Skip to main content
Log in

When Physical and Vocal Attractiveness Differ: Effects on Favorability of Interpersonal Impressions

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous research has shown that targets whose physical and vocal attractiveness do not match (one channel being high and the other being low in attractiveness) elicit more negative impressions. The present study replicated this result and showed that the mediator and, hence, the reason for this effect is not simply a perception that the face and voice are discrepant but rather some disappointment with the less attractive channel. The finding that perceivers are overly disappointed with the less attractive channel is consistent with a large literature indicating that effects of negative events such as unattractive face or voice are stronger than effects of positive events.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Recall that disappointment with the less attractive channel was constructed from two separate variables: disappointment with the face and disappointment with the voice. Conceptually, neither of these two variables can fully explain the Physical × Vocal attractiveness interaction and neither can fully mediate the effects of this interaction on favorability scores. Indeed, regression analyses showed that although disappointment with the voice was significantly predicted from the Physical × Vocal interaction (p < .05), disappointment with the face was not (p > .20). In the mediation analysis, disappointment with the face was significantly related to favorability (p < .01) but disappointment with the voice was not (p > .16). Thus, it is disappointment with the less attractive channel that accounts better for the full effects of the face-voice discrepancy on interpersonal impressions.

References

  • Adams, G. R. (1977). Physical attractiveness research: Toward a developmental social psychology of beauty. Human Development, 20, 217–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alicke, M. D., Smith, R. H., & Klotz, M. L. (1986). The role of faces and bodies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 381–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambady, N., & Rule, N. (2007). Thin slices of behavior. In R. Baumeister & K. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. H. (1965). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D. S. (1990). Vocal attractiveness and vocal babyishness: Effects on stranger, self, and friend impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D. S. (1992). Vocal types and stereotypes: Joint effects of vocal attractiveness and vocal maturity on personal perception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 158–215). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colvin, C. R., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (1995). Overly positive self-evaluation and personality: Negative implications for mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1152–1162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L., & Huffman, L. J. (1971). Generality of impression formation processes for evaluative and nonevaluative judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 200–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, mirror…the importance of looks in everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodges, B. H. (1974). Effect of valence on relative weighting in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 378–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgins, H. S. (1991). Creating confirmation: Potential biases in spontaneous questions, answers, and conclusions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.

  • Jarvis, B. G. (2006). MediaLab (version 2006) [computer software]. New York, NY: Empirisoft Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, K., & Zuckerman, M. (1993). Beyond personality impressions: Effects of physical and vocal attractiveness on false consensus, social comparison, affiliation, and assumed and perceived similarity. Journal of Personality, 61, 411–437.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (2008). Essentials of behavioral research. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanation. Psychological Review, 105, 131–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, M., Tanke, E., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vonk, R. (1993). The negativity effect in trait ratings and in open-ended descriptions of persons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 269–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. (1989). What sounds beautiful is good: The vocal attractiveness stereotype. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., & Hodgins, H. S. (1993). Developmental changes in the effects of the physical and vocal attractiveness stereotypes. Journal of Research in Personality, 27, 349–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., Hodgins, H., & Miyake, K. (1990). The vocal attractiveness stereotype: Replication and elaboration. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., Miyake, K., & Elkin, C. (1995). Effects of attractiveness and maturity of face and voice on interpersonal impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 253–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., Miyake, K., & Hodgins, H. S. (1991). Cross-channel effects of vocal and physical attractiveness and their implications for interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 545–554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miron Zuckerman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zuckerman, M., Sinicropi, V. When Physical and Vocal Attractiveness Differ: Effects on Favorability of Interpersonal Impressions. J Nonverbal Behav 35, 75–86 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-011-0106-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-011-0106-5

Keywords

Navigation