1. .QUESTION

    In the article “What is Beautiful is Good,” why was it assumed, of all the characteristics in their favor, that physically attractive people would be poorer parents than unattractive or average attractive people?    

   Discussion Board #2 Directions:

   Be sure to use the material from the reading to answer the question (do not use the internet)

   I. Answer the Following Question:

   1.) In the article “What is Beautiful is Good,” (please find article attached) why was it assumed, of all the characteristics in their favor, that physically attractive people would be poorer parents than unattractive or average attractive people?

   Directions for Response:
   a.) Response must be academically substantive

   b.) Response must be a minimum of 150 words and a maximum of 300 words.

   c.) Response must be checked for spelling and grammar

   d.) Direct quotes must be used sparingly and placed in quotation marks

   III. Create 1 original critical thinking question from your reading assignment.

   a.) The critical thinking question must be original, academically substantive, and thought provoking.\

   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

   19722,. Vol. 24, No. 3, 285-290

   WHAT IS BEAUTIFUL IS GOOD

   KAREN DION,2 ELLEN BERSCHEIDs

   University of Minnesota

   ELAINE WALSTER

   University of Wisconsin

   A person’s physical appearance, along with his sexual identity, is the personal

   characteristic that is most obvious and accessible to others in social interaction.

   The present experiment was designed to determine whether physically

   attractive stimulus persons, both male and female, are (a) assumed to possess

   more socially desirable personality traits than physically unattractive stimulus

   persons and (6) expected to lead better lives (e.g., be more competent

   husbands and wives, be more successful occupationally, etc.) than unattractive

   stimulus persons. Sex of Subject X Sex of Stimulus Person interactions

   along these dimensions also were investigated. The present results indicate a

   “what is beautiful is good” stereotype along the physical attractiveness dimension

   with no Sex of Judge X Sex of Stimulus interaction. The implications of

   such a stereotype on self-concept development and the course of social interaction

   are discussed.

   A person’s physical appearance, along with

   his sexual identity, is the personal characteristic

   most obvious and accessible to others in

   social interaction. It is perhaps for this reason

   that folk psychology has always contained

   a multitude of theorems which ostensibly

   permit the forecast of a person’s character

   and personality simply from knowledge

   of his outward appearance. The line of deduction

   advanced by most physiognomic

   theories is simply that “What is beautiful is

   good . . . [Sappho, Fragments, No, 101],”

   and that “Physical beauty is the sign of an

   interior beauty, a spiritual and moral beauty

   . . . [Schiller, 1882].”

   Several processes may operate to make the

   soothsayers’ prophecies more logical and accurate

   than would appear at first glance.

   First, it is possible that a correlation between

   inward character and appearance exists because

   certain personality traits influence

   one’s appearance. For example, a calm, relaxed

   person may develop fewer lines and

   wrinkles than a tense, irritable person. Second,

   cultural stereotypes about the kinds of

   personalities appropriate for beautiful or ugly

   people may mold the personalities of these

   1 This research was financed in part by National

   Institute of Mental Health Grants MH 16729 to

   Berscheid and MH 16661 to Walster.

   2 Now at the University of Toronto.

   8 Requests for reprints should be sent to Ellen

   Berscheid, Laboratory for Research in Social Relations,

   University of Minnesota, Elliott Hall, Minneapolis,

   Minnesota SS4SS.

   individuals. If casual acquaintances invariably

   assume that attractive individuals are more

   sincere, noble, and honest than unattractive

   persons, then attractive individuals should be

   habitually regarded with more respect than

   unattractive persons. Many have noted that

   one’s self-concept develops from observing

   what others think about oneself. Thus, if the

   physically attractive person is consistently

   treated as a virtuous person, he may become

   one.

   The above considerations pose several questions:

   (a) Do individuals in fact have stereotyped

   notions of the personality traits possessed

   by individuals of varying attractiveness?

   (6) To what extent are these stereotypes

   accurate? (c) What is the cause of the

   correlation between beauty and personality if,

   in fact, such a correlation exists?

   Some observers, of course, deny that such

   stereotyping exists, and thus render Questions

   b and c irrelevant. Chief among these

   are rehabilitation workers (cf. Wright, 1960)

   whose clients possess facial and other physical

   disabilities. These researchers, however,

   may have a vested interest in believing that

   physical beauty is a relatively unimportant

   determinant of the opportunities an individual

   has available to him.

   Perhaps more interestingly, it has been

   asserted that other researchers also have had

   a vested interest in retaining the belief that

   beauty is a peripheral characteristic. Aronson

   (1969), for example, has suggested that the

   285

   286 K. DION, E. BERSCHEID, AND E. WALSTER

   fear that investigation might prove this assumption

   wrong has generally caused this to

   be a taboo area for social psychologists:

   As an aside, I might mention that physical attractiveness

   is rarely investigated as an antecedent of

   liking—even though a casual observation (even by

   us experimental social psychologists) would indicate

   that we seem to react differently to beautiful women

   than to homely women. It is difficult to be certain

   why the effects of physical beauty have not been

   studied more systematically. It may be that, at some

   levels, we would hate to find evidence indicating

   that beautiful women are better liked than homely

   women—-somehow this seems undemocratic. In a

   democracy we like to feel that with hard work and

   a good deal of motivation, a person can accomplish

   almost anything. But, alas (most of us believe),

   hard work cannot make an ugly woman beautiful.

   Because of this suspicion perhaps most social psychologists

   implicitly prefer to believe that beauty is

   indeed only skin deep—and avoid the investigation

   of its social impact for fear they might learn otherwise

   [p. 160].

   The present study was an attempt to determine

   if a physical attractiveness stereotype

   exists and, if so, to investigate the content

   of the stereotype along several dimensions.

   Specifically, it was designed to investigate

   (a) whether physically attractive stimulus

   persons, both male and female, are assumed

   to possess more socially desirable personality

   traits than unattractive persons and

   (b) whether they are expected to lead better

   lives than unattractive individuals. With respect

   to the latter, we wished to determine if

   physically attractive persons are generally

   expected to be better husbands and wives,

   better parents, and more successful socially

   and occupationally than less attractive persons.

   Because it seemed possible that jealousy

   might attenuate these effects (if one is jealous

   of another, he may be reluctant to accord the

   other the status that he feels the other deserves),

   and since subjects might be expected

   to be more jealous of attractive stimulus persons

   of the same sex than of the opposite

   sex, we examined the Sex of Subject X Sex of

   Stimulus Person interactions along the dimensions

   described above.

   METHOD

   Subjects

   Sixty students, 30 males and 30 females, who were

   enrolled in an introductory course in psychology at

   the University of Minnesota participated in this experiment.

   Each had agreed to participate in return for

   experimental points to be added to their final exam

   grade.

   Procedure

   When the subjects arrived at the designated rooms,

   they were introduced to the experiment as a study

   of accuracy in person perception. The experimenter

   stated that while psychological studies have shown

   that people do form detailed impressions of others

   on the basis of a very few cues, the variables determining

   the extent to which these early impressions

   are generally accurate have not yet been completely

   identified. The subjects were told that the

   purpose of the present study was to compare person

   perception accuracy of untrained college students

   with two other groups who had been trained in

   various interpersonal perception techniques, specifically

   graduate students in clinical psychology and

   clinical psychologists. The experimenter noted his

   belief that person perception accuracy is a general

   ability varying among people. Therefore, according

   to the experimenter, college students who are high on

   this ability may be as accurate as some professional

   clinicians when making first-impression judgments

   based on noninterview material.

   The subjects were told that standard sets of photographs

   would be used as the basis for personality

   inferences. The individuals depicted in the photographs

   were said to be part of a group of college

   students currently enrolled at other universities who

   were participating in a longitudinal study of personality

   development scheduled to continue into adulthood.

   It would be possible, therefore, to assess the

   accuracy of each subject’s judgments against information

   currently available on the stimulus persons

   and also against forthcoming information.

   Stimulus materials. Following the introduction,

   each subject was given three envelopes. Each envelope

   contained one photo of a stimulus person of

   approximately the subject’s own age. One of the

   three envelopes that the subject received contained

   a photograph of a physically attractive stimulus

   person; another contained a photograph of a person

   of average attractiveness; and the final envelope

   contained a photograph of a relatively unattractive

   stimulus person.4 Half of our subjects received three

   pictures of girls; the remainder received pictures of

   boys.

   4 The physical attractiveness rating of each of the

   pictures was determined in a preliminary study.

   One hundred Minnesota undergraduates rated SO

   yearbook pictures of persons of the opposite sex

   with respect to physical attractiveness. The criteria

   for choosing the 12 pictures to be used experimentally

   were (a) high-interrater agreement as to the physical

   attractiveness of the stimulus (the average interrater

   correlation for all of the pictures was .70);

   and (b) pictures chosen to represent the very attractive

   category and very unattractive category were

   not at the extreme ends of attractiveness.

   WHAT is BEAUTIFUL is GOOD 287

   To increase the generalizability of our findings and

   to insure that the general dimension of attractiveness

   was the characteristic responded to (rather than

   unique characteristics such as hair color, etc.), 12

   different sets of three pictures each were prepared.

   Each subject received and rated only 1 set. Which

   1 of the 12 sets of pictures the subject received, the

   order in which each of the three envelopes in the

   set were presented, and the ratings made of the

   person depicted, were all randomly determined.

   Dependent variables. The subjects were requested

   to record their judgments of the three stimulus persons

   in several booklets.5 The first page of each

   booklet cautioned the subjects that this study was

   an investigation of accuracy of person perception

   and that we were not interested in the subjects’

   tact, politeness, or other factors usually important

   in social situations. It was stressed that it was important

   for the subject to rate the stimulus persons

   frankly.

   The booklets tapped impressions of the stimulus

   person along several dimensions. First, the subjects

   were asked to open the first envelope and then to

   rate the person depicted on 27 different personality

   traits (which were arranged in random order).”

   The subjects’ ratings were made on 6-point scales,

   the ends of which were labeled by polar opposites

   (i.e., exciting-dull). When these ratings had been

   computed, the subject was asked to open the second

   envelope, make ratings, and then open the third

   envelope.

   In a subsequent booklet, the subjects were asked

   to assess the stimulus persons on five additional

   personality traits.7 These ratings were made on a

   slightly different scale. The subjects were asked to

   indicate which stimulus person possessed the “most”

   and “least” of a given trait. The stimulus person

   thought to best represent a positive trait was assigned

   a score of 3; the stimulus person thought to

   possess an intermediate amount of the trait was

   assigned a score of 2; and the stimulus person

   thought to least represent the trait was assigned a

   score of 1.

   6 A detailed report of the items included in these

   booklets is available. Order Document No. 01972

   from the National Auxiliary Publication Service of

   the American Society for Information Science, c/o

   CCM Information Services, Inc., 909 3rd Avenue,

   New York, New York 10022. Remit in advance

   $5.00 for photocopies or $2.00 for microfiche and

   make checks payable to: Research and Microfilm

   Publications, Inc.

   fl The subjects were asked how altruistic, conventional,

   self-assertive, exciting, stable, emotional, dependent,

   safe, interesting, genuine, sensitive, outgoing,

   sexually permissive, sincere, warm, sociable,

   competitive, obvious, kind, modest, strong, serious,

   sexually warm, simple, poised, bold, and sophisticated

   each stimulus person was.

   7 The subjects rated stimulus persons on the following

   traits: friendliness, enthusiasm, physical attractiveness,

   social poise, and trustworthiness.

   In a previous experiment (see Footnote 5), a

   subset of items was selected to comprise an index of

   the social desirability of the personality traits assigned

   to the stimulus person. The subjects’ ratings

   of each stimulus person on the appropriate items

   were simply summed to determine the extent to

   which the subject perceived each stimulus person as

   socially desirable.

   In order to assess whether or not attractive persons

   are expected to lead happier and more successful

   lives than unattractive persons, the subjects were

   asked to estimate which of the stimulus persons

   would be most likely, and which least likely, to have

   a number of different life experiences. The subjects

   were reminded again that their estimates would

   eventually be checked for accuracy as the lives of

   the various stimulus persons evolved. The subjects’

   estimates of the stimulus person’s probable life experiences

   formed indexes of the stimulus person’s

   future happiness in four areas: (a) marital happiness

   (Which stimulus person is most likely to ever

   be divorced?); (,6) parental happiness (Which stimulus

   person is most likely to be a good parent?);

   (c) social and professional happiness (Which stimulus

   person is most likely to experience deep personal

   fulfillment?); and (d) total happiness (sum of Indexes

   a, b, and c ) .

   A fifth index, an occupational success index, was

   also obtained for each stimulus person. The subjects

   were asked to indicate which of the three stimulus

   persons would be most likely to engage in 30 different

   occupations. (The order in which the occupations

   were presented and the estimates made was

   randomized.) The 30 occupations had been chosen

   such that three status levels of 10 different general

   occupations were represented, three examples of

   which follow: Army sergeant (low status) ; Army

   captain ‘ (average status); Army colonel (high

   status). Each time a high-status occupation was

   foreseen for a stimulus person, the stimulus person

   was assigned a score of 3; when a moderate status

   occupation was foreseen, the stimulus person was

   assigned a score of 2; when a low-status occupation

   was foreseen, a score of 1 was assigned. The average

   status of occupations that a subject ascribed to a

   stimulus person constituted the score for that stimulus

   person in the occupational status index.

   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

   Manipulation Check

   It is clear that our manipulation of the

   relative attractiveness of the stimulus persons

   depicted was effective. The six unattractive

   stimulus persons were seen as less attractive

   than the average stimulus persons, who, in

   turn, were seen as less attractive than the six

   attractive stimulus persons. The stimulus

   persons’ mean rankings on the attractiveness

   dimension were 1.12, 2.02, and 2.87, respec288

   1. DION, E. BERSCHEID, AND E. WALSTER

   TABLE 1

   TRAITS ATTRIBUTED TO VARIOUS STIMULUS OTHERS

   Trait ascription”

   Social desirability of

   the stimulus person’s

   personality

   Occupational status

   of the stimulus person

   Marital competence

   of the stimulus person

   Parental competence

   of the stimulus person

   Social and professional

   happiness of the

   stimulus person

   Total happiness of

   the stimulus person

   Likelihood of marriage

   Unattractive

   stimulus

   person

   56.31

   1.70

   .37

   3.91

   5.28

   8.83

   1.52

   Average

   stimulus

   person

   62.42

   2.02

   .71

   4.55

   6.34

   11.60

   1.82

   Attractive

   stimulus

   person

   65.39

   2.25

   1.70

   3.54

   6.37

   11.60

   2.17

   ” The higher the number, the more socially desirable, the

   more prestigious an occupation, etc., the stimulus person Is

   expected to possess.

   tively. These differences were statistically significant

   (F= 939.32 ).8

   Test of Hypotheses

   It will be recalled that it was predicted

   that the subjects would attribute more socially

   desirable personality traits to attractive individuals

   than to average or unattractive individuals.

   It also was anticipated that jealousy

   might attenuate these effects. Since the subjects

   might be expected to be more jealous of

   stimulus persons of the same sex than of the

   opposite sex, we blocked both on sex of subject

   and sex of stimulus person. If jealousy

   attenuated the predicted main effect, a significant

   Sex of Subject X Sex of Stimulus

   Person interaction should be secured in addition

   to the main effect.

   All tests for detection of linear trend and

   interaction were conducted via a multivariate

   analysis of variance. (This procedure is outlined

   in Hays, 1963.)

   The means relevant to the hypothesis that

   attractive individuals will be perceived to

   possess more socially desirable personalities

   than others are reported in Table 1. Analyses

   reveal that attractive individuals were indeed

   8 Throughout this report, d/=l/55,

   judged to be more socially desirable than are

   unattractive (F = 29.61) persons. The Sex of

   Subject X Sex of Stimulus Person interaction

   was insignificant (interaction F = .00).

   Whether the rater was of the same or the

   opposite sex as the stimulus person, attractive

   stimulus persons were judged as more socially

   desirable.9

   Furthermore, it was also hypothesized that

   the subjects would assume that attractive

   stimulus persons are likely to secure more

   prestigious jobs than those of lesser attractiveness,

   as well as experiencing happier marriages,

   being better parents, and enjoying

   more fulfilling social and occupational lives.

   The means relevant to these predictions

   concerning the estimated future life experiences

   of individuals of varying degrees of

   physical attractiveness are also depicted in

   Table 1. As shown in the table, there was

   strong support for all of the preceding hypotheses

   save one. Attractive men and women

   were expected to attain more prestigious occupations

   than were those of lesser attractiveness

   (F = 42.30), and this expectation was

   expressed equally by raters of the same or the

   opposite sex as the stimulus person (interaction

   .F= .25).

   The subjects also assumed that attractive

   individuals would be more competent spouses

   and have happier marriages than those of

   lesser attractiveness (^ = 62.54). (It, might

   be noted that there is some evidence that this

   may be a correct perception. Kirkpatrick and

   9 Before running the preliminary experiment to

   determine the identity of traits usually associated

   with a socially desirable person (see Footnote 5),

   we had assumed that an exciting date, a nurturant

   person, and a person of good character would be

   perceived as quite different personality types. Conceptually,

   for example, we expected that an exciting

   date would be seen to require a person who was

   unpredictable, challenging, etc., while a nurturant

   person would be seen to be predictable and unthreatening.

   It became clear, however, that these

   distinctions were not ones which made sense to the

   subjects. There was almost total overlap between

   the traits chosen as representative of an exciting date,

   of a nurturant person, and a person of good or

   ethical character. All were strongly correlated with

   social desirability. Thus, attractive stimulus persons

   are assumed to be more exciting dates (F = 39.97),

   more nurturant individuals (F = 13.96), and to have

   better character (F = 19.57) than persons of lesser

   attractiveness.

   WHAT is BEAUTIFUL is GOOD 289

   Cotton ( 1 9 5 1 ) , reported that “well-adjusted”

   wives were more physically attractive than

   “badly adjusted” wives. “Adjustment,” however,

   was assessed by friends’ perceptions,

   which may have been affected by the stereotype

   evident here.)

   According to the means reported in Table

   1, it is clear that attractive individuals were

   not expected to be better parents (F = 1.47).

   In fact, attractive persons were rated somewhat

   lower than any other group of stimulus

   persons as potential parents, although no

   statistically significant differences were apparent.

   As predicted, attractive stimulus persons

   were assumed to have better prospects for

   happy social and professional lives (F =

   21.97). All in all, the attractive stimulus persons

   were expected to have more total happiness

   in their lives than those of lesser attractiveness

   (F= 24.20).

   The preceding results did not appear to be

   attenuated by a jealousy effect (Sex of Subject

   X Stimulus Person interaction Fs = .01,

   .07, .21, and .05, respectively).

   The subjects were also asked to estimate

   the likelihood that the various stimulus persons

   would marry early or marry at all. Responses

   were combined into a single index.

   It is evident that the subjects assumed that

   the attractive stimulus persons were more

   likely to find an acceptable partner than

   those of lesser attractiveness (F = 35.84).

   Attractive individuals were expected to marry

   earlier and to be less likely to remain single.

   Once again, these conclusions were reached by

   all subjects, regardless of whether they were

   of the same or opposite sex of the stimulus

   person (interaction F — .01).

   The results suggest that a physical attractiveness

   stereotype exists and that its content

   is perfectly compatible with the “What is

   beautiful is good” thesis. Not only are physically

   attractive persons assumed to possess

   more socially desirable personalities than

   those of lesser attractiveness, but it is presumed

   that their lives will be happier and

   more successful.

   The results also suggest that the physical

   attractiveness variable may have a number of

   implications for a variety of aspects of social

   interaction and influence. For example, it is

   clear that physically attractive individuals

   may have even more advantages in the dating

   market than has previously been assumed. In

   addition to an aesthetic advantage in marrying

   a beautiful spouse (cf. Josselin de Jong,

   19S2), potential marriage partners may also

   assume that the beautiful attract all of the

   world’s material benefits and happiness.

   Thus, the lure of an attractive marriage partner

   should be strong indeed.

   We do not know, of course, how well this

   stereotype stands up against contradictory information.

   Nor do we know the extent to

   which it determines the pattern of social

   interaction that develops with a person of a

   particular attractiveness level. Nevertheless,

   it would be odd if people did not behave

   toward others in accordance with this stereotype.

   Such behavior has been previously

   noted anecdotally. Monahan (1941) has observed

   that

   Even social workers accustomed to dealing with all

   types often find it difficult to think of a normal,

   pretty girl as being guilty of a crime. Most people,

   for some inexplicable reason, think of crime in terms

   of abnormality in appearance, and I must say that

   beautiful women are not often convicted [p. 103].

   A host of other familiar social psychological

   dependent variables also should be affected

   in predictable ways.

   In the above connection, it might be noted

   that if standards of physical attractiveness

   vary widely, knowledge of the content of the

   physical attractiveness stereotype would be of

   limited usefulness in predicting its effect on

   social interaction and the development of the

   self-concept. The present study was not designed

   to investigate the degree of variance

   in perceived beauty. (The physical attractiveness

   ratings of the stimulus materials were

   made by college students of a similar background

   to those who participated in this

   study.) Preliminary evidence (Cross & Cross,

   1971) suggests that such differences in perceived

   beauty may not be as severe as some

   observers have suggested.

   REFERENCES

   ARONSON, E. Some antecedents of interpersonal

   attraction. In W. J. Arnold & D. Levine (Eds.),

   Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1969, 17,

   143-177.

   290 K. DION, E. BERSCHEID, AND E. WALSTER

   CROSS, J. F., & CROSS, J. Age, sex, race, and the per- MONAHAN, F. Women in crime. New York: Ives

   ception of facial beauty. Developmental Psychol- Washburn, 1941.

   ogy, 1971, 5, 433-439. SCHILLER, J. C. F. Essays, esthetical and philo-

   HAYS, W. L. Statistics for psychologists. New York: sophical, including the dissertation on the “Con-

   Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963. nexions between the animal and the spiritual in

   JOSSELIN DE JONG, J. P. B. Levi-Strauss’ theory on man.” London: Bell, 1882.

   kinship and marriage. Leiden, Holland: Brill, 19S2. WRIGHT, B. A. Physical disability—A psychological

   KIRKPATRICK, C., & COTTON, J. Physical attractive- approach. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.

   ness, age, and marital adjustment. American Sociological

   Review, 1951, 16, 81-86. (Received July 14, 1971)

   Manuscripts Accepted for Publication in the

   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

   Social Distance as Categorization of Intergroup Interaction. Carolyn W. Sherif (Department of Psychology,

   Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802).

   Film-Induced Arousal, Information Search, and the Attribution Process. Michel Girodo (Royal Ottawa Hospital,

   1145 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario KIZ 7K4).

   Tngroup Norms and Self-Identity as Determinants of Discriminatory Behavior. Khor 0. Boyanowsky (Department

   of Psychology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia) and Vernon L. Allen.

   Experimentally Induced Changes in Moral Opinions and Reasoning (Charles Blake Keasey (Department of

   Psychology, Douglass College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903).

   Personality Variables Associated with Cigarette Smoking. Richard W. Coan (Department of Psychology, University

   of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721).

   Personality and Social Systems and Attitude-Reinforcer-Discriminative Theory: Interest (Attitude) Formation,

   Function, and Measurement. Arthur W. Staats (Department of Psychology, 2430 Campus Road, University

   of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822), Michael C. Cross, Peter F. Quay, and Carl C. Carlson.

   Rules, Models, and Self-Reinforcement in Children. David E. Hildebrant (Department of Psychology, Northern

   Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois 60115), Solomon F. Feldman, and Raymond A. Ditrichs.

   Attitude Change and Attitude Attribution: Effects of Incentive, Choice, and Consequences in the Festinger and

   Carlsmith Paradigm. Bobby J. Calder (Department of Business Administration, University of Illinois,

   Urbana, Illinois 61801), Michael Ross, and Chester A. Insko.

   The Defendant’s Dilemma: Effects of Jurors’ Attitudes and Authoritarianism on Judicial Decisions. Herman E.

   Mitchell and Donn Byrne (Department of Psychology, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana 47907).

   Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement and Reaction to Frustration. Michael Brissett and Stephen

   Nowicki, Jr. (Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322).

   Attitudinal Politics: The Strategy of Moderation. Robert B. Cialdini (Department of Psychology, Arizona State

   University, Temne, Arizona 85281), Alan Levy, C. Peter Herman, and Scott Evenbeck.

   Smoking, Physiological Arousal, and Emotional Response. Paul David Nesbitt (Department of Psychology,

   University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106).

   Investigation into Deindividuation Using a Cross-Cultural Survey Technique. Robert I. Watson, Jr. (Department

   of Social Relations, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138).

   When Do Opposites Attract? When They Are Opposite in Sex and Sex-Role Attitudes. B. A. Seyfried (Department

   of Psychology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44240) and Clyde Hendrick.

   Stimulus Inconsistency and Response Dispositions in Forming Judgments of Other Persons. Martin F. Kaplan

   (Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois 60115).

   Context Effects in Observed Violence. Russell G. Geen (Department of Psychology, University of Missouri,

   Columbia, Missouri 65201) and David Stonner.

   Pygmalion Black and White. Pamela C. Rubovits and Martin L. Maehr (Department of Education Psychology,

   University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801).

   Exposure, Context, and Interpersonal Attraction. Susan Saegert (Environmental Psychology Program, The City

   University of New York, 33 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036), Walter Swap, and R. B. Zajonc.

   Power, Opportunity Costs, and Sex in a Mixed-Motive Game. Jeffrey Bedell and Frank Sistrunk (Director of

   Social Sciences, Stale University System of Florida, 107 West Gaincs Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32304).

   (Continued on fiage 305)

Related Samples