Skip to main content
Log in

The Impact of Physical Attractiveness on Women's Social Status and Interactional Power

  • Published:
Sociological Forum

Abstract

This article tests hypotheses derived from status-generalization theory and communication-accommodation theory that behaviors resulting from status inequalities emerge when attractiveness differentiates dyads. Relying on unobtrusive acoustic analysis of 24 women's voices, we test the extent to which (1) women adjust nonverbal behavior to one another; (2) more attractive women exert more influence than less attractive partners; and (3) the effects of attractiveness on influence are stronger if a greater relative difference exists between partners. Findings suggest that if two interacting women are similarly attractive, then they compete dynamically for status, which informs recent developments in the expectation-states research program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Dion, Karen 1972 “Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children's transgressions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 24(2):207–213.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunteman, George H. 1989 Principle Components Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, Alice H., Richard D. Ashmore, Mona G. Mokhijani, and Laura C. Longo 1991 “What is beautiful is good, but: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype.” Psychological Bulletin 110:109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, Alice H., and Blair T. Johnson 1990 “Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin 108(2):233–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fararo, Thomas J., and John Skvoretz 1986 “E-state structuralism: A theoretical method.” American Sociological Review 51:591–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feingold, Alan 1992 “Good looking people are not what we think.” Psychological Bulletin 111:304–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foschi, Martha, Larissa Lai, and Kirsten Sigerson 1994 “Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants.” Social Psychology Quarterly 57(4):326–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giles, Howard, and Nikolas Coupland 1991 Language: Contexts and Consequences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, Stanford W. 1986 “Social psychological implications of voice frequency correlations: Analyzing conversation partner adaptation by computer.” Social Psychology Quarterly 49(3):237–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1999 “Navigating the sound stream of human social interaction.” Social Perspectives on Emotion 5:247–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, Stanford W., and Timothy J. Gallagher 2002 “Spectral analysis of candidates' nonverbal vocal communication: Predicting presidential election outcomes.” Social Psychology Quarterly 65(3):298–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, Stanford W., and Stephen Webster 1996 “A nonverbal signal in voices of interview partners effectively predicts communication accommodation and social status perceptions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70(66):231–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Linda A., John E. Hunter, and Carole N. Hodge 1995 “Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review.” Social Psychology Quarterly 58(2):108–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jussim, Lee, and D. Wayne Osgood 1989 “Influence and similarity among friends: An integrated model applied to incarcerated adolescents.” Social Psychology Quarterly 52(2):98–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemper, Theodore D. 1990 “Social relations and emotions: A structural approach.” In Theodore D. Kemper (ed.), Research Agendas in the Sociology of Emotions: 207–237. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemper, Theodore D., and Randall Collins 1990 “Dimensions of microinteraction.” American Journal of Sociology 96:32–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroska, Amy 2001 “Do we have consensus? Examining the relationship between gender ideology and role meanings.” Social Psychology Quarterly 64(1):18–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langford, Tom, and Neil J. MacKinnon 2000 “The affective basis for the gendering of traits: Comparing the United States and Canada.” Social Psychology Quarterly 63(1):34–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenth, Russell 2001 “Some practical guidelines for effective sample size determination.” American Statistician 55(3):187–193.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, Philip 1984 The Biology and Evolution of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovaglia, Michael J., and Jeffrey A. Houser 1996 “Emotional reactions and status in groups.” American Sociological Review 61:867–883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovaglia, Michael J., Jeffrey W. Lucas, Jeffrey A. Houser, Shane R. Thye, and Barry Markovsky 1998 “Status processes and mental ability test scores.” American Journal of Sociology 104:195–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, Cynthia M., Sandra L. Schneider, and Carnot E. Nelson 1996 “Gender and attractiveness biases in hiring decisions: Are more experienced managers less biased?” Journal of Applied Psychology 81(1):11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, Allan 1985 “A biosocial model of status in face-to-face primate groups.” Social Forces 64:377–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulford, Matthew, John Orbell, Catherine Shatto, and Jean Stockard 1998 “Physical attractiveness, opportunity, and success in everyday exchange.” American Journal of Sociology 103(6):1565–1592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pittam, Jeffery 1994 Voice in Social Interaction: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, M. D., and Ralph Wahrman 1983 “Neutralizing sexism in mixed-sex groups: Do women have to be better than men?” American Journal of Sociology 88(4):746–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, Bertram H., Joseph Schwarzwald, and Meni Koslowsky 1998 “Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28(4):307–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 1991 “The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics.” Social Forces 70(2):367–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1997 “Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment.” American Sociological Review 62:218–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and Lynn Smith-Lovin 1996 “Gender and social interaction (introduction).” Social Psychology Quarterly, Special Issue: Gender and Social Interaction 59(3):173–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sell, Jane 1997 “Gender, strategies, and contributions to public goods.” Social Psychology Quarterly 60(3):252–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skvoretz, John, and Thomas J. Fararo 1996 “Status and participation in task groups: A dynamic network model.” American Journal of Sociology 101(5):1366–1414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, Mark 2001 “Self-fulfilling stereotypes.” In Ann Branaman (ed.), Self and Society: 30–35. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stets, Jan E. 1997 “Status and identity in marital interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 60(3):185–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, Penni A., and James C. Moore Jr. 1992 “Wage disparities and performance expectations.” Social Psychology Quarterly 55(1):78–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, Deborah A. 2001 Cosmetic Surgery: The Cutting Edge of Commercial Medicine in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vonnegut, Kurt 1968 Welcome to the Monkey House: A Collection of Short Works. New York: Delacorte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, David G., and Joseph Berger 1997 “Gender and interpersonal task behaviors: Status expectation accounts.” Sociological Perspectives 40(1):1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, Henry A., and Brent T. Simpson 2000 “Equating characteristics and status-organizing processes.” Social Psychology Quarterly 63(2):175–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, Murray, and James E. Driskell 1983 “Beauty as status.” American Journal of Sociology 89(1):140–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, Murray Jr., and Martha Foschi 1988 “Overview of status generalization.” In Murray Webster Jr., and Martha Foschi (eds.), Status Generalization: New Theory and Research: 1–20. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, Candace, and Sarah Fenstermaker 1995 “Doing Difference.” Gender and Society 9:8–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcoxon, Frank 1945 “Individual comparisons by ranking methods.” Biometrics Bulletin 1:80–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willer, David 1996 “The prominence of formal theory in sociology.” Sociological Forum 11(2):319–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willer, David, Michael J. Lovaglia, and Barry Markovsky 1997 “Power and influence: A theoretical bridge.” Social Forces 76(2):571–603.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Haas.

Additional information

An earlier version of the paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Washington, DC in August 2000.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haas, A., Gregory, S.W. The Impact of Physical Attractiveness on Women's Social Status and Interactional Power. Sociol Forum 20, 449–471 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11206-005-6597-2

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11206-005-6597-2

Keywords

Navigation