Facial attractiveness and helping behavior beliefs both attractive and unattractive targets are beli by Irakli Kavtaradze

Original Article

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Facial Attractiveness and Helping Behavior Beliefs Both Attractive and Unattractive Targets Are Believed to Be Unhelpful Relative to Moderately Attractive Targets Donald F. Sacco,1 Kurt Hugenberg,2 and Elizabeth J. Kiel2 1

The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, USA, 2Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA Abstract. On a between-subjects (Experiment 1A) and within-subjects (Experiment 1B) basis, participants indicated a belief that attractive and unattractive targets engage in less actual helping behavior than moderately attractive targets. In Experiment 2, attractive and moderately attractive targets were seen as more capable of helping than unattractive targets; attractive and unattractive targets were seen as less willing to help than moderately attractive targets. Multilevel modeling indicated that perceptions of helping capability and willingness mediated perceptions of how much targets actually help and should help. Whereas unattractive targets are seen as unhelpful due to both a lack of ability and motivation to help (negativity halo), attractive targets are also seen as unhelpful, but due uniquely to a perceived unwillingness to help. Keywords: physical attractiveness, helping behavior, stereotype, social perception

The effect of physical attractiveness on trait inferences, interpersonal behavior, and judgment is one of the longest standing research questions in social psychology (see Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991). Extensive research indicates that individuals believe ‘‘what-isbeautiful-is-good,’’ or that physically attractive individuals possess greater levels of various positive traits (e.g., exciting, stable, sincere, warm, sociable; Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972; Wheeler & Kim, 1997), and that physically unattractive persons possess a host of negative characteristics. For example, unattractive faces are rated lower on many valued traits (e.g., intelligence, kindness) compared to moderately attractive and attractive faces (Griffin & Langlois, 2006). Further, exposure to unattractive faces has been shown to activate brain areas associated with disgust responses (amygdala and insula; Krendl, Macrae, Kelley, Fugelsang, & Heatherton, 2006). However, as Cash and Janda (1984) note, there is a dark side to being physically attractive: a ‘‘what-is-beautifulis-self-centered’’ stereotype. Physically attractive people are believed to be more vain or egotistical (i.e., higher sense of entitlement, and less other-oriented) than persons of moderate attractiveness. Other research has confirmed this ‘‘beauty-as-self-centered’’ framework, finding that compared to unattractive and moderately attractive targets, attractive targets are believed to be more vain, more egotistical, to Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(2):74–85 DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000162

possess a more bourgeois orientation (e.g., lower likelihood of sympathizing with oppressed persons, greater status-seeking motivation), and to be more likely to request a divorce or have an extra-marital affair (Dermer & Thiel, 1975).

Physical Attractiveness and Perceptions of Helping Behavior In the current research, we sought to investigate how beauty stereotypes affect beliefs about helping behavior. We focus on this topic for several reasons. Foremost, prosocial inclinations are integral to adaptive group behavior, and individuals prefer to interact with others who cooperate and behave prosocially (as compared to those who cheat or behave selfishly), a process informed by others’ past behaviors and their personal characteristics, including physical attractiveness (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992). Second, although attractive individuals are rated as having various valued traits, compared to unattractive targets (i.e., the what-is-beautiful-is-good stereotype), the evidence in the domain of prosocial behavior is inconsistent. Specifically, in their meta-analysis Eagly and colleagues (1991) found both high variability and a near zero relation between target attractiveness and judgments of targets’ concern for others, 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

D. F. Sacco et al.: Facial Attractiveness and Helping Behavior

while finding the beauty halo effect for many other positive dimensions. Such findings suggest that the relationship between physical attractiveness and beliefs about helping may be less straightforward than simply another aspect of the what-is-beautiful-is-good stereotype. Finally, SegalCaspi, Roccas, and Sagiv (2012) provide evidence that attractive and unattractive individuals (women in their reported study) actually do differ in self-reported values. More physically attractive individuals report more focus on self-promotion, rather than on concern for others. Thus, the stereotype that attractive people are low in concern for others may indeed have a kernel of truth. Collectively, these previous findings indicate that the relationship between target attractiveness and perceptions of target helpfulness is complex, and likely curvilinear, with both attractive and unattractive targets being stereotyped as unhelpful, relative to targets of moderate attractiveness. First, it seems likely that highly attractive individuals may be seen as less helpful than moderately attractive individuals. Whereas a pure ‘‘what-is-beautiful-is-good’’ account predicts that individuals should perceive highly physically attractive persons as most helpful (e.g., Dion et al., 1972), perceivers also hold the stereotype that physically attractive persons are vain, egotistical, snobbish, and unconcerned for the welfare of others (e.g., Cash & Janda, 1984; Dermer & Thiel, 1975), characteristics in direct opposition to the self-sacrifice and concern for others’ welfare necessary for helping others (Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder, & Penner, 2006). Thus, we predict that this ‘‘beauty-as-self-centered’’ stereotype may lead perceivers to infer that attractive persons are unhelpful, relative to moderately attractive persons. Second, existing research also indicates that unattractive individuals are also seen as unhelpful, relative to moderately attractive individuals. This prediction is drawn directly from the ‘‘what-is-ugly-is-bad’’ stereotype, with perceivers seeing unattractive targets as both unwilling to help and incapable of helping. In support of this, Griffin and Langlois (2006) found that unattractive persons were rated as significantly less sociable, altruistic, and intelligent than moderate and attractive individuals, indicating a broad halo of negativity toward unattractive persons, across dimensions of both capacity and willingness to help. Furthermore, dimensions considered physically unattractive also trigger judgments of targets as less capable (e.g., obesity; Park, Schaller, & Crandall, 2007), which can also lead to the conclusion that unattractive persons are incapable of helping others. Consistent with this hypothesis, research finds that individuals with facial abnormalities (facial features considered physically unattractive) are rated as less honest, less employable, less trustworthy, less optimistic, less effective, less capable, less intelligent and less popular than persons with normal facial appearances (Rankin & Borah, 2003). Because various aspects of facial attractiveness are associated with health (e.g., symmetry, averageness), such deviations along these valued physical dimensions may lead to the belief that relatively unattractive persons, much like individuals with specific facial abnormalities, actually have ‘‘less to give’’ in the domain of helping behavior. 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

The Current Research To test these predictions, Experiments 1A and 1B asked participants to rate physically attractive, moderately attractive, and physically unattractive target faces on two dimensions: how much the target ‘‘actually helps’’ others, and how much the target ‘‘should help’’ others. By measuring both descriptive (how much targets actually help) and prescriptive expectations (how much targets should help), this may also help clarify why perceivers hold the stereotypes they do (Eagly, 2009). As previously noted, unattractive targets could be seen as less helpful because they are generally bad (i.e., an unattractiveness halo), or more specifically, because they are incapable of helping. By measuring beliefs about how much targets actually help and how much targets ‘‘should help’’ (i.e., cultural obligations), one can investigate whether unattractive targets are held to the same standards, and thus are seen as equally capable. We manipulated target attractiveness both between-subjects (Experiment 1A) and within-subjects (Experiment 1B). Utilizing both experimental designs allowed us to determine whether physical attractiveness contrast effects influence the current results (Wedell, Parducci, & Geiselman, 1987; see also Kenrick, 1980). As predicted, Experiments 1A and 1B found that both attractive and unattractive targets were believed to be less helpful than were moderately attractive targets. Experiment 2 replicates the findings of Experiments 1A and 1B and provides evidence that the lower perceptions of helping for attractive and unattractive targets are mediated by perceptions of their differential capability and willingness to help, a novel theoretical advance over existing theory and findings regarding the relationship between attractiveness and concern for others (see Eagly et al., 1991).

Experiments 1A and 1B Method Participants The sample for Experiment 1A consisted of 60 participants (35 women). Participants included 58 Caucasian Americans; 2 participants did not report their ethnicity. The sample for Experiment 1B consisted of 60 participants (37 women). Participants included 52 Caucasian Americans and 5 African Americans; 3 participants did not report their ethnicity.

Materials Materials for both experiments consisted of 18 digitized gray-scale images, taken from various online resources, as well as a large face database (Minear & Park, 2004), each approximately 200 · 250 pixels in size. All were images of Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(2):74–85

D. F. Sacco et al.: Facial Attractiveness and Helping Behavior

Figure 1. Sample facial stimuli used across all studies. The top row includes sample male images (attractive, moderate, unattractive). The bottom row includes sample female images (attractive, moderate, unattractive). Caucasians (9 women; 9 men), approximately 25 years in age, displaying neutral facial expressions (see Figure 1 for sample stimuli). These 18 images were selected from a larger pool of faces pretested on attractiveness using a separate participant sample (N = 25). Pretest participants saw faces presented individually on a computer screen and were given an unlimited amount of time to assess the physical attractiveness of each target (1 = not at all physically attractive to 9 = extremely physically attractive). Based on this pretest, we selected six faces (three male; three female) rated as highly attractive (M = 7.06; SE = .14), six faces (three male; three female) rated as moderately attractive (M = 4.50; SE = .19), and six faces (three male; three female) rated as unattractive (M = 2.27; SE = .19). Paired-samples t-tests confirmed that the high attractiveness faces were rated as more attractive than the moderately attractive faces, t(24) = 15.65, p < .001, and that the moderately attractive faces were rated as more attractive than the low attractiveness faces, t(24) = 14.49, p < .001.

studies), participants were randomly assigned to condition and received one of three experimental packets, including six attractive, six moderately attractive, or six unattractive faces. The instructions for the face judgments were: ‘‘People often have expectations both about how other people actually behave, compared to the general population as well as expectations about how other people should behave, compared to the general population. In the task that follows, you will see a number of individuals. You will first be asked to indicate how much helping behavior you think each of these individuals actually engages in, compared to other people. For example, how much do they actually donate to a charity or how much time do they actually volunteer for different non-profit organizations? You will then be asked to indicate how much helping behavior you think each of these individuals should engage in, compared to other people. For example, how much should they donate to a charity or how much time should they volunteer for different non-profit organizations?’’

Procedure Experiment 1A Undergraduate students were approached individually at various locations on a college campus and were asked if they would participate in a paper-and-pencil study assessing social perception. After obtaining informed consent (which made no reference to physical attractiveness in any of the Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(2):74–85

Each face was displayed on a separate page of the experimental packet. Two separate orders of faces, one that began with a male face and one that began with a female face, were presented to participants on a between-subjects basis to control for order effects. Preliminary analyses indicated no significant effects of face presentation order. After viewing each face, participants responded to two questions for each face: one question assessing perceptions 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

D. F. Sacco et al.: Facial Attractiveness and Helping Behavior

of how much each target should help (‘‘Compared to the average person, the person above should engage in . . .’’) and one question assessing perceptions of how much each target actually does help (‘‘Compared to the average person, the person above actually engages in . . .’’). Participants responded to each question on a 9-point Likert scale (1 = less helping than the average person to 9 = more helping than the average person) to assess their perceptions of each target’s helping behavior. Participants responded to questions at their own pace. The two questions and Likert scales were located below the face on the same page; the order of the two questions was the same for each face for any given participant, but was counterbalanced across participants. Preliminary analyses indicated no significant effects of counterbalancing the question order. Following these procedures, participants completed a demographics questionnaire, and were thanked and debriefed. Experiment 1B The procedure for Experiment 1B was identical to that of Experiment 1A, except that participants saw all of the faces rather than faces only from one level of attractiveness. Participants saw one of three stimulus presentation orders: one which began with an attractive face, one which began with a moderately attractive face, and one which began with an unattractive face. Preliminary analyses again indicated no significant effects of face presentation order.

Experiment 1A First, a multilevel model including only the main effects of question type (dummy coded with ‘‘should’’ = 0) and attractiveness (dummy coded with the moderate group = 0 in the two codes) was run. There was a main effect of question type, such that participants reported that targets should help more than they actually do (c = 0.71, SE = .11, t = 6.38, p < .001). The main effect of attractiveness was not significant, but it was in the direction of the moderately attractive group being rated more highly than both unattractive (c = 0.37, SE = .20, t = 1.84, p = .070) and attractive (c = 0.28, SE = .20, t = 1.42, p = .160) targets. A multilevel model including both main effects and their interaction revealed an interaction between question type and attractiveness condition, v2(2) = 21.33, p < .001. To better understand this two-way interaction, separate multilevel models were run for beliefs about ‘‘actual helping’’ and for beliefs about ‘‘obligations to help.’’ For beliefs about actual helping behavior, we found a significant effect of target attractiveness, v2(2) = 16.42, p < .001. The model for actual helping indicated that participants believed targets of moderate physical attractiveness engage in more actual helping behavior than do attractive (c = 0.69, SE = .21, t = 3.33, p = .001) or unattractive targets (c = 0.85, SE = .21, t = 4.08, p < .001); perceptions of the actual helping behavior of physically attractive and unattractive targets did not differ (c = 0.16, SE = .21, t = 0.76, p = .453). Participants’ beliefs regarding how much targets ‘‘should help’’ did not vary by attractiveness condition, v2(2) = 1.44, p = .487.

Results Analytic Strategy

Experiment 1B

A multilevel modeling approach was used to analyze the results from Experiments 1A and 1B. This strategy allows individual ratings to be retained, rather than making a composite score (but see Table 1 for descriptive statistics across all experimental conditions). The multilevel models account for variability among ratings within and between participants.1 Two-level multilevel models were used, with Level 1 including individual ratings, and Level 2 representing the nesting of observations within participant. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), which indicate the proportion of variance of a dependent variable between higher level groups (here, participants), for ratings were large enough in both studies (.10 in Experiment 1A and .15 in Experiment 1B) to warrant a multilevel approach. Across all studies, target sex was included in preliminary statistical analyses. Although target sex qualified the Target Attractiveness · Question Type interaction in each of the studies, the basic predictions were borne out for both male and female targets; in each case the effects were simply stronger for female targets. As such, target sex is not discussed further.

The first multilevel model containing only main effects indicated a significant effect of question type, with ratings of how much targets should help exceeding ratings of actual helping perceptions (c = 0.77, SE = .06, t = 12.30, p < .001). Unlike in Experiment 1A, there was also a significant main effect of target attractiveness, v2(2) = 115.525, p < .001. Specifically, the moderately attractive group was rated more highly than both unattractive (c = 0.77, SE = .08, t = 10.05, p < .001) and attractive (c = 0.67, SE = .08, t = 8.69, p < .001) targets. The next multilevel model yielded a similar interaction between attractiveness condition and question type found in Experiment 1A, v2(2) = 60.53, p < .001. As before, we analyzed the effect of target attractiveness on perceptions of how much targets actually help and should help in separate multilevel models. For beliefs about actual helping behavior, we again found a significant effect of target attractiveness, v2(2) = 118.058, p < .001. Consistent with the findings of Experiment 1A, participants perceived the actual helping behavior of targets of moderate attractiveness to be greater than that of attractive targets

We also conducted 2 (Question Type) · 3 (Target Attractiveness) ANOVAs on the data averaged within each experimental condition. These ANOVAs yielded identical ﬁndings to those reported in the paper.

2013 Hogrefe Publishing

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(2):74–85

D. F. Sacco et al.: Facial Attractiveness and Helping Behavior

Table 1. Perceptions of target helping behavior at each level of target physical attractiveness (Experiments 1A, 1B, and 2)

Experiment 1A

Actually helps

Should help

Intercorrelation

Should-actual helping gap

Target attractiveness

M (SE)

Attractive targets Moderate targets Unattractive targets

4.46 (.15) 5.32 (.16) 4.38 (.17)

5.70 (.19) 5.41 (.16) 5.62 (.28)

.392 .548 .153

1.24 (.19) 0.09 (.15) 1.24 (.34)

Experiment 1B

Actually helps

Should help

Intercorrelation

Should-actual helping gap

Target attractiveness

M (SE)

Attractive targets Moderate targets Unattractive targets

4.27 (.13) 5.53 (.09) 4.48 (.15)

5.63 (.14) 5.70 (.12) 5.22 (.15)

.239 .368 .536

1.36 (.16) 0.17 (.13) 0.74 (.14)

Experiment 2

Actually helps

Should help

Intercorrelation

Should-actual helping gap

Capable of helping

Willing to help

Intercorrelation

Target attractiveness

M (SE)

Attractive targets Moderate targets Unattractive targets

4.27 (.13) 5.56 (.11) 4.74 (.15)

5.97 (.14) 6.01 (.12) 5.35 (.16)

.325 .461 .222

1.70 (.16) 0.45 (.12) 0.61 (.19)

5.75 (.13) 5.91 (.12) 4.89 (.17)

4.52 (.12) 5.89 (.10) 4.83 (.15)

.174 .625 .697

(c = 1.25, SE = .12, t = 10.43, p < .001), and unattractive targets (c = 1.05, SE = .12, t = 8.74, p < .001); perceptions of the actual helping behavior of attractive and unattractive targets were not significantly different (c = 0.20, SE = .12, t = 1.69, p = .091). Unlike Experiment 1A, there was a significant effect of target attractiveness on perceptions of how much targets should help, v2(2) = 41.882, p < .001. Examination of individual dummy codes indicated that participants believed that both attractive (c = 0.41, SE = .08, t = 5.16, p < .001), and moderately attractive targets (c = 0.49, SE = .08, t = 6.057, p < .001) should help more than unattractive targets; participants believed that attractive and moderately attractive targets should help equally (c = 0.07, SE = .08, t = 0.90, p = .38).

Ancillary Analyses – Actual Helping Versus Obligation to Help Of additional interest in both studies is the potential ‘‘helping gap’’ between perceived obligations to help and beliefs about targets’ actual helping behavior, across the different levels of attractiveness. In Experiment 1A, multilevel models for each attractiveness condition revealed that no helping gap existed for moderately attractive targets, c = 0.00, SE = .16, t = 0.02, p = .979, but participants believed that the actual helping behavior of attractive and unattractive targets was significantly less than how much they should

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(2):74–85

help, c = 0.98, SE = .19, t = 5.10, p < .001, and c = 1.15, SE = .21, t = 5.45, p < .001, respectively. Using multilevel models for each attractiveness condition in Experiment 1B, it was again found that participants believed the actual helping behavior of targets of moderate attractiveness did not differ from how much they should help, c = 0.18, SE = .10, t = 1.83, p = .072, but that the actual helping behavior of attractive and unattractive targets was significantly less than how much they should help, c = 1.36, SE = .11, t = 12.60, p < .001, and c = 0.75, SE = .10, t = 7.59, p < .001, respectively.

Discussion The results of Experiments 1A and 1B are consistent with both the ‘‘what-is-beautiful-is-self-centered’’ (Cash & Janda, 1984) and the ‘‘what-is-ugly-is-bad’’ (Griffin & Langlois, 2006) stereotypes. Specifically, both studies found that unattractive and attractive targets were rated as engaging in less helping behavior than moderately attractive targets. Although Experiment 1A found that participants believed all targets should help equivalently, in Experiment 1B participants indicated that unattractive targets had lower obligations to help than did highly or moderately attractive targets. This discrepancy in findings may be due to the fact that in Experiment 1A, target attractiveness was a between-subjects factor, whereas it was treated as within-subjects factor in Experiment 1B, which could

2013 Hogrefe Publishing

D. F. Sacco et al.: Facial Attractiveness and Helping Behavior

have resulted in attractiveness contrast effects (e.g., Kenrick, 1980; Wedell et al., 1987). Both studies also found evidence for a perceived helping gap (i.e., a descriptive-prescriptive disjunction; Eagly, 2009) in perceptions of actual helping and obligations to help for attractive and unattractive targets. Specifically, attractive and unattractive targets were believed to help less than they should. This gap did not exist for moderately attractive targets. Collectively, these findings provide evidence that both unattractive and attractive individuals are believed to be relatively unhelpful, and as failing to meet their obligations to help. Whereas these studies provide evidence that both target beauty and ugliness lead to a descriptive-prescriptive disjunction in perceptions of helping behavior, neither study provides clear evidence as to why this is the case. Furthermore, explanations for specific differences in characteristics attributed to attractive and unattractive targets are relatively rare (cf. Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002; Rhodes, 2006). In our final study, we address this question.

Moreover, consistent with the broad ‘‘what-is-ugly-isbad’’ halo effect, we also predicted that unattractive people would be seen as unwilling to help as well. Thus, whereas attractive targets would be seen as able but unwilling to help (i.e., selfish), we predicted the negative halo stemming from unattractiveness would affect both perceptions of ability and willingness to help others. Finally, Experiment 2 also allowed us to determine if perceptions of willingness and capability mediate the relations between attractiveness and both perceptions of ‘‘actual helping’’ behavior and how much targets ‘‘should help.’’ Specifically, we utilized multilevel modeling to test our predictions that the lowered perceptions of helping behavior from attractive targets would be mediated by perceived levels of willingness to help. Conversely, we tested the prediction that the lower perceptions of helping behavior from unattractive targets would be mediated by perceived levels of capability of helping or alternatively, both capability and willingness, if an unattractiveness halo occurs.

Method

Experiment 2

Participants

In Experiment 2, we sought to replicate the previous findings of a curvilinear relationship between attractiveness and helping, again demonstrating that both attractive and unattractive targets are seen as unhelpful, relative to moderately attractive targets. However, we also sought to extend these findings by demonstrating that the reasons for perceptions of unhelpfulness differ for attractive and unattractive targets. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that (1) whereas attractive targets would be seen as capable of helping but unwilling to help, (2) unattractive targets would be seen as both unwilling to help and incapable of helping. There are several lines of research to suggest that perceptions of helping capability and willingness may be responsible for beliefs about helping. Past research on helping behavior has used this distinction between capacity and willingness to predict subsequent helping behavior (e.g., Pullins, Fine, & Warren, 1996). Furthermore, Lee (2001) explored how assessments of capability and willingness influence prosocial behavior, producing effects that are independent and incremental. More indirectly, charitable donators’ personal favorable attitudes toward and perceived control regarding making charitable donations are associated with increased donations (van der Linden, 2011). Leveraging this distinction between willingness and capability in the domain of helping, we predicted that participants would view attractive targets as highly capable of helping (consistent with the competence dimensions of the ‘‘what-is-beautiful-is-good’’ stereotype), but less willing to help (consistent with the ‘‘what-is-beautiful-is-selfcentered’’ stereotype). However, consistent with research associating unattractive persons with inability (e.g., Rankin & Borah, 2003), we predicted that unattractive targets would be rated as relatively incapable of helping.

Fifty-seven participants (33 women) volunteered for this study. Fifty participants self-identified as Caucasian Americans, 3 as African Americans, 2 as Asian Americans, and 1 as Hispanic American; 1 participant did not provide ethnicity information.

2013 Hogrefe Publishing

Materials Materials for this experiment consisted of the same 18 images used in the first two studies.

Procedure After arriving at the laboratory and providing informed consent, participants were seated at individual computers. The study involved two blocks. In the first block, participants made assessments of each of a series of targets’ capability and willingness to engage in helping behavior. In the second block, participants indicated how much they believed each target actually helps and how much they believed each target should help, in a manner identical to the previous studies. In each block, participants viewed the images of attractive, moderately attractive, and unattractive targets one at a time in a random order. The order in which participants indicated their beliefs regarding targets’ helping willingness and capability in the first block, and how much targets should help and actually help in the second block, were counterbalanced between-subjects. Preliminary analyses indicated no significant order effects. To determine participants’ perceptions regarding how much targets are capable of helping and are willing to help, the following instructions were used: Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(2):74–85

D. F. Sacco et al.: Facial Attractiveness and Helping Behavior

‘‘People often have an idea about how capable other individuals are of engaging in a certain behavior, compared to the general population as well as how willing other individuals are to engage in a certain behavior, compared to the general population. In the task that follows, you will see a number of individuals. You will first be asked to indicate how capable you think each of these individuals is of engaging in helping behavior, compared to other people. For example, how capable (e.g., able) are they of donating to a charity or how much time are they capable of volunteering for different non-profit organizations? You will then be asked to indicate how willing you think each of these individuals is to engage in helping behavior, compared to other people. For example, how much are they willing to donate to a charity or how much time are they willing to volunteer for different non-profit organizations?’’ Following these instructions, participants completed the following statements, ‘‘Compared to the average person, this person is capable of engaging in. . .’’ and ‘‘Compared to the average person, this person is willing to engage in . . .,’’ using a 9-point Likert scale (1 = less helping behavior than the average person; 9 = more helping behavior than the average person). To replicate the results of the first two studies, the second block asked participants to again indicate their beliefs about how much each target should help (‘‘Compared to the average person, this person should engage in . . .’’) and how much each target actually helps (‘‘Compared to the average person, this person actually engages in . . .’’) using the identical Likert scale as in the previous block (1 = less helping than the average person to 9 = more helping than the average person) as well as the same vignettes as in Experiments 1A and 1B. Thus, participants answered four questions about each target: in Block 1 participants indicated their beliefs regarding each target’s capability of and willingness to help (question order counterbalanced between participants) whereas in Block 2 participants indicated their beliefs regarding each target’s actual helping behavior and how much they should help (question order counterbalanced between participants). After providing these assessments, participants completed a demographic questionnaire, and were thanked and debriefed.

Results Analytic Strategy For this study, a three-level multilevel model was used, with Level 1 representing the individual observations, Level 2 representing the grouping of observations within stimulus type (e.g., attractive female, moderately attractive female, unattractive female, and parallel categories for males), and Level 3 representing the grouping of stimulus types within participants. Examination of ICCs provided evidence warranting this three-level framework. Positive Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(2):74–85

ICCs for how much targets should help, how much they actually help, how capable they are of helping, and how willing they are to help, respectively, existed at both Level 2 (.17, .18, .21, .20) and Level 3 (.19, .07, .10, .03). To ease interpretation of effects within the multilevel models, only the intercepts had random components, and all variables remained uncentered (Krull & MacKinnon, 2001). Preliminary Analyses In the multilevel framework described above, there was a significant main effect of target attractiveness, v2(2) = 75.79, p < .001, such that individuals believed moderately attractive targets were more helpful than the unattractive (c = 0.89, SE = .10, t = 8.73, p < .001) and attractive (c = 0.71, SE = .10, t = 7.01, p < .001) targets, which did not differ from each other, c = 0.18, SE = .10, t = 1.73, p = .085). This was qualified by the predicted interaction between question type and attractiveness, v2(6) = 144.818, p < .001. To better understand this interaction we conducted separate multilevel models to examine the effect of attractiveness within each question type. For perceptions of actual helping behavior, there was a significant effect of attractiveness, v2(2) = 81.53, p < .001, such that moderately attractive targets were rated as engaging in more actual helping behavior than unattractive and attractive targets, c = 0.82, SE = .14, t = 6.15, p < .001, and c = 1.28, SE = .13, t = 9.56, p < .001, respectively. Furthermore, unattractive targets were rated as engaging in more actual helping behavior than attractive targets, c = 0.46, SE = .10, t = 3.44, p = .001) The multilevel model for perceptions of how much targets should help also yielded a significant effect of attractiveness, v2(2) = 33.12, p < .001. Participants believed both attractive, c = 0.62, SE = .12, t = 4.95, p < .001, and moderately attractive targets, c = 0.66, SE = .12, t = 5.30, p < .001, should help more than unattractive targets; participants believed that attractive and moderately attractive targets should help the same amount, c = 0.04, SE = .12, t = 0.35, p = .725. The multilevel model with perceptions of helping capability as the dependent measure yielded a significant effect of attractiveness, v2(2) = 56.44, p < .001. As predicted, both attractive, c = 0.85, SE = .14, t = 6.16, p < .001, and moderately attractive targets, c = 1.02, SE = .14, t = 7.36, p < .001, were seen as more capable of helping than unattractive targets; participants believed that attractive targets and moderately attractive targets were equally capable of helping, c = 0.16, SE = .14, t = 1.20, p = .230. The multilevel model with perceptions of willingness to help as the dependent measure also yielded a significant effect of attractiveness, v2(2) = 90.26, p < .001. As predicted, targets of moderate attractiveness were perceived as more willing to help than were attractive targets, c = 1.37, SE = .14, t = 9.82, p < .001, and unattractive targets, c = 1.06, SE = .14, t = 7.62, p < .001. Attractive targets were perceived as less willing to help 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

D. F. Sacco et al.: Facial Attractiveness and Helping Behavior

than unattractive targets, c = 0.31, SE = .14, t = 2.20, p = .028. Taken together, these data indicate that attractive targets are seen as capable but unwilling to help, consistent with predictions taken from the ‘‘what-is-beautiful-is-selfcentered’’ stereotype (Cash & Janda, 1984). However, unattractive targets are seen as low in both the capacity and willingness to help, providing support for a broad halo effect emerging from the ‘‘what-is-ugly-is-bad’’ stereotype (Park et al., 2007). Ancillary Analyses – Actual Helping Versus Obligation to Help Within the multilevel framework, participants believed both attractive and unattractive targets should help more than they actually do, c = 2.08, SE = .21, t = 9.79, p < .001, and c = 0.50, SE = .20, t = 2.53, p = .012, respectively. A helping gap also existed for moderately attractive targets, c = 0.39, SE = .16, t = 2.40, p = .017. Mediation Analysis Multilevel modeling was used to examine mediational hypotheses. Analyses were performed in accordance with current guidelines for multilevel mediation analyses (Krull & MacKinnon, 2001). Mediation analyses proceeded in two steps. First, we examined the traditional A (predictor relates to mediator), B (mediator relates to outcome controlling for predictor), C (predictor relates to outcome), and C0 (relation of predictor to outcome decreases after accounting for mediator) paths of mediation (Baron & Kenny, 1986) for significance. Because the predictor variable is composed of three categories, it was dummy coded using two codes (‘‘a1’’ and ‘‘a2’’), with moderate attractiveness as the reference group. A summary of results from equations examining these paths is depicted in Figure 2. Second, the mediational effects were tested for significance using an online calculation tool that uses the Monte Carlo Method to create confidence intervals around the indirect effect (Selig & Preacher, 2008). Unlike Sobel’s test, for which the assumption of normally distributed indirect effects is often limited in smaller samples, and bootstrapping techniques, which require the availability of raw data in single-level form, this method can accommodate multilevel data in which predictors, mediators, and outcomes are all Level 1 variables, as in the current study. Should Help. The first set of analyses tested whether helping willingness and helping capability assessments mediated the relation between target attractiveness and the extent to which targets should help. First, attractiveness predicted perceptions of how much targets should help (Path C), such that, compared to moderately attractive targets, unattractive targets were rated lower on how much they should help (c = 0.66, SE = .12, t[285] = 5.30, p < .001). Attractive targets did not differ from moderately attractive targets on perceptions of how much they should 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

help. The two ‘‘A’’ paths to willingness to help and capable of helping were examined in separate equations. Target attractiveness predicted willingness to help, such that compared to moderately attractive targets, both attractive (c = 1.37, SE = .14, t[285] = 9.82, p < .001) and unattractive targets (c = 1.06, SE = .14, t[285] = 7.63, p < .001) were found to be rated lower on willingness to help. Target attractiveness predicted helping capability, such that, compared to moderately attractive targets, unattractive targets were rated lower on helping capability (c = 1.02, SE = .14, t[285] = 7.39, p < .001). Attractive targets did not differ from moderately attractive targets on helping capability. Next, willingness to help and helping capability were examined in the same equation predicting how much targets should help, above and beyond attractiveness. Both were significant, although helping capability had a stronger relation to how much targets should help (c = 0.27, SE = .03, t[1016.95] = 8.73, p < .001) than did willingness to help (c = 0.13, SE = .03, t[999.73] = 4.56, p < .001). In this equation, the difference in how much targets should help between unattractive and moderately attractive targets remained significant but decreased in strength (c = 0.25, SE = .12, t[313.13] = 2.10, p = .037. Attractive targets did not differ from moderately attractive targets on how much they should help. The pattern of these pathways warranted an examination of the indirect effect of the unattractive versus moderate attractiveness difference on how much targets should help through both their willingness to help and helping capability. The indirect effect through willingness to help was significant (95% CI [ 0.21, 0.08]), as it was through helping capability (95% CI [ 0.37, 0.19]). Given that the confidence interval was further from zero for helping capability than willingness to help, it may be considered a stronger mediator. Thus, unattractive targets were rated lower than moderately attractive targets on how much they should help, and this difference was accounted for by perceptions of their helping willingness and perhaps more so by perceptions of their helping capability. Actually Help. Next, willingness to help and helping capability were investigated as mediators of the relation between attractiveness and perceptions of actual helping behavior. Attractiveness predicted perceptions of actual helping behavior (Path C), such that both attractive (c = 1.29, SE = .13, t[285] = 9.59, p < .001) and unattractive (c = 0.82, SE = .13, t[285] = 6.11, p < .001) targets were rated as lower on perceptions of actual helping behavior than moderately attractive targets. Above analyses of the ‘‘A’’ paths already revealed that both attractive and unattractive targets differed from moderately attractive targets on willingness to help, and unattractive targets differed from moderately attractive targets on helping capability. In the equation examining willingness to help and helping capability as predictors of perceptions of actual helping behavior, above and beyond attractiveness, both yielded significant effects, with perceptions of helping willingness demonstrating a stronger effect (c = 0.52, SE = .03, t[1025.93] = 17.73, p < .001) than perceptions of helping capability (c = 0.11, SE = .03, t[1001.62] = 3.62, p < .001). In this equation, the difference between attractive and moderately attractive targets on perceptions of Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(2):74–85

D. F. Sacco et al.: Facial Attractiveness and Helping Behavior

WILLING

a1 = -1.37*** a2 = -1.06***

a1 = -0.17 a2 = -1.02***

0.13***

CAPABLE

0.27***

a1 = 0.18 a2 = -0.25* Attractiveness

SHOULD a1 = -0.04 a2 = -0.66***

Attractiveness

SHOULD

WILLING

a1 = -1.37*** a2 = -1.06***

a1 = -0.17 a2 = -1.02***

Attractiveness

0.52***

CAPABLE

a1 = -0.57*** a2 = -0.16

a1 = -1.29*** a2 = -0.66***

0.11***

ACTUAL

Figure 2. Summary of results of multilevel model equations assessing mediation (Experiment 2). Values are unstandardized coefficients. Attractiveness was dummy coded with ‘‘moderately attractive’’ targets as the reference group, such that ‘‘a1’’ indicated the comparison between attractive and moderately attractive targets, and ‘‘a2’’ indicated the comparison between unattractive and moderately attractive targets. Coefficients indicating the relations between mediators and outcome variables were derived from an equation in which attractiveness was also included. actual helping behavior remained significant but displayed reduced magnitude (c = 0.57, SE = .11, t[980.90] = 5.28, p < .001), and the difference between unattractive and moderate fell to nonsignificance (c = 0.16, SE = .10, t[979.47] = 1.53, ns). These results warranted examining the indirect effects for both attractive and unattractive targets on perceptions of actual helping behavior through perceptions of willingness to help and for unattractive targets through perceptions of helping capability. The indirect effect of attractiveness on percepSocial Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(2):74–85

tions of actual helping through perceptions of willingness to help was significant for attractive versus moderately attractive targets (95% CI [ 0.87, 0.55]) and unattractive versus moderately attractive targets (95% CI [ 0.71, 0.40]). The indirect effect through perceptions of helping capability was also significant, although this confidence interval was closer to zero (95% CI [ 0.18, 0.05]). Thus, perceptions of willingness to help accounted for some of the difference between both attractive and unattractive targets and moderately attractive targets on perceptions of 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

D. F. Sacco et al.: Facial Attractiveness and Helping Behavior

actual helping behavior, whereas perceptions of helping capability accounted for the difference between unattractive and moderately attractive targets on perceptions of actual helping behavior, although to a lesser extent than perceptions of willingness to help.

Discussion Replicating our previous findings, Experiment 2 found that individuals believe targets of moderate attractiveness are more helpful than are attractive and unattractive targets, and that moderately attractive and attractive targets should be more helpful than unattractive targets (Experiment 1B). Although Experiment 2 documented a descriptive-prescriptive gap in helping perceptions for moderately attractive targets, similar to that found for unattractive and attractive targets in all three studies, this was the only experiment to show this effect and it was relatively small. Thus, the descriptive-prescriptive gap in helping perceptions tends to be more consistently associated with targets considered physically attractive or unattractive. Novel to this experiment, we found that unattractive targets are low in perceived capacity to help, compared to targets of moderate and high attractiveness. Furthermore, both unattractive and attractive targets were rated as unwilling to help, compared to moderately attractive targets. The results for attractive targets support the ‘‘what-is-beautiful-is-selfcentered’’ stereotype (e.g., Cash & Janda, 1984), whereas the results for unattractive targets support a broad ‘‘whatis-ugly-is-bad’’ halo effect (e.g., Park et al., 2007). Furthermore, the multilevel modeling offers a framework for understanding why attractive and unattractive targets are rated as unhelpful. Perceptions of both attractive and unattractive targets’ willingness to help are directly related to perceptions of how much they actually help. However, perceptions of helping capability were only directly related to perceptions of helping behavior for unattractive targets. Thus, attractive targets are seen as unhelpful primarily due to their unwillingness to help. However, unattractive targets are seen as unhelpful both because they are relatively incapable and unwilling to help.

General Discussion The current studies provide evidence indicating a curvilinear relationship between target attractiveness and perceptions of helping behavior. Both physically unattractive and attractive targets were rated as less helpful than were moderately attractive targets. Furthermore, both attractive and unattractive targets were seen as helping less than they should, a gap not seen consistently for moderately attractive targets. Experiment 2 extended these results to perceptions of helping willingness and capability, finding that attractive and unattractive targets were rated as less willing than targets of moderate attractiveness to engage in helping behavior. Furthermore, unattractive targets were also rated as less 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

capable of helping, compared to attractive and moderately attractive targets. Importantly, Experiment 2 also found that perceptions of targets’ willingness and capability of helping directly influenced perceptions of how much targets actually help and should help. Consistent with the ‘‘what-is-beautifulis-self-centered’’ stereotype (e.g., Cash & Janda, 1984; Dermer & Thiel, 1975), perceptions of attractive targets’ willingness to help were responsible for perceptions of their actual helping behavior. The results for unattractive targets were consistent with a broad ‘‘what-is-ugly-is-bad’’ stereotype (e.g., Park et al., 2007), such that both perceptions of helping willingness and capability mediated perceptions of how much these targets actually help and should help. Not only do these studies indicate that individuals have different beliefs about the relationship between target attractiveness and helping, but those beliefs are based on differential perceptions regarding attractive and unattractive individuals’ helping capability and willingness to help.

Alternative Explanations and Future Directions Although derived from different sources, our hypotheses are also largely compatible with hypotheses derived from the Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). This framework indicates that variations along the orthogonal dimensions of warmth and competence can lead to various negative (e.g., pity, contempt) and positive (e.g., pride, admiration) interpersonal impressions. In essence, our results for physically unattractive targets are consistent with impressions related to low competence and low warmth, whereas our results for physically attractive targets are consistent with impressions related to high competence but low warmth. Finally, the results for targets of moderate attractiveness are consistent with impressions related to both high competence and high warmth. Naturally, in the current work we did not directly test the perceptions of warmth and competence of targets, however it is plausible that unattractive, moderately attractive, and attractive targets cluster differentially across the two-dimensional competence-warmth space central to the Stereotype Content Model. Future research could benefit from examining how attractiveness generally covaries with perceptions of warmth and competence. That various theories can account for the results of the current series of studies speaks to the viability of the hypotheses tested throughout. Another open question is whether our findings could be explained by a self-anchoring effect, whereby most participants see themselves as possessing moderate attractiveness and therefore simply rated targets deviating from the self (i.e., unattractive and attractive targets) as worse than the self in the target domain (in our case, helping). Although consistent with some of our findings (i.e., ratings of actual helping), other aspects of our findings are less easily explained by self-anchoring. For example, if our findings Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(2):74–85

D. F. Sacco et al.: Facial Attractiveness and Helping Behavior

were only due to contrasting from the self, then we would have expected both unattractive and attractive targets to be rated not just as unhelpful, but also as incapable, less obligated, and less willing to help, an effect which did not occur across the measures and studies. Such qualitatively different deviations in perceptions of attractive and unattractive targets from moderately attractive targets make this self-anchoring explanation less tenable. Further, the nonlinear pattern of our findings also helps to rule out a sensible competing hypothesis. Specifically, it could be argued that our operationalization of prosocial behavior as volunteering time and donating money to charities confounds attractiveness, socioeconomic status (SES), and helping behavior. Perhaps individuals higher in attractiveness have higher a SES, which gives them more time or resources to give. Indeed, there is evidence that physical attractiveness is related to SES (Jaeger, 2011). However, this previous research suggests that the relationship between physical attractiveness and SES is linear – as physical attractiveness increases, so too does SES, whereas our studies document a curvilinear relationship between physical attractiveness and helping behavior – both attractive and attractive individuals are perceived of as less helpful. Thus, an attractiveness-SES confound could not explain why both attractive and unattractive targets are seen as unhelpful. Although the current work advances the literature on attractiveness stereotypes, important questions remain. Across all three studies, our operationalization of different aspects of helping included specific examples of helping behavior (e.g., donating money or volunteering time). Whereas such operational definitions were intended to clarify the task for participants, it can also anchor participant responses, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings to other types of helping (e.g., bystander intervention). Future research would benefit by testing the breadth of these findings. Furthermore, the dependent measures used to assess helping behavior did not adequately differentiate between helping behavior as resource availability versus helping behavior as a particular set of skills. It will be important for future research to clarify this distinction.

Conclusion The current research indicates that physical attractiveness plays a significant role in individuals’ perceptions of targets’ prosociality. Both attractive and unattractive individuals are believed to be less helpful than are moderately attractive individuals, but for different reasons. Whereas attractive persons are seen as unhelpful because they are unwilling to help, unattractive persons are seen as unhelpful because they are both unwilling and incapable of helping.

References Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(2):74–85

Cash, T. E., & Janda, L. H. (1984). The eye of the beholder. Psychology Today, 18, 46–52. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In L. Cosmides & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 163–228). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Dermer, M., & Thiel, D. L. (1975). When beauty may fail. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1168– 1176. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290. Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Eagly, A. H. (2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64, 644–658. Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but . . . : A metaanalytic review of research on the attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109–128. Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 11, 154–158. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. Griffin, A. M., & Langlois, H. (2006). Stereotype directionality and attractiveness stereotyping: Is beauty good or is ugly bad? Social Cognition, 24, 187–206. Jaeger, M. M. (2011). ‘‘A thing of beauty is a joy forever.’’ Returns to physical attractiveness over the life course. Social Forces, 89, 983–1003. Kenrick. (1980). Contrast effects and judgments of physical attractiveness: When beauty becomes a social problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 131–140. Krendl, A. C., Macrae, C. N., Kelley, W. M., Fugelsang, J. A., & Heatherton, T. F. (2006). The good, the bad, and the ugly: An fMRI investigation of the functional anatomic correlates of stigma. Social Neuroscience, 1, 5–15. Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249–277. Lee, H. J. (2001). Willingness and capacity: The determinants of prosocial organizational behaviour among nurses in the UK. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 1029–1048. Minear, M., & Park, D. C. (2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 630–633. Park, J. H., Schaller, M., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). Pathogenavoidance mechanisms and the stigmatization of obese people. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 410–414. Pullins, E. B., Fine, L. M., & Warren, W. L. (1996). Identifying peer mentors in the sales force: An exploratory investigation of willingness and ability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 125–136. Rankin, M., & Borah, G. L. (2003). Perceived functional impact of abnormal facial appearance. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, 111, 2140–2146. Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226. Segal-Caspi, L., Roccas, S., & Sagiv, L. (2012). Don’t judge a book by its cover, revisited: Perceived and reported traits and values of attractive women. Psychological Science, 23, 1112–1116. 2013 Hogrefe Publishing

D. F. Sacco et al.: Facial Attractiveness and Helping Behavior

Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008, June). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects [Computer software], Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/ van der Linden, S. (2011). Charitable Intent: A moral or social construct? A revised theory of planned behavior model. Current Psychology, 30, 355–374. Wedell, D. H., Parducci, A., & Geiselman, R. E. (1987). A formal analysis of ratings of physical attractiveness: Successive contrast and simultaneous assimilation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 230–249. Wheeler, L., & Kim, Y. (1997). What is beautiful is culturally good: The physical attractiveness stereotype has different content in collectivist cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 795–800.

Donald F. Sacco Department of Psychology The University of Southern Mississippi Owings-McQuagge Hall 118 College Drive #5025 Hattiesburg, MS 39406 USA Tel. +1 601 266-6747 Fax +1 601 266-5580 E-mail Donald.Sacco@usm.edu

Received October 24, 2012 Revision received June 28, 2013 Accepted July 9, 2013 Published online November 15, 2013

2013 Hogrefe Publishing

Social Psychology 2014; Vol. 45(2):74–85