Journal of School Psychology

1977 • Vol. 15, No. 1

A T T R A C T I V E N ESS AN D SCHOOL ACH IEVEM ENT

JOHN SALVIA, ROBERT ALGOZZINE,

a n d J O S E P H B. S H E A R E
The Pennsylvania State University

Summary: Facial attractiveness has been shown to have powerfully biasing

effects in hypothetical investigations of teacher attitudes. The purpose of this
study was to ascertain the relationship between rated attractiveness and two
measures of school performance. Attractive children received significantly higher
report cards and, to some degree, higher achievement test scores than their
unattractive peers. The results are discussed and implications for further research
are considered.

The relationships among teachers' attitudes toward various pupil charac-

teristics and pupil performance have been reported in the literature. Palardy
(1969) found that expectation for reading success of first-grade boys held by
teachers was significantly related to the reading performance of boys. Seaver
(1973) studied the effect that a high- or low-achieving pupil had on a younger
sibling's achievement when the younger sibling had the same or a different
teacher. He concluded that teacher expectations did make a difference.
However, because of the nonexperimental nature of such studies, it is diffi-
cult to control rival hypotheses. For example, the older siblings in the Seaver
(1973) study could have biased their younger siblings toward the teacher.
Recent attention has been directed toward one particular student at-
tribute-attractiveness. Teachers have been shown to hold differential ex-
pectations for attractive and unattractive children. Facial attractiveness, as
inferred from photographs, has been shown to affect teacher judgments and
decisions in hypothetical situations. Kehle (Note 1) found that attractiveness
was a factor in teacher ratings of fifth-grade students. Clifford and Walster
(1973) found that attractive children were judged to be more intelligent by
teachers who were given identical report cards with different photographs
attached to them. Ross and Salvia (1975) attached photographs of attractive
and unattractive children to identical, fictitious case studies of mildly handi-
capped children. Experienced teachers indicated that unattractive children
would have more difficulty academically and socially. Furthermore, these
teachers favored special class placement more for the unattractive than for
the attractive children.
Because teachers hold differential expectancies for attractive and unattrac-
tive children does not constitute evidence that there are differences in
performances of these children. Thus, a first step in ascertaining the effect of
facial attractiveness in natural settings is to learn if there is a relationship
between attractiveness and pupil performance. If there is no relationship,
there is little, if any, reason to believe that the expectancies associated with
facial attractiveness affect student performance. However, the presence of

60
 Attractiveness and School Achievement 61

such a relationship does not imply causality. First, attractive children may
perform better in school because of any number of factors outside of the
schools; social class, poor nutrition or health, and personality variables can
affect both a child's appearance and school performance. A second possibility
is that differential appearance could lead to differential patterns of teacher-
pupil interaction which could produce achievement differences. A third
possibility is that differential attractiveness could simply influence teacher
appraisals of pupil performance through halo mechanisms.
The present study examined the relationship between facial attractiveness
and pupil achievement in the school environment. School achievement is a
multidimensional phenomenon. One dimension is a norm-referenced, objec-
tive assessment of attainment of nationally expected school outcomes; an
equally important dimension is the teacher's judgment of the child's progress
through the local curriculum. Therefore, two measures were used in this
investigation: scores from a standardized, group administered, objectively
scored achievement test, and report card grades.

METHOD
Subjects
Initial Sample. Six classes at the third-, or fourth-, and fifth-grade levels
were randomly select,',d from a school district in central Pennsylvania. The
440 Caucasian childien in the initial sample were approximately equally
distributed among the 18 classrooms. A standard, individual, black and white
photograph of each child's head and shoulders under standard lighting and
background conditions was taken from the school district's cumulative
folders. These photographs were divided into six same-sex same-grade groups
(e.g., fifth-grade girls). Each group of photographs was rated independently
by seven graduate students in special education who did not know any of the
children or the ultimate purpose of the study. The raters were asked to divide
each group into five approximately equal subgroups (from 12 to 16 depend-
ing on the size of the particular group) by first selecting the least attractive
children, then the most attractive children, the next least attractive children,
and the next most atrractive children.
Final Sample. The mean rating for each of the 440 children was com-
puted, and the children within each of the six grade-sex groups were then
ranked on their mean attractiveness rating. The seven most attractive and the
seven least attractive children (approximately the top and bottom 10% of
each of these groups) were selected for further study. Interrater agreement
(agreements/disagreements plus agreements) among the raters on the children
in the final sample was .69 using the five categories of attractiveness. The
ratings for the two attractive categories ("most attractive" and "attractive")
and the two unattractive categories were collapsed to form a three-interval
continuum (attractive, average, unattractive). The reliability (agreements/
agreements plus disagreements) for these adjusted ratings was .89, indicating
that it was possible'to evaluate consistently the photographs. No child in the
attractive group was ever rated as unattractive; no child in the unattractive
group was ever rated as attractive.
 62 Journal of School Psychology

Procedure
During the spring the photographs were taken and rated. During the
summer the final report card grades (A=4, B=3, etc.) for each of the 84
children were obtained from each child's cumulative record. The results of
the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) (Lindquist & Hieronymus, 1956), which
was routinely administered at the end of the school year, were also obtained
from each child's cumulative record.

RESULTS

ITBS. Mean grade equivalents for the groups on each subtest are presented
in Table 1. A multifactor (attractiveness X sex X grade X subtest) repeated
measure analysis of variance was performed on the data to determine the
effect of attractiveness (see Table 2). A significant attractiveness X grade
interaction was found (see Figure 1). A simple effects analysis for attractive-
ness at each grade was then performed. Only at the fourth grade did attractive
children receive higher scores than unattractive children.
Report Cards. Means for the groups for each report card category are
presented in Table 3. A multifactor (attractiveness X sex X grade X category)
repeated measures analysis of variance was performed to determine the effect
of attractiveness. As shown in Table 4, the main effect for attractiveness was
significant, indicating that attractive children obtain higher grades on their

Table 1
ITBS Means by Groups and Subtests (N=7 per cell)

Total
W o r k Total
Total
Grade and Reading LanguageStudy Arithmetic
Physical Rating Sex Vocabulary Comprehension Skills S k i l l s S k i l l s Total
Grade 3 Girls 3.3 4.1 3.2 3.5 3.7 3.5
ATT
Boys 2.2 2.9 2.7 3.0 3.2 2.9

Girls 4.0 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.4

UNATT
Boys 2.7 3.3 3.1 2.9 3.1 3.0

Grade 4 Girls 5.2 6.2 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6

ATT
Boys 3.9 4.2 4.0 3.9 4.4 4.1

Girls 4.4 4.2 4,3 4.1 4.0 4.2

UNATT
Boys 3.7 4.2 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.8

Grade 5 Girls 4.9 5.9 5.7 5,4 5.6 5.5

ATT
Boys 5.4 5.6 5.1 5.5 5.6 5.4

Girls 4.7 5.0 4.7 4.3 4.8 4.7

UNATT
Boys 4.8 5.0 5.5 5.0 4.8 4.9 i
 Attractiveness and School Achievement 63

Table 2
Summary of Analysis of Variance for ITBS Data

Source ms Df f
Between Subjects
Attractiveness (A) 11.250 1 2.754
Sex (B) 50.350 1 12.325"
A×B 2.586 1 .633
Grade (C) 124.867 2 30.567*
AX C 22.939 2 5.615"
BX C 17.464 2 4.275"
AXBXC 8.977 2 2.198
ERROR 4.085 72
Within Subjects
Subtest Scores(J) 2.379 5 9.020*
AXJ .523 5 1.984
BXJ .455 5 1.725
AXBXJ .310 5 1.176
CXJ .204 10 .774
AXCXJ .185 10 .703
BXCXJ .183 10 .695
AXBXCxJ .452 10 1.714
ERROR .264 360

*Significant at .05 level.

.5.4

5.2

5.0

4.8
/s
4.6

4.4

4.2 s jjpl

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.4
J' _ attracclve

......... unattractive
3.2

3.0

Figure 1. Means for the Grade by attractiveness interaction for lowa Test o f Basic Skills
Total Score.
 64 J o u r n a l of S c h o o l P s y c h o l o g y

Table 3
Mean Report Card by Groups (N=7 per cell)

Grade and Social

Physical Rating Sex Reading Language Spelling Arithmetic Science Studies Scholarship
Grade 3 G~s 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4
ATT
Boys 2.7 2.6 3.4 2.7 3.1 2.7 2.9

Gifts 3.1 3.4 4.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3

UNATT
Boys 2.7 2.4 3.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.4

Grade 4 Gkls 3.7 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.3 3.7 3.9

ATT
Boys 2.7 3.0 3.4 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.9

Girls 2.6 3.0 3.4 2.9 2.4 2.9 2.9

UNATT
Boys 2.4 2.7 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.7

Grade 5 Girls 3.1 2.9 3.6 3.4 3.1 2.7 3.0

ATT
Boys 3.1 3.0 3.6 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.0

Gids 2.9 2.4 3.3 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.6

UNATT
Boys 2.9 2.3 2.9 2.3 2.7 2.7 2.1

Table 4
Summary of Analysis of Variance for Report Card Data

Source ms Df f
Between Subjects
Attractiveness (A) 21.333 1 8.497*
Sex (B) 22.102 1 8.803*
A×B .551 1 .219
Grade (C) 3.216 2 1.281
AXC 3.838 2 1.529
BXC 3.709 2 1.477
AXB×C 1.699 2 .677
ERROR 2.511 72
Within Subjects
Report Card Scores (J) 3.654 6 16.189'
A×J .278 6 1.231
B×J .205 6 .909
A×BXJ .210 6 .929
CXJ .587 12 2.601'
A×CXJ .217 12 .963
BXCXJ .116 12 .514
AXBXCXJ .137 12 .609
ERROR .225 432

*Significant at .05 level.

 Attractiveness and School Achievement 65

Table 5
Summary of Analysis of Covarianee for Total Report Card Score

Souse ss df ms f
Attractiveness (A) 31.77 1 31.77 5.33*
Sex (B) 7.68 1 7.68 1.29
Grade (C) 216.25 2 108.12 18.14"
AXB 0.04 1 0.04 .01
AXC 3.12 2 1.56 .26
BXC 1.92 2 0.96 .16
Error 434.95 73 5.96

*Significant at .05 level.

report cards than do unattractive children. To determine if the effect could

have been produced by actual achievement differences, an analysis of covari-
ance (Table 5) was performed using the total ITBS achievement score as the
covariate and average report card grade as the dependent measure. Homoge-
neity of regression for achievement total scores on report card totals was
found to be nonsignificant. The effect of attractiveness was significant even
when the effects of achievement were controlled.

DISCUSSION

In interpreting the results of this study, several things must be considered.

The first is that the method of establishing facial attractiveness probably
introduced a conservative bias which operated against any attractiveness
effects. The pictures of some average children could have been so flattering
that the raters assigned them to the attractive group, while the pictures of
other average children could have been so unflattering that the raters assigned
them to the unattractive group. If either or both of these things occurred,
there' would be a reduction in the distinctiveness of the two groups. The
second factor is that individuals other than the pupils' actual teachers did the
rating. This is both a strength and a weakness of the study. The strength is
that only cues from the photograph (the child's appearance) influenced the
ratings; thus, a child's personality, odor, etc., had no effect. The weakness is
that the children's teachers may not have placed all the children in the same
attractiveness categories. However, both weaknesses operate contrary to the
hypothesis of achievement differences as a function of attractiveness.
To demonstrate an expectancy effect, it would be necessary to demon-
strate differences in objective as well as subjective performance indicators.
Significant differences on the ITBS occurred only at the fourth grade.
Nonsignificant differences in the anticipated direction were observed at the
fifth-grade level, while nonsignificant differences in the opposite direction
were observed at the third grade. Assuming that the achievement test selected
by the district administration was a valid measure of what the students
learned, there is no clear support for the operation of an expectancy effect.
However, the result~ do warrant further investigation.
The significant differences in the report card grades of attractive and
unattractive children could have occurred for two reasons. First, the report
card differences could reflect a negative stereotype. In such a case, the report
66 Journal of School Psychology

card grades do not accurately reflect the child's performance but the teachers'
biases. Second, report card grades may be more sensitive to achievement
differences, or they may more accurately reflect the school's curriculum. In
either case, attractiveness is implicated. It should be investigated as a na-
turally occurring biaser since it could have either altered teacher-pupil inter-
actions or altered teachers' perceptions of pupil achievement. Most startling is
the fact that the report card data were collected in the last grading period of
the year. Thus, there is a strong inference that if there is a bias associated
with attractiveness, it is of long duration. Previous reports have only sug-
gested that it was important in the formation of initial impressions (e.g.,
Ross & Salvia, 1975). The data reported in this'study indicate that the bias
may have been operative even after 180 days of school.
The results of this investigation have demonstrated a relationship between
one student attribute (i.e., facial attractiveness) and one important dimension
of student performance. As with all correlational studies, a number of
possible causal explanations may be defined. This study was undertaken as a
preliminary step in attempting to define the relationship between attractive-
ness (A) and school performance (B). The obtained differences in school
performance (B) could have been caused by the differences in perceived
attractiveness (A) or both could have been caused by differences in social
class (C1), student personality (C2) and/or a number of other third factors
(Cj). Future research should attempt to clarify whether this relationship is
caused by (1) bias in measurement (i.e., pupil extroversion, photogenic facial
features), (2) antecedent conditions (i.e., social class, health), or (3) teacher
expectancies.

REFERENCE NOTE

1. Kehle, T. J. Effect of the student's physical attractiveness, sex, race, intelligence, and
socio-economic status on teachers' expectations for student's personality and aca-
demic performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky,
1973.

REFERENCES

Clifford, M., & Walster, E. The effect of physical attractiveness on teacher expectations.
Sociology of Education, 1973, 46, 248-258.
Lindquist, E. F., & Hieronymus, A. N. Iowa Test of Basic Skill~ Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin, 1956.
Palardy, J. What teachers believe, what children achieve. Elementary School Journal,
1969, 69, 370-374.
Ross, M., & Salvia, J. Attractiveness as a biasing factor in teacher judgments. American
Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1975, 80 (1), 96-98.
Scarer, W. B. Effects of naturally induced teacher expectancies. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1973, 28 (3), 333-342.

John Salvia Robert Algozzine

Associate Professor
Department of Special Education
314 Cedar Street
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
Assistant Professor of Special Education
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
 Attractiveness and School Achievement 67

Joseph Sheare
Program Specialist for Emotionally Disturbed
and Mildly Retarded
Fairfax County Public Schools
Fairfax, Virginia 22030

Received: November 3, 1975

Revision Received: April 9, 1976