Source Credibility as a Function of

Communicator Physical Attractiveness

Gordon L. Patzer, University of North Dakota

An experimental investigation of the relationship between communicator physical

attractiveness and source credibility within a marketing context is reported. Source
credibility measures involved perception of trust, expertise, and liking as a function of
experimental treatments that differed in only the physical attractiveness of the com-
municator. Communicator physical attractiveness is operationally defined as the degree
to which a person’s face is pleasing to observe, and is determined through a consensus of
judges. The marketing context involved persuasive communications presented in a
printed advertisement mock-up. Generally, the hypotheses were supported by the results
of the data analyses. Monotonic relationships were found between communicator
physical attractiveness and (a) perceived trust, (b) perceived expertise, and (c) liking for
the communicator.

Persuasive communication effectiveness depends largely on the credi-

bility of the source. Accepting that persuasive communication success is
influenced by source credibility, it is important to identify determinants
of source credibility. The purpose of this research is to investigate how
one hypothesized determinant, communicator physical attractiveness,
influences source credibility. The focus of this paper is on communicator
physical attractiveness as one important influence on expertise, trust,
and liking. While these three elements are assumed to determine source
credibility, physical attractiveness is not equated with any of these three
elements, but is hypothesized as an underlying construct of each.

Physical Attractiveness
A substantial amount is known about physical attractiveness and its use
as an informational cue. However, physical attractiveness is a relatively
new topic of research attention, and much remains unknown, such as its
relationship with source credibility within a business setting. In this
study, consistent with existing research, physical attractiveness refers to
facial appearance, and is defined here as the degree to which a stimulus
person’s facial features are pleasing to observe.

Address correspondence to Gordon L. Patzer, BOX 8114, University Station, univer-

sity of’North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202.

Journal of Business Research 11.229-241 (1983)

@ Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1983 229
52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York. NY 10017 0148-2%3/83/$3.00
230 Gordon L. Patzer

Physical Attractiveness Stereotype Dion, Berscheid, and Walster

[8] succinctly state the importance of physical attractiveness in our lives
by their proposition that the “what is beautiful is good stereotype”
prevails in today’s society. In summary, the consequences of being
physically attractive are positive, while the consequence of being
physically unattractive are negative. Research consistently reports that
people behave in a manner consistent with the adage that “beauty may
be only skin deep, but its effects run much deeper.” Based merely on
physical attractiveness people formulate comprehensive notions about
an observed person. The results of existing physical attractiveness
research can be summarized into four generalizations.
1. Physically attractive people have greater social power than their
unattractive counterparts [ 15, 18, 191.
2. Physically attractive people are perceived to possess more favor-
able personal and nonpersonal characteristics, including intelli-
gence, personality traits, and success in life [8, 14, 161.
3. Physically attractive people have more positive effects on other
people and receive more positive responses from others, including
work requests, and requests for help, than do the physically
unattractive [ 13,2 I].
4. Physically attractive people are more persuasive than physically
unattractive people [ 1,6,9, 10, 15,201.
Measurement: Truth-of-Consensus A popular fallacy appears to be
that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and is therefore totally
subjective. However, research shows that regardless of individual
preference, a high degree of agreement exists among judges (e.g., [2,
51); which once measured, enables accurate prediction of how another
person will perceive a stimulus person’s physical attractiveness. Since
no objective answer exists for the question of who is or what determines
physical attractiveness, researchers use a “truth-of-consensus” method
to measure attractiveness. This method is based on the premise that
judgments of physical attractiveness are necessarily subjective, and that
such judgments are formed through Gestalt principles of person per-
ception rather than single characteristics. If a substantial number of
judges rate a stimulus person as high or low in physical attractiveness,
then, for research purposes, the stimulus person is interpreted to repre-
sent that level of physical attractiveness.

Current Research
Thirty years ago, Hovland, Janis, and Kelly [ 121 proposed that one god
of communication research is to isolate factors that account for the
Source Credibility 231

effectiveness, or lack thereof, of persuasive communication. Existing

research suggests that one such factor is source credibility: the more
credible the source is perceived to be, the greater the influence of the
delivered persuasive communication will be [7, 111. This source credi-
bility is defined in a number of ways; however, the two most common,
consistently cited, dimensions are source expertise and source trust-
worthiness (e.g., [12]), with liking for the source receiving some
recognition (e.g., [3,4]).
Separate bodies of research identify the importance of both the
physical attractiveness variable and the source credibility variable.
Despite the importance of these two variables, their interdependence is
now known. Because communicator physical attractiveness is so readily
visible and available as an informational cue, it is prudent to investigate
its indirect influence on source credibility, through its direct influence on
the three assumed elements of source credibility.
Prior research reports the presence of the “physical attractiveness
stereotype” in diverse situations (e.g., [I, 6, 8, 13, 151). This per-
vasiveness suggests the assumed elements of source credibility, within a
marketing context, will be influenced by communicator physical attrac-
tiveness. Because physically attractive people are perceived to possess
more favorable characteristics [8, 14, 161, it can be expected that
communicators of higher physical attractiveness will be perceived more
positively (i.e., greater expertise and trustworthiness; as well as better
liked).
If these expectations are confirmed, the positive effects of physical
attractiveness on advertising evaluations [ 11, may be cautiously inter-
preted in terms of a relationship between communicator physical attrac-
tiveness and source credibility. Although this study does not test
advertising effects, it does test the effects of physical attractiveness on
the assumed three elements of source credibility.
To investigate the relationship between source credibility and com-
municator physical attractiveness, two hypotheses are posed. Even
though effects due to communicator and receiver gender are not hypoth-
esized, it is necessary to examine these variables in order to validly
explain the source of any significant variation in the subjects’ responses.

H, : Communicators of higher levels of physical attractiveness will be

perceived more trustworthy and of higher expertise than communicators
of lower levels of physical attractiveness.

H,: The higher the communicator’s physical attractiveness, the greater

the receiver’s liking for the communicator will be.
232 Gordon L. Patzer

This research was performed in two major phases. The primary purpose
of Phase 1 was to obtain photographs of individuals who represent low,
moderate and high levels of physical attractiveness for each gender.
Using the photographs obtained in phase one to test the hypotheses, the
purpose of Phase 2 was to investigate the relationship between commun-
icator physical attractiveness and source credibility.
Overall Procedure Subjects The entire study involved 582 subjects:
120 in Phase 1,30 in the pilot test, and 432 in Phase 2. All subjects were
university juniors and seniors enrolled in introductory business courses.
Although nonstudents may be desirable, responses from university
students appeared valuable because of the situation, which involved a
product familiar to the subjects.
Stimulus Persons The stimulus persons were black-and-white photo-
graphs measuring 1 8 in. by 2 in. To allow maximum control (i.e.,
achieve internal validity), each photograph was of a college senior in
his/her early 20’s taken from a university yearbook. These stimulus
persons were selected because the photographs are the most standardized
among the alternatives (e.g., snapshots or professional photographs
from advertising and talent agencies). Photographs were used to control
for extraneous variables inherent with live stimulus persons (e.g.,
speech and body language can differ between experimental treatments,
which would weaken internal validity).
Phase One Subjects A total of 120 subjects (60 males and 60
females) made the required judgments in phase one. All subjects were
run in the same setting (e.g., furnishings, lighting, stimulus materials,
verbal and written instructions, anonymity assurance, and experi-
menter).
Procedure A total of 84 stimulus persons were presented to each
judge. For each judge and for each task, the stimulus persons were
randomized to counterbalance possible boredom and/or practice effects.
When the subject (judge) arrived, he/she was seated and given a letter of
introduction, followed by an instruction page. Verbal instructions and
experimenter-subject interactions were minimized at all times, and
when necessary involved only brief instructions about judging mechan-
ics (i.e., serious attempts were made to eliminate all potential experi-
mental bias and/or demand characteristics).
Measurement Methods To operationally define the physical attractive-
ness of communicators, and to strengthen the physical attractiveness
construct, two methods were used to measure physical attractiveness.
The two methods used were a bipolar rating scale and an assimilation-
Source Credibility 233

contrast grouping method. These methods were replicated two weeks

apart, and no subjects who served in one method also served in the other.
To assure (convergent) validity, attempts were made to maximize
differences between the two measurement methods. For example, the
bipolar rating scale method required subjects to view and rate only one
stimulus person at a time, while the assimilation-contrast method
required the subjects to view and group all the stimulus persons at the
same time. The bipolar scale was a seven-point, labeled, continuum
from extremely low to extremely high in physical attractiveness. For the
assimilation-contrast method, judges were given all the photographs and
asked to distribute them into seven different groups that represented
different levels of physical attractiveness. These judges were told to
arrange (and rearrange), so that photographs within groups were com-
parable in physical attractiveness, while photographs between groups
were different (i.e., contrasted) in physical attractiveness. Sixty totally
different subjects (30 males and 30 females participated in each method;
and stimulus persons were randomized for each subject and for each
time.
Reliability Resulrs The reliability coefficients indicate the measures of
the physical attractiveness construct were consistent between the rating
and grouping methods. Using Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coeffi-
cients, the average coefficient for the rating method for the male judges
was 0.768 and for the female judges, 0.800. The average coefficient for
the grouping method for the male judges was 0.686, and for the female
judges, 0.687.
Stimulus Person Selection To select photographs of stimulus persons
for the advertisement mock-ups, the data from the rating and grouping
methods were used. Numerical values ranging from 1 to 7 were assigned
to the scales, and the mean values and standard deviations were used for
selections. To minimize any unique characteristics or unique effects that
a specific person may possess, multiple stimulus persons were chosen to
represent each physical attractiveness level.
Using the judges’ data, the mean scores and standard deviations for
each stimulus person were calculated for each of the two methods and for
each of the four judging periods. Next, the means representing the
lowest, middle, and highest scores were grouped together for each
stimulus person gender. From each of these groups those stimulus
persons with the smallest standard deviations were selected to represent
their respective level of physical attractiveness. Finally, t tests were
performed to insure that significant differences existed between the
scores that were in different levels, and that no significant differences
existed within each level. Stimulus persons were also selected only when
234 Gordon L. Patzer

no significant difference existed between a stimulus person’s mean test

and retest scores for either method, and if stimulus persons at different
levels of physical attractiveness were judged significantly different at the
0.001 level of probability. Note that the test and retest scores involved
exactly a 2 weeks time span.
Because only stimulus persons who met the above criterion were
selected, the number of stimulus persons for each physical attractiveness
level could vary. The end results were the same for both genders: two
stimulus persons for the moderate physical attractiveness level, and three
stimulus persons for the low and high levels. The average statistics of
male stimulus persons selected were (1) low physical attractiveness: M =
1.28, SD = 0.53; M = 1.85, SD = 0.90; M = 1.90, SD = 0.85; (2)
moderate physical attractiveness: M = 3.93, SD = 1.15; M = 4.07, SD =
1.12; and (3) high physical attractiveness: M = 4.86, SD = 0.96; M =
5.02, SD = 1.25; M = 6.08, SD = 0.85. The average statistics of
female stimulus persons selected were (1) low physical attractive-
ness:M= 1.2O,SD=0.46;M= 1.91,SD=0.87;M= 1.87,SD=O.91;
(2) moderate physical attractiveness: M = 3.89, SD = 0.99; M = 4.04,
SD = 1.33; and (3) high physical attractiveness: M = 5.52, SD =
l.OO;M=5.56,SD= l.ll;M=5.68,SD=0.97.
Pilot Test When Phase 1 was completed, 30 additional subjects
were presented with the entire procedure for phase two. These pilot
test data were not analyzed in the phase two analysis, but were used to
identify potential methodological problems. Because no problems
were identified, and no changes appeared necessary, Phase 2 was
begun.
Phase Two Subjects A total of 432 subjects were involved in
Phase 2. After the Phase 2 data were collected, the questionnaire
forms were scrutinized to identify potential bias. This screening
eliminated 3 1 questionnaires which contained either (1) items not
answered or (2) responses to the post-experimental query that indi-
cated a subject knew the purpose of the research. In addition to the
above questionnaire eliminations, a total of 41 questionnaires were
randomly deleted to achive equal cell sizes of 20 subjects per
experimental condition, i.e., Phase 2 analysis is based on data from
320 questionnaires, which is 20 subjects in each of the 16 experi-
mental conditions.
Stimulus Materials The stimulus materials were black-and-white
advertisement mock-ups printed on 8 f x 11 in. paper; although an
advertising professional aided in the copy and design, it was apparent
the advertisements were mock-ups rather than actual ads. The adver-
tisements consisted of either a male or female communicator of either
Source Credibility 235

low, moderate, or high physical attractiveness; as a control for

physical attractiveness, a treatment consisted of no physical attrac-
tiveness information (i.e., no photograph), combined with the adver-
tising message. The advertisement was for a new nonexistent, head-
ache and minor pain reliever. The layout of the advertisement
involved bold-print headline, followed by a space for the communi-
cator’s photograph, and text under the photograph. The headline
stated:

It took years to develop our new pain reliever, but you will thank us. Now, the
ultimate pain reliever is just that: ULTIMATE

The paragraph of text stated:

Being a _ (communicator’s gender) graduate of__. (subject’s university

name), I know the headaches and minor pains that occur while being a student. . and
now there is relief.

ULTIMATE is a safe and strong nonprescription pain reliever that is perfect for both
men and women. Independent laboratory chemical tests prove that its two safe
ingredients (75% acetaminophen and 25% analygesic) reduce headache and minor
pain in 98% of the population in twelve minutes or less; and this strength is with no
upset stomach in 99% of the population. ULTIMATE has also received the Ameri-
can Medical Association’s seal of approval.

It is safe, fast, and effective. By relieving you of headache and minor pain, the
ULTIMATE pain reliever is a refreshing, exhilerating experience.

ULTIMATE!!!. the pain reliever that brings you to life and life to you.

Hand-held print advertisements, rather than projected slides and

verbal messages, were used to allow for maximum individual re-
ceiver differences. This procedure permitted individual subjects to
view the advertisement, read the copy, and process the information as
long as desired (which approximates a normal print ad setting).
Design An experimental 2 X 2 X 4 factorial design was used. The
three independent variables were (1) the gender of the receiver, (2)
the gender of the communicator, and (3) the physical attractiveness
level of the communicator. The dependent variables included a
seven-point bipolar scale assessing subjects’ evaluations of the com-
municator’s expertise and trustworthiness, as well as liking for the
communicator if they were to meet. Questionnaires were randomly
deleted to achieve equal cell sizes of 20 subjects per experimental
236 Gordon L. Patzer

condition. The end result was 320 questionnaires that represented 20

subjects in each of the 16 experimental conditions.
Procedure There were 14 sessions of 30-40 subjects per session. To
minimize potential experimental bias and/or demand characteristics,
all experimental treatments were administered within each session.
Individual subjects were randomly assigned an experimental treat-
ment, controlling for equal cell sizes; however, after the screening for
bias eliminated 3 1 total questionnaires, the cell sizes were no longer
equal. Except for the manipulation of communicator physical attrac-
tiveness and communicator sex, all subjects were given identical
research materials: introduction letter, written instructions, adver-
tisement mock-up, and post-treatment questionnaire concerning the
advertising, the product, the communicator, and the subject, as well
as a post-experimental open-ended question (to identify possible
subject bias).
The procedure was designed to control for various subject roles and
experimental artifacts. For example, the manipulation check was
placed toward the end of the questionnaire. Also, the subjects were
permitted to view the advertisement as long as desired, but were not
given the questionnaire until after they had disposed of the adver-
tisement (i.e., it was possible for a subject to refer back to the
advertisement once they began the questionnaire). Rather than mis-
lead the subjects with a false cover story, all were simply, only, asked
to participate in a marketing communications study. Finally, all
subjects were run in the same setting (e.g., furnishings, lighting,
stimulus materials, verbal and written instructions, anonymity assur-
ance, and experimenter). Verbal instructions and experimenter-sub-
ject interactions were minimized at all times, and when necessary
involved only brief instruction about procedural mechanics (i.e.,
serious attempts were made to eliminate all potential experimental
bias and/or demand characteristics).

Results and Analysis

Manipulation Check The question designed as a manipulation

check of the physical attractiveness variable asked the subjects to
evaluate the physical attractiveness of the spokesperson for the
product’s advertising. Note that data from the four experimental
control conditions, in which subjects were not exposed to a photo-
graph of a communicator, were necessarily omitted from this analy-
sis. This omission reduced the number of experimental cells from 16
Source Credibility 231

Table 1: Analysis of Variance of the Physical Attractiveness

Manipulation Check

Source of Variation ss DF MS F PrF

Main effects 272.91 4 68.23 40.73 0.001

Receiver gender 01) 1.50 1 1.50 0.90 0.344
Communicator gender(B) 0.70 1 0.70 0.42 0.5 17
Communication physical
Attractiveness (C) 270.70 2 135.35 80.80 0.001
Two-way interaction 4.70 5 0.94 0.56 0.729
AXB 1.84 1 1.84 1.10 0.296
AXC 0.23 2 0.11 0.07 0.933
BXC 2.63 2 1.32 0.79 0.457
Three-way interaction
AXBXC 0.10 2 0.05 0.03 0.971
Explained 277.72 11 25.25 15.07 0.001
Residual 381.93 228 1.68
Total 659.64 239 2.76

Cell Means of Main Effects for the Communicator

Physical Attractiveness Manipulation Check
Communicator Physical Attractiveness
LOW Moderate High

2.21 3.59 4.81

to 12, and the total number of questionnaires from 320 to 240 for the
manipulation check only.
Table 1 presents the results of the analysis of variance for the
physical attractiveness manipulation check. There were no interac-
tion effects, only the one significant main effect was revealed in the
ANOVA table. The cell means were all significantly different from
each other at the 0.05 level for both the Duncan [ 161 and Tukey [ 161
multiple comparison tests. Based on both the ANOVA summary table
that indicated no interaction effects and the consequent multiple
comparison tests, the physical attractiveness manipulation appears
successful.
First Hypothesis By asking the subjects to evaluate the trustworthi-
ness and expertise of the communicator for the product’s advertising,
perceived trustworthiness, and expertise of the communicator were
assessed, as they differed in each experimental condition. The results
support the first hypothesis: communicators of higher levels of
238 Gordon L. Patzer

fihysical attractiveness were perceived more trustworthy and of

higher expertise than communicators of lower levels of physical
attractiveness. The analysis of variance results for trustworthiness
and expertise are presented in Table 2 which shows that the variation
was due only to main effects of trustworthiness and expertise scores.
The Duncan multiple comparison test indicated that all groups for
trustworthiness were different at the 0.05 level except for the no-
photo group and the moderate group. For expertise, both the Duncan
and Tukey tests indicated only the low and high groups were signif-
icantly different at the 0.05 level.
Second Hypothesis The subjects were asked what their feelings
would be toward the spokesperson for the product’s advertising if
they had the opportunity to meet the person. Based on the subjects’
responses to this question, the second hypothesis was strongly sup-
ported: communicator physical attractiveness had a significant effect
on liking for the communicator, while no other main effects or
interactions approached significance. Table 2 presents the results of
the analysis of variance. Multiple comparison tests on the mean
scores showed that all groups were different from each other, except
for the no-photo and moderate groups, at the 0.05 level for both the
Duncan and Tukey multiple comparison tests.

Conclusions

The major finding of this study was that a monotonic relationship

exists between communicator physical attractiveness and perceptions
of communicator expertise, trustworthiness, and liking; regardless of
communicator gender and/or receiver gender. This finding offers one
explanation for results of earlier studies [ 11, which report a rela-
tionship between communicator physical attractiveness and persua-
sive communication effectiveness (or advertising evaluations).
The explanation for the relationship between communicator physi-
cal attractiveness and persuasive communication effectiveness in-
volves “mediating variables” and “underlying constructs.” Al-
though there is not unanimous agreement about the elements of source
credibility, the three elements of expertise, trust, and liking here
received support as major elements of source credibility. If it is
assumed that one underlying construct of persuasive communication
effectiveness is source credibility, it then is important to identify the
underlying construct(s) of source credibility. Likewise, if it is as-
sumed that three underlying constructs of source credibility are trust,
expertise, and liking, it is then important to identify the underlying
 3
r
z
2
Q
Table 2: Analysis of Variance Using Trustworthiness, Expertise, and Liking Scores as Criterion
G
B
Trustworthiness Expertise Liking 9

Source of Variation DF MS F PrF MS F PrF MS F PrF

Receiver gender (A) 1 0.11 0.08 0.785 0.90 0.41 0.521 0.70 1.08 0.299
Communicator gender (B) 1 2.45 1.63 0.203 0.70 0.32 0.571 0.70 1.08 0.299
Communicator physical
Attractiveness (0 3 14.28 9.49 0.001 6.60 3.06 0.028 13.89 21.41 0.001
AXB 1 0.6 1 0.41 0.524 3.40 1.56 0.213 0.08 0.12 0.729
AxC 3 2.55 1.70 0.169 3.89 1.78 0.151 0.23 0.35 0.788
BxC 3 2.33 1.48 0.219 0.64 0.29 0.832 0.06 0.10 0.963
AXBXC 3 0.40 0.25 0.860 3.54 1.62 0.185 1.17 1.80 0.146
Explained 15 4.10 2.72 0.001 3.28 1.50 0.102 3.17 4.89 0.001
Residual 304 1.51 2.18 0.65
Total 319 1.63 2.24 0.77

Cell Means of Main Effects for Physical Attractiveness: Trustworthiness,

Expertise, and Liking Scores as Criterion
Communicator Physical Attractiveness
No-Photo L.ow Moderate High

Trustworthiness 3.84 3.31 3.71 4.34

Expertise 3.66 3.20 3.45 3.88
Liking 4.06 3.66 4.16 4.65 z
240 Gordon L. Patzer

construct(s) of these three elements, because this underlying con-

struct will ultimately influence source credibility through its influ-
ence on trust, expertise, and liking. A possible causal relationship
between communicator physical attractiveness and perceived com-
municator trust, expertise, and likeability has been supported in the
present results. Admittedly, specific characteristics of the stimulus
materials may have implications for external validity, but the trade-
off taken in this research was to insure high internal validity.

Future Research

This research is only the beginning of an area that needs further study.
Future research should involve diversity of each major component,
i.e., a variety of sources, products, media, messages, and audiences
can be analyzed within a similar experimental design. In addition, the
overall procedure should be varied to include both laboratory and
field experiments in an attempt to approach reality. However, if a
causal relationship is to be identified, a trade-off between internal and
external validity is necessary. Finally, research should also focus on
the relationship between communicator physical attractiveness and
persuasive communication effectiveness, and ultimately the role it
may play within overall marketing strategy success.

References
1. Baker, M. J., and Churchill, G. A., Jr., The Impace of Physically Attractive Models
on Advertising Evaluations, J. Marketing Res. 14 (November, 1977): 5 38-555.

2. Berscheid, E., Dion, K. K., Walster, E., and Walster, G. W., Physical Attractiveness
and Dating Choice: A Test of the Matching Hypothesis, J. Exp. Sot. Psychol. 7
(1971): 173-189.

3. Britt, S. H., Psychological Principles of Marketing and Consumer Behavior. Lex-

ington Books, Lexington, Mass., 1978.

4. Byrne, D., The Attraction Paradigm. Academic Press, New York, 1971.

5. Caviar, N., and Dockecki, P. R., Physical Attractiveness SelfConcept: A Test of

Mead’s Hypothesis, inProceedings of the 79th Annual Convention of the American
Psychological Association 6 (1971): 319-320.

6. Chaiken, S., Communicator Physical Attractiveness and Persuasion, J. Pers. Sot.

Psychol. 37(B) (August 1979): 1387-1397.

I. Choo, T., Communicator Credibility and Communication Discrepancy as Deter-

minants of Opinion Change, J. Sot. Psychol. 64 (1964): l-20.

8. Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., and Walster E., What is Beautiful is Good, J. Pers.
Sot. Psycho/. 24 (1971): 285-290.
Source Credibility 241

9. Dion, K. K., and Stein, S., Physical Attractiveness and Interpersonal Influences,
J. Exp. Sot. Psychol. 14 (1978): 97-108.
10. Horai, J., Naccari, N., and Fatoullah, E., The Effects of Expertise and Physical
Attractiveness Upon Opinion Agreement and Liking, Sociometry 37 (1974):
601-606.
11. Hovland, C. I., and Weiss, W., The Influence of Source Credibility on Commjnica-
Effectiveness, Public Opinion Quart. 15 (1951): 635-650.
12. Hovland, C. I., Janis, 1. L., and Kelley, H. H., Communication and Persuasion.
Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1953.
13. McGurie, W. J., Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change, in (G. Lindzey and E.
Aronson, eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.,
1969.
14. Miller, A. G., The Role of Physical Attractiveness in Impression Formation,
Psychono. Sci. 19 (1970): 241-243.
15. Mills, J., and Aronson, E., Opinion Change as a Function of the Communicator’s
Attractiveness and Desire to Influence,1 Pers. Sot. Psychol. 1 (1965): 173-177.
16. Nida, S. A., and Nida, J., SexSterotyped Traits, Physical Attractiveness, and In-
terpersonal Attraction, Psychol. Rep. 41 (1977): 1211-1322.
17. Nie, N. H., SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1975, pp. 427-428.
18. Sigall, H., and Aronson, E., Liking for an Evaluator as a Function of Her Physical
Attractiveness and Nature of the Evaluations, J. Exp. Sot. Psychol. 5 (1969): 93-
100.
19. Sigall, H., Page, R., and Brown, A., The Effects of Physical Attraction and Evalua-
tion on Effort Expenditure and Work Output, Represent. Res. Sot. Psychol. 2
(1971): 19-25.
20. Snyder, M., and Rothbart, M., Communicator Attractiveness and Opinion Change,
Can. J. Behav. Sci. 3 (1971): 377-387.
21. SternthaI, B., Persuasion and the Mass Communication Process, Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1972.