The Psychology of Physical Attractiveness Michael Nanko, Ph.D. Much research over the past decade has shown that a person's physical attractiveness mediates or helps to determine many of his or her experiences. The phrase "what is beautiful is good" was coined by Dion, Berscheid & Walster (1972) based on their findings that physically attractive individuals are assumed to be more socially desirable than persons of lower attractiveness. Physical attractiveness has been found to be associated with a host of favorable qualities: popularity, likability, competence, intelligence, persuasiveness, ability to succeed, and as better adjusted in relationships. Persons who are more attractive also tend to be a magnet for the material benefits and rewards bestowed by society. These rewards may even be directly monetary in nature (Stillman & Hinsley, 1980; May, 1980)The search for the possible existence of generalized positive stereotypes associated with physical attractiveness has demonstrated the pervasiveness of physical attractiveness across a myriad of contexts. In educational settings teachers have been found to rate attractive students more favorably than the less attractive on expected potential and on various academic success prediction measures (Adams & Cohen, 1976; Clifford, 1975; Ross & Salvia, 1975). The physically attractive have been found to benefit from their appearance in simulated juror decision making studies as recipients of more lenient sentences and verdicts than the less attractive (Efran, 1974; Izzett & Fishman, 1976; Izzett & Leginski, 1974). There is some evidence that persons who are physically attractive are better adjusted emotionally. A handful of studies have investigated the relationship of physical attractiveness and judged adjustment of mental patients. For example, Martin,Friedmeyer & Moore (1977) found that patients who were judged to be more attractive were also judged by hospital staff to be better adjusted. Another set

of experiments by Jones, Hansson & Phillips (1978) found that nonprofessionals were more likely to attribute psychological disturbance to unattractive target persons, even when

2

the subject was cued to the potential effects of physical attractiveness on their ratings. Persons who are more attractive are inclined to be sought more as dating partners, and, they as well tend to seek friends, dates, and marital partners who are among the more attractive (Berscheid, Dion, Walster & Walster, 1971! Cavior & Boblett, 1972; Murstein, 1972, 1976). However, many participants in these studies also choice partners-more attractive than they were themselves. Other research has demonstrated that the potential for rejection needs to be explored further in dating studies (Huston, 1973). In the business context, Dipboye, Fromkin & Wiback (1975) discovered that the physically attractive are chosen more readily for job openings. And evaluations of work produced by attractive persons are also judged more favorably (competent,etc) (Anderson & Nida, 1978; Landy & Sigall, 1174). Research in this area also suggests that one may increase one's own prestige and the impression managed by mere association with a physically attractive person of the opposite sex ( Sigall & Landy, 1973; Strane & Watts, 1977). Although the greatest proportion of studies in this subject area support the premise that a physical attractiveness stereotype is alive and well in our society and mediates differential behaviors (e.g., social reinforcements, competency evaluation, socialization experiences, etc), it would also be improper to assume that this premise is correct and active in each and every case. We can imagine many instances where physical attractiveness information would be likely to be irrelevant (telephone work) and times where physical beauty can work against the person. For example, if the good-looking person is perceived as using their beauty for unfair (and illegal) advantages ( Sigall & Ostrove, 1975) or is perceived as egotistical and bourgeois (Dermer & Thiel, 1975). One surprising example of attractiveness producing an opposite effect was a study conducted

3

Kielcolt (1976). This investigator showed that in a significant number of cases physically attractive disabled individuals received less help than unattractive (disabled) individuals in a field experiment. Moreno (1934) wisely insisted that a sociometric investigation should refer to a specific situation since a person chosen as a partner for a given purpose will not necessarily be preferred in a different situation. Thus, the resources involved or needed in various conditions may be different. An example from the present study will help to elaborate on this train of thought. If a work-type task requires specific skills (negotiating and decision making ability) and a choice is available between two persons presented by photograph and personality profile: one a highly physically attractive person (but low on task-relevant skills); the other, a moderately physically attractive person (high on taskrelevant skills) 1 , which one would be chosen? According to the bulk of the literature, the prediction is that the highly physically attractive person (HPA) would be chosen even though this person is not in possession of the work task-- relevant skills. The influence of the HPA photograph for this context is expected to be overvalent. In a social-type task, with both partners again represented by photographs but as equal on socially task-relevant skills (socialinterpersonal traits), the same expectation would hold, i.e., choosing the HPA person. Why have plain when you can have flavored? What if the same situations presented themselves; however, this time there was no visual stimulus to represent the differences in physical attractiveness (no photographs)? What would happen if we had only written information that one stimulus person is HPA and the other is moderately physically attractive (MPA) and we were to choose between the two for the work-type task? Again, in this example the HPA person is below the MPA on the task-relevant skills. Would the same prediction still hold? The physical attrac-

4

tiveness stereotype prevail? It is the expectation of this investigator that without the impact of a visual stimulus (written information only) more attention would be directed to the work taskrelevant information. This indicates that the MPA persons would be chosen because they offer the pertinent skills for success on the task. Which would be chosen if we presented this same written information of the HPA and MPA persons for the social task? Remember, the worktype task differences are irrelevant for this situation. Because the HPA person is stereotypically perceived as more socially desirable, the prediction would be for the HPA person to be chosen? For the present study, the impression ratings between the higher and lesser attractive persons would be expected to differ. ,As early as 1946, for example, Asch found in his research that certain characteristics (i.e., warm-cold) of a person has a greater impact on both the overall impressions and evaluations of specific qualities of another person. He called these influential characteristics "central traits." This idea was supported by Kelley (1950) in a more realistic study. However, subsequent research by Wishner (1960) has found this relationship to be much more complex than previously found. Wishner's analyses have shown that the most important factor of the central traits' effect lies with the relationship it has with response traits. For instance, if persons were asked to decide how sociable or popular an individual is from a list of other traits, the dimension of warmth would be important because warmth is highly related to sociableness and popularity. But a characteristic like warmth would have little effect on other qualities (e.g. technical ability) and would be less central if the judges were asked to rate the individual on these. The same would be true of the trait "physical attractiveness."

5 Highly attractive people are generally rated as more sociable, popular, intelligent, and successful than their less attractive peers (Dion et al., 1972; Miller, 1970a; Seligman, 1974). Thus, based on the centrality of traits research and the literature on physical attractiveness, we would expect the HPA person to be rated higher than the MPA person on related traits. To test these notions about impression ratings and those questions pertaining to whether partner choices for the two different tasks are influenced by the nature of information (photograph vs. written/ rated physical attractiveness information) and the type of person (HPA vs. MPA person and above or below on various traits), the following hypotheses can be stated: Hypothesis 1. In the Social task/Photo condition (ST/P), it is expected that the HPA stimulus person will be chosen more often as a partner than the MPA person. Hypothesis 2. In the Social task/Written condition (ST/W), it is expected that the HPA person will be chosen more often as a partner than the MPA person, but the ratio of choices of HPA over MPA choices will be of lower magnitude than in the Photo condition. Hypothesis 3. In the Bargaining task/Photo condition (BT/P), it is expected that the HPA person will be chosen more often as a partner than the MPA person. Hypothesis 4. In the Bargaining task/Written condition (BT/W), it is expected that the MPA person will be chosen more often than the HPA person as a partner. Hypothesis 5. Impression ratings will be more favorable for the HPA than the MPA stimulus person on the dimensions of Liking, Popularity, Physical/Character Attractiveness and on Success in Professional Life. The ratings for the estimates of Grade Point Average (GPA) is expected to produce a more favorable -result for the MPA person in the Written conditions. It is believed that there will be more attention paid to the Work-Competence traits in the Written conditions and since the MPA person is presented as "Above" and the HPA as "Below" in this area; the MPA will receive more favorable ratings. In the Photo conditions it is predicted that the HPA person will be rated more favorable due to the halo effect of the attractive photograph.

Footnotes 1

Character Attractiveness is the measure used in the Written Condition since a Physical Attractiveness rating is already provided.2

METHOD Subjects The subjects were 64 male undergraduates at California State University, Los Angeles who were recruited by classroom appeal for volunteers. Participants were 32 Blacks and 32 Caucasians with a mean age of 25.6 and a range of 19 to 47 years. Design The subjects reviewed booklets that possessed profiles with physical attractiveness and personal information about two females and were to choose one to be their partner for a second session task. One partner was to be chosen for a "Bargaining Game" task and one was to be chosen for a "Social Perception" task. Each S, however, believed they would be chosen to participate in one of the two experimental tasks. One half of the subjects (32) were given booklets that had judges' ratings on physical attractiveness of the females with the personal profile (Written condition). There were 16 Black and 16 Caucasian S's per condition. Photos were matched to race of the subject. To investigate these partner choices, the design yielded a 2 x 2 within each of two task-contexts. Nature of information (Photo, Written) was varied with Profile type (HPA, MPA) within the Bargaining task choice and Social task choice contexts. This design also provided the comparison of changes in choice behavior as a function of task context and nature of information.

the race of the subject. To investigate these partner choices, the design yielded a 2 x 2 within each of two task-contexts. Nature of information (Photo, Written) was varied with Profile type (HPA, MPA) within the Bargaining task choice and Social task choice contexts. This design also provided the comparison of changes in choice behavior as a function of task context and nature of information. Stimulus Materials Each booklet in this study had two standard stimulus profiles. Included on each stimulus profile was a list of personality traits under three main categories. These categories were labeled: SocialInterpersonal, Work-Competence, and Non-Interpersonal. Each category heading represented a composite of trait adjectives that were from the same personality area (e.g. social, friendly . . . for SocialInterpersonal). Also, each heading had either the word ABOVE or BELOW circled next to it. This score represented to have rated herself on the six-point bipolar trait adjective scales. For example, if ABOVE is circled for Social-Interpersonal this indicates the stimulus person generally rated herself above the mean (3.0) on the traits comprising this composite. In this case, the stimulus person would be seen to consider herself very sociable, as possessing good interpersonal skills, poised, etc. If BELOW is circled, this means an averaged response that is below the mean (3.0), thus on the negative pole on these traits. In the Photo condition (PC) one profile was presented with a photo ' if a Highly Physically Attractive person (HPA) affixed and had a composite self-rating of ABOVE on Social-Interpersonal (SI), BELOW on Work-Competence (WC), and ABOVE on Non-Interpersonal traits (NI).0

The other profile was presented with photo of a Moderately Physically Attractive person (MPA). This same profile had presented self-ratings of ABOVE on SI traits, ABOVE on WC traits, and ABOVE on NI traits. Subjects in the Written condition (WC) were also presented with two profiles. Instead of a photograph each of these profiles had a physical attractiveness rating of the stimulus person attached to the profile. S's were led to believe that 20 judges rated each stimulus person based on a photograph. The system for rating and the rating scale were outlined in the booklet instructions. The HPA stimulus profile (ABOVE, BELOW, ABOVE) had a physical attractiveness rating of 8.0 attached to the profile. For the MPA stimulus person (ABOVE, ABOVE, ABOVE) the attached rating was 6.5. All other information presented on the two profiles was identical (age, race, and marital status). Picture Selection Twenty-four Black and 24 Caucasian women, mostly Monrovia Community Adult School students, volunteered as photographic subjects. Particular care was taken to include a wide range of attractiveness in the photographic sample. The resulting 48, 3 inch by 5 inch color portraits were distributed to 10 same-race males who served as judges. The 20 males were comprised of students and faculty from Citrus Community College (mean age of judges equaled 26 years old). The judges rated the female pictures on a (10) point scale of physical attractiveness ranging from "Extremely Attractive (10) to Physical Unattractive (1)." A (6) was considered "Moderately Attractive." Each judge was presented with the 24 same-race picture in a different random order, and his ratings were recorded by the experimenter. The judges were told that they should feel free to use all 10 categories with no restrictions as to the number assigned per category.

d

From each race two female pictures were selected by the experimenter. One photo was selected to represent a "Highly Physically Attractive" person (approximately an 8.0) and one to represent a "Moderately Physically Attractive" person (approximately a 6.5). For the Black S's a photograph with a mean of 7.85 (SD= .872) was chosen for the Highly Physically Attractive person and a photo with a mean rating of 6.4 (SD =.979) for the Moderately Physically Attractive stimulus person. For the Caucasian race a picture with a mean rating of 7.8(SD = .781) for the Highly Attractive stimulus person was chosen and a photo with a mean rating of 6.35 (SD= .894) for the Moderately Physically Attractive stimulus person. Procedure Two to four subjects were scheduled to report for the experiment during any given experimental session. As each S entered the designated experimental room he was greeted by E and asked to stand on a taped line to have an upper body photograph taken. It was explained to the S's during the classroom solicitation for volunteers that a photograph would be taken at the beginning of the first session. A 35mm camera with a flash was set on a tripod 6 feet from the taped line and was operated by the experimenter. This S stood until the camera flashed after which he was instructed to be seated. As soon as the last S was photographed and seated, the S's as a group were reminded that they were participating in a two session study. S's were told that the first session dealt with how persons make "impressions" of others on the basis of limited information. They were also told that since their own personality characteristics may affect how they judge others it would be necessary to fill out the same personality information that the females completed. This person-

ality information was elicited from an INFORMATION SHEET that followed the introduction section of the booklet. After this, S's were told that they would make potential partner choices for the Bargaining Game task and the Social Perception task. Participants were again reminded that they would be randomly chosen by computer to participate in only one of the two experimental tasks and that more specific instruction and descriptions would follow in the booklets. Following these introductory remarks, E handed each S one of the experimental booklets and instructed them not to open them until instructed. All booklets were stacked in a different random order prior to each session by the shuffling of a student not associated with the study. This effort to randomize the remainder booklets protected against the E having any knowledge of which condition any particular subject would be assigned. The booklets were coded by a colored piece of paper onefourth inch in the corers to cue the E as to race of the profiles enclosed within the booklet. A total of 64 booklets were made; of these, 32 were for the Photo condition (16 Blacks and 16 Caucasians) and 32 were for the Non-Photo condition (16 Blacks and 16 Caucasians). After reading the introduction and instructions the S completed the Information Sheet and moved on to the profiles. Paraphrasing this latter section, S's read the following: As you look over each profile we would like you to visualize or imagine how you think the person would be if she was actually here in front of you. Visualize how she would act, talk, look, etc. After you have thought about or imagined the person based on her profile, turn to the following page. You will see that accompanying each profile will a short set of scales to which you are to respond concerning that particular person. The purpose of these responses is to see how people form "impressions" of others based on limited information ...............

The subjects rated each stimulus profile on four 7 point bipolar scales. In order, this included Liking for the person, and estimates of Popularity, Grade Point Average, and Success for professional life. A 10 point scale for Physical Attractiveness was used since physical attractiveness ratings were already given. Following the impression ratings, S's went on to make their partner choices for the two tasks. Subjects were reminded that they could choose the same stimulus person for both tasks because they would only be selected for one. In sum, the description for the Bargaining task went as follows: . . . You and your partner will work together as a team bargaining with another couple whom you will not see, but will communicate-by intercom between rooms. . . . You will have the opportunity to win (or not win) some money depending on how well you and your partner can successfully compete with another couple. Success in this game is contingent on at least two basic factors: How competent your partner is for this worktype task, and how well you and your partner work together in bargaining with another couple. These factors should be kept in mind when you make your choice. The S then entered his partner choice in the booklet, rated the "Confidence" that he made the best choice and briefly discussed the reason for the choice. The description of the Social Perception task to S's is paraphrased below: . . . In the Social Perception study, you and your partner will meet on a coffee date (actually the choice of beverage is yours). The task will be to meet for a half-hour and get acquainted socially. The interaction you have with your partner will be compared with the other couples that participate in this study. You will be judged on how well you and your partner get along, and the amount and kind of conversations or interesting points brought up while on your date. Keep in mind when making your choice that a successful date is dependent not only on how well you communicate, but on the responsiveness of your partner as well. The subject again entered his partner choice in the booklet, rated the "Confidence" of his choice, and discussed in the space provided the reason for his choice.

After the Bargaining Game task and Social Perception task partner choices were made, a series of measures were asked of S related to their partner choice decisions. Imbedded in these measures was a 10 point scale for self-rating of physical attractiveness. RESULTS Comparisons between Black and Caucasian subjects on ratings of physical attractiveness for both the highly physically attractive (HPA) stimulus person (t = 1.47, df = 1, n.s.), and the moderately physically attractive (MPA) stimulus person (t = .14, df = 1,n.s.) produced no significant differences. Therefore, mean ratings of physical attractiveness are combined. The mean ratings of physical attractiveness for the HPA person is 7.84 (SD = 1.35); mean rating for the MPA person .is 6.03 (SD = 1.26). A t-test for related means showed the differences between the HPA and the MPA stimulus persons, to be significant (t = 7.57, df = I, p .0001) which indicates the choices of stimulus persons to represent these two levels of attractiveness were successful. Partner choices made by Black and Caucasian subjects for both the Social and Bargaining tasks were compared and the results are not significant (X2 = 7.85, df = 7, n.s.). Thus, partner choices for Blacks and Caucasians are combined in further analyses. According to the first hypothesis, it was predicted subjects would choose the EPA person over the MPA person for the Social task-Photo condition (ST-P). A binomial test was preformed and the results were highly significant in the expected direction (p .00001). The second hypothesis predicted that for the Social task-Written condition ST-W), the HPA person would again be chosen over the MPA person; however, the magnitude of the HPA partner choices in this condition (ST-W) would be less than those in the ST-P.

A binomial test found the partner choices to be in the expected direction or statistical significance (p. .0135). Comparisons of total HPA to MPA partner choices for the Social task, for both ST-P and ST-W conditions, also proved to be highly significant (X2 = 26.0, .0000001). Table 1 summarizes the choices are combined together and contrasted with the total MPA choices the comparison by binomial test is again highly significant (p .0000001). Table 1 summarizes the choicemaking data for Social task. Table 1

Social Task Partner Choices

Nature of Information Photograph Condition

HPA 286

MPA

4 8 12

Written Condition

24 52

Chi-squares were calculated in all cases without Yates correction for continuity (see Camilli & Hopkins, 1978). Hypothesis three predicted that for partner choice in the Bargaining task-Photo condition (BT-P) subjects would choose the HPA person over the MPA person as a partner. The binomial test comparing the ratio of HPA over MPA partner choices (BT-P) failed to reach significance (p .18).

1

The fourth hypothesis, however, made a prediction in the opposite direction: Here it was predicted that for partner choice in the Bargaining task-Written condition (BT-W) subjects would choose the MPA person

over the HPA person as a partner. The expectation was based on the premise that more attention would be given to the task-relevant WorkCompetence trait information in the absence of a photograph. The binomial test was used and the differences are highly significant (p .000057). Thus, the hypothesis is confirmed. Data analysis of the overall Bargaining task partner choices also proved to be highly significant (Xi = 13.07, p .00005). Photo and Written conditions produce differential partner choice decisions for the Bargaining task. Subjects make MPA partner choices also proved choices more often in the WC and tend to make more HPA partner choices in the PC. These comparisons may be inspected in Table 2. Further analyses regarding the overall task-relevant partner choices were performed. It was expected that subjects in the Written condition would make more task-relevant partner choices than those subjects assigned to the Photo condition. The task-relevant choice for the Social task is the HPA person and the task-relevant choice for the Bargaining task is the MPA person. Using the Lancaster and Irwin method for partitioning 2 X 2 tables (Everitt, 1977, pp. 41-44), the relationship of task-relevant choices to stereotypic choices (i.e. HPA person for both tasks) is significant

(4

= 8.18, p .0005). It may be seen in Tables 3 and 4 that

task-relevant partner choices occurred more often in the Written rather than the Photo condition. Table 2 Bargaining Task Choices Nature of Information Photograph Condition Written ConditionHPA MPA

19

These analyses demonstrate the fact that the manipulations on the nature of Information (Photo vs. Written conditions) with the Type of person (HPA, MPA) has a definite influence on partner choice behavior for the two tasks. After a partner choice was made for each task the subject rated the "degree of confidence" that he had made the best partner choice. Based on the hypotheses for partner choices it was expected that high confidence would be associated with choosing the HPA person for the STP, ST-W, and BT-P conditions; however, it was also expected that high confidence would be associated with choosing the MPA for the BT-W condition. Point biserial correlational analyses find the choice of the MPA person for the BT-W is associated with high confidence (rbis .33, df = 31, p .05). No other comparisons of confidence and partner choice are significant. One of the central issues of the present research is whether on four-7 point measures the HPA stimulus person would be differentially assessed in comparison with the MPA stimulus person. Comparisons were made both within the Photo condition and within the Written condition. A fifth measure is a 10 point scale for rating the stimulus person on Physical Attractiveness. The measure is termed Character Attractiveness in the Written condition since a physical attractiveness rating is already provided. For hypothesis five, the prediction that the HPA stimulus person would be rated more favorably than the MPA person on Liking, Popularity, Attractiveness, and Success; and the MPA person rated more favorably on the Grade Point Average is partially confirmed. Comparisons were computed using a t-test for related means. Table 5 shows that for the Photo condition the HPA person is Liked more, perceived as more Popular, and as higher in Physical Attractiveness than the MPA person. The Success

dimension did not produce a significant result. The Grade Point Average (GPA) measure approached significance in the predicted direction (in favor of MPA). For Table 5 and all tables to follow a lower mean signifies a more favorable score; however, for the Physical/Character Attractiveness dimension the reverse is true. In the Written condition, the HPA person is again Liked more, is seen as more Popular, and has a higher Attractiveness rating than the MPA. As predicted, the MPA person is'definitely perceived as definitely academically competent. See Table 6 for details. From these findings it appears that without the photograph (Written condition) the subjects apparently still operated to some degree on the physical attractiveness stereotype; that is, the HPA person is rated as more socially desirable than the MPA person. However, this same HPA person is not seen to be a better student or predicted to have a more successful professional life. As can be seen from Tables 5 and 6 the magnitude of favorableness scores for the HPA versus the MPA person is larger in the Photo condition; whereas, the favorableness score for the MPA on the GPA measure is larger in the Written condition. Also computed were t-tests for independent means to compare subject's ratings of the HPA person in the Photo condition with those in the Written condition. These tests were also completed for ratings of MPA persons across the two conditions. These comparisons yield an interesting trend. The only significant differences for both physical attractiveness levels are the measure of perceived GPA.. The HPA person benefits from the Photo condition on GPA. This indicates that subjects in this condition rate GPA higher for the HPA person when a photo is available. For the MPA person the GPA rating is more favorable when she is presented in the Written condition; however, this result only approached significance. It appears from this sample that if you are more

not physically attractive you may be better off in some contexts (e.g. academic) to be evaluated without a visual representation (i.e. no photo). The results of these comparisons are displayed in Tables 7 & 8. The relationship between self-rating of physical attractiveness and partner choice was compared for matching of attractiveness levels. The choosing of the HPA person for the ST-P condition is associated with high self-ratings of physical attractiveness (rbis = .31, df=31, p .05). Their partner choice combinations are associated with self-ratings of physical attractiveness. The significant finding here is partially in line with some of the earlier research on matching of partner choice with self-rated physical attractiveness (Berscheid et al., 1971; Berscheid & Walster, 1974b; Huston, 1973; however, in the present study this finding is true only for one four comparisons. DISCUSSION The present study was designed to test the central predication that behavior of an individual making partner choices between a competent moderately attractive and a less competent highly attractive woman can be predicted from the knowledge of the task and the nature of the information. The results of the present study confirmed this prediction. The general findings are that more HPA persons were chosen for a social interaction task in both the Photo and Written conditions. Fifty-two of the 64 total subjects chose this way. Clearly the HPA person is considered more socially desirable whether a stimulus picture is presented or not. As expected, more MPA persons were chosen as Bargaining task partners in the Written condition (WC), while more HPA persons were chosen as Bargaining task partners in the Photo condition (PC).

For this Bargaining task, the MPA choices are task-relevant and reflect the attention paid to the task-relevant traits of WorkComptence presented on the stimulus profiles. The increased number of HPA choices in the PC for the Bargaining task demonstrates a possible halo effect for the HPA. This latter type of partner choice may be considered as task-irrelevant because the HPA person was low on the task-relevant Work-Competence traits; however, it is consistent with the "Beauty is Talent" findings of Landy and Sigall (1974). The present results are more striking than the above study since the highly and moderately attractive persons were not equal on all other factors; the less attractive person was higher on Work-Competence skills. In the PC only 10 of32 subjects made partner choices that were task-relevant. Even fewer subjects made partner choices in conformance with the MPA-MPA pattern of responding in this PC. It is interesting to note why these latter subjects did not respond in a stereotypic manner as did the majority of the respondents in this condition. Two of the three commented in their booklet that they felt "awkward" or "uneasy" with physically attractive women and the third declined to comment. It seems that in the PC, the physical attractiveness of the stimulus persons is overvalent across task-contexts. One idea of why subjects may have chosen in this direction may be due to the belief that they could "pull" or elicit certain desirable behaviors from the attractive partner to conform to their stereotypic expectations (see Snyder, Tanke, and Berschied, 1977). This favorable expectation could also have led to the belief that the HPA female in the PC may have been a bit modest in her self-ratings on the Work-Competence traits or that she did not want to appear perfect, egotistical, or as a threat to males. It is not unlikely that subjects for either task (Bargaining