The Relationship between Physical Attractiveness of Professors and Students' Ratings of Professor Quality

Abstract

The present study contributes to the literature on physical attractiveness of professor and student evaluations by exploring attractiveness as a continuous variable. To do so, the website www.ratemyprofessors.com was utilized. The purposes of the present study were to determine if: (a) the student's perceptions of physical attractiveness (i.e., the number of hot ratings) were significantly correlated with professor ratings of quality and (b) the level of attractiveness (i.e., the percentage of hot ratings) was significantly correlated with professor ratings of quality. Results indicated that professor attractiveness was correlated with professor's overall quality, helpfulness, and clarity in the classroom.

Full text

1
Volume 1, Issue 2, 2007
The Relationship between Physical Attractiveness of Professors and Students’ Ratings of Professor
Quality
Jennifer Bonds-Raacke, Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina- Pembroke, jennifer.raacke@uncp.edu
John D. Raacke, Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina at Pembroke, john.raacke@uncp.edu
Abstract
The present study contributes to the literature on physical attractiveness of professor and student evaluations by
exploring attractiveness as a continuous variable. To do so, the website www.ratemyprofessors.com was utilized.
The purposes of the present study were to determine if: (a) the student’s perceptions of physical attractiveness
(i.e., the number of hot ratings) were significantly correlated with professor ratings of quality and (b) the level of
attractiveness (i.e., the percentage of hot ratings) was significantly correlated with professor ratings of quality.
Results indicated that professor attractiveness was correlated with professor’s overall quality, helpfulness, and
clarity in the classroom.
Introduction
Physical Attractiveness
Literature on the topic of attractiveness is quite extensive and research has consistently documented that
individuals are judged (and sometimes treated) according to their level of physical attractiveness. Specifically,
attractive people are considered to have more socially desirable characteristics (e.g., Dion, Berscheid & Walster,
1972; Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo; 1991; Feingold, 1992) than less attractive people. This finding
extends to many facets of life. For example, Down and Lyons (1991) had police officers, serving as confederates,
rate the attractiveness of male and female defendants. Researchers then compared the police officers’ ratings of
attractiveness with bails and fines set by the judges. Results indicated that level of attractiveness of the
defendant was not a factor when dealing with felonies. However, for misdemeanors, the level of attractiveness
was a factor in bail and fine amounts, with attractive individuals receiving lower bail and fine amounts. Level of
attractiveness has also been correlated with financial income. For example, Frieze, Olson, and Russell (1991)
surveyed MBA graduates over a ten year time period and found a relationship between facial attractiveness and
starting salaries and future salaries. Specifically, for men, attractiveness increased starting salaries and the
amount of money earned over time. For women, attractiveness did not influence starting salaries, but did
influence the amount of money earned over time. In addition, researchers calculated how attractiveness on a 5-
point scale related to earnings. Results indicated that men earned $2,500 per increase in level of attractiveness
on the scale and women earned $2,150 per increase.
Research has also been conducted to determine if children perceive attractive people differently than less
attractive people. Research with children has found that attractiveness is related to perceptions of peers. Dion
and Berscheid (1974) had children between the ages of four and six rate their peers. Results indicated that
unattractive children were less popular, were seen more often demonstrating antisocial behaviors, and were
perceived as being less independent than attractive children. More recently, research has found that physical
attractiveness is: important for positive peer regard among adolescents (Becker & Luthar, 2007), perceived as a
desirable characteristic by children aged 8 -17 (Ruiz, Conde, & Lorres, 2005), and used by infants as early as 6
months of age to categorize faces as attractive and unattractive (Ramsey, Langlois, Hoss, Rubenstein, & Griffin,
2004). Not only do children judge peers based in part on their physical attractiveness, but adults judge children
on their physical attractiveness as well. Specifically, results showed that severe transgressions of an attractive
child were less likely to be interpreted as an enduring trait and were evaluated less negatively than severe
transgressions of an attractive child (Dion, 1972).
Research has also examined children’s perceptions of attractiveness within a classroom setting. Hunsberger and
Cavanagh (1988) presented 1st and 6th grade students with photographs of attractive and unattractive potential
female teachers. Results indicated that students rated the attractive female teacher as being: nicer, happier, and

2
prettier. In addition, students reported believing they would learn the most from the attractive teacher. On the
other hand, students rated the unattractive female teacher as being more likely to punish students for
misbehaving. In a similar experiment, Goebel and Cashen (1979) presented students in grades 2, 5, 7, 11, and
13 pictures of teachers. Next, students rated the teachers on seven factors related to teacher performance.
Results again found that unattractive teachers were rated lower than attractive teachers for students across all
grade levels.
Ratings of Professors
If children rate potential teachers differently based on physically attractiveness, then do college student judge
their professors’ quality based on physical attractiveness? The literature examining what factors in general
influence college students’ evaluations of professors has identified numerous important variables. Examples
include: student effort in the class (Heckert, Latier, Ringwald-Burton, & Drazen, 2006), rapport with students,
intellectual excitement in classroom (Perkins, Schenk, Stephan, & Vrungos, 1995), instructor reputation (Griffin,
2001), expected course grade (Ginexi, 2003), fairness of grade distributions and grading procedures (Tata, 1999),
and warmth of professor (Best & Addison, 2000). Additionally, Sheehan and DuPrey (1999) found that five items
predict 69% of the variance in teaching effectiveness. These items were: (a) informative lectures, (b)
assignments which were a good measure of course material, (c) prepared instructor, (d) interesting lectures, and
(e) challenging course. Recent research on teaching effectiveness has investigated professors’ behaviors that
students report finding irritating. It is hoped that by identifying irritating behaviors that can possibly decrease
rapport with students, teaching effectiveness can be improved (Malikow, 2007). However, the research
examining professor attractiveness and student ratings is limited.
One study examining the impact of physical attractiveness on teacher evaluations had undergraduate seniors
majoring in education as participants. The participants were presented with pictures of teachers and asked to
rate the pictures on their level of competence. Contrary to previous findings with children, there was no difference
in perceived competence based on attractiveness (Buck & Tiene, 1989). Recently, Riniolo, Johnson, Sherman,
and Misso (2006) examined data available on www.ratemyprofessors.com to investigate if professors rated as
physically attractive by students received higher student evaluations. The researchers gathered data from four
separate universities and matched professors by department and gender. Results indicated that in fact those
professors rated as attractive (i.e., “hot”) received higher student evaluations that those professors rated as
unattractive. However, when this data were collected, professors were classified into two categories (“hot” or “not
hot”) because the website did not provide information as to how many total hot ratings were submitted. This
creates an artificial situation where attractiveness has two polar opposites, rather than attractiveness ranging
along a continuum.
The present study contributes to the literature by examining the relationship between physical attractiveness of
the professor and student evaluations by exploring attractiveness as a continuous variable. To do so, the website
www.ratemyprofessors.com again utilized now that it allows users to access not only the total number of ratings,
but also the total number of attractiveness ratings (i.e., hot ratings) for each rated professor. This is unlike the
previous work by Riniolo, et al. (2006) using www.ratemyprofessor.com in which the website only gave user
information about a professor as a dichotomous rating scale (i.e., the professor is “hot” or “not hot”). Currently,
the www.ratemyprofessor.com website indicates to users the total number of ratings for a professor (e.g., 54) and
the total number of users who rated that professor as “hot” (e.g., 28).
Therefore the purposes of the present study were two-fold. First, the study assessed the relationship between
student’s perceptions of physical attractiveness (i.e., number of hot ratings) and ratings of professor quality.
Second, although the overall number of hot ratings informs researchers about the relationship between student’s
perceptions of physical attractiveness and professor ratings, it does not take into account the total number of
ratings made for each given professor. Therefore, a professor with 30 hot ratings out of 100 total ratings is seen
as equivalent to a professor with 30 hot ratings out of 40 total ratings, even though the level of attractiveness is
higher for the second professor as compared with the first. As a result, the second purpose of the study was to
determine the relationship between the professor’s level of attractiveness, defined as the percentage of hot
ratings to the total number of ratings for a professor, to professor ratings.
Method
Participants

3
The current study utilized the website www.ratemyprofessors.com to obtain student ratings of professors. This
website contains over 6.3 million ratings for professors from 6,000 colleges and universities. Therefore, a
decision had to be made with regard to selecting a sample. The researchers decided to sample the 118 colleges
and universities holding NCAA Division I football status (See Table 1 for a complete list of colleges and
universities) because these colleges and universities are all required to meet similar standards (e.g., academic
enrollment and financial aid provided), thus providing a comparable sample. In addition, only professors from
Psychology Departments were included1. Data were collected from January 2007 to May 2007 resulting in a total
of: 117 colleges and universities2, 5070 psychology professors rated, and 46,040 total numbers of ratings.
Instrument and Procedure
For each professor, data were collected on the following measures: total number of ratings, overall quality,
average easiness, average helpfulness, average clarity, and total number of hotness ratings. The website defines
easiness by asking the student to think about "How easy are the classes that this professor teaches? Is it possible
to get an A without too much work?" The website states that the category of helpfulness rates “the professor's
helpfulness and approachability.” For clarity, students are given the following questions: “How well does the
professor convey the class topics?,” “Is the professor clear in his presentation?,” and “Is the professor organized
and does the professor use class time effectively?” The overall quality rating is the average of a teacher's
helpfulness and clarity ratings. The website clearly states that easiness is NOT used to calculate overall quality.
Overall quality, easiness, helpfulness, and clarity are all given a score on a 5-point Likert scale, with the website
indicating that higher numbers equaling better ratings. Finally, students are given the option to rate the
appearance of the professor (stated to be as “just for fun”) by checking the “hot” or “not” option.
Results
A series of Pearson correlations were conducted to determine the relationship of student perceptions of hotness
to student ratings of a professor’s: overall quality, average easiness, average helpfulness, and average clarity3.
Initial analyses were conducted using all professors from the 117 colleges and universities, resulting in 5070
professors. Results indicated that a professor’s hotness was significantly correlated with professor’s overall
quality [r (5068) = .168, p < .01], average easiness [r (5068) = .102, p < .01], average helpfulness [r (5068) = .182,
p < .01], and average clarity [r (5068) = .053, p < .01].
However, these results included all professors on ratemyprofessors.com, including those professors with only a
few ratings. Next, Pearson correlations were conducted evaluating only those professors with at least 25 ratings.
Justification for such analyses comes from March and Roche (1997) who have indicated that there is high
reliability between class average responses with at least 25 ratings and this is consistent with prior research on
the ratemyprofessors.com website (Riniolo, et al., 2006). The resulting correlations therefore used only 387
professors that had at least 25 ratings or more. Results again indicated that a professor’s hotness was
significantly correlated with a professor’s overall quality [r (385) = .367, p < .01], average easiness [r (385) = .111,
p < .05], average helpfulness [r (385) = .369, p < .01], and average clarity [r (385) = .134, p < .01].
A clearer picture of the impact of perceived hotness on the four dependent variables becomes evident when
evaluating total number of hotness rating to overall number of ratings. The resulting percentage provides an
overall hotness rating that takes into account those students who did not rate the professor as hot. The resulting
variable provides a level within a continuous scale of perceived attractiveness for each professor. Therefore,
Pearson correlations using those 387 professors that had at least 25 ratings were conducted. Results indicated
that the percentage of hotness rating to overall ratings significantly correlated with three of the four dependent
variables. Specifically, a professor’s overall quality [r (385) = .419, p < .01], average helpfulness [r (385) = .426,
p < .01], and average clarity [r (385) = .151, p < .01] were significantly correlated with the percentage of hotness
rating to overall ratings.
Discussion
1 Again, a decision about the sample was made. Psychology professors were chosen due to its popularity among college students as a major
in the US.
2 Although 118 colleges and universities were selected for the study, the United States Naval Academy was not included due to there being no
students’ ratings for the psychology department.
3 The alpha level used to report statistical significance was set prior to data analyses at the .05 level. A Bonferroni correction was not utilized
due to the exploratory nature of the study.

4
Consistent with previous findings, the current study showed that a professor’s perceived hotness (attractiveness)
impacted perceived quality of a professor. Specifically, results indicated that as hotness ratings increased, so did
ratings on overall quality, clarity, and helpfulness. Additionally, further analysis indicated that the greater the
percentage of hotness ratings to overall ratings, the more likely that students rated the professors favorably.
Interestingly, although measures of ease, clarity, and helpfulness were obtained, only the latter two ratings were
impacted by perceived hotness. Simply, the data indicated that although a professor may be perceived as hot,
this does not impact their level of ease in the classroom. Rather, the professor’s level of hotness was more
related to the professor’s perceived clarity in the class and his/her perceived helpfulness inside and outside of
class. Several possibilities exist to explain these results. It could be the case that those professors who are
perceived as hot are indeed clearer and are more helpful in class. However, a more likely explanation is that
because a professor is perceived as hot, the students are more likely to (1) pay more attention to the professor
during class increasing their understanding of the material, achieving clarity and (2) seek help from those
professors they perceive as attractive thereby increasing their perceptions of helpfulness. Thus, the perception of
hotness might alter the students’ interactions with the professor leading to more positive ratings within the
classroom. However, no matter what the reason, the fact remains that professors who are viewed as attractive
receive higher ratings in overall quality, clarity, and helpfulness. Therefore, based on the results it would appear
that something beyond a person’s control (i.e., attractiveness) has potentially a greater impact than many
variables that are within a person’s control (e.g., teaching philosophy) when it comes to student perceptions of a
professor’s quality.
Limitations & Future Research
As with any study, limitations to the current study were present. First, results are correlational and due not imply
causation. Second, although the ratings were obtained over a three month period, the sample of the raters could
be problematic. To begin, demographic information such as race and gender of the professors and student raters
were not collected. In addition, since this website does not maintain control over who posts ratings, individual
raters could have made multiple ratings for the same professors, which would obviously skew the results.
Furthermore, the website is designed to be used by students who are looking to gain information about
professors. Typically, with this type of reporting system, raters will fall into the extreme ends of categorization
(i.e., those who are very happy with their professor and those who are very upset with their professor). Again, this
leads to a sampling bias which could influence results.
Third, although it is assumed the ratings are of professors in each department, this may not be the case. The
ratemyprofessors.com website does not distinguish between those who are professors and those who are
graduate students. Similarly, it does not distinguish between tenure track and adjunct faculty members. And
finally, the level of expertise of the professor being rated within their teaching and discipline is unknown.
Future research should examine if those professors who are rated as attractive by students (pictures are available
on websites) are considered to be attractive when compared with to others individuals outside of academia. In
other words, are these professors perceived as attractive in all areas of life or only within the area of academia?
Finally, future research should investigate if student learning is influenced by perceived attractiveness of the
professor. This may in fact be the most important next step to take in this line of research for the following
reasons. If attractiveness is correlated with measures of teaching quality, how is a professor to control his/her
attractiveness level? It would be encouraging to find that attractiveness of professors does not influence student
learning. In such a case, it should be recommended that students’ evaluations also take into account student
learning and limit the impact of professor attractiveness.

5
References
Becker, B.E., & Luthar, S.S. (2007). Peer-percieved admiration and social preference: Contextual
correlates of positive peer regard among suburban and urban adolescents. Journal of Research
on Adolescence, 17(1), 117-144.
Best, J. B., & Addison, W. E. (2000). A preliminary study of perceived warmth of professor and student
evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, 27 (1), 60-62.
Buck, S., & Tiene, D. (1989). The impact of physical attractiveness, gender, and teaching philosophy on
teaching evaluations. Journal of Educational Research, 82 (3), 172-177.
Dion, K. (1972). Physical attractiveness and evaluation of children’s transgressions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 24 (2), 207-213.
Dion, K. & Berscheid, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness and peer perception among children.
Sociometry, 37 (1), 1-12.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 24, 285–290.
Down, A., & Lyons, P. M. (1991). Natural observations of the links between attractiveness and initial legal
judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 (5), 541-547.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but...: A
meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological
Bulletin, 110, 109–128.
Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111 (2), 304–341.
Frieze, I. H., Olson, J. E., & Russell, J. (1991). Attractiveness and income for men and women in
management. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21 (13), 1039-1057.
Ginexi, E. M. (2003). General psychology course evaluations: Differential survey response by expected
grade. Teaching of Psychology. 30 (3), 248-251.
Goebel, B. L., & Cashen, V. M. (1979). Age, sex, and attractiveness factors in student ratings of
teachers: A developmental study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (5), 646-653.
Griffin, B. W. (2001). Instructor reputation and students ratings of instruction. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 26 (4), 534-552.
Heckert, T. M., Latier, A., Ringwald-Burton, A., & Drazen, C. (2006). Relations among student effort,
perceived class difficulty appropriateness, and student evaluations of teaching: Is it possible to
“buy” better evaluations through lenient grading? College Student Journal, 40 (3), 588-596.
Hunsberger, B. & Cavanagh, B. (1988). Physical attractiveness and children’s expectations of potential
teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 25 (1), 70-74.
Malikow, M. (2007). Professors’ irritating behavior study. College Student Journal, 41(1), 25-33.
Perkins, D., Schenk, T. A., Stephan, L., & Vrungos, S. (1995). Effects of rapport, intellectual excitement,
and learning on students’ perceived ratings of college instructors. Psychological Reports, 76 (2),
627-635.
Ramsey, J.L., Langlois, J.H., Hoss, R.A., Rubenstein, A.J., & Griffin, A.M. (2004). Origins of a stereotype:
Categorization of facial attractiveness by 6-month old infants. Developmental Science, 7(2), 201-
211.
Ruiz, C., Conde, E., & Torres, E. (2005). Importance of facial physical attractiveness of audiovisual
models in descriptions and preferences of children and adolescents. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
101(1), 229-243.
Riniolo, T. C., Johnson, K. C., Sherman, T. R., & Misso, J. A. (2006). Hot or not: Do professors perceived
as physically attractive receive higher student evaluations? The Journal of General Psychology,
133 (1), 19-35.
Sheehan, E. P., & DuPrey, T. (1999). Student evaluations of university teaching. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 26 (3) 188-193.
Tata, J. (1999). Grade distributions, grading procedures, and stduents’ evaluations of instructors: A
justice perspective. The Journal of Psychology, 133 (3), 263-271.

6
Table 1
List of Colleges and Universities
University of Akron
University of Alabama at Birmingham
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
University of Arizona
Arizona State University
Arkansas State University
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Auburn University
Ball State University
Baylor University
Boise State University
Boston College
Bowling Green State University
Brigham Young University
California State University, Fresno
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Los Angeles
University of Central Florida
Central Michigan University
University of Cincinnati
Clemson University
University of Colorado, Boulder
Colorado State University
University of Connecticut
Duke University
East Carolina University
Eastern Michigan University
University of Florida
Florida Atlantic University
Florida International University
Florida State University
University of Georgia
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Hawaii, Manoa
University of Houston
University of Idaho
University of Illinois, Champaign
Indiana University, Bloomington
University of Iowa
Iowa State University
University of Kansas
Kansas State University
Kent State University
University of Kentucky
University of Louisiana at Lafayette
University of Louisiana at Monroe
Louisiana State University
Louisiana Tech University
University of Louisville
Marshall University
University of Maryland, College Park
University of Memphis
University of Miami (Florida)
Miami University (Ohio)
University of Michigan
Michigan State University
Middle Tennessee State University
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
University of Mississippi
Mississippi State University
University of Missouri, Columbia

7
Table 1 Continued
List of Colleges and Universities
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
University of Nevada
University of New Mexico
New Mexico State University
North Carolina State University
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
University of North Texas
Northern Illinois University
Northwestern University
University of Notre Dame
Ohio State University
Ohio University
University of Oklahoma
Oklahoma State University
University of Oregon
Oregon State University
Pennsylvania State University
University of Pittsburgh
Purdue University
Rice University
Rutgers, State Univ of New Jersey, New Brunswick
San Diego State University
San Jose State University
University of South Carolina, Columbia
University of South Florida
University of Southern California
Southern Methodist University
University of Southern Mississippi
Stanford University
Syracuse University
Temple University
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Texas A&M University, College Station
Texas Christian University
Texas Tech University
University of Texas at Austin
University of Texas at El Paso
University of Toledo
Troy University
Tulane University
University of Tulsa
U.S. Air Force Academy
U.S. Military Academy
U.S. Naval Academy
University of Utah
Utah State University
Vanderbilt University
University of Virginia
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
Wake Forest University
University of Washington
Washington State University
West Virginia University
Western Michigan University
University of Wisconsin, Madison
University of Wyoming