Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Student inferences based on facial appearance

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study extends the scope of research that examines the connection between physical attractiveness and student perception through a survey analysis. While other studies concentrate on physical attractiveness alone, we examined not only perceptions of attractiveness but its impact on students’ perception of knowledge, approachability and faculty selection in a hypothetical course. Using ordered logistic regression, logistic regression and ordinary least squares regression to examine the interaction between age, attractiveness, knowledge and approachability, our findings show that younger faculty members are perceived as more approachable and more attractive, while older faculty members are perceived as more knowledgeable. Faculty perceived as more attractive are also perceived to be more approachable. Further, we test the impact that these results have on faculty selection in a hypothetical course and find that students are more likely to select an attractive and approachable faculty member to take a course with, regardless of perceived knowledge of the faculty member. Overall, although the perception of beauty may be cursory, its results may not be when considering the primacy effect, role model effect and teaching effectiveness assessment.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We recognize that having only two categories for race is not ideal within the USA; however, our student sample did not have enough minority (or non-White) students to analyze the data with multiple racial categories.

  2. Separate analyses were conducted for Group 1 and Group 2, but statistically significant differences were not found, so we combined both groups for the rest of the analysis section.

  3. Distance between attractiveness scores was used since our pairs contain equally perceived attractive faculty as well as pairs with one faculty on the high end of the perceived attractiveness scale and one of the low end of the perceived attractiveness scale.

References

  • Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babad, E. (2001). Students’ course selection: Differential consideration for the first and last course. Research in Higher Education, 42(4), 469–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babad, E., Darley, J. M., & Kaplowitz, H. (1999). Developmental aspects in students’ course selection. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babad, E., Icekson, T., & Yelinek, Y. (2007). Antecedents and correlates of course cancellation in a university “drop and add” period. Research in Higher Education, 49, 293–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basow, S. A. (2000). Best and worst professors: Gender patterns in students’ choices. Sex Roles, 43, 407–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basow, S. A., Phelan, J. E., & Capotosto, L. (2008). Gender patterns in college students’ choices of their best and worst professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackwell, J. E. (1981). Mainstreaming outsiders: The production of Black professionals. Bayside, NY: General Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boice, R. (1992). Countering common misbeliefs about student evaluation of teaching. ADE Bulletin, 1010(Spring), 2–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgida, E. (1978). Scientific deduction—Evidence is not necessarily informative: A reply to Wells and Harvey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(5), 477–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cashin, W. E. (1995). Student ratings of teaching: The research revisited. Idea paper no. 32. Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development, Division of Continuing Education, Kansas State University.

  • Clayson, D. E. (1999). Students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness: Some implication of stability. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(1), 69–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayson, D. E., & Haley, D. A. (1990). Student evaluations in marketing: What is actually being measured? Journal of Marketing Education, 12(3), 9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clayson, D. E., & Sheffet, M. J. (2006). Personality and the student evaluation of teaching. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(2), 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, M. M., & Walster, E. (1973). The effect of physical attractiveness on teacher expectations. Sociology of Education, 46, 248–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J., & McKeachie, W. J. (1982). Effects of instructor/course evaluations on student course selection. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 224–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M. (1995). What do they know anyway? Chemical Engineering Education, 26(3), 134–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, K. A. (1983). Seniority and experience of college teachers as related to evaluations they receive from students. Research in Higher Education, 18(1), 3–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, K. A. (1986). The perceived instructional effectiveness of college teachers as related to their personality and attitudinal characteristics: A review and synthesis. Research in Higher Education, 24(2), 139–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felton, J., Koper, P. T., Mitchell, J., & Stinson, M. (2008). Attractiveness, easiness and other issues: Student evaluations of professors on Ratemyprofessor.com. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(1), 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felton, J., Mitchell, J., & Stinson, M. (2004). Web-based student evaluations of professors: The relations between perceived quality, easiness and sexiness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, H. R. (1994). Student evaluations of college instructors: Effects of type of course taught, instructor gender and gender role, and student gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 627–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freng, S., & Webber, D. (2009). Turning up the heat on online teaching evaluations: does “hotness” matter? Teaching of Psychology, 36, 189–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fries, C. J., & McNingh, R. J. (2003). Signed versus unsigned student evaluations of teaching: A comparison. Teaching Sociology, 31(3), 333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., Larsen, S., Johnson, C., & Branstiter, H. (2005). Evaluations of sexy women in low- and high-status jobs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25, 389–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey, C. J. (2005). African American nursing faculty: where are they? The ABNF Journal, 16(1), 11–13.

  • Goebel, B. L., & Cashen, V. M. (1979). Age, sex and attractiveness as factors in student ratings of teachers: A developmental study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(5), 646–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gump, S. E. (2007). Student evaluations of teaching effectiveness and the leniency hypothesis: A literature review. Educational Research Quarterly, 30(3), 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammermesh, D. S., & Parker, A. (2005). Beauty in the classroom: Instructors’ pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity. Economics of Education Review, 24, 369–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewett, L. J., Chastain, G., & Thurber, S. (1988). Course evaluations: Are students’ ratings dictated by first impressions? Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, April 21–22. Utah: Snowbird.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickson, J. (1993). Differences in influence of physical attractiveness on evaluations of leadership behavior for men and women in higher education. Journal for Higher Education Management, 9(1), 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, W. B. (1982). The credibility of physically attractive communicators: A review. Journal of Advertising, 11(3), 15–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krautman, A. C., & Sander, W. (1999). Grades and student evaluations of teachers. Economics of Education Review, 18, 59–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liddle, B. J. (1997). Coming out in class: Disclosure of sexual orientation and teaching evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, 24(1), 32–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, R. B. (2000). Determinants of student evaluations of global measures of instructor and course value. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(2), 108–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1991). Students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness: The stability and mean rating of the same teachers over a 13-year period. Teaching and Teaching Education, 7(1), 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1187–1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W. J. (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1218–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milliron, V. C. (2008). Exploring millennial student values and societal trends: Accounting course selection preferences. Issues in Accounting Education, 23(3), 405–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, H. G. (1975). Predicting student ratings of college teaching from peer ratings of personality types. Teaching of Psychology, 2, 66–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortineau, D. J., & Bush, R. P. (1987). The propensity of college students to modify course expectations and its impact on course performance information. Journal of Marketing Education, 9, 42–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto, J., Sanford, D. A, Jr, & Ross, D. N. (2008). Does ratemyprofessor.com really rate my professor? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 355–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rask, K. N., & Bailey, E. M. (2002). Are faculty role models? Evidence from major choice in an undergraduate institution. Journal of Economic Education, 33(2), 99–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riggle, E. D., Ottati, V. C., Wyer, R. S., Kuklinski, J., & Schwarz, N. (1992). Basis of political judgements: The role of stereotypic and nonstereotypic information. Political Behavior, 14(1), 67–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riniolo, T. C., Johnson, K. C., Sherman, T. R., & Misso, J. A. (2006). Hot or not: Do professors perceived as physically attractive receive higher educations? Journal of General Psychology, 133(1), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, J. M., Casey, R. J., & Langlois, J. H. (1991). Adults’ responses to infants varying in appearance of age and attractiveness. Child Development, 62(1), 68–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauber, M. H., & Ludlow, R. R. (1988). Student evaluation stability in marketing: The importance of early class meetings. The Journal of Midwest Marketing, 3(1), 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebastian, R. J., & Bristow, D. (2008). Formal or informal? The impact of style of dress and forms of address on business students’ perception of professor. Journal of Education for Business, 83(4), 196–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, B. R., & Blackburn, R. T. (1975). Personal characteristics and teaching of college faculty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(1), 124–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sigelman, L., Sigleman, C. K., & Fowler, C. (1987). A bird of a different feather? An experimental investigation of physical attractiveness and the electability of female candidates. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 32–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. P. (2009). Student ratings of teaching effectiveness for faculty groups based on race and gender. Education, 129(4), 615–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takeshita, T., & Maeda, K. (1999). An integrated web computing application for tasks related to course selection and registration. Information and Software Technology, 41, 955–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wapnick, J., Mazza, J. K., & Darrow, A. A. (2000). Effects of performer attractiveness stage behavior and dress on evaluation of childrens’ piano performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48(4), 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, W. C. (2004). The relative influence of published teaching evaluations and other instructor attributes on course choice. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(1), 17–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zabaleta, F. (2007). The use and misuse of student evaluations of teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 55–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Oklahoma State University, 519 Math Science, Stillwater, OK, 74078, USA

    Jeanette Morehouse Mendez

  2. School of Educational Studies, Oklahoma State University, 202 Willard Hall, Stillwater, OK, 74078, USA

    Jesse Perez Mendez

Authors
  1. Jeanette Morehouse Mendez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jesse Perez Mendez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesse Perez Mendez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mendez, J.M., Mendez, J.P. Student inferences based on facial appearance. High Educ 71, 1–19 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9885-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9885-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation