and Social Reactions to Peer Pressure, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 96:2, 287-296, DOI: 10.1080/00223980.1977.9915911 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1977.9915911
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 07:22 02 December 2014
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Published as a separate and in The Joumnl of Psychology, 1977, 96, 287-296.
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS, PERSONALITY, AND SOCIAL REACTIONS T O P E E R PRESSURE*' Utah S f d e University
GERALDR. ADAMS
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 07:22 02 December 2014
SUMMARY Following a hypo-deductive theoretical rationale, the relationship between physical attributes, personality development, and susceptibility to peer pressure was assessed. Male and female college students (N = 181) responded to several personality measures previously reported as characteristics attributed to physical attractiveness and a new measure designed to assess peer pressure influences (Dilemmas Test for College Students). Peer-ratings and self-perceptions of facial attractiveness, body form, and general appearance were gathered. Physically attractive persons, in comparison to their lesser attractive peers, were more likely to have internalized socially desirable personality characteristics and show resistance to peer pressure influences. Further, some evidence suggested that attractiveness was related to the internalization of cognitive-social characteristics for males and cognitive-evaluative characteristics for females. A.
INTRODUCTION
Following the emergence of a dialectic psychology perspective, developmentalists are coming to appreciate the interactive nature of inner (psychological attributes) and outer (body characteristics) developmental progressions, with each aspect thought to act upon the other while in turn being acted upon (1). A growing body of research literature suggests that
* Received in the Editorial Office on May 2 , 1977, and published immediately at Provincetown, Massachusetts. Copyright by The Journal Press. This paper is based upon a Doctoral dissertation submitted to the College of Human Development of The Pennsylvania State University. Financial support was made available to the author via the award of a Pennsylvania State University Graduate School Fellowship. The author acknowledges and thanks Ted L. Huston and Aletha Huston Stein for their encouragement as Doctoral committee members. Additional thanks are extendec; to Joseph LaVoie and Ted Huston for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Support of manuscript preparation was made available by a small grant from the College of Family Life Research Council, Utah State University. 287
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 07:22 02 December 2014
2 88
JOLJRNAL O F PSYCHOLOGY
individual physical attributes (e. g., physical attractiveness) of a person stimulates differential reactions from others (e. g., significant others) which partially sets the experiential bases for individual development. Reviews by Adams ( 1 ) and Berscheid and Walster ( 2 ) suggest a direct relation between physical attractiveness and psychological development. Two streams of thought are present in the research literature which attempt to specify the process that might account for the proposed developmental outcome. First, it is argued that stimulus properties associated with physical attractiveness may function as discriminative stimuli that elicit differential behavior from others. Given that physical attractiveness is associated with strong social stereotypes, it might be expected that a person’s degree of physical attractiveness elicits differential responses from others. These responses, in turn, influence the individual’s behavior and psychosocial development. Or it might also be expected, according to symbolic interaction theory, the concept of “self” evolves out of social exchanges with others through a process of interaction between role expectations and role performance with reference groups (10). Therefore, as attractive and unattractive individuals interact with their reference group, certain attitudes and impressions will be “reflected back” during the communication process. The individual would be expected to perceive these reactions and modify hidher self-concept accordingly. The present investigation addresses two specific questions dealing with the physical attractiveness-individual development relationship. Following previous research (9, an attempt has been made to identify whether ( a ) the personality structure of attractive, in contrast to unattractive, persons varies according to the social stereotype, and ( b ) persons of varying degrees of attractiveness systematically differ in their social behavior (e. g., in their resistance to peer pressure influences).
B . METHOD 1.
The Sample
Participants in the study included 181 students (81 males and 100 females) enrolled at The Pennsylvania State University. Volunteers were solicited from five undergraduate classrooms in Family Studies and received extra credit for participation. All but four participants were Caucasian and predominantly came from small towns and villages in central Pennsylvania. The average age of male and female volunteers was 2 0 . 5 ( S D ? = 2 . 1 ) and 2 0 ( S D 2 = 1 . 5 ) years, respectively.
GERALD R. ADAMS
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 07:22 02 December 2014
2.
289
Physical Attractiveness Attribute Measures
The predictor variables consisted of several self-ratings and peer-ratings of subjective evaluations of physical attributes and objective measures including height and weight. In addition to self-assessments, four raters (two male and two female) judged each participant on facial attractiveness, body type, and general appearance. The nine point facial attractiveness scale scored Ss from “least” to “most” attractive. A seven point body type scale adapted from Knapp (8) assessed a general roundness-thinness (angularity) dimension. At the low extreme, a body silhouette indicated a rounded body of an endomorphic nature, a t the middle point a muscular but moderately bulky silhouette of a mesomorphic form, and at the upper extreme, a thin-angular body of an ectomorphic shape. In addition, each participant was rated on a nine point general appearance (sloppinessneatness) scale. The average interrater correlations for facial attractiveness, body type, and general appearance were . 6 7 , .49, and .46, respectively. While these interrater correlations revealed only a moderate association, they are equivalent to or greater than earlier research (3). In addition to the interrater reliability check, the relationship between self-perceptions and peer-ratings on subjective evaluations of physical attributes was assessed on all three measures. Low to modest correlations (median correlation between peer-ratings and self-evaluations was . 3 7 ) were discovered, suggesting only modest agreement between selfperceptions and peer-ratings. 3. Personality Measures A previous review of the physical attractiveness research (1) on personality attributions for attractive persons suggests these individuals should hold high positive self-regard, see themselves as likable persons, be outgoing, confident individuals, and see themselves as generally competent. To test these proposed assumptions, the participants responded to the following measures: the Self-Acceptance Scale (12), Likableness Scale ( 7 ) , Self Focus Sentence Completion measure ( 6 ) , Levenson Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance Control Scales ( l l ) , Social Avoidance and Distress plus Fear of Negative Evaluation Scales (131, Sensation-Seeking Scale (14), and Behavioral Self-Rating Form (4). 4.
Resistance to Peer Pressure Influences
The instrument used to assess the effects of peer pressure was constructed in accordance with the conceptual framework provided by Bron-
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 07:22 02 December 2014
2 90
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
fenbrenner apd Devereux [see Devereux (S)] in their discussion of the Dilemmas Test, an instrument validated for grade school children. This instrument consists of several hypothetical situations which involve a dilemma of conduct in which there are conflicting pressures between some autonomously held standard or value and peer or parental expectations. These situational dilemmas can be classified into one of the following four types: ( a ) internalized adult values versus peer pressure toward deviance, ( b ) achievement veysus affiliation, (c) autonomous value versus peer pressure to forsake such a standard, and ( d ) keeping to an autonomously held value despite adult pressures. The last classification was not used in the construction of new items, since this version was designed to measure peer pressure effects. The research design typically used with the Dilemma Test consists of Ss responding to the items in the context that the researchers are merely interested in the “typical” student’s response (normative situation) versus situations where Ss are informed that a peer group will be reviewing their responses (peer evaluation situation). Differences between the two situations are then used as a measure of peer pressure effects. In the construction of the Dilemmas Test for College Students (DTCS), new or modified items were written, which on face validity appeared appropriate for a college-age population and encapsulated the types of dilemma construed by earlier researchers (5). Fifteen undergraduate students and the investigator undertook this test item construction task. These items were administered to a pilot sample of 37 male and female students (mean age = 2 0 . 1 years) under a normative condition and 5 3 students (mean age = 20.3 years) under a peer pressure condition. T w o criteria were used in selecting items for the final version of the new scale: The item had to ( a ) be positively correlated with the total score on both conditions (p < .01) and (6) demonstrate sensitivity to peer pressure effects (p
The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20
Physical Attractiveness, Personality, and Social Reactions to Peer Pressure Gerald R. Adams
a
a
Utah State University , USA Published online: 02 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Gerald R. Adams (1977) Physical Attractiveness, Personality, and Social Reactions to Peer Pressure, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 96:2, 287-296, DOI: 10.1080/00223980.1977.9915911 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1977.9915911
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 07:22 02 December 2014
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Published as a separate and in The Joumnl of Psychology, 1977, 96, 287-296.
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS, PERSONALITY, AND SOCIAL REACTIONS T O P E E R PRESSURE*' Utah S f d e University
GERALDR. ADAMS
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 07:22 02 December 2014
SUMMARY Following a hypo-deductive theoretical rationale, the relationship between physical attributes, personality development, and susceptibility to peer pressure was assessed. Male and female college students (N = 181) responded to several personality measures previously reported as characteristics attributed to physical attractiveness and a new measure designed to assess peer pressure influences (Dilemmas Test for College Students). Peer-ratings and self-perceptions of facial attractiveness, body form, and general appearance were gathered. Physically attractive persons, in comparison to their lesser attractive peers, were more likely to have internalized socially desirable personality characteristics and show resistance to peer pressure influences. Further, some evidence suggested that attractiveness was related to the internalization of cognitive-social characteristics for males and cognitive-evaluative characteristics for females. A.
INTRODUCTION
Following the emergence of a dialectic psychology perspective, developmentalists are coming to appreciate the interactive nature of inner (psychological attributes) and outer (body characteristics) developmental progressions, with each aspect thought to act upon the other while in turn being acted upon (1). A growing body of research literature suggests that
* Received in the Editorial Office on May 2 , 1977, and published immediately at Provincetown, Massachusetts. Copyright by The Journal Press. This paper is based upon a Doctoral dissertation submitted to the College of Human Development of The Pennsylvania State University. Financial support was made available to the author via the award of a Pennsylvania State University Graduate School Fellowship. The author acknowledges and thanks Ted L. Huston and Aletha Huston Stein for their encouragement as Doctoral committee members. Additional thanks are extendec; to Joseph LaVoie and Ted Huston for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Support of manuscript preparation was made available by a small grant from the College of Family Life Research Council, Utah State University. 287
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 07:22 02 December 2014
2 88
JOLJRNAL O F PSYCHOLOGY
individual physical attributes (e. g., physical attractiveness) of a person stimulates differential reactions from others (e. g., significant others) which partially sets the experiential bases for individual development. Reviews by Adams ( 1 ) and Berscheid and Walster ( 2 ) suggest a direct relation between physical attractiveness and psychological development. Two streams of thought are present in the research literature which attempt to specify the process that might account for the proposed developmental outcome. First, it is argued that stimulus properties associated with physical attractiveness may function as discriminative stimuli that elicit differential behavior from others. Given that physical attractiveness is associated with strong social stereotypes, it might be expected that a person’s degree of physical attractiveness elicits differential responses from others. These responses, in turn, influence the individual’s behavior and psychosocial development. Or it might also be expected, according to symbolic interaction theory, the concept of “self” evolves out of social exchanges with others through a process of interaction between role expectations and role performance with reference groups (10). Therefore, as attractive and unattractive individuals interact with their reference group, certain attitudes and impressions will be “reflected back” during the communication process. The individual would be expected to perceive these reactions and modify hidher self-concept accordingly. The present investigation addresses two specific questions dealing with the physical attractiveness-individual development relationship. Following previous research (9, an attempt has been made to identify whether ( a ) the personality structure of attractive, in contrast to unattractive, persons varies according to the social stereotype, and ( b ) persons of varying degrees of attractiveness systematically differ in their social behavior (e. g., in their resistance to peer pressure influences).
B . METHOD 1.
The Sample
Participants in the study included 181 students (81 males and 100 females) enrolled at The Pennsylvania State University. Volunteers were solicited from five undergraduate classrooms in Family Studies and received extra credit for participation. All but four participants were Caucasian and predominantly came from small towns and villages in central Pennsylvania. The average age of male and female volunteers was 2 0 . 5 ( S D ? = 2 . 1 ) and 2 0 ( S D 2 = 1 . 5 ) years, respectively.
GERALD R. ADAMS
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 07:22 02 December 2014
2.
289
Physical Attractiveness Attribute Measures
The predictor variables consisted of several self-ratings and peer-ratings of subjective evaluations of physical attributes and objective measures including height and weight. In addition to self-assessments, four raters (two male and two female) judged each participant on facial attractiveness, body type, and general appearance. The nine point facial attractiveness scale scored Ss from “least” to “most” attractive. A seven point body type scale adapted from Knapp (8) assessed a general roundness-thinness (angularity) dimension. At the low extreme, a body silhouette indicated a rounded body of an endomorphic nature, a t the middle point a muscular but moderately bulky silhouette of a mesomorphic form, and at the upper extreme, a thin-angular body of an ectomorphic shape. In addition, each participant was rated on a nine point general appearance (sloppinessneatness) scale. The average interrater correlations for facial attractiveness, body type, and general appearance were . 6 7 , .49, and .46, respectively. While these interrater correlations revealed only a moderate association, they are equivalent to or greater than earlier research (3). In addition to the interrater reliability check, the relationship between self-perceptions and peer-ratings on subjective evaluations of physical attributes was assessed on all three measures. Low to modest correlations (median correlation between peer-ratings and self-evaluations was . 3 7 ) were discovered, suggesting only modest agreement between selfperceptions and peer-ratings. 3. Personality Measures A previous review of the physical attractiveness research (1) on personality attributions for attractive persons suggests these individuals should hold high positive self-regard, see themselves as likable persons, be outgoing, confident individuals, and see themselves as generally competent. To test these proposed assumptions, the participants responded to the following measures: the Self-Acceptance Scale (12), Likableness Scale ( 7 ) , Self Focus Sentence Completion measure ( 6 ) , Levenson Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance Control Scales ( l l ) , Social Avoidance and Distress plus Fear of Negative Evaluation Scales (131, Sensation-Seeking Scale (14), and Behavioral Self-Rating Form (4). 4.
Resistance to Peer Pressure Influences
The instrument used to assess the effects of peer pressure was constructed in accordance with the conceptual framework provided by Bron-
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 07:22 02 December 2014
2 90
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
fenbrenner apd Devereux [see Devereux (S)] in their discussion of the Dilemmas Test, an instrument validated for grade school children. This instrument consists of several hypothetical situations which involve a dilemma of conduct in which there are conflicting pressures between some autonomously held standard or value and peer or parental expectations. These situational dilemmas can be classified into one of the following four types: ( a ) internalized adult values versus peer pressure toward deviance, ( b ) achievement veysus affiliation, (c) autonomous value versus peer pressure to forsake such a standard, and ( d ) keeping to an autonomously held value despite adult pressures. The last classification was not used in the construction of new items, since this version was designed to measure peer pressure effects. The research design typically used with the Dilemma Test consists of Ss responding to the items in the context that the researchers are merely interested in the “typical” student’s response (normative situation) versus situations where Ss are informed that a peer group will be reviewing their responses (peer evaluation situation). Differences between the two situations are then used as a measure of peer pressure effects. In the construction of the Dilemmas Test for College Students (DTCS), new or modified items were written, which on face validity appeared appropriate for a college-age population and encapsulated the types of dilemma construed by earlier researchers (5). Fifteen undergraduate students and the investigator undertook this test item construction task. These items were administered to a pilot sample of 37 male and female students (mean age = 2 0 . 1 years) under a normative condition and 5 3 students (mean age = 20.3 years) under a peer pressure condition. T w o criteria were used in selecting items for the final version of the new scale: The item had to ( a ) be positively correlated with the total score on both conditions (p < .01) and (6) demonstrate sensitivity to peer pressure effects (p
