The Credibility of Physically Attractive Communicators: A Review

Abstract This review summarizes experimental evidence from advertising and related disciplines on the effects of physically attractive communicators and models on opinion change, product evaluation, source perception, and recall, among other dependent measures. The evidence indicates that attractive (vs. unattractive) communicators consistently are liked more, are perceived in more favorable terms, and have a positive impact on the products with which they are associated. Source attractiveness is also related positively to agreement although the effects appear to be less consistent, especially when the communicator is female. The review includes a critical assessment of previous studies and presents specific directions for future research.

[1]  Donald M. Hobart.  Probable Effects of a National Emergency on Marketing Functions and Policies , 1940 .

[2]  C. Osgood,et al.  The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. , 1955, Psychological review.

[3]  A. H. Iliffe,et al.  A STUDY OF PREFERENCES IN FEMININE BEAUTY , 1960 .

[4]  E. Aronson,et al.  OPINION CHANGE AS A FUNCTION OF THE COMMUNICATOR'S ATTRACTIVENESS AND DESIRE TO INFLUENCE. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  J. Rotter.  Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. , 1966, Psychological monographs.

[6]  R. B. Freeman.  Function of cues in the perceptual learning of visual slant: an experimental and theoretical analysis. , 1966, Psychological monographs.

[7]  R. Lerner,et al.  Body build identification, preference, and aversion in children. , 1969 .

[8]  A. Miller.  Social Perception of Internal-External Control , 1970, Perceptual and motor skills.

[9]  A. Miller.  Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation , 1970 .

[10]  D. Byrne.  The Attraction Paradigm , 1971 .

[11]  Physical attractiveness self concept: A test of Mead's hypothesis. , 1971 .

[12]  Mark Snyder,et al.  Communicator attractiveness and opinion change. , 1971 .

[13]  Children's awareness of their bodily appearance: a developmental study of factors associated with the body percept. , 1971, Genetic psychology monographs.

[14]  G. William Walster,et al.  Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis☆ , 1971 .

[15]  E. Berscheid,et al.  What is beautiful is good. , 1972, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[16]  Joann Horai,et al.  The Effects of Expertise and Physical Attractiveness Upon Opinion Agreement and Liking , 1974 .

[17]  Harold Sigall,et al.  Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer's physical attractiveness. , 1974 .

[18]  T. Blass,et al.  Effects of Communicator's Race and Beauty and of Receiver's Objectivity-Subjectivity on Attitude Change , 1974 .

[19]  M. Posner,et al.  Attention and cognitive control. , 1975 .

[20]  M. Chapko.  Black Ads Are Getting Blacker , 1976 .

[21]  Bruce L. Stern,et al.  Children's Television Advertising and Brand Choice: A Laboratory Experiment , 1977 .

[22]  R. Kerin,et al.  The Female Role in Advertisements: Some Experimental Evidence , 1977 .

[23]  R. Chestnut,et al.  The “Decorative” Female Model: Sexual Stimuli and the Recognition of Advertisements , 1977 .

[24]  Gilbert A. Churchill,et al.  The Impact of Physically Attractive Models on Advertising Evaluations , 1977 .

[25]  S. Chaiken.  Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. , 1979 .

[26]  R. Kerin.  Black Model Appearance and Product Evaluations , 1979 .

[27]  Robin N. Widgery,et al.  Beauty and the Machiavellian , 1981 .