You have probably heard it said that when giving a presentation, you are the primary visual. A 1979 study adds some credence to this bit of common wisdom.

Shelly Chaiken is a Professor of Psychology at New York University. In 1979, while at the University of Toronto, she published a very interesting paper on a study she conducted called “Communicator Physical Attractiveness and Persuasion”. The paper was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 37, Number 8. In this well designed and well conducted research, Chaiken proved that physical attractiveness can significantly enhance communicator persuasiveness.

Study Design
Chaiken recruited 110 undergraduate psychology students at the University of Massachusetts to be the communicators in this study. These individuals were carefully trained to deliver a scripted, 111 word message. The message, which would be given to random University students tried to get the target subjects to agree to fill out a questionnaire and then sign a petition that the school stop serving meat in campus cafeterias for breakfast and lunch. This topic was chosen because a pilot study showed that most people objected to the elimination of meat and there was an equal distribution of knowledge on the subject between men and women.

All of the communicators were videotaped as they gave their message to a research assistant, and a photograph was taken of each person. The photographs were then evaluated by an independent group of 56 judges who evaluated each communicator on a 15 point scale for physical attractiveness. The communicators were rank-ordered for attractiveness and only the top and bottom thirds were used for this study. This resulted in a total of 68 communicators, half male, half female, half considered physically attractive and half considered physically unattractive (17 in each category).

After the training, communicators immediately went to one of five different randomly assigned campus locations. They were observed by an experimenter as they approached students and attempted to engage them in conversation. Target subjects were asked if they would complete an opinion survey. If the target agreed, the communicator delivered the persuasive message and handed the target a confidential questionnaire. After completing the questionnaire, the target was asked if he/she would sign a petition supporting the removal of meat from breakfast and lunch menus. Each communicator was to complete the process with 2 male and 2 female targets.

Results
Data was collected from 272 target subjects. Attractive communicators elicited greater agreement to their position (measured in the questionnaire) and were more successful in persuading targets to sign the petition than unattractive communicators. The difference was statistically significant at a level of p=0.05 and p=0.06 respectively. There was also a highly significant difference between target men and women, with women much more likely to be persuaded (p=0.005). Chaiken hypothesizes that since men in general eat more meat than women, they were more personally involved with the topic and therefore more resistant.

In addition to this primary result, Chaiken’s study included some other interesting findings. Attractive communicators were more fluent (fewer pauses, repetitions, “umms”, “ers” or stutters) based on a thorough analysis of the videotapes. Attractive communicators spoke faster. They also reported higher SAT scores, higher grade point averages and described themselves more favourably in terms of how they saw themselves and their future job prospects. One might wonder if the improved persuasiveness of the attractive group was due to a better self concept. Chaiken did an analysis of these variables and found no clear correlation. I personally doubt that this is the case because, as Robert Cialdini points out in his book “Influence”, research has proven that there is a very inconsistent relationship between attractiveness and self-esteem. Attractive people often don’t have a significantly better self-image than unattractive people.

Discussion
It is troubling to think that we can be impacted or persuaded by something as superficial as physical appearance…. and yet Chaiken (as well as many others) have proved that this is the case. We know exactly what Madison Avenue marketers are trying to do when they bombard us with ads featuring our culture’s current conception of physical beauty. I would like to think that it has no impact on me…that I am sophisticated enough to see through their transparent manipulations. To deny the psychological impact of physical attractiveness however doesn’t help us…or our clients.

There is much for the Presentation Professional to think about in this study. Some of us coach our clients in the art of presentation. Should they include “attractiveness coaching” in their offerings? While not many can be “10’s”in the attractiveness arena, I bet many of us can learn to do more with what God has given us. The physical appearance of the speaker simply cannot be overlooked.

Are there attractiveness correlates in presentation visual design? I am not talking about loading up our visuals with bikini and Speedo clad beauties. Persuasive design is about seducing the eye… capturing attention and leading the viewer through agreement to action. Surely attractiveness in design (whatever that means) plays an important role here.
And of course, if all else fails, there’s always the bikinis and Speedos.