The authors are indebted to Maria Bartlett, Cecilia Bethe, Gary Bond, Lawrence Brunner, Steve Hurt, Karen Lindig, Mary Rogel, and Fred L. Strodtbeck for their helpful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.
Physical attractiveness and academic performance: Beauty is not always talent1
Article first published online: 28 APR 2006
Journal of Personality
Volume 47, Issue 3, pages 449–469, September 1979
How to Cite
Sparacino, J. and Hansell, S. (1979), Physical attractiveness and academic performance: Beauty is not always talent. Journal of Personality, 47: 449–469. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1979.tb00626.x
- Issue published online: 28 APR 2006
- Article first published online: 28 APR 2006
- Manuscript received April 19, 1978.
Stepwise multiple regressions were used to determine the relative importance of physical attractiveness in the prediction of academic achievement for two samples of college students. In the first study, only ACT scores made an independent contribution to the prediction of males' (N= 55) grade average. For females (N= 65), verbal IQ (as measured by Borgatta and Corsini's Quick Word Test) and father's education yielded the only independent effects. In the second, follow-up study, males' (N= 50) achievement was significantly positively associated with intelligence and high school grades and negatively associated with attractiveness. For females (N= 87), independent effects were obtained for intelligence, high school grades, socio-economic status (positively correlated), and need for approval (negatively correlated). Attractiveness was again not associated with females' academic performance. In a final study involving high school students, attractiveness was not associated with achievement for 84 boys but was negatively associated for 83 girls. The results are discussed in terms of potential underlying mechanisms and the limitations of a “what is beautiful is good” stereotype.