See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261708522

Looking Good and Looking Smart

Article · April 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 3,181

1 author:

Olivier Gergaud
Kedge Business School, Bordeaux
85 PUBLICATIONS   934 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tourism in the Age of Terrorism View project

NOD2 sequence View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Olivier Gergaud on 19 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Looking Good and Looking Smart

Olivier GERGAUD
KEDGE – Bordeaux Business School
CRED, Université de Paris – Panthéon-Assas

Victor GINSBURGH
ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles and
CORE, Université Catholique de Louvain

Florine LIVAT
KEDGE – Bordeaux Business School

April 11, 2014

Abstract

We document the link existing between perceived intelligence and perceived

beauty. The analysis is based on original survey data computed by Epoll
Market Research that provides thorough information on how 3,620
American celebrities are perceived by a representative sample of the
American population. These celebrities are prominent people in fields like
cinema, sports, music, business, politics, etc. We correlate intelligence
scores with scores on eleven available physical attributes linked with
physical beauty (attractive, beautiful, charming, classy, cute, exciting,
glamorous, handsome, physically fit, sexy, stylish). Results show that being
judged classy, charming, or stylish is positively associated with intelligence
whereas looking cute, physically fit, or sexy sends a negative signal about
cognitive skills.

Keywords
Attractiveness, beauty, charm, class, cuteness, excitability, glamour,
handsomeness, physical fitness, sexiness, stylishness, intelligence

1
 “Good looks are a great asset” (Myers, 2005, p. 432). Indeed, many
researchers have shown that facial appearance is often correlated with
economic outcomes such as employment (Collins and Zebrowitz, 1995),
happiness (Hamermesh and Abrevaya, 2013), success at work (Stevenage
and McKay, 1999), leadership abilities (Mueller and Mazur, 1996). Wong et
al. (2011) detect a positive and significant relationship between a given
CEO’s facial measurements and his firm’s financial performance: CEOs
with wider faces (relative to facial height) seem to do better. Decisions about
whom to trust (Stirrat and Perret, 2010) as well as leadership judgments (Re
et al., 2013) also seem to depend on facial traits. Fletcher (2009) shows that
attractiveness is positively associated with earnings for high school
graduates while they are young adults, suggesting that a beauty premium
represents unmeasured ability. Indeed, according to the so-called
attractiveness halo effect, positive traits, including intelligence, are
attributed to more attractive individuals (for a review, see Zebrowitz and
Montepare, 2006). Some personality traits are inferred from face (Todorov
et al., 2011). Said differently, people make a variety of social inferences
from faces (Todorov, 2012 ; Todorov et al., 2013). The prolific literature on
social judgment of faces is often based on neutral and non-familiar faces,
sometimes composite faces where researchers control for color, shape,
symmetry, etc. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between
perceived intelligence and beauty as a result of two different stimuli: their
name only, or their name and picture. We focus on celebrities, in other terms
on familiar people.

More favorable personality traits are associated with attractive people.1 This
is so even when personality judgments are made from facial cues in young
adulthood, in which case they may even become predictive (Rule and
Ambady, 2010, 2011). For Gordon et al. (2014), physically attractive youths
experiment greater social integration that supports their academic
achievement but this positive effect is partially offset by social distractions
like dating and alcohol-related problems. Social behavior and social
judgment are also affected by facial resemblance (DeBruine et al., 2008). In
a mate-choice context, DeBruine (2005) shows that male and female judges
choose the self-resembling opposite-face sex as the more trustworthy (not
necessarily more attractive) face. Bailenson et al. (2009) observed that even
in high-profile elections (US presidential candidates), voters prefer

1
Note that Eagly et al. (1991) is more moderate.

2
 candidates with the highest facial similarity,2 especially when these are
unfamiliar candidates. These findings, as well as many others, suggest that
some positive intellectual abilities can be physically detected. In a research
conducted by Zebrowitz et al. (2002), stimuli such as photographs allow
judges to rate facial attractiveness as well as facial averageness and
symmetry.3 The results highlight a significant positive correlation between
intelligence as measured by IQ scores and attractiveness across the lifespan.
This may be true as long as facial traits really predict intellectual
characteristics, which does not always seem to be the case, as suggested in a
recent paper by Tsay (2013) who shows that winners of live music
competitions are rather judged on visual information than on performance
itself. Once they win the competition, success follows more easily, even if it
is their look and attitudes that are judged, and not their musical performance,
that is their musical intelligence or talent.4

Kaplan (1978) suggests that physically attractive female authors of essays

are rated as significantly more talented, especially by male judges. Petrides
and Furnham (2000) show that gender is a significant predictor of self-
estimated emotional intelligence. According to Glick et al. (2005), for high
status jobs (managerial positions), people rate sexy women5 as less
competent than the same women dressed in a business-like manner, though
manipulating one’s appearance does not affect competence ratings for low-
status jobs (receptionists, for example). Jawahar and Mattson (2005) show
that women's beauty is no longer a handicap for some managerial jobs.
Indeed, the halo-effect appears to be gender-specific: for instance, attractive
females are considered less likely to be effective in positions of authority,
while this is not the case for males (see Buck and Tiene, 1989, among
others). But gender of the perceiver can also affect her or his own
assessment of physical attractiveness: a research conducted by Williamson
and Hewitt (1986) show that males perceive female models as more
attractive in sexually alluring clothing, whereas women rate female models
as more attractive in neutral clothes.

2
A national representative sample of voters viewed images of two unfamiliar candidates
morphed with either themselves or other voters.
3
See for instance Grammer and Thornhill (1994) for measures of facial averageness and
symmetry.
4
See also Ginsburgh and Van Ours (2003) who show that the final ranking of musicians in
a well-known piano competition is correlated with the order in which they play. Since this
order is randomly chosen before the competition starts, the final ranking is also random.
This does not prevent those who are ranked first to be more successful in their career.
5 Here, “sexy” is conceived as a clothing style, often described as provocative.

3
 This paper tries to contribute to the debate on whether intelligence can be
inferred from facial cues, and whether beauty (a many-sided concept) is
correlated with intelligence, though in our research, intelligence or
intellectual abilities are not measured ex post, but at the same time as
“beauty.” There is thus no claim that beauty “causes” the judgment on
intelligence or is a predictor of intelligence. We only look at whether they
are correlated.

Our contribution is threefold. First, while much work on this issue is derived
from experiments with a small number of judges and subjects being judged,
we analyze a database that counts over 13,729 judgments of a selected group
of people that consists of 3,620 well-known celebrities, that is familiar
people. The gender of both judges and celebrities is observed, and we are
therefore able to study the role of gender of those who evaluate as well as of
those who are being evaluated. Secondly, beauty is decomposed into 11 cues
related or associated to beauty: attractive, beautiful, charming, classy, cute,
exciting, glamour, handsome, physically fit, sexy, stylish. This makes it
possible to verify which attributes are positively correlated with intelligence,
and we show that not all of them are. Thirdly, we are also able to compare
correlations between the various aspects of beauty and intelligence with and
without photographs, since some judges react on names only, while others
on images and names.

DATA

Our data are based on surveys conducted by Epoll Market Research, a firm
based in Los Angeles, California, that started its operations in 2003. Epoll
has an online proprietary panel used for E-Score Celebrity surveys. The
panel contains approximately 250,000 “judges” in the United States and is
nationally representative in terms of ethnic background (African American,
Asian, Caucasian, Latin American, Native, Other), income groups, gender,
marital status, regions (South, North East, Midwest, West, South),
education, age (for 13 year old at least), type of employment (part time,
homemaker, full time, seeking for a job, retired, not employed), type of
activity (accounting, etc.). Judges receive point incentives for surveys in
which they are (probably randomly) selected to participate: They cannot ask
to participate. These points can be traded in for gift cards at major retailers.

4
 The points system seems very effective as Epoll has a response rate well
above 50%.

The database contains 6,241 celebrities each of which has been assessed one
or several times between 2003 and 2011. The evaluation procedure works as
follows. A typical “survey” is administered to 1,100 judges. A judge is
supposed to evaluate 25 celebrities by choosing for each of them as many
attributes as (s)he wishes among the following 46 attributes: activist,
aggressive, approachable, articulate, attractive, beautiful, boring, can
identify with, charming, classy, cold, compassionate, confident, creepy, cute,
distinctive voice, down-to-earth, dynamic, emotional, exciting, experienced,
funny, glamorous, good energy, good listener, handsome, impartial,
influential, insincere, intelligent, interesting, intriguing, kooky/wacky, mean,
over-exposed, physically-fit, rude, sexy, sincere, stylish, talented, trend-
setter, trustworthy, unique, versatile and warm. In the paper, we concentrate
on 12 attributes: intelligence and 11 attributes related to “beauty:” attractive,
beautiful, charming, classy, cute, exciting, glamorous, handsome, physically
fit, sexy and stylish.

The data consist of 18,000 observations of “aggregate judgments” from all

the surveys conducted between 2003 and 2011. A judgment of a celebrity
(for whom we know gender and occupation6) is an array of data that collects
the number of judges who have chosen each attribute. In order to eliminate
the possible effect of the total number of judges, data on attributes are
transformed into percentages. A high percentage is an indicator of the
intensity with which either intelligence or any of the beauty cues is selected
for a given celebrity.

However, the number of judges as well as the number of times a celebrity is

judged varies substantially between surveys. We decided to discard
aggregate judgments made by less than 50 judges. This decreases the
number of observations to 13,729 and the number of celebrities to 3,620.
The average number of judges per celebrity is now 160, and each celebrity is

6
Athletes (2,266 assessments), authors (107), businesspersons (178), celebrity babies (32),
coaches (87), comedians (742), fashion designers (144), fashion models (303), film actors
(3,605), film producers and directors (134), first ladies (13), health and fitness experts (77),
internet celebrities (29), journalists (90), magicians (21), musicians (2,049), politicians,
radio personalities (134), stage performers (32), TV personalities (8,187), TV actors (1), TV
producers and directors (41), TV screenwriters (19), other (52).

5
 judged four times on average. Table 1 gives the details, distinguishing
gender and occupations of celebrities.

Table 2 contains the mean (and the standard deviation over all successive
polls) of the percentage of judges who chose each specific attribute to
describe a personality. The most frequently chosen attributes are intelligent,
attractive (especially for female celebrities), physically fit, stylish (again for
women). The less frequent are glamorous (this time for male celebrities),
handsome (for men). Female and male celebrities are rated very differently:
men are rarely beautiful, cute, glamorous or sexy. Female celebrities are
almost never qualified as being handsome. It is important for athletes to be
physically fit, for fashion models to be attractive, beautiful, and sexy, but
handsomeness does not seem to matter. Film personalities (actors) as well as
TV personalities have to be intelligent, attractive, charming and stylish.
Attractiveness and style are important for musicians, and intelligence is
essential for politicians, who are often very low on other dimensions such as
beauty, cuteness, glamour and sexiness.

ANALYSIS

Detailed correlation coefficients of aggregate judgments (as defined above)

between intelligence and other “beauty” cues are presented in Table 3 which
includes a breakdown by gender for judges and celebrities.

The main results are as follows. Intelligence is always strongly positively

correlated (r > 0.20) with charm, positively correlated (r close to 0.10) with
handsomeness, negatively correlated (r between -0.10 and -0.20) with
beauty, glamour, physical fitness, sexiness and strongly negatively
correlated (r < -0.20) with cuteness. It is reasonably positively correlated (r
< 0.10) with excitement, and reasonably negatively (r close to -0.05) with
stylishness. Almost all correlations are significantly different from 0 at the p
< 0.001 level, with an exception for stylishness. On average, correlation
coefficients are larger (in absolute value) in judgments concerned with
female celebrities. The larger differences, in absolute terms, are obtained for
charming (0.15), sexy (0.14) and exciting (0.10). For all judges,
attractiveness harms female celebrities (non-significant for male) while
handsomeness benefits men (non-significant for female). Male judges also
use glamour (negatively), handsomeness and stylishness (both positively) to

6
 infer male but not female celebrities' intelligence. Female judges refer to
beauty (negatively) and excitement (positively) to assess their peers'
intelligence but not when they infer male celebrities' intelligence. This
suggests that female celebrities suffer more from sexiness than their male
counterparts but take advantage of charm and excitement.

To make these aspects easier to visualize, we computed non parametric

“regression curves” between intelligence (on the vertical axis), and “beauty”
cues (on the horizontal axis). These curves are obtained by a non-parametric
adjustment procedure7 that fits best the cloud of points. Each point has as
coordinates the aggregate judgment on the intelligence cue (on the vertical
axis) and one of the 11 beauty cues (horizontal axis). Each figure contains
two curves: a dotted one for male and a plain one for female celebrities. The
shaded areas represent the 95 percent confidence intervals around each such
curve; they give an indication of whether the two curves are “significantly”
different from each other or not. Consider for example Figure 1 that shows
the relations between intelligence and each of the physical attributes. The
two curves (female and male celebrities) for “beautiful” can hardly be
distinguished, and are both downward sloping, illustrating that the
“correlation” between the two items is negative, but the differences between
celebrities’ genders are small. In other cases, the two curves are distinct, that
is their 95 percent confidence intervals show them as being distinct. This is
so for “intelligence” and “classy”, which are both upward sloping (positive
correlation). Figures 1 to 3 illustrate these relationships for evaluations by all
judges (Figure 1), male judges only (Figure 2), and female judges only
(Figure 3). They all point to positive correlations between “intelligence” and
“charm,” as well as “class,” and to negative correlations between
“intelligence” and “cute,” “physically fit,” and “sexy.” The curves are flat in
other cases, implying that there is little or no correlation.

Figures 4 to 13 proceed similarly, this time distinguishing occupations of

celebrities. Correlations between “intelligence” and “charm,” or “class” are
all positive (except for politicians, no surprise), and rather negative for
“sexy” which is of course consistent with the general picture discussed
above, as well as with Glick’s (2005) findings. But there are many

7
We use the Nadaraya-Watson nonparametric smoother (Nadaraya, 1964 and Watson,
1964) with the Epanechnikov kernel (Epanechnikov, 1969). This leads to a smoothing
estimate of the function by locally weighted averages of the observations based on all
available surveys.

7
 variations. Fashion models (though the number of observations is quite
small) and musicians seem to generate positive correlations between
“intelligence” and most other cues,8 while TV personalities generate
negative correlations more often (with the exception of “charm” and “class”
which both exhibit strong positive correlations). Note that we chose not to
represent the 95 percent confidence intervals in three cases in which the
number of celebrities was too small (male fashion models, female
comedians and politicians).

Another regularity that emerges from several graphs is that intelligence

scores are often significantly higher for male than for female celebrities for
any given level of cue associated to beauty. In the figures, this corresponds
to a dotted curve that lies significantly (confidence intervals do not intersect)
above the plain curve. This is especially the case for “charm”, and “class”9
for levels of agreement on these beauty items lower than 40%.10 The
difference is essentially observed for film11 and TV personalities and is more
obvious with male judges than with female judges. The data do not make it
possible to find any convincing reason for this.

Half of the subjects chosen at random are taken to the Name survey and
answer a questionnaire on the basis of the name stimulus only. The other
half is taken to the Image survey and fills the same questionnaire on the
basis of the name and a picture of the celebrity. For technical reasons linked
to data access, we were unable to distinguish female and male judges12 and
all the above-described results are obtained by pooling all judges. This may
of course lead to biases. Table 4 gives the correlations coefficients between
intelligence and every other cue, as well as a Z-score that tests whether the
correlation coefficients are significantly different (at the p < 0.05 level)
between the Name only (Name in the sequel) and the Name and Image
(Image) survey results. In five cases (beautiful, glamorous, handsome, sexy
and stylish), they are not, while in the remaining six cases they are different.
However, with the exception of one case (exciting), they are always negative
or positive simultaneously. In the case of exciting, one should note that in

8
The link with intelligence is loose only with “handsome” and “sexy” for fashion models
and “handsome,” “physically fit” and “sexy” for musicians.
9
And to a lower extent for “physically fit.”
10
Beyond this threshold, both confidence intervals often intersect.
11
The difference is also observed for “stylish” and film personalities.
12
The reason is that one cannot sort the data according to more than one criterion at a time
on the Epoll electronic platform.

8
 the Name only case, the correlation is not significantly different from zero.
A similar result is shown in Figure 14 where “correlation” curves are
represented. It therefore seems that pictures do hardly change the opinion of
judges: correlation coefficients between intelligence and any of the 11 cues
are, in most cases, comparable or point to the same positive or negative
association. Obviously, this will in general not be true, but here we study the
special case of celebrities known by those who judge them. Even if they
have no precise representation when they judge without image, they “know”
who they judge.

In what follows, we run a robustness check concerned with the various

effects that have been detected above and analyze further the extent to which
intelligence scores are affected by the image of the celebrity. In particular,
we take advantage of the fact that survey respondents are assigned to the
Image survey or invited to participate to the Name survey on a purely
random basis. This allows us to evaluate the pure impact of this random
treatment (image) on intelligence scores through the effect of image on
beauty scores. The strength of the signal that is sent to image survey
respondents depends on the quality of the photograph used by Epoll. The
company ensures that all pictures are of comparable quality (happy face
portrait, comparable size) but we assume here that the strength of the signal
as well as its nature (either positive or negative) is heterogeneous by
definition. Indeed, it is close to impossible to ensure that all pictures are of
comparable quality given the large number of celebrities in the database.

To check whether the photograph and the signal associated to it modifies the
way celebrities' mental abilities are perceived, we run the following
regression:
11
Intit      jt Aijt   i  it
j 1

where Intit is the difference between both intelligence scores, that is Image
minus Name scores at time t for celebrity i, the Aijt are the score differences
(Image minus Name) computed from the 11 beauty attributes, the  and the
 are parameters, i represents celebrity fixed effects and it is an error
term.

The purpose of this model is to check whether modifications of any variable
on the right-hand side of the equation has an impact on intelligence scores.

9
 We use a fixed-effects regression model to control for unobserved
heterogeneity at the celebrity level. In this model a positive (negative) 
results in a positive (negative) effect of the image on the intelligence score
compared with the name effect only. The various regression results are
presented in Table 5.

Overall, the results are in line with previous results. Coefficients reproduced
in Table 5 should here be interpreted as deviations of the intelligence score
due to a difference (which can be either positive or negative) of votes for a
specific cue that is triggered by the information conveyed by the image of
the celebrity. For instance, a celebrity whose score on the cue “stylish”
increases by 10 percentage points from the Name only survey to Image plus
name survey increases by 1.02 percentage point his or her intelligence score.

These signs of the estimated coefficients are identical for females and
males—and therefore for the whole population—, positive in most cases, but
negative for “sexy” (especially for males) and “glamour” (for females).
Table 6 shows that when we go to professions, there are more positive
coefficients (68.8%) than negative ones (31.2%) and most negative
coefficients are not significantly different from 0 (19 out of 24). Therefore,
in most cases, if the presence of the image increases (decreases) the number
of judges who chose the cue, the resulting effect on intelligence is positively
(or negatively) enhanced with respect to the case in which judges are taken
to the Name only survey.

CONCLUSIONS

We analyze the link between perceived intelligence and perceived cues

often associated with beauty using a large sample of American celebrities
assessed once or several times by a representative sample of around 250,000
American respondents. This is in contrast to many studies in which samples
of both subjects judged and judges are much smaller, though the sample of
celebrities consists of people who are already quite well known. The large
number of observations makes it also possible to distinguish judges
according to their gender and subjects to their gender and occupation.

Our analysis of some 3,600 different celebrities is mostly based on simple

correlations coefficients and polynomial regressions. It allows us

10
 highlighting some strong positive correlations between perceived
intelligence and beauty cues such as “charm” and “classiness” and a strong
negative correlation between “sex” and intelligence. The positive link
between intelligence and beauty goes thus essentially through “charm” and
“classiness.” These results do not vary substantially across genders and
occupations.

REFERENCES

Bailenson, J. N., Iyengar, S., Yee, N., & Collins, N. A. (2008). Facial
similarity between voters and candidates causes influence. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 935-961.

Buck, S., & Tiene, D. (1989). The impact of physical attractiveness, gender,
and teaching philosophy on teacher evaluations. The Journal of
Educational Research, 82(3), 172-177.

Collins, M. A. & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1995). The contributions of appearance

to occupational outcomes in civilian and military settings. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 25, 129-163.

DeBruine, L. M. (2005). Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: Context-specific

effects of facial resemblance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 272(1566), 919-922.

DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2008). Social
perception of facial resemblance in humans. Archives of sexual behavior,
37(1), 64-77.

Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991).

What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on
the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1),
109.

Epanechnikov, V.A. (1969). Nonparametric Estimation of a Multivariate

Probability Density. Theory of Probability and Its Applications 14, 153-
158.

Fletcher, J. M. (2009). Beauty vs. brains: Early labor market outcomes of

high school graduates. Economics Letters, 105(3), 321-325.

Ginsburgh, V. and Van Ours, J. (2003). Expert opinion and compensation:

evidence from a musical competition. American Economic Review, 93,
289-298.

11
 Glick, P., Larsen, S., Johnson, C., & Branstiter, H. (2005). Evaluations of
sexy women in low-and high-status jobs. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 29(4), 389-395.

Gordon, R.A., Crosnoe R. & Wang X. (2014), Physical Attractiveness and

the Accumulation of Social and Human Capital in Adolescence and
Young Adulthood: Assets and Distractions, location of publication
Wiley-Blackwell.

Grammer K., & Thornhill R. (1994). Human (Homo Sapiens) facial

attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and
averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233-242.

Hamermesh, D. & J. Abrevaya, J. (2013). Beauty is the promise of

happiness?. European Economic Review, 64, 351-368.

Jawahar, I. M., & Mattsson, J. (2005). Sexism and Beautyism Effects in

Selection as a Function of Self-Monitoring Level of Decision Maker.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 563-573.

Kaplan, R. M. (1978). Is beauty talent? Sex interaction in the attractiveness

halo effect. Sex Roles, 4, 195-204.

Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (1996). Facial dominance of West Point cadets as
a predictor of later military rank. Social Forces, 74, 823-850.

Myers, D. G. (2005). Social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill (8th ed.).

Nadaraya, E (1964). On estimating regression. Theory of Probability and its

Applications 9, 141-142.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). Gender differences in measured and

self-estimated trait emotional intelligence. Sex roles, 42(5-6), 449-461.

Re, D.E., DeBruine, L.M., Jones, B.C., & Perrett, D.I. (2013). Facial cues to
perceived height influence leadership choices in simulated war and peace
contexts. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 89-103.

Rule. N. O., & Ambady, N. (2010). First impressions of the face: Predicting
success. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 506-516.

Rule, N. O., & Ambady, N. (2011). Judgments of power from college

yearbook photos and later career success. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 2, 154-158.

Stevenage, S. V., & McKay, Y. (1999). Model applicants: The effect of

facial appearance on recruitment decisions. British Journal of
Psychology, 90, 221-234.

12
 Stirrat M., & Perret D. I. (2010). Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust:
Male facial width and trustworthiness. Psychological Science, 21, 349-
354.

Todorov, A. (2012). The social perception of faces. In S. T. Fiske & C. N.

Macrae (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Cognition. where
published: Sage Publications.

Todorov, A., Said, C. P., & Verosky, S. C. (2011). Personality impressions

from facial appearance. In A. Calder, J. V. Haxby, M. Johnson, & G.
Rhodes (Eds.), Handbook of Face Perception, 631-652. Oxford
University Press.

Todorov, A., Mende-Siedlecki, P., & Dotsch, R. (2013). Social Judgements

from Faces. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23, 373-380.

Tsay C.-J. (2013). Sight over sound in the judgment of music performance.
Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences.
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1221454110

Watson, G. S. (1964). Smooth regression analysis. Sankhya: The Indian

Journal of Statistics, Series A, 26, 359–72.

Williamson, S., & Hewitt, J. (1986). Attire, sexual allure, and attractiveness.
Perceptual & Motor Skills, 63, 981–982.

Wong E. M., Ormiston M. E., & Haelhuhn M. P. (2011). A face only an

investor could love: CEOs’ facial structure predicts their firms’ financial
performance. Psychological Science, 22, 1478-1483.

Zebrowitz L. A., Hall J. A., Murphy N. A., & Rhodes G. (2002). Looking
smart and looking good: Facial cues to intelligence and their origin.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 238-249.

Zebrowitz L. A., & Montepare J. (2006). The ecological approach to person

perception: Evolutionary roots and contemporary offshoots. In M.
Schaller, M., Simpson, J. A. & Kenrick, D.T. (Eds.), Evolution and
Social Psychology. New York: Psychology Press.

13
 Table 1. Descriptive statistics

Female Male N.A. Total

No. of celebrities 1,428 2,104 88 3,620

Athletes 43 251 7 301

Comedians 16 128 3 147
Fashion models 68 4 3 75
Film personalities
308 406 16 730
(actors)
Musicians 187 245 16 448
Politicians 13 43 1 57
TV personalities 724 863 38 1,625
All other 133 100 4 237

No. of surveys on 5,710 7,747 272 13,729

Athletes 132 802 18 952

Comedians 43 501 6 550
Fashion models 221 9 3 233
Film personalities
1,430 1,659 35 3,124
(actors)
Musicians 796 714 47 1,557
Politicians 46 214 1 261
TV personalities 2,998 3,331 157 6,486
All other 44 517 5 566

14
 Table 2. Sample statistics for intelligence and beauty cues by gender and profession of celebrities

Statistics Intelligent Attractive Beautiful Charming Classy Cute Exciting Glamourous Handsome Physically Sexy Stylish
fit

All Mean 25.30 25.37 14.18 17.67 15.92 15.65 13.04 11.98 11.82 19.49 16.19 19.22
St.dev. 12.27 17.77 17.40 8.79 11.23 13.08 6.63 13.76 14.92 15.93 14.94 12.81

Female Mean 23.91 40.54 30.34 20.24 23.55 23.92 13.12 24.05 0.71 19.87 26.23 27.96
St.dev. 11.22 13.30 15.26 7.78 10.98 13.21 5.84 13.04 1.71 12.63 15.25 11.44

Male Mean 26.45 14.16 2.24 15.73 10.28 9.50 12.96 3.07 20.05 19.23 8.79 12.73
St.dev. 12.92 11.20 4.51 8.99 7.48 8.96 7.15 4.18 15.01 17.95 9.33 9.51

Athletes Mean 18.85 14.04 5.09 10.98 11.64 8.20 18.40 4.66 14.03 49.54 8.37 11.77
St.dev. 9.40 12.65 10.53 6.80 7.94 9.69 7.83 7.18 11.20 16.62 10.34 8.58

Comedians Mean 22.07 8.19 2.09 10.84 5.76 6.88 14.59 2.21 9.00 7.54 4.40 8.06
St.dev. 9.97 8.78 5.43 5.79 5.12 5.74 7.18 4.01 8.20 8.60 5.88 7.59

Fashion Mean 15.26 47.21 42.82 17.92 23.25 21.35 12.18 37.97 2.20 31.41 41.73 36.58
models St.dev. 7.87 10.20 14.07 7.12 10.36 9.22 5.37 11.65 8.08 11.25 13.78 10.42

Film Mean 27.07 29.63 17.53 21.29 19.70 17.94 14.07 14.94 13.69 19.96 19.69 21.37
personalities St.dev. 11.03 17.66 19.15 8.53 12.60 13.82 6.73 15.23 16.59 14.24 15.39 12.45

Musicians Mean 17.66 26.00 16.59 15.95 14.71 16.38 14.17 15.17 10.43 18.46 19.39 24.38
St.dev. 8.74 16.54 18.03 8.68 10,90 12.09 6.12 14.61 13.10 13.04 14.97 12.51

Politicians Mean 44.39 8.82 1.90 11.26 13.68 2.25 6.47 2.42 9.10 7.92 2.14 7.84
St.dev. 11.16 9.35 4.66 8.89 9.13 3.72 5.12 4.35 10.23 11.98 3.35 6.49

TV Mean 26.28 27.31 14.63 18.71 16.03 17.30 11.86 11.74 11.87 16.88 16.46 19.39
personalities St.dev. 11.79 17.38 16.65 8.19 10.67 13.03 5.84 12.78 15.76 12.64 14.23 12.44

15
 Table 3. Correlation coefficients between intelligence and beauty cues

Judges Celebrities Attractive Beautiful Charming Classy Cute Exciting Glamourous Handsome Physically Sexy Stylish
fit

All All -0.0583* -0.1300* 0.2348* 0.3575* -0.2345* 0.0649* -0.1119* 0.1080* -0.1523* -0.1745* -0.0612*

All Female -0.0573* -0.1115* 0.3663* 0.5548* -0.2306* 0.1351* -0.0742* 0.0116 -0.1103* -0.2186* -0.0250

All Male -0.0006 -0.0694* 0.2161* 0.5111* -0.2173* 0.0323* -0.0445* 0.0739* -0.1656* -0.0728* 0.0201

Female All 0.0171* -0.0641* 0.2664* 0.3941* -0.2065* 0.0429* -0.0820* 0.0779* -0.1797* -0.1209* -0.0454*

Female Female 0.0913* -0.0535* 0.3840* 0.5790* -0.2174* 0.1062* -0.0843* 0.0378* -0.1199* -0.2045* -0.0385*

Female Male 0.0314* -0.0290 0.2052* 0.4796* -0.1914* 0.0006 -0.0533* 0.0783* -0.2065* -0.0497* 0.0058

Male All -0.0985* -0.1431* 0.2078* 0.3657* -0.1959* -0.0058 -0.1221* 0.1411* -0.2288* -0.1828* -0.0531*

Male Female -0.0149 -0.1006* 0.3760* 0.5616* -0.2120* 0.0784* -0.0336 0.0045 -0.1161* -0.2094* 0.0155

Male Male 0.0089 -0.0636* 0.2995* 0.5008* -0.1443* -0.0363* -0.0736* 0.1002* -0.2677* -0.0903* 0.0323*

* means that the correlation coefficient is significantly different at the p < 0.0001probability level

16
 Table 4. Correlation coefficients between intelligence and beauty cues
(Name survey and Name+Image survey)

Survey Attractive Beautiful Charming Classy Cute Exciting Glamourous Handsome Physically Sexy Stylish
fit

Image -0.0582* -0.1304* 0.2286* 0.3561* -0.2386* 0.0575* -0.1134* 0.1075* -0.1504* -0.1742* -0.0614*

Name -0.0156 -0.1098* 0.2925* 0.3906* -0.1879* -0.0081 -0.0984* 0.1184* -0.2371* -0.1515* -0.0580*

Image - Name -0.0426 -0.0206 -0.0639 -0.0345 -0.0507 0.0656 -0.015 -0.0109 0.0867 -0.0227 -0.0034

Z-score -3.108 -1.523 -4.997 -2.921 -3.871 4.784 -1.105 -0.804 6.568 -1.699 -0.249
(P-value) (0.0019) (0.1278) (0.0000) (0.0035) (0.0001) (0.0000) (0.2691) (0.4212) (0.0000) (0.0893) (0.8037)

Name + Image Survey: 11,924 observations ; Name Survey: 9,571 observations

* means that the correlation coefficient is significantly different at the p < 0.0001probability level

17
 Table 5: Impact of image on perceived intelligence scores through the
modification of beauty scores (regression using a celebrity fixed-effect)

All Female Males Athletes Comedians Fashion Film Musicians Politicians TV

models Personalities Personalities

Stylish 0.102*** 0.112*** 0.085*** 0.164*** 0.188 0.001 0.052 0.081** -0.096 0.128***
(5.27) (4.34) (2.78) (3.14) (1.64) (0.01) (1.56) (2.27) (-0.59) (5.06)
Sexy -0.051** -0.028 -0.099*** -0.194*** -0.021 0.044 -0.038 -0.014 -0.877*** -0.061**
(-2.51) (-1.12) (-2.85) (-3.24) (-0.15) (0.76) (-1.01) (-0.40) (-3.33) (-2.26)
Physically fit 0.081*** 0.074*** 0.086*** 0.023 0.119* -0.044 0.046 0.103*** -0.045 0.106***
(4.68) (2.76) (3.76) (0.80) (1.85) (-0.85) (1.31) (2.95) (-0.21) (4.11)
Handsome 0.100*** 0.045 0.108*** 0.105** 0.072 0.188 0.079* 0.046 0.568*** 0.119***
(4.44) (0.34) (4.68) (2.14) (0.78) (0.84) (1.94) (1.00) (5.82) (3.73)
Glamour -0.046* -0.047* -0.045 -0.041 -0.206 -0.035 -0.085* -0.028 -0.939** -0.036
(-1.92) (-1.68) (-0.91) (-0.54) (-1.13) (-0.60) (-1.72) (-0.62) (-2.62) (-1.09)
Exciting 0.164*** 0.144*** 0.179*** 0.193*** 0.203*** 0.215** 0.154*** 0.177*** 0.221 0.169***
(8.07) (4.80) (6.56) (4.95) (3.63) (2.54) (4.20) (4.87) (1.67) (5.76)
Cute 0.020 0.019 0.023 0.021 -0.049 -0.052 0.018 -0.024 0.665** 0.016
(1.08) (0.81) (0.78) (0.35) (-0.53) (-0.98) (0.56) (-0.69) (2.22) (0.68)
Classy 0.161*** 0.173*** 0.139*** 0.188*** -0.009 0.312*** 0.167*** 0.181*** 0.262 0.149***
(8.07) (6.56) (4.66) (4.03) (-0.10) (3.87) (4.87) (4.04) (1.65) (5.46)
Charming 0.119*** 0.093*** 0.141*** 0.074 0.137 0.086 0.110*** 0.203*** -0.394** 0.119***
(6.51) (3.70) (5.42) (1.08) (1.28) (0.99) (3.47) (5.19) (-2.05) (4.83)
Beautiful 0.010 0.023 -0.039 -0.094 0.276* 0.071* 0.098** 0.007 1.139** -0.013
(0.46) (0.91) (-0.76) (-1.44) (1.80) (1.74) (2.12) (0.17) (2.45) (-0.43)
Attractive 0.066*** 0.047** 0.108*** 0.177*** 0.175 -0.065 0.017 0.017 0.225** 0.070***
(4.14) (2.39) (3.89) (2.92) (1.54) (-1.05) (0.46) (0.51) (2.09) (3.59)
Constant -0.012*** -0.014*** -0.011*** -0.003 -0.016*** 0.000 -0.014*** 0.005*** -0.001 -0.018***
(-23.67) (-13.70) (-19.51) (-1.20) (-10.11) (0.15) (-11.65) (5.20) (-0.39) (-25.13)

Observations 13,729 5,710 7,747 1,038 582 269 3,192 1,557 261 6,510
R-squared (within) 0.148 0.147 0.150 0.190 0.211 0.281 0.120 0.233 0.247 0.160
Number of celebrities 3,620 1,428 2,104 345 162 91 752 448 57 1,636

Robust z‐statistics in parentheses; *** p‐value<0.01, ** p‐value<0.05, *p‐value<0.1

18
 Table 6. Signs of the estimated parameters of Table 5

Positive Negative Totals Totals

Sign. ≠ N. sign. ≠ Sign. ≠ N. sign. ≠ Sign ≠ N. Sign. ≠
0 0 0 0 Positive Negative 0 0

Stylish 3 3 0 1 6 1 3 4
Sexy 0 1 3 3 1 6 3 4
Physically
fit 3 2 0 2 5 2 3 4
Handsome 4 3 0 0 7 0 4 3
Glamour 0 0 2 5 0 7 2 5
Exciting 6 1 0 0 7 0 6 1
Cute 1 3 0 3 4 3 1 6
Classy 5 1 0 1 6 1 5 2
Charming 3 3 0 1 6 1 3 4
Beautiful 4 1 0 2 5 2 4 3
Attractive 3 3 0 1 6 1 3 4
0
Total 32 21 5 19 53 24 37 40
% 41.6 27.3 6.5 24.7 68.8 31.2 48.1 51.9

19
 Figure 1. Relationships between “intelligence” and physical attributes
Male and female celebrities evaluated by all judges

Attractive Beautiful Charming Classy
40

60
40

80
50
35

60
30

Intelligent (%)
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
40
30

40
30
25

20

20
20
20

10

0
10
15

0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 Classy (%)

Attractive (%) Beautiful (%) Charming (%)

Cute 80
Exciting Glamour Handsome

50

60
40

60

40
30

40
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
40

30
20

20
20

20
10

10
0
0

0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80 Exciting (%) Glamourous (%) 0 20 40 60 80

Cute (%) Handsome (%)

Physically fit Sexy Stylish

30

50
30

___ : Female celebrities

25
25

40

‐‐‐‐ : Male celebrities

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
20
20

30
15

abc : 95% Confidence Interval

15

20
10
10

10

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Physically Fit (%) Sexy (%) 0 20 40 60 80

Stylish (%)

20
 Figure 2. Relationships between “intelligence” and physical attributes
Male and female celebrities evaluated by all male judges

Attractive Beautiful Charming Classy

50

50
50

50

40
40

40
40

Intelligent (%)
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
30

30
30
30

20

20
20
20

10

10
10

10
0
0 20 40 60
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 Classy (%)

Attractive (%) Beautiful (%) Charming (%)

Cute Exciting Glamour Handsome

50

60

40
30

50
25

40

30
Intelligent (%)
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
40
20

30

20
30
15

20

10
20
10

10

10
5

0
0 20 40 60
0 20 40 60 Exciting (%) 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60

Cute (%) Glamourous (%) Handsome (%)

Physically fit Sexy Stylish

35

35

35

___ : Female celebrities

30
30

30

‐‐‐‐ : Male celebrities

25
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
25

25

20
20

20

abc : 95% Confidence Interval

15
15

15

10
10

10

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 50

Physically Fit (%) Sexy (%) Stylish (%)

21
 Figure 3. Relationships between “intelligence” and physical attributes
Male and female celebrities evaluated by all female judges

Attractive Beautiful Charming Classy

40

60
50
30

40
25

30

40
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
30
20

20

20
20
15

10
10

10

0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80

Attractive (%) Beautiful (%) Charming (%) Classy (%)

Cute Exciting Glamour Handsome

50

60
30

50

50
40
40
20

40
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
30
30

30
10

20

20
20
0

10
10

10
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

Cute (%) Exciting (%) Glamourous (%) Handsome (%)

Physically fit Sexy Stylish

30

30

50
___ : Female celebrities
25

25

40

‐‐‐‐ : Male celebrities

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
20

20

30

abc : 95% Confidence Interval

15

15

20
10

10

10

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

Physically Fit (%) Sexy (%) Stylish (%)

22
 Figure 4. Relationships between “intelligence” and “attractive”
Male and female celebrities evaluated by all judges

Athletes Comedians Fashion models

40

25
60

20
40

30
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
15
20

10
20
0

5
-20

10

0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 20 30 40 50 60 70
Attractive (%) Attractive (%) Attractive (%)

Film personalities ‐ Actors Musicians Politicians

35

40

70
60
30

30
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
50
Intelligent (%)
25

20

40
20

30
10

20
15

0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60
Attractive (%) 0 20 40 60 80 Attractive (%)
Attractive (%)

TV personalities
40

___ : Female celebrities

35

‐‐‐‐ : Male celebrities

Intelligent (%)
25 30

abc : 95% Confidence Interval

20
15

0 20 40 60 80
Attractive (%)

23
 Figure 5. Relationships between “intelligence” and “beautiful”
Male and female celebrities evaluated by all judges

Athletes Comedians Fashion models

30

40

25
25

20
30
20
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
15
20
15

10
10
10

5
5

0
0 20 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80
Beautiful (%) Beautiful (%) Beautiful (%)

Film personalities ‐ Actors Musicians Politicians

100
50

40
40

30

Intelligent (%)
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

50
30

20
20

10

0
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 Beautiful (%)
Beautiful (%) Beautiful (%)

TV personalities
40

___ : Female celebrities

30

‐‐‐‐ : Male celebrities

Intelligent (%)
20

abc : 95% Confidence Interval

10
0

0 20 40 60 80
Beautiful (%)

24
 Figure 6. Relationships between “intelligence” and “charming”
Male and female celebrities evaluated by all judges

Athletes Comedians Fashion models

40

30
80
30

60

20
Intelligent (%)
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
20

40

10
10

20

0
0

0
0 10 20 30 40
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 Charming (%)
Charming (%) Charming (%)

Film personalities ‐ Actors Musicians Politicians

60

40

60
30

50
40

Intelligent (%)
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
20

40
20

10

30
0

20
0

0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50 Charming (%) 0 10 20 30 40 50
Charming (%) Charming (%)

TV personalities
50

___ : Female celebrities

40

‐‐‐‐ : Male celebrities

Intelligent (%)
30

abc : 95% Confidence Interval

20
10

0 10 20 30 40 50
Charming (%)

25
 Figure 7. Relationships between “intelligence” and “classy”
Male and female celebrities evaluated by all judges

Athletes Comedians Fashion models

80

30
50
40

60

20
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
30

40

10
20

20
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50
Classy (%) Classy (%) Classy (%)

Film personalities ‐ Actors Musicians Politicians

80

40

60
60

50
30
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
40

40
20
20

30
10

20
0

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 50
Classy (%) Classy (%) Classy (%)

TV personalities
60

___ : Female celebrities

50

‐‐‐‐ : Male celebrities

Intelligent (%)
30 40

abc : 95% Confidence Interval

20
10

0 20 40 60
Classy (%)

26
 Figure 8. Relationships between “intelligence” and “cute”
Male and female celebrities evaluated by all judges

Athletes Comedians Fashion models

40

40
25

30
30
20

Intelligent (%)
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

20
20
15

10
10
10

0
5

0
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 Cute (%)
Cute (%) Cute (%)

Film personalities ‐ Actors Musicians Politicians

40

25

60
20
30

40
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
15
20

20
10
10

0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 0 5 10 15 20 25
Cute (%) Cute (%) Cute (%)

TV personalities
40

___ : Female celebrities

30

‐‐‐‐ : Male celebrities

Intelligent (%)
20

abc : 95% Confidence Interval

10
0

0 20 40 60 80
Cute (%)

27
 Figure 9. Relationships between “intelligence” and “glamorous”
Male and female celebrities evaluated by all judges

Athletes Comedians Fashion models

30

30
40
20

20
Intelligent (%)

30
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
10

20

10
0
-10

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Glamourous (%) 0 10 20 30 40 0 20 40 60
Glamourous (%) Glamourous (%)

Film personalities – Actors Musicians Politicians

50

70
40

60
40

30
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
50
30

20

40
20

10

30
10

20
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Glamourous (%) Glamourous (%) 0 10 20 30 40 50
Glamourous (%)

TV personalities
30

___ : Female celebrities

25

‐‐‐‐ : Male celebrities

Intelligent (%)
20

abc : 95% Confidence Interval

15

0 20 40 60
Glamourous (%)

28
 Figure 10. Relationships between “intelligence” and “handsome”
Male and female celebrities evaluated by all judges

Athletes Comedians Fashion models

30

35

20
25

30

15
20
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
25

10
15

20
10

5
15
5

10

0
0 20 40 60
Handsome (%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 20 40 60
Handsome (%) Handsome (%)

Film personality – Actors Musicians Politicians

40

60
40

50
30
30
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
40
20

30
20

10

20
10

10
0
0 20 40 60 80
Handsome (%) 0 20 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 50
Handsome (%) Handsome (%)

TV personalities

___ : Female celebrities

50 40

‐‐‐‐ : Male celebrities

Intelligent (%)
30

abc : 95% Confidence Interval

20
10

0 20 40 60 80
Handsome (%)

29
 Figure 11. Relationships between “intelligence” and “physically fit”
Male and female celebrities evaluated by all judges

Athletes Comedians Fashion models

30

40

25
20
30
25

Intelligent (%)
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
10 15
20
20

5
10

0
15
0 10 20 30 40
0 20 40 60 80 Physically Fit (%) 0 20 40 60 80
Physically Fit (%) Physically Fit (%)

Film personalities ‐ Actors Musicians Politicians

45

80
35
40

60
30
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
35

40
25
30

20

20
25

15
20

0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80
Physically Fit (%) Physically Fit (%) Physically Fit(%)

TV personalities
35

___ : Female celebrities

30

‐‐‐‐ : Male celebrities

Intelligent (%)
20 25

abc : 95% Confidence Interval

15
10

0 20 40 60 80
Physically Fit (%)

30
 Figure 12. Relationships between “intelligence” and “sexy”
Male and female celebrities evaluated by all judges

Athletes Comedians Fashion models

30

25
35

20
30
20

15
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
25

10
10

20

5
15

0
0

0 20 40 60 80 0 10 20 30 40 0 20 40 60 80
Sexy (%) Sexy (%) Sexy (%)

Film personalities ‐ Actors Musicians Politicians

30
40

60
25
30

40
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
20
20

20
15
10

10
0

0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 5 10 15 20
Sexy (%) Sexy (%) Sexy (%)

TV personalities
30

___ : Female celebrities

25

‐‐‐‐ : Male celebrities

Intelligent (%)
20

abc : 95% Confidence Interval

15

0 20 40 60 80
Sexy (%)

31
 Figure 13. Relationships between “intelligence” and “stylish”
Male and female celebrities evaluated by all judges

Athletes Comedians Fashion models

40

30
40
30

20
30
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
20

10
20
10

10
0

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 50 60
Stylish (%) Stylish (%) Stylish (%)

Film personalities ‐ Actors Musicians Politicians

60

40

60
50

30

50
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
40

20

40
30

10

30
20

20
0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 0 10 20 30 40 50
Stylish (%) Stylish (%) Stylish (%)

TV personalities
40

___ : Female celebrities

35

‐‐‐‐ : Male celebrities

Intelligent (%)
25 30

abc : 95% Confidence Interval

20
15

0 20 40 60 80
Stylish (%)

32
 Figure 14. Relationships between “intelligence” and physical attributes
View publication stats

All celebrities evaluated by all judges, name and name+image surveys

Attractive Beautiful Charming Classy
35

60

60
40

50
30

50
30
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
40
25

40

30
20
20

30

20
15

10

20

10
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Attractive (%) Beautiful (%) 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80

Charming (%) Classy (%)

Cute Exciting Glamour Handsome

50

40
40

60

40

35
30

40
Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
30

30
20

20

20

25
10
10

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

Cute (%) Exciting (%) Glamourous (%) Handsome (%)

Physically fit Sexy Stylish

30

60
30

___ : Female celebrities

25

50
25

‐‐‐‐ : Male celebrities

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)

Intelligent (%)
20

40
20

15

abc : 95% Confidence Interval

30
15

10
10

20
5

0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80

Physically Fit (%) Sexy (%) Stylish (%)

33