Monthly Archives: July 2011

Truck driver… no wait a professor! Can glasses really change impressions of you?

By Erica Zaiser

I came across this cartoon recently from Funnymos.com:

Obviously it is meant to be humorous but it also made me wonder:  Does having a trait like glasses change people’s initial impressions of you? And has there been any research on this topic? Turns out, there has.

According to research by Hellstrom and Tekle (1994), people infer not only occupations based on physical traits but also personal characteristics like intelligence and trustworthiness. The researchers conducted studies in which participants rated the personality characteristics and speculated about the occupation of several male faces with either glasses, hair, or a beard. The researchers found that the combination of having glasses, a beard, and no hair was associated most highly with intellectual professions. The opposite in each category led to the strongest belief that the face belonged to someone in a trade profession or a factory worker.

Another set of studies by Terry and Krantz (1993)    further suggest that both men and women with glasses are rated as more competent and also have less social forcefulness. However, in their studies they found that beards were related to less competence. A key difference in this study was that the researchers looked at each difference separately whereas the first study looked at the combination of factors together. So perhaps a beard alone can diminish perceptions of competence but  not when paired with glasses or bald hair in which case a beard has a positive effect on competence ratings.

Of course, these studies only varied a few physical traits and didn’t take into account all the other subtle influences that help form first impressions. Nonetheless, it makes me wonder, would people respect my research more if I wore glasses?

Read More: Dimensions of Trait Attributions Associated with Eyeglasses, Men’s Facial Hair, and Women’s Hair Length

Person perception through facial photographs: Effects of glasses, hair, and beard on judgments of occupation and personal qualities

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Michele Bachmann gets God’s help for election

By, Adam K. Fetterman

Associated Press

Making appeals to religion is nothing new for American politics. Nearly every candidate makes statements such as “God bless America” or claims that their candidacy is a calling from God. However, on the other end of the spectrum, claiming atheism, or a lack of belief, appears to be political suicide. This, in fact, speaks to the pervasiveness of appeals to religion in American politics. Michele Bachmann, an always controversial conservative figure, is certainly no exception. In fact, some have claimed her to be supportive of a theocratic political environment. She invokes religion in nearly every context of her political ideology, which is no surprise given her background. Not only does she do this explicitly, but she also appears to be doing it implicitly. As Michelle Goldberg writes, at the debate in which she announced her candidacy for president, Bachmann did not speak as much about her religion. Goldberg attributes this to Bachmann’s attempt at trying to reach a larger swath of constituents (such as individuals who did not want to hear preaching). Even so, she was still able to make implicit references to the bible. One may ask, why so many appeals to religion?

It is effective! According to research by Bethany Albertson (2011), religious appeals influence voters without their awareness. Using implicit attitude measures, Albertson found that religious appeals not only affect implicit attitudes toward politics, but also behaviors. Furthermore, it also works on those who have previously self-identified as Christian. Given the religious history of America, this finding is not surprising. However, it should be alarming given that our country was intended to keep religion distinct from political mechanisms. Blurring this line is a clear tactic being employed by Michele Bachmann and, as we have seen, it may work. The question is, how much religion is too much?

“Bachmann’s Unrivaled Extremism” By, Michelle Goldberg – The Daily Beast

“God Help the Atheist Politician” By, Jon Rice – Watch Blog

“Bachmann, Santorum Pledge Allegiance to Theocracy in America” – By, Kevin Gosztola

“Dominionist Battle Cry ‘We are the Head and Not the Tail’ Used by Bachmann in Debate” By, Rachel Tabachnick

Albertson, B. (2011). Religious appeals and implicit attitudes. Political Psychology, 32, 109-130

Read all of Adam K. Fetterman’s posts here.

Google+ Invitations: We all want one. Why?

By Erica Zaiser

Those who pay attention to the online world will probably know that Google+ fever is sweeping the blogosphere. Everyone wants an invite to the “Facebook killer” and invites are pretty hard to come by. If you are lucky enough to have one, you can brag about being in the group early and if not, you are left wondering what is going on in there and will you ever get to be a part of it. Invites are in such demand they are even popping up for sale on ebay for as much as $100.

What is the rush and why are we all clamouring to jump on board the Google+ ship when we don’t even know what it’s all about? Well for one, we humans love to belong to groups. And what could be better than belonging to Google+, a group which is entirely based on the ability to form groups. Because Google+ is by invitation only, the boundaries are less permeable than Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and the other social networking sites; anyone can join those simply by signing up. Permeability of boundaries has been linked to group identification in numerous psychology studies. Members of groups with highly permeable boundaries have reduced ingroup identification. So a person who is on Facebook just won’t feel as passionate about being a “Facebook user” as someone who is part of Google+.  Google+ users on the other hand, feel strongly about their membership and are spreading their new ingroup love, which automatically makes Google+ seem pretty cool and exclusive.

We are now willing to buy our way into a group that four days ago didn’t even exist because if there is one thing people hate, it’s being excluded.  By releasing the new social networking site as invite only, Google has created something we want to be part of but most just can’t. In a review of research on social exclusion, Dewall and colleagues (2010) highlight how being left out can cause numerous behavioural and emotional problems. Social exclusion can lead to increased aggression, decrease pro-social behaviour, and even induce actual physical pain. Hopefully more invites will open up before those who are being excluded start suffering the negative effects of social exclusion. And yes, I am still waiting for my invite too.

Read more: Belongingness as a Core Personality Trait: How Social Exclusion Influences Social Functioning and Personality Expression

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine