J Nonverbal Behav (2011) 35:7586

DOI 10.1007/s10919-011-0106-5
ORIGINAL PAPER

When Physical and Vocal Attractiveness Differ:

Effects on Favorability of Interpersonal Impressions
Miron Zuckerman Veronica Sinicropi

Published online: 13 January 2011

 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Previous research has shown that targets whose physical and vocal attractiveness do not match (one channel being high and the other being low in attractiveness)
elicit more negative impressions. The present study replicated this result and showed that
the mediator and, hence, the reason for this effect is not simply a perception that the face
and voice are discrepant but rather some disappointment with the less attractive channel.
The finding that perceivers are overly disappointed with the less attractive channel is
consistent with a large literature indicating that effects of negative events such as unattractive face or voice are stronger than effects of positive events.
Keywords

Physical/vocal attractiveness
Discrepancy
Disappointment

Starting with the What is beautiful is good article by Dion et al. (1972), a large body
of research has found that physically attractive people are viewed more positively, i.e.,
they are credited with more socially desirable personality traits (for reviews, see
Berscheid and Walster 1974; Feingold 1992; Hatfield and Sprecher 1986). Additional
studies even raised the possibility that more attractive people actually develop more
favorable self-images (Adams 1977; Snyder et al. 1977). Applying the concept of an
attractiveness stereotype to the vocal domain, Zuckerman and Driver (1989) proposed
that similar to attractive faces, attractive voices also may elicit more positive interpersonal impressions. They found that judges were able to agree on whether voices are
attractive or not and that more attractive voices were associated with more favorable
impressions of targets personality. Subsequent work replicated these results, showing
that vocal attractiveness produced effects that were comparable in magnitudes to effects
of physical attractiveness (e.g., Berry 1990, 1992; Zuckerman et al. 1990; Zuckerman
and Hodgins 1993).

M. Zuckerman (&)
V. Sinicropi

Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester,
Rochester, NY 14627, USA
e-mail: miron@psych.rochester.edu

123

76

J Nonverbal Behav (2011) 35:7586

Several studies by Zuckerman and his colleagues (e.g., Miyake and Zuckerman 1993;
Zuckerman et al. 1995; Zuckerman and Hodgins 1993) have shown, however, that targets
whose physical and vocal attractiveness do not match (i.e., they are high in physical
attractiveness but low in vocal attractiveness or vice versa) elicit relatively less favorable
interpersonal impressions than targets whose physical and vocal attractiveness do match.
The goal of the present study was to examine possible reasons for this effect. Below we
describe the paradigm used in the investigations of attractiveness effects from both video
and audio inputs. We then present evidence regarding the consequences of discrepancy
between physical and vocal attractiveness, how those can be interpreted, and the potential
reasons for these effects.
Given the evidence of attractiveness effects originating in two separate channels, the
next step was to examine their combined influence. At least seven studies (see Table 1)
addressed this question, all using similar design and methodology. In each study, a number
of target persons were videotaped while making a short statement that was neutral in
content. One group of judges rated each targets physical attractiveness based on the visual
components of videotapes. A second group of judges rated each targets vocal attractiveness based on the audio components of the videotapes. A third group of judges rated the
targets personality attributes from the full videotaped segments (picture plus voice). These
latter ratings were scored in the direction of high social desirability and then averaged
(Cronbach alphas, representing interrater reliability, were .78 or higher).
In all of the studies, the question of interest was whether the personality scores could be
predicted from physical attractiveness, vocal attractiveness, and their interaction. The
typical findings showed two main effects, such that both higher physical attractiveness and
higher vocal attractiveness resulted in more favorable impressions. Once again, the magnitude of the effects from the two channels was similar although reduced from those
obtained in the single channels (e.g., the effect of physical attractiveness on personality
impressions obtained from face plus voice was smaller than the corresponding effect
obtained from only the face). Somewhat unexpectedly, most of the studies also found a
Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness interaction. Table 1 presents this effect (significance and
effect size) for each of the studies. In six of the seven studies, the interaction was

Table 1 Significance and size (correlation coefficient) of the Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness effect on
favorability of impressions in seven studies
Na

Zuckerman and Driver (1989)

Study 1

200

3.83

.14

Study 2

200

.00

.00

110

5.84*

.23

Hodgins (1991)

32

5.96*

.45

Miyake and Zuckerman (1993)

76

12.7***

.38

32

120.09***

.63

110

5.18*

.22

Zuckerman et al. (1990)

Zuckerman and Hodgins (1993)

Zuckerman et al. (1995)

p \ .055

* p \ .05
*** p \ .001
a

N of target persons in each study

123

J Nonverbal Behav (2011) 35:7586

77

significant or close to significant. The combined effect across the seven studies is highly
significant, z = 5.03, p \ .001, average r = .30.
Interestingly, Alicke et al. (1986) found similar interaction effects when they superimposed images of attractive and unattractive faces on images of attractive and unattractive
bodies. The composite face plus body images were rated on physical attractiveness,
intelligence, sociability, and morality. Two of the ratings (physical attractiveness and
sociability) showed Face 9 Body interactions that parallel those presented in Table 1 (the
results for intelligence and morality were not significant but in the same direction; a
combined score of all four ratings was not examined).
To illustrate the direction of the Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness effect, the top part of
Table 2 presents positivity scores as a function of physical and vocal attractiveness from
the Miyake and Zuckerman (1993) study. Each score represents a composite of five ratings
with higher scores reflecting more socially desirable impressions. According to these
authors, the interaction showed that the effect of one type of attractiveness was more
pronounced for higher levels of the other type of attractiveness (p. 422). They also noted
that the pattern of the means supported a synergistic model, i.e., ratings were relatively
high in the high physical-high vocal attractiveness cell and relatively low in all the
remaining cells (p. 423). Similar interpretations were offered for the Physical 9 Vocal
attractiveness in the other studies included in Table 1. The direction of the Face 9 Body
interactions obtained by Alicke et al. (1986) were identical to those presented in Table 2.
The precise nature of the Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness effect can be better understood by calculating the interaction residuals (Rosenthal and Rosnow 2008, Chapter 17). In
this procedure, mean scores are viewed as consisting of grand mean, main effects, and
interaction effects. Removing the grand mean and the main effects yields the interaction
residualssee lower half of Table 2. They show that the discrepant cells, reflecting highlow and lowhigh combinations of physical and vocal attractiveness, showed a relative
deficiency in positivity. Note that this interpretation is consistent with the one that was
offered earlierthe interaction residuals augment or detract from the main effects, making
one effect more pronounced at a higher level of the other effect. Additionally, the direction
of the residuals is such that they diminish the mean scores of the discrepant cells, making
them closer to the mean of the lowlow cell, which then produces a synergistic pattern.
However, although the present interpretation of the Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness effect
is consistent with all previous interpretations, it does raise a theoretical question that was
not addressed before: Why do discrepant levels of attractiveness make interpersonal
impressions less favorable?

Table 2 Positivity mean scores

and residual scores by physical
and vocal attractiveness (adapted
from Miyake and Zuckerman
1993)

Vocal attractiveness

Physical attractiveness
Low

High

Low

5.14

5.33

5.24

High

5.09

6.21

5.65

5.11

5.77

5.94

Low

.23

-.23

High

-.23

.23

Scores

Residuals
Higher scores indicate more
positive impressions

123

78

J Nonverbal Behav (2011) 35:7586

Experiment 1a
In Experiment 1a, we tested the hypothesis that when face and voice differ in their
attractiveness, they appear as if they do not belong together. In other words, perhaps people
assume that a persons vocal attractiveness should match that persons physical attractiveness. As such, mismatching or discrepancy between the channels per se gives rise to
negative responses. According to this rationale, perception of whether the face and voice
match should mediate the Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness effect on interpersonal
impressions.
Method
Participants
The target persons for this and the following study were a subgroup, selected randomly
from among the undergraduates who appeared in the videotapes that were used in the
studies displayed in Table 1. Judges in this and the following study were undergraduates
who took part in the study for course credit; they signed consent forms before they started
and were debriefed after completion.
Stimulus Materials
Each videotaped segment depicted a target person from the shoulders up, reading a
statement that was neutral in content (e.g., describing reactions to a movie, landscape,
interest in a job, etc.). All segments were digitized and cut to 10 s durations (the literature
on thin slices of behavior indicates that such a duration is sufficient for the purpose of
forming impressions about the depicted targets; see Ambady and Rule 2007). One hundred
and twenty segments, displaying 60 male and 60 female targets, were randomly selected
and divided into three 40-segment blocks, each comprised of 20 male and 20 female
segments. Because rating the segments is fairly tedious, each of the judges was assigned to
work on a single block.
Measures and Procedure
The entire procedure was administered by a computer, using the MediaLab program (Jarvis
2006). Judges worked individually. They first read a brief description of their task and,
when ready, started the first segment, answered the question(s) assigned to them and then
proceeded to the next segment. Order of segments within each block was random, determined separately for each judge.
Each judge performed one out of four rating tasks that involved rating of physical
attractiveness, vocal attractiveness, personality, and face-voice matching. Seven-point
scales were used for all rating tasks with the appropriate anchors. Physical attractiveness
was rated from only the visual portions (no voice) and vocal attractiveness was rated from
only the audio portions (no picture) of the videotapes; anchor points for both measures were
1 = not attractive, 7 = attractive. The top two lines of Table 3 show the number of judges
assigned to each block of these two rating tasks and the internal consistency reliabilities
(Cronbach alphas) of each impression. Ratings were averaged across judges and the
resulting means served as the physical and vocal attractiveness scores of each target.

123

J Nonverbal Behav (2011) 35:7586

79

Table 3 Number of judges and reliability (Cronbach alpha) for measures used in Experiments 1a and 1b
Measure

Block 1
N

Block 2
Reliability

Block 3
Reliability

Reliability

Physical attractiveness

10

.83

10

.85

.81

Vocal attractiveness

10

.78

10

.80

11

.78

Personalitya

12

.69

12

.62

12

.64

Favorability

12

.79

12

.80

12

.80

Matching

15

.74

17

.76

14

.74

Facial disappointment

18

.80

12

.84

19

.87

Vocal disappointment

15

.85

14

.78

13

.72

Median correlations are presented; ranges were .55.88 for Block 1, .59.80 for Block 2, and .58.87 for
Block 3

Personality was rated from the full videotapes (picture-plus-voice) on 10 adjectives

representing the five NEO-PI factors: creative, conforming (openness), responsible, careless (conscientiousness), cheerful, pessimistic (extraversion), cold, considerate (agreeableness), calm, and worrier (neuroticism). Anchor points for each adjective were 1 = not
characteristic, 7 = very characteristic (see Table 3, line 3, for number of judges and
reliabilities). A procedure adapted from Colvin et al. (1995) was used to transform the
personality ratings into favorability scores as follows: An additional group of 12 judges
rated each of the 10 adjectives on How favorably or unfavorably would you regard a
person who possessed that trait? (1 = very unfavorably, 7 = very favorably). For each
target person, the 10 average personality ratings were correlated with the 10 favorability
ratings of each judge. These correlations were transformed into Fisher zs and then averaged
across judges; higher mean correlations represented a more favorable view of the targets
(see Table 3, line 4, for reliabilities).
Judges of face-voice matching were told that the face and voice in each segment may
belong to the same person or to two different people. For each segment, they were asked to
rate whether the face and voice match (belong to the same person) or do not match (belong
to different people); anchor points were 1 = do not match, 7 = match. Averages across
judges served as the matching scores for the target persons (see Table 3, line 5, for number
of judges and reliabilities).
Results and Discussion
Physical and vocal attractiveness were not related (r = .02). Blocks (dummy coded) and
gender of targets did not have any significant effects in this and the following study and
were thus removed from all analyses. Three regression analyses were conducted. The first
examined whether we again found a Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness effect on favorability
of impressions. Accordingly, favorability was regressed on physical and vocal attractiveness (both centered here and in all following regression analyses), entered simultaneously
in the first step, and then on Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness. The effects of both physical
and vocal attractiveness were significant: higher physical attractiveness was associated
with more favorable impressions, F(1, 117) = 6.56, p \ .025, partial r = .23, as was
higher vocal attractiveness, F(1, 117) = 11.80, p \ .001, partial r = .30. More importantly, the Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness also was significant, F(1, 116) = 8.78, p \ .01,

123

80
Table 4 Predicted favorability
scores and residuals from physical and vocal attractiveness

J Nonverbal Behav (2011) 35:7586

Vocal attractiveness

Physical attractiveness
Low

High

Low

.16

.23

High

.13

.50

Low

.07

-.07

High

-.07

.07

Scores

Residuals
Higher scores indicate more
favorable impressions

partial r = .27. The top part of Table 4 presents the predicted favorability scores derived
from the regression equation for high and low physical and vocal attractiveness (one
standard deviation above and one standard deviation below the means, respectively). The
bottom part of Table 4 presents the residual scores. The results replicate the finding that a
discrepancy between physical and vocal attractiveness is associated with a relative loss of
positive impressions.
In the second regression analysis we examined the Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness
effect on matching scores. Accordingly, matching scores were regressed on physical and
vocal attractiveness (first step) and on their interaction (second step). Neither physical nor
vocal attractiveness influenced the matching scores, ps [ .29, but their interaction was
significant, F(1, 116) = 15.17, p \ .001, partial r = .34. The predicted matching scores
from high and low levels of physical and vocal attractiveness (one standard deviation
above and below the means) supported the hypothesis. Face and voice were viewed as
more matched when physical and vocal attractiveness were both high or both low (4.87 and
4.75, respectively) than when the former was higher or lower than the latter (4.35 and 4.38,
respectively).
The third regression analysis examined mediated moderation, i.e., whether matching
mediated the effect of the Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness on favorability. Accordingly,
the first regression analysis was repeated except that matching was added to the equation in
the second step (along with the Physical 9 Vocal term). The results showed that matching
did not influence favorability, F \ 1, whereas the Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness did,
F(1, 115) = 7.09, p \ .01, partial r = .24. The perception that the face and voice do not
match, while clearly associated with a discrepancy between physical and vocal attractiveness, failed to explain why such discrepancy is associated with lower positivity.

Experiment 1b
Perhaps it is not discrepancy per se that influences positivity ratings but the affective
reaction to the less attractive channel by virtue of its association with a more attractive
channel. Specifically, in a high physical/low vocal attractiveness combination, the voice
does not measure up to the face and may thus elicit some disappointment; conversely, in
the low physical/high vocal attractiveness combination, it is the face that might be found
wanting. Importantly, these hypothetical scenarios are not the same as being disappointed
by (say) an unattractive voice that is associated with a previously noticed attractive face. In
the videotaped segments, the face and voice are presented simultaneously. Yet, the loss in
positivity suggests that participants choose to adopt the more attractive channel (e.g., face)

123

J Nonverbal Behav (2011) 35:7586

81

as the standard and consequently perceive the less attractive channel (voice) as overly
deficient, which in turn leads to less favorable impressions.
Note that judges impressions could have reflected the opposite tendency, namely, they
could have felt overly compensated by the more attractive channel and thus rate the
discrepant messages relatively more favorably. However, the pattern of results clearly
shows that the discrepant messages are dragged down by their less attractive component
rather than the other way round. In this model, therefore, the more attractive channel sets a
high standard, the less attractive channel fails to match up, and the perceiver feels disappointed. It follows that the mediator for the Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness should be
disappointment with the less attractive channel. To account for the interaction, such disappointment should be particularly pronounced when the gap in attractiveness between the
two channels is larger. In other words, there should be a Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness
effect on disappointment. In addition, controlling for disappointment should reduce or
eliminate the Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness effect on favorability of the personality
impressions.
However, the operationalization of disappointment with the less attractive channel
posed a problem. We could not have asked judges to rate each segment on disappointment
with the less attractive channel because the phrasing is difficult to understand and loaded
with demand characteristics. We therefore asked one group of judges to rate disappointment with face (voice was not mentioned) for each face-plus-voice segment, and another
group of judges to rate disappointment with voice (face was not mentioned) for each faceplus-voice segment. Thus, the questions themselves did not invite or imply a comparison
between face and voice. We planned to use the two measures to construct a single index of
disappointment with the less attractive channel.
Past research has shown cross-channel effects in impressions of attractiveness, e.g.,
impressions of vocal attractiveness obtained from face-plus-voice were influenced by
physical attractiveness (obtained from the video portion of the videotape), and impressions
of physical attractiveness also obtained from face-plus-voice were influenced by vocal
attractiveness (obtained from the audio portion of the videotape; Zuckerman et al. 1991). In
the present study, disappointment with a single channel (face or voice) also was rated from
face-plus-voice. Therefore, it was expected that each disappointment measure would be
correlated with attractiveness of the same channel (e.g., the less attractive the face, the
larger the disappointment with the face) but also, albeit to a lesser extent, with the opposite
channel (the less attractive the voice, the larger disappointment with the face). In other
words, we expected disappointment with a particular channel (e.g., face) to be related to
lower attractiveness of the same channel (face) and also (although more weakly) to lower
attractiveness of the other channel (voice).
More importantly, however, we predicted that disappointment with the less attractive
channel should be particularly pronounced when the gap between physical and vocal
attractiveness was larger and should also mediate the relation between Physical 9 Vocal
attractiveness and less favorable impressions.
Method
Ninety-one undergraduates participated in the experiment in exchange for course credit.
The stimulus materials and procedure were identical to those of Experiment 1a except that
in the current study, the displays were rated on disappointment. The general instructions
informed the participants that they were to rate whether the face (or voice) in each videotaped segment was disappointing. It was explained that a disappointing face (or voice) is

123

82

J Nonverbal Behav (2011) 35:7586

a face (or voice) less appealing than expected. Participants rated their disappointment on a
7-point scale that was anchored by 1 = not disappointing and 7 = disappointing. We did
not explain to participants why or how a face (or voice) should appear less appealing than
expected. In addition, the instructions directing participants to rate disappointment with
faces did not mention anything about the voice and the instructions directing participants to
rate disappointment with voices did not mention anything about the face. Each judge rated
only one type of disappointment. The bottom two lines of Table 3 present the number of
judges assigned to each block and the internal reliability of the ratings. Averages across
judges served as the disappointment scores for each target.
Results and Discussion
As expected disappointment with the face was correlated with physical attractiveness,
r = -.57, p \ .001, but also with vocal attractiveness, r = -.24, p \ .01. Likewise,
disappointment with the voice was correlated with vocal attractiveness, r = -.49,
p \ .001, but also with physical attractiveness, r = -.24, p \ .01. The variable of interest,
disappointment with the less attractive channel, was computed as follows: For targets
whose physical attractiveness (after standardization) was lower than their vocal attractiveness (after standardization), disappointment with the less attractiveness channel was
defined as disappointment with the face; for targets whose physical attractiveness was
higher than their vocal attractiveness, disappointment with the less attractive channel
was defined as disappointment with the voice.
For the purpose of discriminant validity, we also calculated a variable that was titled
satisfaction with the more attractiveness channel. Using the same disappointment ratings,
this variable was operationalized as disappointment with the face when face was more
attractive than the voice, and disappointment with the voice when voice was more
attractive than the face. Clearly people should be less disappointed (i.e., more satisfied)
with more attractive face or voice but the important question is whether discrepant combinations of face and voice elicited particular satisfaction with the more attractive channel.
Disappointment with the less attractive channel was regressed on physical and vocal
attractiveness, entered simultaneously in the first step, and then on Physical 9 Vocal
attractiveness. In accordance with the correlations reported above, higher disappointment
was related to both lower physical attractiveness and to lower vocal attractiveness,
ps \ .001. More importantly, the Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness was significant, F(1,
116) = 11.05, p \ .001, partial r = .30. The predicted disappointment scores for high and
low physical and vocal attractiveness and their residuals (see Table 5) suggest that

Table 5 Predicted disappointment scores and residuals of the

less attractive channel from
physical and vocal attractiveness

Vocal attractiveness

Physical attractiveness
Low

High

Low

3.33

3.10

High

3.65

2.26

Scores

Residuals
Higher scores indicate greater
disappointment

123

Low

-.29

?.29

High

?.29

-.29

J Nonverbal Behav (2011) 35:7586

Physical x Vocal
Attractiveness

83
(.135**) .087

Favorability

- .154***

- .315**
Disappointment with the
Less Attractive Channel

Fig. 1 Disappointment with the less attractive channel as the mediator of the relation between
Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness and favorability. All coefficients are unstandardized. The coefficient in
parenthesis does not control for the effect of the mediator. p = .059, **p \ .01, ***p \ .001

disappointment with the less attractive channel was more pronounced when the gap
between the more and less attractive channels was more pronounced.
The regression analysis reported above was repeated but now with satisfaction with the
more attractive channel as the dependent variable. As could be expected, satisfaction (i.e.,
less disappointment) was related to higher physical and vocal attractiveness, ps \ .02;
however, the Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness was not significant, F = .07. Clearly, when
vocal and physical attractiveness diverge, perceivers are overly disappointed with the less
attractive channel; they dont feel compensated or overly satisfied with the more attractive
channel.
We next examined whether disappointment with the less attractive channel mediated the
effect of Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness on favorability. The favorability scores were
regressed on physical and vocal attractiveness (first step) and on Physical 9 Vocal
attractiveness and disappointment with the less attractive channel (second step). The results
provided support for mediated moderation. As shown in Fig. 1, disappointment with the
less attractive channel was associated with lower favorability scores, F (1, 115) = 13.09,
p \ .001, partial r = .32; however, the relation between Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness
and favorability, significant when disappointment was not controlled for, now only
approached significance, F (1, 115) = 3.64, p = .06, partial r = .17 (Sobels z = 2.46,
p \ .025).1

General Discussion
The results support the notion that when faced with a discrepant message, consisting of one
channel high in attractiveness and one channel low in attractiveness, perceivers are disappointed by the less attractive channel and, consequently, form impressions that are more
negative than what would be expected by the main effects of the two channels. Stated
differently, the pairing of an attractive channel with an unattractive channel produces an
1

Recall that disappointment with the less attractive channel was constructed from two separate variables:
disappointment with the face and disappointment with the voice. Conceptually, neither of these two variables can fully explain the Physical 9 Vocal attractiveness interaction and neither can fully mediate the
effects of this interaction on favorability scores. Indeed, regression analyses showed that although disappointment with the voice was significantly predicted from the Physical 9 Vocal interaction (p \ .05),
disappointment with the face was not (p [ .20). In the mediation analysis, disappointment with the face was
significantly related to favorability (p \ .01) but disappointment with the voice was not (p [ .16). Thus, it is
disappointment with the less attractive channel that accounts better for the full effects of the face-voice
discrepancy on interpersonal impressions.

123

84

J Nonverbal Behav (2011) 35:7586

interaction that moves the overall impression in a negative direction. It was noted earlier
that in principle the interaction effect could have pointed in the opposite direction. Specifically, when judging a combination of one attractive and one unattractive channel, one
can be overly satisfied with the more attractive channel. However, study 1a (as well as
previous research summarized in Table 1) showed that discrepant messages result in more
negative impressions. Study 1b showed that judges are overly disappointed with the less
attractive channel; there was no evidence that they were overly satisfied with the more
attractive channel.
The present results are consistent with a large and strong body of evidence regarding the
greater power of negative events over positive ones (see a review by Baumeister et al.
2001). This general pattern was found in many areas that include the effects of bad vs.
good events on relationship and marital satisfaction, the effects of bad versus good
emotions, the ease and speed of learning bad versus goods things, the consequences of bad
versus good parenting, the ease of acquiring and difficulty of shedding bad versus good
stereotypes, etc. Indeed, Baumeister et al. (2001) claimed that because they could not find
counterexamples to the general trend, the greater strength of bad events seem to operate as
a general broad psychological principle. The pervasiveness of this phenomena and the lack
of exceptions impede attempts to identify when and why bad is stronger than good. The
only viable explanation is the speculation that responding more strongly to negative events
is more adaptive, allowing greater fitness with the environment.
Among the areas showing the bad-good asymmetry is impression formation. Anderson
(1965) was the first to show that judges forming overall impressions of target persons
weigh their negative traits more heavily. Other investigators (e.g., Hamilton and Huffman
1971; Hodges 1974; Vonk 1993) replicated these results, using bad versus good traits or
bad versus good behavior information as determinants of overall impressions. Interpretations of the bad-good asymmetry in impression formation advanced the view that bad
information is less expected or more diagnostic (cf. Skowronski and Carlston 1989).
However, as pointed by Baumeister et al. (2001), the greater effect of bad information
seems to operate even when these explanations do not apply.
The present results complement but also add to the existing literature. To the best of our
knowledge, this is the first time that the greater weight of negative information has been
demonstrated with nonverbal stimuli (as opposed to descriptions of traits or behaviors). In
addition, we also identify a mediating mechanismdisappointment with the less attractive
channel. Whether this mechanism mediates the bad-good asymmetry in other areas is still
to be investigated. It seems plausible, however, that people may be disappointed with the
less attractive trait or with the more negative behavior when these are paired with more
positive traits or behaviors. Note that such mediation does not provide a causal interpretation for the phenomenon. We dont know why judges are overly disappointed with the
less attractive channel (and perhaps also the less attractive traits or behaviors).
We should acknowledge at least two limitations of the study. First, the experimental
tasksjudging multiple people on attractiveness or personality from short segments
lacks in experimental realism. Such judgments do occur in everyday life, but usually as
isolated cases with large time intervals in-between. Second, attractiveness ratings of the
audio clips could have reflected not only the quality of the voice but also the verbal
content. As such, the discrepancy at the focus of the present research could have been a
discrepancy between physical attractiveness and audio plus verbal attractiveness.
It is important to point out again that the present demonstration of disappointment with
the less attractive channel is not the same as disappointment with a current display of
unattractive face or voice that is triggered by an earlier display of, respectively, more

123

J Nonverbal Behav (2011) 35:7586

85

attractive voice or face. In the present study, face and voice were presented concurrently
and yet perceivers zeroed in on the less attractive channel as disappointing. Indirectly, the
present results provide further support for the importance of vocal attractiveness as a
contributor for the overall impression that people form in any interpersonal contact. Not
only did the attractiveness of vocal cues elicit an effect on its own but it carried enough
weight to cause disappointment with targets physical appearance (when physical attractiveness was lower than vocal attractiveness) or disappointment with targets voices (when
vocal attractiveness was lower than physical attractiveness). Both scenarios lowered the
favorability of judges impressions.

References
Adams, G. R. (1977). Physical attractiveness research: Toward a developmental social psychology of
beauty. Human Development, 20, 217239.
Alicke, M. D., Smith, R. H., & Klotz, M. L. (1986). The role of faces and bodies. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 12, 381389.
Ambady, N., & Rule, N. (2007). Thin slices of behavior. In R. Baumeister & K. Vohs (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Anderson, N. H. (1965). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 19.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review
of General Psychology, 5, 323370.
Berry, D. S. (1990). Vocal attractiveness and vocal babyishness: Effects on stranger, self, and friend
impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 141153.
Berry, D. S. (1992). Vocal types and stereotypes: Joint effects of vocal attractiveness and vocal maturity on
personal perception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 4154.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 158215). New York: Academic Press.
Colvin, C. R., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (1995). Overly positive self-evaluation and personality: Negative
implications for mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 11521162.
Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 24, 285290.
Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304341.
Hamilton, D. L., & Huffman, L. J. (1971). Generality of impression formation processes for evaluative and
nonevaluative judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 200207.
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, mirrorthe importance of looks in everyday life. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Hodges, B. H. (1974). Effect of valence on relative weighting in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 378381.
Hodgins, H. S. (1991). Creating confirmation: Potential biases in spontaneous questions, answers, and
conclusions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.
Jarvis, B. G. (2006). MediaLab (version 2006) [computer software]. New York, NY: Empirisoft
Corporation.
Miyake, K., & Zuckerman, M. (1993). Beyond personality impressions: Effects of physical and vocal
attractiveness on false consensus, social comparison, affiliation, and assumed and perceived similarity.
Journal of Personality, 61, 411437.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (2008). Essentials of behavioral research. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A
review of explanation. Psychological Review, 105, 131142.
Snyder, M., Tanke, E., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the selffulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656666.
Vonk, R. (1993). The negativity effect in trait ratings and in open-ended descriptions of persons. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 269278.
Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. (1989). What sounds beautiful is good: The vocal attractiveness stereotype.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 6782.

123

86

J Nonverbal Behav (2011) 35:7586

Zuckerman, M., & Hodgins, H. S. (1993). Developmental changes in the effects of the physical and vocal
attractiveness stereotypes. Journal of Research in Personality, 27, 349364.
Zuckerman, M., Hodgins, H., & Miyake, K. (1990). The vocal attractiveness stereotype: Replication and
elaboration. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 97112.
Zuckerman, M., Miyake, K., & Elkin, C. (1995). Effects of attractiveness and maturity of face and voice on
interpersonal impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 253272.
Zuckerman, M., Miyake, K., & Hodgins, H. S. (1991). Cross-channel effects of vocal and physical
attractiveness and their implications for interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 545554.

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.