1977
DOI: 10.1177/014616727700300423
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

What Is Intelligent, As Well As Attractive, Is Good

Abstract: One reason that physical attractiveness affects person perception judgments is that it is easily available information. It was hypothesized that when another characteristic, such as intelligence is made apparent, that it will evoke a stereotype similar to that evoked by attractiveness. A videotaped stimulus person, whose level of intelligence and attractiveness were manipulated, was rated by 68 subjects. The findings suggest that impressions are formed on the basis of all available information, rather than bei… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1979
1979
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is an intriguing question why people behave differently in a social situation as a function of their measured intelligence. We do know that intelligence is considered a positive social trait (Murphy et al, 2001; Solomon & Saxe, 1977), which might explain why individuals would want to appear intelligent. Although lower‐intelligence individuals may be equally motivated to appear intelligent, they may display lower rates of eye‐gaze, responsiveness, or looking while speaking because they do not know which cues are stereotypically associated with intelligence, or they know the cues but lack the skills to display them.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is an intriguing question why people behave differently in a social situation as a function of their measured intelligence. We do know that intelligence is considered a positive social trait (Murphy et al, 2001; Solomon & Saxe, 1977), which might explain why individuals would want to appear intelligent. Although lower‐intelligence individuals may be equally motivated to appear intelligent, they may display lower rates of eye‐gaze, responsiveness, or looking while speaking because they do not know which cues are stereotypically associated with intelligence, or they know the cues but lack the skills to display them.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, it appears that many cues people believe are associated with intelligence differ from cues that are actually related to measured intelligence. Related research suggests that higher intelligence is believed to be related to other positive expressive behaviors and appearance (Solomon & Saxe, 1977), resulting in an ''intelligence halo'' effect (Murphy et al, 2001). If so, then judges may be using other positive expressive behaviors they believe are related to measured intelligence, when, in fact, these are invalid cues in the assessment of intelligence.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Highly intelligent individuals also have been described as possessing maturity, common sense, and open-mindedness (Berg & Sternberg, 1992). High intelligence was associated with more desired personality traits, a greater likelihood of future social happiness (Solomon & Saxe, 1977), and likeableness and meaningfulness (Anderson, 1968). Intelligence has been related to kindness, goodness, and normality (Fuhrman, Bodenhausen, & Lichtenstein, 1989).…”
Section: The Desire To Appear Intelligent and Impression Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, both cognitive and affective elements of one's attraction toward another person are represented within the potential variables that contribute to interpersonal attraction (Byme & Clore, 1974). Research shows that the following variables depicted in the model are linked to attraction: physical attractiveness (Bar-Tal & Saxe, 1976;Byme, London & Reeves, 1968;Dion, Berscheid & Walster, 1972;Miller, 1970;Reingen, Gresham, & Keman, 1980;Ronkainen & Reingen, 1979), similarity (Brock, 1965;Byme, London & Reeves, 1968;Clore & Baldridge, 1968;Evans, 1963;Gadel, 1964;Woodside & Davenport, 1974), communication style (LaVoie & Adams, 1978), competence (Aronson, 1969;Landy & Sigall, 1974;Palmer, 1969;Solomon & Saxe, 1977), proximity or exposure frequency (Newcomb, 1956;Zajonc, 1968), reciprocity (Clore & Baldridge, 1970), and prestige (Bonney, 1952;Loomis & Proctor, 1950;Lundberg, 1937).…”
Section: Inputsmentioning
confidence: 99%