Bright, Bad, Babyfaced Boys: Appearance …...are consistent with the babyface stereotype in...

Jouroal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 1998 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 1998, Vol. 75, No. 5, 1300-1320 0022-3514/98/$3.00

Bright, Bad, Babyfaced Boys: Appearance Stereotypes Do Not Always Yield Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Effects

Leslie A. Zebrowitz and Carrie Andreoletfi Brandeis University

Mary Ann Collins Spring Hill College

So Young Lee and Jeremy Blumenthal Brandeis University

Three studies tested the hypothesis that babyfaced adolescent boys would compensate for the undesirable expectation that they will exhibit childlike traits by behaving contrary to it. Studies 1 and 2 revealed that babyfaced boys from middle- and lower class samples, including a sample of delinquents, showed higher academic achievement than their matnre-faced peers, refuting the stereotype of babyfaced people as intellectually weak. In the lower class samples, this compensation effect was moderated by IQ and socioeconomic status (SES), variables that influence the ability to overcome low expectations. Study 3 showed that babyfaceness also can produce negative compensatory behaviors. Low-SES babyfaced boys were more likely than their mature-faced peers to be delinquent, and babyfaced delinquents committed more crimes, refuting the stereotype of babyfaced people as warm, submissive, and physically weak.

Considerable research has shown a consensus in identifying babyfaced individuals at all ages as well as a strong expectation that babyfaced people will have childlike traits--submissive, dependent, warm, affectionate, honest, weak, and naive (e.g., McArthur & Apatow, 1983-1984; Berry & McArthur, 1985; Zebrowitz & Montepare, 1992; Zebrowitz, Montepare, & Lee, 1993; see also Montepare & Zebrowitz, 1998, for a review). Although this babyface stereotype has been well documented, the question of its accuracy remains. Because considerable research has shown that an individual's social environment can be strongly influenced by his or her facial appearance (for pertinent reviews, see Langlois, Kalakanis, Rubenstein, Larson, Hal- lain, & Smoot, 1996; Montepare & Zebrowitz, 1998), many

Leslie A. Zebrowitz, Carrie Andreoletti, So Young Lee, and Jeremy Blumenthal, Department of Psychology, Brandeis University; Mary Ann Collins, Department of Psychology, Spring Hill College.

So Young Lee is now at the Department of Psychology, Yonsei Univer- sity, Seoul, South Korea. Jeremy Blumenthal is now at the Department of Psychology, Harvard University.

This research was supported in part by National Institute of Mental Health Grant BSR MH42684 and by a Yonsei University postdoctoral fellowship to So Young Lee. We express appreciation to the Institute of Human Development at the University of California, Berkeley, for providing access to the Intergenerational Studies data archives used in Study 1, and to the Henry A. Murray Center at Radcliffe College and the Inter- University Consortium for Political and Social Research for providing access to the Crime Causation Study data archives used in Studies 2 and 3. We also thank John Laub for his help in negotiating the Crime Causation Study archives.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Leslie A. Zebrowitz, Department of Psychology, MS 062, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts 02454-9110. Electronic mail may be sent to zebrowitz @brandeis.edu.

investigators have suggested that these environmental effects might contribute to stereotype accuracy by producing self-fulfilling prophecy effects (Adams, 1977; Jussim, Eccles, & Ma- don, 1996; Langlois, 1986; Langlois et al., 1996; Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977; Sorrell & Nowak, 1981). However, the elusiveness of such effects in the real world suggests that this notion may be too simplistic.

Self-fulfilling prophecies are not so readily obtained as some have assumed because several factors in real-life social interactions work against the behavioral confirmation of others' expectations (cf. Snyder, 1992). Specifically, behavioral confirmation may fail to occur because targets engage in self-verification, behaving in a manner that provides corrective feedback to erro- neous expectations (e.g,, Swann& Ely, 1984); because targets show compensatory behavior, behaving in a manner that is opposite to disagreeable expectations (e.g., Miller & Myers, 1998; Miller, Rothblum, Felicio, & Brand, 1995; Miller & Rudiger, 1997); or because perceivers show compensatory behavior, behaving in ways that elicit behaviors opposite to those they expect (e.g., Bond, 1972). The latter two processes may foster self- defeating prophecies whereby the expectancy is disconfirmed because it initiates a chain of events that cause contradictory behavior. Finally, even when the expectancy is confirmed, this may reflect the accuracy of the initial expectation rather than a self-fulfilling prophecy effect (Jussim, 1991).

The expectations elicited by a babyface may be particularly likely to yield compensatory, disconfirming behaviors during adolescence. As adolescents attempt to negotiate the transition from childhood to adulthood, their primary interest is the development of autonomy. This leads them to place high value on qualities perceived to be particularly lacking in babyfaced adolescents, such as power and competence (e.g., Adams, Monte- mayor, & Gullotta, 1996). However, the autonomy that adolescents seek is difficult to attain in modem societies because of

1300

BRIGHT, BAD, BABYFACED BOYS 1301

the gap between biological and social maturity. Moffitt (1993) has argued that this maturity gap may lead adolescents to act out in the attempt to gain adult privileges (e.g., sex, parenthood, drinking, ownership of material goods). Because babyfaced people are perceived as dependent and weak, babyfaced adolescents may experience the maturity gap to a greater degree than their mature-faced peers, resulting in a stronger motivation to compensate for the adult privileges that are denied them. Baby- faced adolescents may consequently show assertive and compe- tent behavior that contradicts the babyface stereotype.

Consistent with the suggestion that babyfaced adolescents will show stereotype-disconfirming behavior, Zebrowitz, Col- lins, and Dutta (1998) found that middle-class babyfaced adolescent boys were more assertive and hostile than their mature- faced peers according to personality assessments made by judges who had never met the boys but who had access to data gathered from the boys, their families, and school records. Items such as values independence, rebellious, pushes limits, and skeptical contributed to the assertiveness personality measure, and items such as negativistic, self-indulgent, deceitful, condescending, distrustful, and irritable loaded on the hostility measure. Such traits seem aimed at compensating for the low autonomy and low status that adolescents experience. The compensatory assertive and contentious personality traits of babyfaced adolescent boys may yield prosocial as well as antisocial self-defeating prophecy effects. Indeed, babyfaced soldiers who served in the military during World War II and the Korean War were more likely to win a military award (Collins & Zebrowitz, 1995). This outcome suggests courageous and heroic behavior that could bridge the maturity gap. 1

Babyfaceness does not appear to increase compensatory behavior among adolescent girls, who showed no differences in personality from their mature-faced peers (Zebrowitz et al., 1998). Babyfaced adolescent girls may show • no stronger reactions to the maturity gap than their mature-faced peers because the way they are treated is more congruent with a feminine gender identity than a masculine one. Not only are perceptions of babyfaced people and children paralleled by perceptions of women (cf. Bakan, 1966; Friedman & Zebrowitz, 1992), but researchers have also argued that women's self-concepts incor- porate elements, such as likability and connection to others, that are consistent with the babyface stereotype in contrast to men's self-concepts, which emphasize power and self-sufficiency (for a pertinent review see Cross & Madson, 1997).

The purpose of the present research was to determine whether the previously documented finding of more assertive and contentious personalities among babyfaced adolescent boys is paralleled by achievement and antisocial behaviors that disconfirm the babyface stereotype. We also sought to establish the generality of such compensation effects across a broad socioeconomic range. To these ends, we examined in Study 1 the effects of babyfaceness on years o f education in a middle-class sample of adolescent boys and gifts. In Study 2 we investigated the effects of babyfaceness on achievement test performance in low-income samples of nondelinquents and delinquents. Finally, in Study 3 we examined the effects of babyfaceness on delinquent behavior in the latter samples. Although the focus of the present research was on babyfaceness, the effects of attractiveness, height, and body type were also examined, because there are reasons to

expect these also to influence academic achievement and criminal behavior.

Study 1

Study 1 tested the hypothesis that the compensation effect in personality development shown by middle-class babyfaced boys (Zebrowitz et al., 1998) would also be manifested in their educational achievement. More specifically, we predicted that babyfaced boys would achieve more years of education than their mature-faced peers, thereby refuting the expectation that they are intellectually weak. Such expectations have been documented not only in the attribution of greater naivet6 to babyfaced individuals of all ages (Zebrowitz & Montepare, 1992), but also in the use of slower speech when explaining a game to babyfaced children (Zebrowitz, Brownlow, & Olson, 1992) and in the allocation of less cognitively demanding chores to babyfaced children (Zebrowitz, Kendall-Tackett, & Fafel, 1991). We did not expect a self-defeating prophecy effect to occur for babyfaced adolescent gifts, both because past research showed no effects of babyfaceness on girls' personality development and also because the theoretical basis for predicting a self-defeating prophecy effect is more applicable to boys, whose manliness is likely to be threatened by the babyface stereotype (Friedman & Zebrowitz, 1992; Zebrowitz et al., 1998).

We also predicted positive effects of attractiveness on educational achievement because considerable research has shown greater academic and occupational success among those who are more attractive (Feingold, 1992; Langlois et al., 1996). The effects of height and body type were examined as well. Taller individuals were expected to show greater educational achievement, because height has been found to be related to higher IQ as well as to greater expectations of achievement and competence (Brackbill & Nevill, 1981; Eisenberg, Roth, Bryniarski, & Mur- ray, 1984; Johnson, 1991). We expected more muscular boys to show lower educational achievement, because previous research revealed that boys who were high in muscularity during their high school years showed lower intellectual investment as well as lower dependability and productivity (Clausen, 1993). Fi- nally, we investigated the interactions of facial appearance with height, muscularity, IQ, and socioeconomic status (SES) to ex- plore two possibilities. One possibility was that the beneficial effects of babyfaceness and attractiveness would be most pronounced when they were supported by other factors that facili- tate high achievement, such as higher IQ and SES, A second possibility was that the beneficial effects of babyfaceness and attractiveness would be more pronounced when they could have a protective effect against factors that would operate against high achievement. Such an effect would be consistent with the finding that a girl's attractiveness had a protective effect against paternal rejection by fathers who were stressed by economic hardships during the depression. These fathers showed rejection

tAn alternative explanation is that this finding reflects a contrast effect, whereby whatever courageous actions babyfaced men took received more recognition because the contrast with the perception of babyfaced individuals as warm, dependent, and submissive made these actions more salient.

1302 ZEBROWlTZ ET AL.

of their daughters i f they were unattractive but not i f they were attractive (Elder, Nguyen, & Caspi, 1985).

M e ~ o d

Participants

Study 1 used data from the Intergenerational Studies of Development and Aging (IGS), a combination of three longitudinal studies begun between 1928 and 1933 and archived at the University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Human Development. Three samples were used: Berkeley Guidance, Berkeley Growth, and Oakland Growth, hereafter referred to as Guidance, Berkeley, and Oakland, respectively. Participants in the Guidance and Berkeley samples were born between 1928 and 1929 in Berkeley, California. Most were from White, middle-class, Protestant families, and family educational status was above the average for the general U.S. population (Caspi, Elder, & Bern, 1987; Eichorn, 1981). Oakland participants, born between 1920 and 1922, were a reasonable representation of the population attending Oakland schools where they were enrolled at the time they were initially studied between the ages of 10 and 12. Like the Guidance and Berkeley samples, most Oakland participants came from White, middle-class families, although children of blue-collar workers composed a higher percentage of the Oakland sample (Block, 1971). (For further details about the three studies, see Eichorn, Clansen, Haan, Honzik, & Mussen, 1981; Jones, Bayley, Mac- farlane, & Honzik, 1971.) To be included in the present study, participants needed both educational outcome data and appearance data in late adolescence. A total of 96 male and 114 female participants met this criterion. It should be noted that these samples were not selected for their particular appearance or personality qualities, thus minimizing possible selection bias. Participants selected for inclusion in the present investigation comprised a subset of those included in a study investigating the stability of appearance across the lifespan (Zebrowitz, Olson, & Hoff- man, 1993), and overlapped with those included in studies investigating the contribution of appearance to military service outcomes, to perceived and real health, to personality, and to perceived and real honesty across the lifespan (Collins & Zebrowitz, 1995; Kalick, Zebrowitz, Langlois, & Johnson, 1998; Zebrowitz et al., 1998; Zebrowitz, Voinescu, & Collins, 1996).

Appearance Predictors

Babyfaceness and attractiveness. Facial ratings were taken from a previous study by Zebrowitz, Olson, and Hoffman (1993, Study l ) . Ratings of photographs taken at ages 17, 17.5, and 18 were averaged to create indexes of adolescent attractiveness and babyfaceness. Ratings at three ages were used to create a more reliable measure of appearance than any single photograph could provide. However, if a photograph at one age was missing, the index was created by averaging ratings at the remaining ages. Adolescent appearance was used because the criterion variable of educational attainment is typically achieved shortly after adolescence and well before the next appearance rating (at age 32) available in the archive. The average alpha coefficient across age was .86 for ratings of babyfaceness and .89 for ratings of attractiveness. Research supporting the validity of these ratings includes significant agreement between the rated attractiveness of girls and ratings of their prettiness made by IGS staff in the 1960s. Previous research also has established predictive validity of the adolescent appearance ratings: At- tractiveness ratings predicted likelihood of marriage and, for those who did marry, age of marriage (Kalick et al., 1998); babyfaceness ratings predicted adolescent boys' personality traits and likelihood of winning a military award (Collins & Zebrowitz, 1995; Zebrowitz et al., 1998).

Height. Height in meters at 18 years was available for most participants. In cases where these data were not available, missing data were

progressively substituted with height data at 19.5 years, 21 years, 25 years, approximately 42 years, and approximately 56 years.

Muscularity. Muscularity scores were calculated for each participant by reversing the sign on the ponderal index, which is the ratio of each participant's height tO the cubic root of his or her weight. Height and weight at 18 years of age were used to compute this measure with height data at later ages substituted as indicated above. Because weight can be unstable across the adult years, weight data were substituted only at 19.5 years, 21 years, or 25 years. The ponderal index, which was standardized within each sex, is the most useful single index of somatotype, because it is positively correlated with ectomorphy (linearity) and negatively correlated with mesomorphy (muscularity; Hartl, Monnelly, & Elderkin, 1982; Sheldon, Stevens, & Tucker, 1940). Higher scores on the reversed ponderal index signified greater muscularity. 2

Demographic Predictors

IQ. Stanford-Binet test scores at age 18 years served as the measure of adolescent intelligence. For Berkeley and Guidance participants, missing data were replaced by substituting Wechsler-BeUevue scores from age 18 years. For Oakland participants, missing data were replaced by substituting earlier Stanford-Binet scores obtained when participants were 16 or 17 years old.

SES. We calculated SES as measured by the Hollingshead Index (Hollingsbead & Redlich, 1958) as the mean of scores collected when participants were born and when they were approximately 18 years old. If the score at one age was missing, the other age was used as the index of SES.

Criterion Variable

A composite measure of educational achievement was created for each participant. For Guidance and Oakland participants, the Eichorn Scale of educational attainment (Hollingshead & Redlick, 1958) was used. This scale ranges from did not complete elementary school (1) to PhD, MD, DDS, LLB, EdD, DD (10). Data from Berkeley participants did not include the Eichom measure, but did provide scores on the Hollingshead Education Scale, which ranges from professional training (1) to under 7years of school (7). Because the Eichorn Scale discrimi- nates more between various levels of education, particularly at the high end, the data of those participants who only had Hollingshead scores were converted to comparable scores on the Eichorn Scale. In all but two cases, the Hollingshead value was equivalent to a value on the Eichorn Scale (e.g., Hollingshead value of 3 = some college = Eichorn value of 6), and participants were simply reassigned the appropriate value from the Eichorn Scale. Participants who had a high school graduate, some business or vocational school (4) on the Hollingshead Scale were given a 4.5 on the new scale because they fell in between category completed high school (4) and category high school + vocational or business school (5) on the Eichorn Scale. Participants who received a professional training (1) on the Hollingshead Scale were assigned a score of college graduate + extra credential (8) on the Eichorn Scale. As a result, these particular participants may have an underestimation of their education on the new scale because it was impossible to discern

2 An index of obesity, the Body Mass Index (BMI; weight in kg/ height in square centimeters) was not used as a predictor in Studies 1, 2, or 3 because very few participants were overweight. In Study I, only 5 of the 96 boys and 5 of the 114 girls had BMI values above .25, which is the 85th percentile for individuals of this age, a conventional criterion for determining overweight (Kuczmarski, Flegal, Campbell, & Johnson, 1994; Najjar & Rowland, 1987). Of the 967 boys in Studies 2 and 3, only 6 delinquents and 13 nondelinquents were overweight by this criterion.


Table 1 Correlation Matrix o f Predictor and Criterion Variables for IGS Boys (N = 96) and Girls (N = 114)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Babyfaceness - - -.05 -.27** -.05 .19t .25* .19t 2. Attractiveness -.05 - - .02 -.21" .19~ .07 .05 3. Height -.11 .25** - - -.39*** .13 .03 .14 4. Muscularity .01 -.47*** -.33*** - - .22* .18t .24* 5. IQ .00 .08 .25** -.18t - - .33** .47*** 6. SES .03 .02 .11 -.11 .32** - - .36*** 7. Educational achievement .07 .08 .26** -.10 .43*** .57*** - -

Note. Boys are above the diagonal and girls are below. IGS = Intergenerational Studies of Development and Aging; SES = socioeconomic status. l'P < .10 (marginally significant). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

whether they had completed masters or doctoral work (values of 9 and 10, respectively, on the Eiehom Scale). Nonetheless, the creation of this new measure enabled us to retain the discrimination afforded by the Eichorn Scale for the majority of the participants. Evidence for the validity of this measure is provided by the finding that it was correlated with IQ scores (see Table 1), and that it also predicted income and occupational status when used as a control variable in a study investigating occupational outcomes at ages 50 to 60 years (Collins & Zebrowitz, 1995).

Results

Overv iew

Hierarchical nmltiple regression analyses were performed separately for boys and girls to determine the influence of appearance on educational achievement. Predictor variables were entered into the regression analyses in three blocks: Appearance predictors (attractiveness, babyfaceness, height, muscularity) were entered in Block 1, demographic predictors (IQ, SES) were entered in Block 2, and interactions were entered in Block 3. Appearance predictors were entered first so that results could be compared with past research, which typically has examined effects of appearance without controlling for demographic variables or interaction effects. The interactions examined included babyfaceness and attractiveness crossed with height, muscularity, IQ, and SES. We also examined interactions of height and nmscularity with I Q a n d SES, although no predictions were made for these exploratory analyses. Because the final models included many nonsignificant predictors, trimmed models were designated by deleting all interaction predictors with ts less than 1. We centered the data for each of the continuous predictor variables around the mean to reduce the correlation between main effects and interaction effects (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Correlations among the predictor and criterion variables for boys and girls are presented in Table 1; mean values for the two samples are presented in Table 2.

Boys

Overall effects. Table 3 presents results of the hierarchical regression predicting educational achievement for boys. The block of appearance predictors accounted for 11% of the variance in educational achievement, F(4, 91) = 2.67, p < .05.

The demographic predictors contributed an additional 19% to the variance explained, F(2, 89) = 11.78, p < .001. The trimmed block of interactions explained an additional 4% of the variance, F(1, 88) = 5.92, p < .05.

Babyface effects. As predicted, babyfaced boys showed higher educational achievement than their mature-faced peers. However, babyfaceness no longer predicted achievement once the demographic predictors were entered into the equation. Fur- ther analyses revealed that both IQ and SES were possible third variables accounting for the initial relationship between babyfaceness and educational achievement. Specifically, higher babyfaceness was correlated with higher levels of IQ and SES, and IQ and SES each was correlated with higher educational achievement (see Table 1). Regression equations to assess the separate contributions of IQ and SES to the relationship between babyfaceness and educational achievement revealed that the effect of babyfaceness lost significance both when tQ alone was added to the block of appearance predictors (/~ = .13, p = .21 ) and also when SES alone was added to the equation (/~ = .15, p = .16).

We have no explanation to offer for the surprising relationship between babyfaceness and SES. The positive relationship of babyfaceness to IQ was also unanticipated, and further analyses revealed that it could not be explained by the relationship of

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Predictor and Criterion Variables for IGS Boys (N = 96) and Girls (N = 114)

Boys Girls

Variable M SD M SD t(208)

Babyfaceness 3.84 0.71 4.07 0.88 2.11" Attractiveness 3.39 0.66 2.98 0 .80 4.06*** Height 179.17 7 .32 165.21 6.34 14.62"** Muscularity -0.03 1 .04 -0.05 1.01 0.57 IQ 121.86 11.11 116.44 11.45 3.48** SES 3.39 1.16 3.25 1.12 0.86 Educational achievement 6.96 1.69 5.77 1.41 5.50***

Note. IGS = Intergenerational Studies of Development and Aging; SES = socioeconomic status. *p<.05 . **p<.01. ***p<.001.

1304 ZEBROWITZ ET AL.

Table 3 Summary of Regression Analysis Predicting Educational Achievement for IGS Boys (N = 96) and Girls (N = 114)

Boys Girls

Predictor variable B SE B ~ B SE B

Block 1 a Babyfaceness 0.53 .25 .22* 0.17 .15 .10 Attractiveness 0.06 .26 .02 0.02 .18 .01 Height 0.03 .03 .13 0.06 .02 .27** Muscularity -0.28 .18 -.18 -0.02 .15 -.01

Block 2 b Babyfaceness 0.20 .23 .09 0.12 .12 .08 Attractiveness -0.12 .24 -.05 0.09 .15 .05 Height 0.02 .02 .07 0.04 .02 .16" Muscularity -0.17 .17 - .10 0.09 .12 .07 IQ 0.05 .01 .36*** 0.03 .01 .24** SES 0.30 .14 .21" 0.59 .10 .48***

Block 3 ¢ Babyfaceness 0.27 .23 .11 0.14 .12 .09 Attractiveness -0.18 .23 -.07 0.18 .15 .11 Height 0.03 .02 .12 0.03 .02 .14]. Muscularity -0.10 .16 -.06 0.06 .13 .04 IQ 0.05 .01 .35*** 0.03 .01 .21" SES 0.25 .14 .17]" 0.59 .10 .47*** Babyfaceness × IQ 0.02 .01 .12 Babyfaceness × SES -0.17 .12 -.12 Babyfaceness × Height 0.03 .02 .12 Attractiveness × IQ -0.03 .01 - .17" Attractiveness × Height -0.03 .02 - .09 Attractiveness × Muscularity -0.18 .14 -.11 Muscularity × SES 0.26 .11 .22*

Note. IGS = Intergenerational Studies of Development and Aging; SES = socioeconomic status. a For boys, F(4, 91) = 2.67, p < .05; for girls, F(4, 109) = 2.35, p < .10. b For boys, F(6, 89) = 6.13, p < .001; for girls, F(6, 107) = 12.82, p < .001. ¢ For boys, F(7, 88) = 6.39, p < .001; for girls, F(12, 101) = 7.52, p < .001. ].p "~ .10 (marginally significant). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

babyfaceness to SES. When all appearance predictors and SES were entered into a regression equation predicting IQ, babyfaceness remained a significant predictor ( 8 = .25, p < .01). We conducted additional analyses to see whether this relationship reflected higher achievement motivation among more babyfaced boys, a finding that would be consistent with a compensation effect. We performed these analyses on a subset of 74 boys for whom an index of motivation could be constructed from Q- sortpersonality data available in the IGS archive. We created a motivation composite by summing scores on five Q-sort items: values intellect, ambitious, productive, self-defeating (reverse scored), and withdraws when frustrated (reverse scored; Block, 1961/1978). Regression analyses predicting IQ from the appearance variables revealed a positive effect of babyfaceness for this subset of boys (8 = .32, p < .01 ), and this effect lost significance when controlling for motivation (8 = -18, p = . 10). Thus, consistent with the predicted compensation effect, the higher IQ levels that accounted for babyfaced boys' higher educational attainment were due to their greater achievement motivation.

Attractiveness effects. Contrary to predictions, there were no effects of attractiveness on academic achievement for boys.

Other effects. There was a significant main effect for IQ,

reflecting higher educational achievement among boys with higher IQs. There was also a tendency for boys from higher SES backgrounds to show higher educational achievement. A significant interaction between muscularity and SES revealed that higher muscularity was associated with lower educational achievement when boys were low SES, but not when they were high SES, which suggests that a muscular body build is a risk factor among low-SES boys (see Figure 1 ).

Girls

Overall effects. The results of the hierarchical regression predicting academic achievement for girls are presented in Table 3. The block of appearance predictors accounted for 8% of the variance in academic achievement, F (4 , 109) = 2.35, p = .06. The block of demographic predictors accounted for an additional 34% of the variance explained, F(2 , 107) = 31.15, p < .001. The block of trimmed interaction predictors explained an additional 5% of the variance, F (6 , 101) = 1.71, p = .13.

Babyface effects. As expected, there were no effects of babyfaceness on academic achievement for girls.

Attractiveness effects. Contrary to prediction, there was no overall effect of attractiveness on girls' academic achievement.


Figure I. Educational achievement of Intergenexational Study of Development and Aging (IGS) boys as a function of muscularity and socioeconomic status (SES), and educational achievement of IGS girls as a function of attractiveness and IQ. High, average, and low values of each variable represent one standard deviation above the mean, the mean, and one standard deviation below the mean, respectively (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

However, there was a significant interaction between attractiveness and IQ: Attractiveness was positively related to educational achievement for girls who were below average in IQ, with a slight reversal for those who were above average in IQ (see Figure 1).

Other effects. Consistent with past research, taller girls showed higher academic achievement, as did girls who were higher in IQ or SES.

Sex Differences

Comparisons between the regression coefficients for boys and girls were made in each case in which we obtained an effect for one sex and not the other (Cohen & Cohen, 1983, p. 111). Although babyfaceness predicted the educational achievement of boys but not girls, the difference in the magnitude of these predicted results was not significant (z = 1.24, p = .11, one tailed). Similarly, the unpredicted Attractiveness × IQ interaction effect for girls was not significantly greater than it was for boys (z = 1.12, p = .26, two tailed). However, the effect of SES on educational achievement was marginally greater for girls than for boys (z = 1.69, p = .10, two tailed) and the SES × Muscularity interaction was significantly greater for boys than for girls (z = 2.01, p = .04, two tailed).

Discussion

The results of Study 1 show that the previously reported tendency for middle-class babyfaced boys to refute the babyface stereotype with personality traits of assertiveness and hostility

extends to the academic domain, where the same boys show a higher level of education than their mature-faced peers. This higher achievement is partially due to the higher IQs of more babyfaced boys, which in turn reflects their greater motivation. For girls, on the other hand, babyfaceness had no effect on educational achievement, just as it had shown no relationship to personality traits in previous research (Zebrowitz et al., 1998). As noted above, this may be because the babyface stereotype is more consistent with gender expectations for girls than for boys (Cross & Madson, 1997; Friedman & Zebrowitz, 1992). Although it appears that a babyface motivates boys to compensate for infantilizing expectations, but does not have this effect for girls, further research investigating gender differences in behavioral disconfirmation of the babyface stereotype is needed to draw finn conclusions, because the effect for boys was not significantly greater than the effect for girls.

Contrary to prediction, attractiveness had no effect on boys' educational achievement although it was positively related to their IQ scores, consistent with a recta-analysis of studies focus- ing on this age range (el. Langlois et al., 1996). On the other hand, attractiveness was positively related to girls' educational achievement only when they were below average in IQ. The finding that attractiveness had the strongest effect for low-IQ girls is consistent with evidence that teacher expectations predict achievement more strongly for low than for high achievers (Ma- don, Jussim, & Eccles, 1997), and it suggests that the effects of attractiveness are most pronounced when it can play a protective role in mitigating other factors that operate against high achievement. The finding that attractiveness had an effect on

1306 ZEBROWlTZ ET AL.

girls' educational achievement but not boys' is consistent with the meta-analytic findings of Feingold (1992), who found a small effect of attractiveness on grades earned by girls but no effect on grades earned by boys. Although it appears that attractiveness may have more impact on the educational achievement "of girls than boys, further research investigating sex differences is needed because the effect for girls was not significantly greater than that for boys. Interestingly, SES predicted level of education more strongly for girls than for boys. It appears that the achievement of girls may be more influenced by external factors, like their SES or expectations generated by their appearance.

S tudy 2

Study 2 investigated the influence of babyfaceness and attractiveness on academic achievement in lower class samples of delinquent and nondelinquent boys, with standardized test performance as the criterion variable. As in Study 1, we explored the effects of height and muscularity and the interactions of facial appearance with height, muscularity, IQ, and SES. Interac- tions with an additional variable representing family risk factors for delinquency were also examined. This variable was included because past research combining the delinquent and nondelinquent samples found that various family characteristics predicted not only delinquent behavior but also attitudes toward school (Sampson & Laub, 1993). It therefore seemed plausible that family characteristics might also explain a significant percentage of the variance in standardized tests of academic achievement. On the other hand, it is possible that previous findings reflected significant mean differences between the delinquent and nondelinquent samples in both family characteristics and school attitudes. We performed analyses separately for the two groups in the present study to ensure that relationships between the predictor and criterion variables would not simply reflect the large mean differences between the two samples. The separate analyses had the added advantage of providing an opportunity to test the hypotheses across two different samples; however, we predicted no differences in the effects of appearance.

Although middle-class boys in Study 1 showed evidence of compensating for the infantilizing effects of the babyface stereotype with stronger academic performance, it was less certain that babyfaced boys in the lower class samples in Study 2 would do so. Intellectual achievement is often less valued in lower class samples than in middle-class samples (e.g., Dornbusch, Herman, & Morley, 1996; Ginsburg, Bempechat, & Chung, 1992; Labov, 1972; Ogbu, 1986; Willis, 1977). Also, boys in the Study 2 samples were less intellectually able than those in Study 1, whose mean IQ scores were well above average (see Table 2). These differences suggested that the effects of babyfaceness on academic achievement in the Study 2 samples might be most pronounced for boys at the top of the distribution in social class, ability, or both, because these boys would be more motivated and able to compensate successfully for the babyface stereotype in the academic domain. Although there was no effect of attractiveness in Study 1, the documentation of a relationship between attractiveness and various measures of intelligence and academic achievement in a recent meta-analysis (Langlois et

al., 1996) suggested that the prediction of attractiveness effects should still be regarded as viable. Previous research findings also led us to continue to predict a positive relationship between height and achievement despite the fact that this effect was restricted to girls in Study 1 (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 1984; John- son, 1991). Finally, previous research and the results of Study 1 yielded the prediction that more muscular boys would show lower educational achievement, particularly when they were from lower SES backgrounds (Clansen, 1993).

Method

Participants Participants for this study were delinquent and nondelinquent White

men born between 1924 and 1935 drawn from the Glueck and Glueck (1950) Crime Causation Study (CCS) archived at the Henry A. Murray Research Center, Radcliffe College, Cambridge, Massachusetts. The de- linquant sample was selected from two Massachusetts correctional schools to which participants had been committed with an average of three court appearances and convictions. The nondelinquent sample was selected from the Boston public schools. The two samples were matched on age, intelligence, ethnicity (national origin of parents), and area of residence. All participants were followed longitudinally, with the first wave of data collection occurring from 1940 to 1948 when they ranged in age from 10 to 17 years (Time 1), the years that are the focus of this study. As in Study 1, to be included in the present study, participants needed both academic achievement data and appearance data. A total of 461 of the 500 delinquents and 466 of the 500 nondelinquents met this criterion. Participants included in Study 2 also served as participants in a study investigating the contribution of appearance to parental and peer relationships at Time 1 (Zebrowitz & Lee, in press).

Appearance Predictors Babyfaceness and attractiveness. Slides of participants' neutral ex-

pression frontal view or profile faces, photographed when they entered the study (M age = 14.6 years), were presented in age blocks (~=12, 13 to 14, 15 to 16, ~17), and judges were instructed to rate each boy's appearance relative to other boys of the same age on oneof two 7-point Likert scales (babyfaced-mature-faced or unattractive-attractive). This was done because the social consequences of bahyfaceness or attractiveness depend on how an individual compares with others of his or her own age. If a 14-year-old boy is seen as more babyfaced than a 17-year-old, that has less social significance than if he is seen as more babyfaced than other 14-year-olds. The average alpha coefficient was .94 for ratings of frontal babyfaceness, .93 for ratings of profile babyfaceness, .89 for ratings of frontal attractiveness, and .86 for ratings of profile attractiveness. We created composite measures of babyfaceness and composite measures of attractiveness by standardizing and summing judges' ratings of frontal view slides and profile view slides, which were significantly correlated, attractiveness, r(961) = .44, p < .001; babyfaceness, r(961 ) = .65, p < .001. These composite measures were used to predict behavior rather than ratings based on either the frontal or profile photos alone because they provided a more ecologically valid indicator of social perceptions that could have instigated compensatory behavior. Previous research has supported the validity of these appearance ratings. For example, attractiveness ratings predicted peer relations, and babyface ratings predicted paternal discipline (Zebrowitz & Lee, in press). For additional details regarding the procedure for collecting appearance ratings, see Zebrowitz and Lee (in press). 3

a We also conducted analyses using frontal-view appearance ratings as predictors, which is the measure used in past research when appearance ratings were based on photographs rather than actual exposure to the individual. No additional effects emerged in these analyses.


Height. A measure of height for each participant taken at Time 1 was extracted from the CCS archival data. We standardized each participant's height in inches at the time of the facial photograph within each age group so that height was relative to others of the same age.

Muscularity. As in Study 1, we calculated muscularity scores for each participant by reversing the sign of the ponderal index, which is the ratio of each participant's height in inches at Time 1 to the cubic root of his weight in pounds,

Demographic Predictors

Age. We used nge at time of entrance into the study as a control predictor in the present investigation to ensure that the effects of appearance predictors were not confounded by age. Age was recorded in the CCS archives on a 12-point scale (1 = under 11 years; 2 through 11 = successive 6 month increments from 11 to 16.5 years; 12 = over 16.5 years).

IQ. The total full-scale score from the Wechsler-Bellevue Scale, extracted from the archival data, served as the measure of intelligence• Because delinquents and nondelinquents were matched in IQ, the mean difference between the groups was small, albeit significant.

Family risk composite. We converted three variables to z scores and then summed them to form the family risk composite: family size (number of children), father's deviance, and mother's deviance (measures of parental criminality and alcoholism ranging from 0 to 4). We expected this composite to account for significant variance in academic achievement because each of the component variables had previously been found tO predict attitudes toward school in research combining the delinquent and nondelinquent samples (Sampson & Laub, 1993).

SES. We converted two variables to z scores and then summed them to form the index of SES. One variable, a standardized scale extracted from the archives, was composed of the average weekly income of the family and a measure of the family's reliance on outside aid. Ratings made by CCS researchers were recoded so that participants were given a score of 4 if their family was rated as living in comfortable circumstances (having enough savings to cover 4 months of financial stress); 3 for marginal circumstances (little or no savings but only occasional depen- dence on outside aid); and 2 for dependent circumstances (continuous receipt of outside aid for support). (Scores of 1 in the original archive signified missing data.) The second variable was a measure of parents' education level on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 (both illiterate) to 9 (both attended college).

Criterion Variable

We used scores on the Stanford Achievement tests administered by CCS psychologists to derive a composite measure of academic achievement, which was the sum of each boy's "reading quotient" and "arith- metic quotient" z scores. These scores were significantly correlated, r(925) = .62, p < .001. Evidence for the validity of these measures is provided by the fact that they significantly differentiated delinquents from nondelinquents (Glueck & Glueck, 1950). Evidence for the validity of the composite measure is provided by the finding that it was strongly correlated with IQ within each sample (see Table 4).

Results

Overview

We conducted hierarchical multiple regression analyses to determine the influence of appearance on academic achievement. The analyses were identical to Study 1 except that age and family risk were included as additional demographic predictors in Block 2 and family risk was crossed with appearance

r~ e~

. . ~ @ . . . ~ . . . . I I I I I I

I I I I I

. . . . . . ~ ~ I l l l l l I I I I

I I I I I

~ @ ~ @ . ~ . . ~ . . . I I l i

??o?oooo I ' l l . . . . . . . . . .

I I I I I I I I

. . . ~ . . . . q ~ . I I I I I

l i i I I

~'~ ~_'~ ~,~ o - ~

;I

li

II

z~-.


Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations of Predictor and Criterion Variables for Nondelinquents and Delinquents

Nondelinquents Delinquents

Variable M SD M SD t(925)

Babyfaceness 0.13 1.82 -0.14 1.80 2.32* Attractiveness 0.01 1.73 -0.04 1.66 0.51 Height 0.09 1 . 0 5 -0.10 0.93 2.90** Muscularity -13.16 0.58 -12.93 0.41 6.89*** IQ 94.15 11.89 91.85 12.96 2.81"* SES 0.30 1.31 -0.36 1 . 4 6 7.25*** Age 14.42 1.36 14.70 1.51 -2.99** Family risk -0.55 1.37 0.56 1 .36 ~-12.34"** Academic achievement 0.44 1 . 7 9 -0.45 1 . 6 9 7.81"** Early onset 0.41 0.60 Time 1 charges 6.44 3.52 Time 2 charges 5.94 5.39 Time 3 charges 3.49 4.93

Note. Age was originally on a 12-point scale; means were interpolated to give value in years. For nondelinquents, n = 466; for delinquents, n = 461 for the first nine variables, n = 464 for early onset and Time 1 changes, n = 435 for Time 2 changes, and n = 418 for Time 3 changes. SES = socioeconomic status. *p---.05. **p <.01. ***p <.001.

predictors in Block 3. Correlations among the predictor and criterion variables for delinquents and nondelinquents are presented in Table 4, and mean values for the two samples are presented in Table 5.

Overall Effects

Results of the hierarchical regression predicting academic achievement for nondelinquents and delinquents are presented in Table 6. For nondelinquents, the b!ock of appearance predictors accounted for 3% of the variance in academic achievement, F (4, 461 ) = 3.51, p < .01. The block of demographic predictors added an additional 55% to the variance explained, F (4 , 457) = 151.79, p < .001. The trimmed block of interactions added an additional 1% to the explained variance, F (3 , 454) = 3.77, p = .01. For delinquents, the block of appearance predictors accounted for 3% of the variance in academic achievement, F (4 , 456) = 3.58, p < .01. The block of demographic predictors added an additional 46% to the variance explained, F(4 , 452) = 101.61, p < .001. The trimmed block of interactions added an additional 2% to the explained variance, F (7 , 445) = 2.80, p < .01.

Babyface Effects

There was a marginally significant Babyfaceness × SES interaction effect for nondelinquents (see Figure 2). Consistent with the evidence for a self-defeating prophecy effect of babyfaceness for middle-class boys in Study 1, babyfaceness showed a small positive relationship to academic achievement for boys who were above average in SES in this lower class sample of nondelinquents. However, babyfaceness was negatively related to academic achievement for boys who were below average in SES,

Figure 2. Academic achievement as a function of babyfaceness and socioeconomic status (SES) for nondelinquents, babyfaceness and IQ for delinquents, and attractiveness and family risk for nondelinquents. High, average, and low values of each variable represent one standard deviation above the mean, the mean, and one standard deviation below the mean, respectively (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen & Cohen, 1983).


Table 6 Summary of Regression Analyses Predicting Academic Achievement for Nondelinquents (N = 466) and Delinquents (N = 461)

Nondelinquents Delinquents

Predictor variable B SE B ~ B SE B

Block 1 a Babyfaceness 0.06 .06 .06 0.11 .06 .12" Attractiveness 0.05 .05 .05 0.07 .05 .07 Height 0.35 .10 .20*** 0.31 .12 .17"* Muscularity 0.36 .16 .12" -0.06 .23 -.02

Block 2 b Babyfaceness -0.02 .04 -.02 0.02 .04 .02 Attractiveness -0.06 .03 -.061" 0.00 .03 .00 Height 0.08 .07 .05 0.10 .09 .06 Muscularity 0.17 .11 .06 -0.02 .17 -.01 IQ 0.09 .00 .61"** 0.09 .00 .67*** SES 0.02 .04 .01 0.04 .04 .04 Age -0.28 .02 -.42*** -0.10 .02 -.17"** Family risk -0.08 .04 -.06t -0.05 .04 -.04

Block 3 ¢ Babyfaeeness -0.02 .04 -.02 0.02 .04 .03 Ata:activeness -0.06 .03 -.06* 0.01 .04 .01 Height 0.10 .07 .06 0.13 .09 .07 Muscularity 0.16 .11 .05 -0.08 .18 -.02 IQ 0.09 .00 .61"** 0.09 .00 .68*** SES 0.03 .04 .02 0.03 .04 .03 Age -0.28 .02 -.43*** -0.10 .02 -.19"** Family risk -0.07 .04 -.05 -0.05 .04 -.04 Babyfaceness × IQ 0.01 .00 .10" Babyfaceness x SES 0.04 .02 .05* Babyfaceness × Family Risk 0.02 .02 .04 Attractiveness × Family Risk 0.04 .02 .06* -0.03 .02 -.05 Attractiveness × Muscularity -0.08 .09 -.03 Height × IQ 0.01 .00 .07* 0.02 .01 .19"** Muscularity x SES 0.11 .11 .03 Muscularity × IQ 0.02 .01 .05

Note. SES = socioeconomic status. =For nondelinquents, F(4, 461) = 3.51, p < .01; for delinquents, F(4, 456) = 3.58, p < .01. nondelinquents, F(8, 457) --- 79.95, p < .001; for delinquents, F(8, 452) = 54.17, p < .001. nondelinquents, F(ll , 454) -- 60.23, p < .001; for delinquents,/7(15, 445) = 31.01, p < .001. *p -< .10 (marginally significant). *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

bFo r c For

suggesting a self-fulfilling prophecy effect in this group. Among delinquents, there was a significant main effect for babyfaceness such that more babyfaced delinquents showed higher achievement than their mature-faced peers. Although this effect was eliminated when the block of demographic predictors was entered into the equation, a significant interaction between babyfaceness and IQ remained in the final equation (see Figure 2). As predicted, babyfaced delinquents who were above average in IQ showed higher academic achievement than their mature- faced peers, consistent with a compensatory self-defeating prophecy effect. On the other hand, babyfaceness was negatively related to academic achievement for boys who were below average in IQ, consistent with a self-fulfilling prophecy effect.

Attractiveness Effects

Contrary to prediction, more attractive nondelinquents showed significantly lower academic achievement. This effect was qualified by a significant Attractiveness × Family Risk

interaction, which revealed that the negative effect of attractiveness on academic achievement occurred only for boys who had low or average levels of family risk and not for those at high risk, Who showed low achievement regardless of their level of attractiveness (see Figure 2). For the delinquent sample, there were no significant effects of attractiveness on academic achievement.

Other Effects.

Age was negatively related to academic achievement in both groups, suggesting that academic performance on age-graded standardized tests declined significantly over time in these high- risk, lower SES samples of nondelinquents and delinquents. Higher IQ was positively related to academic achievement for both nondelinquents and delinquents. Significant Height × IQ interactions for both nondelinquents and delinquents revealed that being taller was positively related to academic achievement

1310 ZEBROWITZETAL.

Figure 3. Academic achievement of nondelinquents and delinquents as a function of height and IQ. High, average, and low values of each variable represent one standard deviation above the mean, the mean, and one standard deviation below the mean, respectively (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

only for those boys who were above average in IQ (see Fig- ure 3).

Sample Differences

Although we predicted no differences in the effects of appearance on the academic achievement of delinquents and nondelinquents, we compared the regression coefficients for delinquents and nondelinquents in each case in which an effect was obtained for one group and not the other (Cohen & Cohen, 1983, p. 111 ). The results revealed that the Babyface × IQ interaction effect was significantly greater for delinquents than nondelinquents (z = 2.25, p = .02) whereas the Attractiveness × Risk effect was greater for the nondelinquents (z = 2.09, p = .04).

Discussion

The results of Study 2 reveal that babyfaceness can affect academic performance even in lower class samples. However, in these samples, unlike the high-IQ, middle-class sample examined in Study 1, babyfaceness appears to foster compensatory high achievement only for those individuals who are relatively more advantaged than their peers either in SES or intelligence. Babyfaceness was positively related to academic achievement for delinquents who were above average in IQ and for nondelinquents who were above average in SES for this sample. On the other hand, delinquents who were below average IQ and nondelinquents who were below average in SES for this sample provided evidence consistent with a self-fulfilling prophecy effect: The more babyfaced they were, the lower their academic achievement. It thus appears that babyfaced boys will show positive compensation effects consistent with a self-defeating prophecy when they are able to do so either by virtue of their

intelligence or a minimally favorable socioeconomic environment. However, a babyface can lead to negative self-fulfilling prophecy effects in the domain of academic performance when boys are low in intelligence or subject to unfavorable environmental conditions (cf. Labov, 1972; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Willis, 1977).

As in Study 1, attractiveness had no effect on the academic achievement of boys in the delinquent sample. Moreover, contrary to the predicted self-fulfilling prophecy effect, attractiveness was negatively related to achievement for nondelinquent boys who came from low- or average-risk families, whereas those from high-risk families showed low achievement regardless of appearance. The unexpected finding that attractiveness undermined the achievement advantages of coming from a low- risk family may reflect the social activities of more attractive boys. Past research has indicated that attractive individuals are more popular (Feingold, 1992; Langlois et al., 1996). The greater popularity of more attractive boys may have distracted them from their schoolwork or strengthened peer group influences, which could work against high academic achievement in this Iow-SES sample (e.g., Dornbusch et al., 1996; Labov, 1972; Ogbu, 1986; Willis, 1977).

Although no a priori predictions were made regarding differences in the effects of appearance on the academic achievement of delinquents versus nondelinquents, we did observe some differences. These results should be interpreted with caution because they were unpredicted as well as weak. The stronger Attractiveness × Risk interaction among nondelinquents may reflect the fact that delinquents with even low family risk were at a risk level comparable to that of the high-risk nondelinquents, the group that showed no effect of attractiveness. A possible explanation for the stronger Babyface X IQ interaction among


delinquents is that boys who are at greater risk for delinquent behavior respond more strongly to the babyface stereotype. This seems plausible in the context of the maturity gap proposed by Moffit (1993). Those adolescents who are motivated by the maturity gap to engage in delinquent behavior may also be more motivated than nondelinquents to compensate for negative expectations associated with the babyface stereotype.

Study 3

Study 3 investigated the relationship between appearance and criminal behavior. Such a connection is ubiquitous in writings of fiction and is also found in the tenets of criminal anthropolo- gists of the late 19th century. In particular, Lombroso argued that criminals could be recognized by their morphological re- semblance to apes (Lombroso & Ferrero, 1895). Although Lombroso's biological theory of morphology and criminality holds little credibility today, modern theorists have suggested that appearance may influence antisocial behavior by means of self-fulfilling prophecy effects. Indeed, intervention programs in prisons have provided plastic surgery to criminals on the assumption that a more attractive appearance would reduce re- cidivism (Pick, 1948; Thompson, 1990). The rationale for such programs has been that the negative expectancies held for unattractive individuals coupled with their unfavorable social outcomes may foster antisocial behavior. Consistent with this suggestion, a recent recta-analysis revealed significantly better psychological adjustment among more attractive children and adolescents, based on studies that included measures of social skills, depression, anxiety, and freedom from juvenile delinquency (Langlois et al., 1996). More directly pertinent to delinquency, Cavior and Howard (1973) found that both Black and White delinquents were significantly lower in facial attractiveness than nondellnquents of the same race, and Agnew (1984) also found a negative correlation between attractiveness and delinquency. However, methodological shortcomings in these studies make it difficult to draw confident conclusions. For example, attractiveness ratings were based on lower quality photographs for delinquents in the study by Cavior and Howard (1973), and attractiveness ratings in the Agnew (1984) study were made at the end of a 2-hr interview and could have been influenced by the contents of the interview. The present study addressed the shortcomings of past research by eliminating con- founding variables in the assessment of facial appearance.

Whereas stereotypes of unattractive people may contribute to antisocial behavior by means of self-fulfilling prophecy effects, stereotypes of babyfaced people would diminish such behavior if they too are self-fulfilling. The traits of warmth, nalvett, and honesty that are attributed to babyfaced individuals are not conducive to criminal behavior. However, recent theories of delinquency provide reason to expect the babyface stereotype to produce self-defeating rather than self-fulfilling prophecy effects. Moffitt (1993) distinguished between two categories of delinquents: "life-course persistent" and "adolescent limited." For life-course persistent delinquents, antisocial behavior emerges at an early age and reflects the early interaction of neuropsychological problems and a pathological environment. For adolescent-limited delinquents, antisocial behavior is due to a maturity gap that, as mentioned above, can cause adolescents

to covet what they perceive to be adult privileges (e.g., sex, drinking, ownership of material goods). Because these privileges are not readily attainable, many adolescents resort to delinquent behavior to attain them. It seems reasonable to propose that babyfaced boys would experience the maturity gap more keenly than their mature-faced peers, thus putting them at greater risk for antisocial behavior. Higher rates of antisocial behavior among those who are more babyfaced also can b e predicted

f rom other theories of delinquency. In particular, Emler and Reicher (1995) argued that delinquency derives from a desire to promote the reputation of being tough and hard, something that would be more motivating to babyfaced boys, who are seen as submissive and weak.

Drawing on the CCS archives that were used in Study 2, we examined the effects of appearance on two indexes of criminality: (a) the likelihood of being a delinquent versus a nondelinquent, and (b) the frequency of criminal behavior among those who were classified as delinquent. Because we expected appearance to have the strongest influence on the criminal behavior of adolescent onset delinquents, we included early onset of criminal behavior as a control variable in the analysis predicting the frequency of criminal behavior among the delinquents. We also investigated effects of appearance on the likelihood of being a delinquent not only for all delinquents but also for a subset of adolescent onset delinquents.

The frequency of criminal behavior shown by delinquents had been previously assessed at three time periods: from birth to age 17 (Time 1 ), from ages 17 to 25 (Time 2), and from ages 25 to 32 (Time 3). Predictions regarding the effects of appearance varied across these three time periods. At Time 1, delinquents were relatively homogeneous in their level of criminal activity. All met the criterion of being inmates at a state correctional school, and the majority had two to four criminal convictions when they entered the study. This homogeneity was appropriate for the original aims of the Glueck and Glueck (1950) study, which compared delinquents to nondelinquents. Howeva; it yields a restricted range of criminal behavior within the dehnquent sam- pie; we therefore expected that appearance effects would be weak, even with delinquency onset controlled. The effects of appearance were expected to be more marked at Time 2, when greater variability in criminal charges was possible and when the effects of appearance on responses to the maturity gap would still be operative. The possibility of greater variability in criminal charges would continue into Time 3. However, we expected the tendency for babyfaceness to exacerbate criminal behavior in response to the maturity gap to be less apparent at Time 3 because participants were well beyond the adolescent deprivation of adult privileges. Low attractiveness may continue to predict greater criminal behavior at Tune 3, because it can have negative social and psychological consequences quite apart from the maturity gap. Finally, we expected onset of delinquency to be a stronger predictor of criminal behavior at Time 3 than at the earlier time periods, because many adolescent onset delinquents should have desisted from criminal activity by Time 3, whereas early onset delinquents would persist.

We predicted that boys who were highly babyfaced or unattractive would be more prevalent in the group of delinquents than in the nondelinquent control group. We also predicted that delinquents who were more babyfaced or less attractive would


show a higher frequency of criminal behavior. For the reasons outlined above, the latter effects were expected to be most marked at Time 2. On the basis of previous results for this sample as well as of other studies, we also predicted that muscular boys would be more likely to be delinquent and, i f delinquent, would show a higher rate of criminal behavior (Glueck & Glueck, 1950, 1968; Hartl et al., 1982). Although no predictions were made for the effects of height, we included this variable for comparability to the other studies. Finally, the interactions of facial appearance with height, muscularity, IQ, family risk, and SES were examined, as in Studies 1 and 2. We also investigated interactions of height and muscularity with the demographic predictors, although no predictions were made for these exploratory analyses.

Method

The methodology for Study 3 was identical to that used in Study 2 with two exceptions. First, the criterion variables were delinquency status and the number of criminal charges accrued by delinquents at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3. Second, we included onset of delinquency as an additional predictor variable in the analysis of crime frequency. In addition to these changes in the predictor and criterion variables, it should be noted that we used appearance ratings at Time 1 to predict behavior at Times 2 and 3 because no appearance data were available at the later ages• Justification for this procedure is provided by evidence that the babyfaceness and attractiveness of men in the IGS sample relative to their peers remained stable from childhood through the early 30s (Zebrowitz, Olson, et al., 1993). Moreover, recent research has revealed that appearance assessed at Time 1 in the CCS sample continued to influence outcomes at Time 3. In particular, Time 1 babyface ratings predicted which delinquents remain unmarried at Time 3 (Lee & Ze- browitz, 1998).

Predictor Variable

Following the procedure used by Sampson and Laub (1993), we classified delinquents as early onset if they had a record of persistent antisocial behavior prior to 8 years of age according to self-reports, parent reports, or both extracted from the CCS archives and as adolescent onset if they had no record of early antisocial behavior. This yielded a total of 160 early onset and 304 adolescent onset delinquents with photos in the archives. The analysis of crime frequency included delinquency onset as a predictor with a value of 1 assigned to participants who showed early onset of delinquent behavior and a value of 0 assigned to participants who did not.

Criterion Variables

Delinquency status. Delinquency status was designated by assigning a value of I to participants in the delinquent sample and a value of 0 to participants in the nondelinquent sample.

Crime frequency. We created a measure of crime frequency from an itemization of all charges compiled by Sampson and Laub (1993) from the criminal history data of each delinquent from birth to age 17 (Time 1), from ages 17 to 25 (Time 2), and from ages 25 to 32 (Time 3). This measure was not available for nondelinquents.

Results

Delinquency Status

To assess the contribution of appearance to delinquency sta- res, we conducted a hierarchical logistic regression analysis with

Table 7 Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis Delinquency Status (N = 961)

Predicting

Predictor variable B SE B Wald's X2(1)

Block 1 Babyfaceness - 0.10 Attractiveness 0.03 Height - 0.16 Muscularity 0.83

Block 2 Babyfaceness -0.02 Attractiveness 0.06 Height 0.10 Muscularity 0.95 IQ -0.01 SES -0.21 Age 0.04 Family risk 0.56

Block 3 Babyfaceness -0.01 Attractiveness 0.05 Height 0.11 Muscularity 1.12 IQ -0.01 SES - 0 . 1 9 Age 0.04 Family risk 0.58 Babyfaceness x SES -0.07 Attractiveness X Muscularity 0.24 Attractiveness X Height 0.06 Attractiveness × SES 0.05 Attractiveness X Family Risk 0.05 Height x SES -0.09 Height x Family Risk 0.10 Muscularity x Family Risk 0.24 Muscularity X SES -0.20

.05 4.65*

.04 0.42

.09 3.20#

.17 24•35***

.05 0.18

.04 1.64

.10 0.91

.18 28.07***

.01 1.41

.05 15.16"**

.03 2.70t

.06 99•25***

.05 0.04

.04 1.33 • 10 1.05 .19 33.36*** .01 1•31 .06 11 •67*** .03 2.00 .06 98.80*** .04 3.09t • I0 5.80* .05 1.51 .03 2.72t .03 2.08 .08 1.33 .06 2.61 .13 3.42# .14 1•94

Note. SES = socioeconomic status• t P ~ .10 (marginally significant). *p < .05. ***p < .001.

predictors entered in three blocks, as in Study 2. Means and standard deviations of criterion variables for nondelinquents and delinquents are presented in Table 5. We performed the analysis of delinquency status with all delinquents included as well as with only adolescent onset delinquents included. Only the former analysis will be reported because the results were virtually identical, probably because the large majority of delinquents were in the late onset group.

Overall effects. The results of the hierarchical logistic regression predicting delinquency status are presented in Table 7. The block of appearance predictors accounted for 5% of the variance in delinquency status and represented a significant improvement in prediction above the base rate, X2(4, N = 961 ) = 55.85, p < .001. The demographic predictors accounted for an additional 14% of the variance explained and added significant improvement above that of the appearance predictors, X2(4, N = 961 ) = 161.01, p < .001. The block of interactions explained an additional 2% of the variance and added significant improvement above that of the appearance and demographic predictors, X2(9, N = 961) = 18.08, p < .05. 4

4 The percentage of variance accounted for by the model for delinquency status is a pseudo-R 2, calculated according to the formula sug-


Figure 4. Likelihood of being a delinquent as a function of babyfaceness and socioeconomic status (SES), attractiveness and SES, attractiveness and muscularity, and muscularity and family risk. High, average, and low values of each variable represent one standard deviation above the mean, the mean, and one standard deviation below the mean, respectively (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

Babyface effects. Although there was an effect of babyfaceness when the block of appearance predictors was entered alone, this tendency for babyfaced boys to be less likely to have delinquent status was eliminated when the demographic predictors and interaction effects were entered into the equation. However,

gested by Aldrich and Nelson ( 1984): R 2 = c/(N + c), where c is the chi-square statistic for overall goodness of fit.

a Babyface × SES interaction remained in the equation (see Figure 4). Babyfaced boys who were below average in SES for this sample were more likely to be delinquent than their mature- faced peers, consistent with a compensation effect. However, babyfaced boys who were above average in SES were less likely to be delinquent, consistent with a self-fulfilling prophecy effect.

Attractiveness effects. There was no overall effect of attractiveness on delinquent status when the block of appearance predictors was entered alone or when the other predictors were


added to the equation. However, there was an Attractiveness x SES effect and an Attract iveness x Muscular i ty effect. As shown in Figure 4, at/ractiveness was positively related to delinquent status for boys who were h igh in SES, with a slight reversal for those who were low, and it was positively related to delinquent status for boys who were h igh in muscularity, wi th a slight reversal for those who were low.

Other effects. I n a replication of past findings, there was a significant effect of muscularity, with more muscular boys being more likely to be in the delinquent group. Lower SES boys and boys f rom higher risk families were also more likely to be in the delinquent group. A Muscular i ty x Family Risk interaction revealed that the greater tendency for more muscular boys to be in the delinquent group was weakest when family risk was low (see Figure 4 ) .

Crime Frequency

Overall effects. Correlations among the predictor and criterion variables at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 are presented

in Table 4. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis predicting crime frequency for delinquents at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3 are presented in Table 8. The block of appearance predictors accounted for less than 1% of the explained variance

at Time 1 ( F < 1), 2% of the explained variance at Time 2, F ( 4 , 430) = 2.38, p = .05, and l % of the variance at Time 3,

F (4 , 413 ) = 1.26, p = .28. The block of demographic predictors accounted for an additional 7% of the variance explained at Time 1, F ( 5 , 454) = 6.92, p < .001, an additional 3% of the variance at Time 2, F ( 5 , 4 2 5 ) = 2 .60 ,p < .05, and an additional 4% of the variance at Time 3, F ( 5 , 408) = 3.92, p < .01. The block of t r immed interaction predictors accounted for an additional 1% of the variance at Time 1, F ( 3 , 450) = 1.55, p = .20, an additional 2% of the variance at Time 2, F (3 , 422)

= 3.15, p < .01, and an additional 2% of the variance at Time 3, F ( 4 , 404) = 1.78, p = .13.

Babyface effects. Consistent with predictions, babyfaceness had no effect at Time 1 or Time 3 when either the block of

Table 8 Summary of Regression Analyses Predicting Number of Criminal Charges for Delinquents at lime 1, Time 2, and Time 3

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

Predictor variable B SE B # B SE B # B SE B #

Block 1 a Babyfaceness -0.06 .11 - .03 0.31 .18 .10t 0.03 .17 .01 Attractiveness 0.10 .10 .05 0.06 .16 .02 0.00 .15 .00 Height -0.23 .24 - .06 -0.13 .39 - .02 -0.38 .37 - .07 Muscularity -0.07 .42 -.01 1.09 :74 .08 0.65 .70 .05

Block 2 b Babyfaceness -0.08 .11 - .04 0.38 .18 .12" 0.09 .17 .03 Attractiveness 0.09 .10 .04 0.02 .15 .01 -0.04 .15 -.01 Height -0.10 .24 - .03 -0.04 .39 -.01 -0.22 .37 - .04 Muscularity -0.08 .41 -.01 1.34 .74 .10t 0.91 .70 .08 IQ 0.00 .01 .00 0.01 .02 .02 0.01 .02 .03 SES -0.08 .11 - . 0 3 0.32 .18 .09t 0.07 .17 .02 Age -0.19 .06 -.17"** 0.14 .09 .08 0.08 .09 .05 Family risk 0.49 .12 .19"** 0.46 .20 .11" 0.44 .18 .12" Early onset 0.18 .28 .03 0.72 .46 .08 1.45 .43 .17"**

Block 3 c Babyfaceness -0.06 .11 - .03 0.31 .18 .10t 0.14 .17 .05 Attractiveness 0.09 .10 .04 -0.03 .16 - .01 -0.04 .15 -.01 Height -0.08 .24 - .02 -0.10 .39 - .02 -0.15 .37 - .03 Muscularity -0.04 .41 -.01 0.82 .79 .06 1.12 .71 .09 IQ 0.00 .01 .00 0.01 .02 .02 0.01 .02 .04 SES -0.07 .11 - .03 0.27 .18 .07 0.08 .17 .02 Age -0.19 .06 - .16"** 0.12 .09 .07 0.08 .09 .05 Family risk 0.51 .12 .19"** 0.42 .20 .10" 0.47 ~18 .13" Early onset 0.22 .28 .04 0.74 .45 .08 1.45 .43 .17"** Babyfaceness X IQ 0.01 .01 .04 0.02 .01 .09 Babyfaceness × Height -0.25 .15 - . 08 t Attractiveness × Height -0.11 .10 - .05 Attractiveness × Muscularity -0.95 .42 - .12" Height × IQ 0.06 .03 .16" Height x Family Risk 0.21 .13 .08t 0.22 .19 .06 Muscularity × IQ 0.08 .05 .07 0.13 .06 .14"

Note. For Time 1, n = 464; for Time 2, n = 435; for Time 3, n = 418. SES = socioeconomic status. a For Time 1, F(4, 459) = 0.54; for Time 2, F(4, 430) = 2.38, p < .05; for Time 3, F(4, 413) = 1.26. b For Time 1, F(9, 454) = 4.10, p < .001; for Time 2, 17(9, 425) = 2.52, p < .01; for Time 3, F(9, 408) - 2.76, p < .01. CForTimel, F(12,451)=3.47, p<.OO1;forTime2, F(12,422)=2.71, p<.Ol; for Time 3, F(13, 404) = 2.47, p < .01. "~p < .10 (marginally significant). *p < .05. ***p < .001.


appearance predictors was entered alone or in the final equation with demographic variables and interaction effects included. On the other hand, babyfaced delinquents had more criminal charges than their more mature-faced peers at Time 2 in all three blocks. However, this effect was qualified by a Babyface × Height interaction in the final equation. As shown in Figure 5, the tendency for babyfaced boys to accrue more criminal charges was most pronounced when they were also short.

Attractiveness effects. There was no overall effect of attractiveness on criminal behavior at Time 1, Time 2, or Time 3 when either the block of appearance predictors was entered alone or in the final equations. However there was a significant Attractiveness × Muscularity interaction at Time 2. As shown in Figure 5, less attractive boys committed more crimes when the boys were highly muscular but fewer crimes when the boys were low in nmscularity.

Other effects. A younger age of entry into the study predicted more criminal charges at Time 1. This finding probably reflects the selection criteria in the study rather than anything of theoretical interest. In particular, boys who entered the study at 12 or 13 years of age with three criminal convictions would be likely to accrue more total charges in the Time 1 period than those who entered at age 15 or 16 with the same number of convictions. Consistent with this methodological explanation, there was no association between age of entry into the study and criminal behavior at Time 2 or Time 3. As expected, delinquency onset predicted the frequency of criminal behavior at Time 3, when life-course persistent delinquents were expected to continue criminal activity and adolescent onset delinquents were expected to desist. On the other hand, delinquency onset was not a significant predictor of criminal behavior at Time 1 or at

Time 2, when both adolescent onset delinquents and life-course persistent delinquents were expected to engage in criminal behavior. Higher family risk factors also predicted more criminal behavior at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3.

Discussion

Study 3 revealed that babyfaceness can produce negative compensatory behaviors as well as positive ones. The stereotype of babyfaced individuals as weak and nonthreatening was disconfirmed by babyfaced boys from lower SES backgrounds, who were more likely than their mature-faced peers to be in the delinquent group. On the other hand, babyfaced boys from higher SES backgrounds tended to confirm the benign stereotype, showing less likelihood of being a delinquent than their mature-faced peers. These findings provide an interesting com- plement to the results of Study 2, where it was shown that higher SES babyfaced nondelinquents show slightly higher academic achievement, suggesting that they compensate for the babyface stereotype in prosocial ways. Babyfaceness influenced not only boys' delinquency status, but also the frequency of criminal behavior among those who were in the delinquent group. The effect of a babyface on delinquent status and crime frequency is consistent with the suggestion that delinquency derives from the desire to promote the reputation that one is tough (Emler & Reicher, 1995) as well as with Moffit's (1993) hypothesis that delinquency may derive from a maturity gap that causes adolescents to engage in behaviors that will provide them with the adult privileges they crave. Insofar as such privileges are less available to babyfaced than to mature-faced adolescents, the former may suffer the maturity gap more acutely and show more

Figure 5. Criminal charges incurred by delinquents at Time 2 as a function of babyfaceness and height and attractiveness and muscularity. High, average, and low values of each variable represent one standard deviation above the mean, the mean, and one standard deviation below the mean, respectively (Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

1316 ZEBROWrrz ET AL.

antisocial behavior in an effort to bridge that gap. The fact that babyfaceness was a stronger predictor of criminal behavior at Time 2 among boys who were short supports this argument, because short stature is likely to exacerbate the maturity gap. That babyfaceness no longer predicted criminal behavior at Time 3, when those in the delinquent group were well beyond adolescence, also supports this argument.

Contrary to self-fulfilling prophecy theory, attractiveness was positively related to delinquency among boys who were above average in muscularity or SES for this sample, with a slight negative relationship among boys who were low in rrmscularity or SES. Although these results are inconsistent with previous evidence that more attractive adolescents are less likely to be delinquents (e.g., Agnew, 1984; Cavior & Howard, 1973), it has been noted that there are serious methodological shortcomings in that research. Moreover, the positive relationship between attractiveness and delinquent status is consistent with the finding that more attractive delinquent boys in the present sample were more likely to belong to a gang (Zebrowitz & Lee, in press). The influence of attractiveness on gang membership is in accord with the considerable evidence that attractive people are more popular with their peers (e.g., Feingold, 1992; Langlois et al., 1996). Thus, in a sample of adolescents where popularity can yield acceptance into a gang, attractiveness serves to increase the likelihood that a boy who is relatively high in nmscularity or SES will become a delinquent. Why attractiveness was a risk factor for delinquency among boys who were high in SES for this sample but not for those who were low is uncertain. Perhaps factors other than facial appearance play a more significant role in peer acceptance among lower SES boys. The fact that attractiveness was a risk factor for delinquency among boys who were highly muscular but not for those who were low in muscularity is not surprising, because popularity is likely to be higher for boys who are both attractive and muscular, particularly in a Iow-SES sample (Clausen, 1975; Labov, 1972; Willis, 1977). Although the combination of high attractiveness and muscularity increased the likelihood of being a delinquent, these two appearance qualities had a different effect on the number of criminal charges incurred at Time 2 by those who were delinquent. It was the low-attractive, high-rrmscular delinquents

, who had the most criminal charges. Thus, whereas high attractiveness was a risk factor for highly muscular boys becoming delinquent, low attractiveness was a risk factor for high levels of criminal behavior among highly muscular boys who were delinquent. This may reflect a selection effect. If attractive boys are more successful at gaining access to delinquent groups, the unattractive boys who do become delinquent may need to commit more crimes to prove themselves among their peers, and those who are muscular are most able to do so.

General Discussion

The three present studies provide support for the hypothesis that babyfaced adolescent boys compensate for the expectation that they will exhibit childlike warmth and weakness in the physical, social, and intellectual domains by behaving contrary to these undesirable expectations. Rather than showing behavior consistent with a self-fulfilling prophecy effect, babyfaced boys defeated the prophecy that they would be intellectually weak

by showing higher academic achievement than their mature- faced peers. They also defeated the prophecy that they would be warm and physically and socially weak by showing more antisocial behavior than their mature-faced peers. The likelihood of showing these compensation effects was moderated by other variables influencing the boys' ability or motivation to do so. In particular, compensation in the achievement domain was shown by middle-class babyfaced boys, who were higher in intelligence than their mature-faced peers because they were more motivated, and it was shown by lower class babyfaced boys who were at the top of their group in SES or intelligence. Babyfaced boys who lacked the social background or intelligence to compensate for the expectation that they would be intellectually weak fulfilled those expectations with lower academic performance than their mature-faced peers. Similarly, babyfaced boys compensated by showing a greater likelihood of becoming delinquent only when their Iow-SES status already pushed them in this direction. Once they were in the delinquent group, babyfaced boys accrued more criminal charges, particularly if they were short, further supporting the compensation hypothesis. On the other hand, babyfaced boys from higher SES backgrounds that are less conducive to delinquent behavior were less likely than their mature-faced peers to be delinquent, thus fulfilling stereotyped expectations about babyfaced individuals. As expected, there was no evidence to indicate that babyfaced adolescent girls compensate for the expectation that they will exhibit childlike intellectual weakness, which is consistent with the suggestion that girls are less rankled by such expectations. However, firm conclusions regarding this sex difference will require additional research with more statistical power, because the effect for boys was not significantly greater than the effect for girls.

The stereotype disconfirming behaviors shown by babyfaced adolescent boys in the present studies and the stereotype inconsistent personality traits found by Zebrowitz et al. (1998) contrast with some other evidence for behavioral confirmation of the babyface stereotype. In particular, babyfaced college men have been found to score lower on a personality test of aggression (Berry, 1990, 1991; Berry & Brownlow, 1989), a finding that is consistent with the perception of babyfaced individuals as nonthreatening (Berry & McArthur, 1986). Babyfaced college men also have reported less control in their social interactions, higher self-disclosure and greater intimacy, findings that are consistent with the stereotype that babyfaced individuals are submissive, dependent, and warm (Berry & Landry, 1997). Babyfaced college women have also shown more behaviors indicative of warmth when interacting with partners of the same sex, such as positive facial expressions and closer interpersonal distances, and fewer behaviors indicative of dominance, such as direct gaze and gesturing (Hansen & Berry, 1995).

There are several possible explanations for the inconsistent effects of babyfaceness. One possibility is that they reflect age differences in the various samples. Perhaps the tendency for babyfaced adolescents to compensate for the maturity gap with stereotype disconfirming behavior is replaced with confirmatory behavior by the time they are of college age. However, this possibility seems unlikely because the measures of educational attainment in Study 1 and criminal charges at Time 2 in Study 3 were assessed when the boys were of college age. Another


possible explanation for the inconsistent effects of babyfaceness is cohort differences. Perhaps the tendency for babyfaced adolescents to compensate for the maturity gap with stereotype disconfirming behavior was true for cohorts who were adolescents in the 1940s, like the IGS and CCS samples, but not for more recent cohorts of adolescents, who have shown stereotype confirming behavior. This possibility seems unlikely because researchers have used the suggestion that the adolescent maturity gap contributes to compensatory delinquent behavior to explain delinquency in recent cohorts (Moffitt, 1993). Moreover, research has shown that babyfaced individuals in current cohorts experience social outcomes that assail their comt, ztence and autonomy (for a pertinent review, see Montepare & Zebrowitz, 1998).

A plausible explanation for the divergent effects of babyfaceness is differences in the particular behaviors assessed. Stereo- type-consistent behavior may be more likely to occur when babyfaced individuals are directly influenced by the expectations of those with whom they are interacting. For example, babyfaced men may report that they feel less control in their social interactions (Berry & Landry, 1997) not because they are particularly submissive but because those with whom they interact see them as submissive and attempt to dominate them. Indeed, research has shown that highly assertive men and women, who tend to dominate others, prefer to date babyfaced rather than mature- faced people (Hadden & Brownlow, 1991). Events such as low levels of interpersonal control are consistent with a situationally circumscribed self-fulfilling prophecy effect, but these very events may in fact contribute to global self-defeating prophecy effects (cf. Zebrowitz, 1997). In particular, the perception of low control in social interactions may, in the long run, motivate behavior in babyfaced men like that observed in the present studies: high educational achievement or criminal behavior that can compensate for the low power babyfaced individuals experience in their social interactions. Whereas differences in the impact of direct social influence may account for some of the divergent effects of babyfaceness, they cannot account for the finding that more babyfaced college men scored lower on personality tests of aggression (e.g., Berry, 1990, 1991; Berry & Brownlow, 1989), whereas more babyfaced delinquents showed more criminal behavior in Study 3. What may account for these discrepancies are sample differences. In particular, babyfaced men who compensate with antisocial behavior may not make it to college. Consistent with this suggestion, the Iow-SES babyfaced boys who showed compensation with a higher likelihood of delinquency in Study 3 failed to compensate with achievement in Study 2, showing instead stereotype-consistent low academic achievement.

Like the effects of babyfaceness in the present studies, the effects of attractiveness did not always support the expectation of a self-fulfilling prophecy effect, whereby more attractive individuals would show more socially desirable behaviors. More attractive girls did show higher educational achievement than their less attractive peers, albeit only when considering girls who were below average in IQ. Low attractiveness not only worked against high achievement by low-IQ girls, but also fos~ tered higher rates of criminal behavior among highly muscular delinquent boys, consistent with a self-fulfilling prophecy effect. On the other hand, there was also evidence consistent with a

self-defeating prophecy effect of attractiveness on both achievement and antisocial behavior. More attractive lower class boys showed lower academic achievement and more attractive lower class boys were more likely to be delinquents, albeit only when considering boys who were above average for their group in SES or muscularity. As noted earlier, the negative impact of attractiveness on academic achievement may reflect adverse social influences on attractive adolescents in a lower class sample. Similarly, the tendency for attractiveness to increase the likelihood of being a delinquent may reflect the positive influence that attractiveness had on gang membership (Zebrowitz & Lee, in press). It thus appears that the popularity produced by attractiveness can foster behavior inconsistent with the attractiveness halo effect when such behavior is encouraged by peers. As noted earlier, peer pressures may also account for the finding that unattractive muscular boys who do become delinquent commit more crimes, because they may need to do so to prove themselves among their peers.

Although the present research was concerned primarily with the effects of facial appearance, some effects of height and muscularity are worth mentioning because they shed light on the process of expectancy confirmation; Like the self-defeating prophecy effect on achievement shown by babyfaced boys, the self-fulfilling prophecy effects shown by taller individuals were confined to those whose IQ levels were conducive to high performance in the academic domain. The finding that educational achievement was lower for highly muscular boys at the lower end of the SES spectrum in the IGS sample and that delinquency was more likely among highly muscular boys from the CCS sample suggests that lower SES boys who are muscular may confirm the "tough guy" and "dumb jock" stereotypes.

It should be acknowledged that the significant effects of babyfaceness and other appearance factors on boys' academic achievement and criminal behavior were small. However, they are notable when one considers the myriad factors that can influence academic achievement and criminal behavior in the real world. Moreover, the relationship between babyfaceness and achievement was not trivial. In Study 1, the average boy in the top quartile of babyfaceness had a mean education level that included schooling beyond college graduation, whereas the average boy in the bottom quartile did not complete his college education. This comparison highlights one reason why effect sizes were smaller in the present research than is typically the case in experimental studies. Whereas the latter examine effects for individuals representing the extremes of an appearance di- mension, the present research examined effects for individuals representing the entire range of babyfaceness and attractiveness. The fact that this minimal manipulation of appearance accounted for significant variance makes a small effect more impressive (Prentice & Miller, 1992), as does the fact that it should be difficult for variables like appearance to influence the dependent variables of academic achievement mad criminal behavior that were the focus of this research. Indeed, the impact of apt pearance becomes more impressive when placed in the context of other rational predictors, which it sometimes surpassed. The Babyface × IQ effect on delinquents' academic achievement in Study 2 was stronger than the effect of SES or family risk factors, and the effect of babyfaceness on criminal charges at Time 2 in Study 3 was equal to the effect of family risk factors,


and stronger than the effect of SES or an early history of delinquent behavior.

Although the higher academic performance and greater criminal behavior shown by babyfaced boys in the present studies have been construed as reflecting compensation for disagreeable expectations, other possible explanations merit consideration. One possible explanation for the observed correlations between appearance and behavior is suggested by recent evidence that babyfaced delinquents have poorer relationships with their families, receiving less supervision from their mothers, poorer quality discipline from their fathers, and experiencing weaker parent-child attachment (Zebrowitz & Lee, in press). One could make the reasonable argument that these experiences contribute to the higher levels of criminal behavior among babyfaced delinquents. However, it is difficult to argue that they also contribute to the higher levels of academic achievement among these boys.

Another possible explanation for the correlations between appearance and behavior that were observed in the present studies is that they reflect biological rather than social influences. In particular, Arcus and Kagan (1995) have found that children who are biologically predisposed to develop a shy, inhibited temperament have narrower upper faces than those who are biologically predisposed to be more extroverted. It is likely that broader faced children are perceived as more babyfaced, in which case it may be that it is the biologically based temperament of babyfaced individuals that predisposes them to assert themselves by showing higher academic performance and greater criminal behavior. Assessing the viability of this explanation would require longitudinal data that permit an investigation of the relationship between babyfaceness and behavior at early ages as well as the lagged effects across time.

It should be noted that a biological explanation and a compensation, self-defeating prophecy explanation for the present findings are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that there is a biological link between babyfaceness and assertiveness that can foster achievement or antisocial behavior and also that babyfaced boys are likely to react negatively to the babyface stereotype, particularly given such a basic temperament. Consistent with this reasoning, previous research that has used the IGS middle-class sample found that more babyfaced boys as young as 10 years old engaged in more negativity, lying, and quarreling than their more mature-faced peers, suggesting the possibility of a biological contribution to such behavior. At the same time, babyfaceness in childhood predicted more assertive and hostile behavior in adolescence even when controlling for childhood levels of such behavior, suggesting compensatory behavior consistent with a self-defeating prophecy effect (Zebrowitz et al., 1998).

Clearly, it i s important for future research to more definitively establish the mechanism by which facial appearance is related to behavior. The current literature is too piecemeal to accomplish this important goal. With one exception (Snyder et al., 1977), studies have examined only one link in the chain from appearance to behavior. Some, like the present study, have examined the link between appearance and behavior. Others have examined the link between appearance and possible mediators of behavior, such as social outcomes and self-concept. Still others have examined the link between possible mediating variables and behavior (see Zebrowitz, 1997, for a pertinent review).

What is needed is research that examines all of these links within a single sample of people who are followed from an early age. Although an experimental research paradigm is often viewed as the best way to uncover causal mechanisms, longitudinal data will prove more useful 'for unpacking self-fulfilling and self-defeating prophecy effects for two reasons. First, if begun at a sufficiently early age, it will permit an assessment of the relationship between appearance and behavior before social influences can play a significant role. Second, it will capture effects of social influences that may take considerable time to develop, as is likely in the case of self-fulfilling or self-defeating prophecy effects of appearance on stable dispositions as op- posed to their effects on situationally circumscribed behaviors. Such a longitudinal research paradigm is equally important for studying the contribution of other expectancies to self-fulfilling prophecy effects (cf. Jussim, 1991).

In conclusion, the present study illustrates that the relationship of appearance and behavior is more complex than suggested in past theoretical emphases on self-fulfilling prophecy effects. Although babyfaced boys who were at the low end of the distribution in SES or IQ did confirm the expectation that they would be intellectually weaker than their mature-faced peers, such effects were not shown for more advantaged boys, whose high academic performance was consistent with a self- defeating prophecy effect. Also consistent with a self-defeating prophecy effect, low-SES babyfaced boys were more likely than their mature-faced peers to be delinquent, and babyfaced delinquents tended to show more criminal behavior than their mature- faced peers. Thus, babyfaced young men may compensate for expectations that run counter to masculine gender norms, showing behavior that refutes those expectations. These results extend past evidence that babyfaced adolescent boys are more assertive and contentious than their mature-faced peers by demonstrating that these stereotype-inconsistent personality traits are paralleled by positive achievement behavior as well as negative criminal behavior. They also establish the generality of such compensation effects across a broad socioeconomic range. The effects of attractiveness in the present studies also suggest caveats to past emphases on self-fulfilling prophecy effects. Positive effects of attractiveness on educational achievement may be limited to cases in which it can mitigate other factors that work against high achievement, like low IQ. Moreover, attractiveness may have negative effects on educational achievement when its positive effects on popularity work at cross purposes to academic performance, as it may in a lower class sample. Finally, rather than uniformly promoting the development of prosocial behavior, attractiveness may promote delinquent behavior when its usual effect on popularity increases the likelihood of gang membership. Clearly, appearance stereotypes do not always yield self-fulfilling prophecy effects, as has been commonly assumed.

References

Adams, G. R. (1977). Physical attractiveness research: Toward a developmental social psychology of beauty. Human Development, 20, 217- 239.

Adams, G. R., Montemayor, R., & Gullotta, T. P. (Eds.). (1996). Psy- chosocial development during adolescence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Agnew, R. (1984). Appearance and delinquency. Criminology: An Inter- disciplinary Journal 22, 421-440.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Aldrich, J. H., & Nelson, E D. (1984). Linear probability, Iogit, and probit models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Arcus, D., & Kagan, J. (I995). Temperament and craniofacial variation in the first two years. Child Development, 66, 1529-1540.

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and com- munion in the Western man. Boston: Beacon Press.

Berry, D. S. (1990). Taking people at face value: Evidence for the kernel of truth hypothesis. Social Cognition, 8, 343-361.

Berry, D.S. (1991). Accuracy in social perception: Contributions of facial and vocal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 61, 298-308.

Berry, D. S., & Brownlow, S. (1989). Were the physiognomists right? Personality correlates of facial babyishness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 266-279.

Berry, D. S., & Landry, J. C. (1997). Facial maturity and dally social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 570- 580.

Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1985). Some components and consequences of a babyface. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 312-323.

Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1986). Perceiving character in faces: The impact of age-related craniofacial changes on social perception. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 3-18.

Block, J. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley, CA: Bancroft Books. Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and

psychiatric research. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.~ (Original work published 1961 )

Bond, M. H. (1972). Effect of an impression set on subsequent behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 301-305.

Brackbill, Y., & NeviU, D. D. ( 1981 ). Parental expectations of achieve- mant as affected by children's height. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 27, 429-441.

Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., & Bern, D. (1987). Moving against the world: Life-course patterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 23, 308-313.

Cavior, N., & Howard, L. (1973). Facial attractiveness and juvenile delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1, 202-213.

Clausen, J. A. (1975). The social meaning of differential physical and sexual maturation. In S. E. Dragastin & G. H. Elder, Jr. (Eds.)Adoles- cence in the life cycle (pp. 25-47). New York: Wiley.

Clausen, J. A. (1993). American lives: Looking back at the children of the Great Depression. New York: Free Press.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences ( 2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Collins, M. A., & Zebrowitz, L: A. (1995). The contributions of appearance to occupations outcomes in civilian and military settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 129-163.

Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of self: Self construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37.

Dornbusch, S. M., Herman, M. R., & Morley, J. A. (1996). Domains of adolescent achievement. In G.R. Adams, R. Montemayor, & T.P. GuUotta (Eds.), Psychosocial development during adolescence (pp. 181-231 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eichom, D. H. (1981). Samples and procedures. In D. H. Eichorn, J. A. Clausen, N. Haan, M. P. Honzik, & P. H. Mussen (Eds.), Present and past in middle life (pp. 33-51). New York: Academic Press.

Eichorn, D. H., Clausen, J. A., Haan, N., Honzik, M. P., & Mussen, P. H. (Eds.). ( 1981 ). Present andpast in middle life. New York: Academic Press.

Eisenberg, N., Roth, K., Bryniarski, K.A., & Murray, E. (1984). Sex

differences in the relationship of height to children's actual and attributed social and cognitive competencies. Sex Roles, II, 719-734.

Elder, G.H., Jr., Ngnyen, T.V., & Caspi, A. (1985). Linking family hardship to children's lives. Child Development, 56, 361-375.

Emler, N., & Reicher, S. (1995). Adolescence and delinquency. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Feingold, A. (1992). Good looking people are not what we think. Psy- chological Bulletin, 111, 304-341.

Friedman, H., & Zebrowitz, L. (1992). The contribution of typical sex differences in facial maturity to sex role stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 430-438.

Ginsburg, G. S., Bempechat, J., & Chung, Y. E. (1992). Parent influences on children's mathematics. In T. G. Sticht, M. J. Beeler, & B. A. McDonald (Eds.), The intergenerational transfer of cognitive skills (Vol. 2, pp. 91-121). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. New York: The Commonwealth Fund.

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1968). Delinquents and nondelinquents in perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hadden, S. B., & Brownlow, S. ( 1991, March). The impact of facial structure and assertiveness on dating choice. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.

Hansen, J. S., & Berry, D. S. (1995). Facial maturity and nonverbal behavior in same-sex dyads. Unpublished manuscript. Southern Meth- odist University, Dallas, TX.

Hartl, E. M., Monnelly, E. P., & Elderkin, R. D. (1982). Physique and delinquent behavior: A" thirty-year follow-up of William H. Sheldon's Varieties of Delinquent Youth. New York: Academic Press.

Hollingshead, A.B., & Redlich, E (1958). SOcial class and mental illness. New York: Wiley.

Johnson, E W. ( 1991 ). Biological factors and psychometric intelligence: A review. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 117, 313-357.

Jones, M. C., Bayley, N., Macfarlane, J.W., & Honzik, M. P. (Eds.). (1971). The course of human development. New York: Wiley.

Jussim, L. (1991). Social perception and social reality: A reflection- construction model. Psychological Review, 98, 54-73.

Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. In M. P. Zarma (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 281-388). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kalick, S.M., Zebrowitz, L.A., Langlois, J.H., & Johnson, R.M. (1998). Does human facial attractiveness honestly advertise health? Psychological Science, 9, 8-13.

Kuczmarski, R.J., Flegal, K.M., Campbell, S.M., & Johnson, C.L. (1994). Increasing prevalence of overweight among U.S. adults: The national health and nutrition examination surveys 1960-1991. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 205-211.

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Langlois, J.H. (1986). From the eye of the beholder to behavioral reality: The development of social behavior and social relations as a function of physical attractiveness. In C. E Herman, M. R Zanna, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 3, pp. 23-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbanm.

Langlois, J., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (1996, July). The myths of beauty: A meta-analytic review. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, San Francisco, CA.

Lee, S. Y., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1998). [Appearance and marital status]. Unpublished research. Brandeis University.

1320 ZEBROWlTZETAL.

Lombroso, C., & Ferrero, W. (1895). The female offender. Littleton, CO: Fred B. Rothman.

Madon, S., Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. (1997). In search of the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 791-809.

McArthur, L. Z., & Apatow, K. ( 1983-1984). Impressions of babyfaced adults. Social Cognition, 2, 315-342.

Miller, C. T., & Myers, A. M. (1998). Compensating for prejudice: How heavyweight people (and others) control outcomes despite prejudice. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.) Prejudice: The target's perspective (pp. 191,218). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Miller, C. T., Rothblum, E. D., Felicio, D., & Brand, P. (1995). Compen- sating for stigma: Obese and nonobese women's reactions to being visible. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1093-1106.

Miller, C. T. & Rudiger, L. (1997, October). Compensation for prejudice: How the stigmatized obtain desired outcomes despite prejudice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Moffitt, T. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.

Montepare, J. M., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1998). Person perception comes of age: The salience and significance of age in social judgment. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 93-161). New York: Academic Press.

Najjar, M. E, & Rowland, M. (1987). Anthropometric reference data and prevalence of overweight: United States, 1976-1980. Htal health statistics (Series 11, No. 238). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Ogbu, J. U. (1986). The consequences of the American caste system. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The school achievement of minority children (pp. 19-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pick, J. E (1948). Ten years of plastic surgery in a penal institution: Preliminary report. Journal of the International College of Surgeons, 11, 315-319.

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160-164.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sheldon, W. H., Stevens, S. S., & "lhcker, W.B. (1940). The varieties of human physique: An introduction to constitutional psychology. New York: Harper.

Snyder, M. (1992). Motivational foundations of behavioral confirmation. In M. P. Zarma (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 67-114). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Snyder, M., Tanke, E., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and

interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656-666.

Sorrell, G. T. & Nowak, C. A. ( 1981 ). The role of physical attractiveness as a contributor to individual development. In R. M. Lemer & N. A. Bnsch-Rossnagel (Eds.), Individuals as producers of their development: A life span perspective (pp. 389-446). London: Academic Press.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 797-811.

Swarm, W. B., Jr., & Ely, R. (1984). A battle of wills: Self-verification versus behavioral confirmations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1287-1302.

Thompson, K.M. (1990). Refacing inmates: A critical appraisal of plastic surgery programs in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 448-466.

Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor. New York: Columbia University Press.

Zebrowitz, L. A. (1997). Reading faces: Window to the soul? Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Zebrowitz, L. A., Brownlow, S., & Olson, K. (1992). Babytalk to the babyfaced. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 143-158.

Zebrowitz, L. A., Collins, M. A., & Dutta, R. (1998). The relationship between appearance and personality across the lifespan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 736-749.

Zebrowitz, L. A., Kendall-Tackett, K., & Fafel, J. ( 1991 ). The influence of children's facial maturity on parental expectations and punishments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52, 221-238.

Zebrowitz, L. A., & Lee, S. Y. (in press). Appearance, stereotype incon- gruent behavior, and social relationships. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin.

Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (1992). Impressions ofbabyfaced individuals across the lifespan. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1143- 1152.

Zebrowitz, L. A., Montepare, J. M., & Lee, H. K. (1993). They don't all look alike: Differentiating same versus other race individuals. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 85-101.

Zebrowitz, L. A., Olson, K., & Hoffman, K. (1993). The stability of babyfaceness and attractiveness across the lifespan. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 64, 453-466.

Zebrowitz, L. A., Voinescu, L., & Collins, M. A. (1996). 'Wide-eyed' and 'crooked-faced': Determinants of perceived and real honesty across the lifespan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1258-1269.

Received December 17, 1997 Revision received June 16, 1998

Accepted June 29, 1998 •

Bright, Bad, Babyfaced Boys: Appearance …...are consistent with the babyface stereotype in...

Documents

Transcript of Bright, Bad, Babyfaced Boys: Appearance …...are consistent with the babyface stereotype in...