Content uploaded by Gwendolyn Seidman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gwendolyn Seidman on Nov 06, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Effects of Gender and Physical Attractiveness
on Visual Attention to Facebook Profiles
Gwendolyn Seidman, PhD,
1
and Olivia S. Miller, BA
2
Abstract
The current study examined viewers’ gaze while observing Facebook profiles of strangers varying in gender and
physical attractiveness. Fifty-one participants viewed four Facebook profiles, a physically attractive and unat-
tractive individual of each gender. Participants’ eye movements were tracked as they viewed each profile for 60
seconds. Results showed that participants paid more attention to the physical appearance (main profile pho-
tograph) of female than of male profile owners and to the personal information (likes and interests) of male than
to female profile owners. Participants spent more time focusing on information that was irrelevant to forming an
impression of the profile owner (advertisements) when viewing the profiles of unattractive than attractive
individuals, suggesting that they made a greater effort to learn about these individuals.
Introduction
Online social networking sites (OSNs) are a popular
venue for both self presentation and communication.
Facebook is the most popular OSN worldwide
1
with over one
billion active users and an average of 552 million users log-
ging into the site each day.
2
Facebook allows users to create a
personal profile containing a photograph and descriptive in-
formation, including demographic characteristics (the About
Me section) and interests (the Likes and Interests section). Al-
though statistics on Facebook use suggest that the public en-
counters Facebook pages on a regular basis, researchers know
little about how the pages are visually processed by individ-
uals. The present study examines how viewers visually pro-
cess information in a Facebook profile, and how their
attention to different profile elements is affected by both the
gender and physical attractiveness of the profile owner.
In online communication, including OSNs, cues available
to perceivers are limited to pictorial information and verbal
cues, but nonetheless, online communicators can process so-
cial information based on these cues alone.
3
Facebook pres-
ents an interesting way for researchers to examine attention to
social information, because many types of social information
are presented in a single visual presentation. Much research
has shown that specific aspects of an online profile can affect
impressions of the profile owner, including both written in-
formation and photographs posted in the profile.
4–6
Previous
research on the relative importance of text-versus-pictorial
information on impressions of Facebook users suggests that
the type of content that most affects impressions may depend
on whether or not that content is indicative of the presence or
absence of a particular trait (e.g., extraversion).
7
However,
this past research has focused on impression formation based
on aspects of the profile rather than the attention paid to each
of these sources of information.
Research on both Web page viewing and impression for-
mation suggests that the main profile photograph should
draw viewers’ attention. Pictorial information on a Web page
is more likely to attract attention than textual information,
particularly if the picture is large and prominent on the
page,
8,9
as is the main profile photograph in a Facebook
profile. In addition, impression formation research suggests
that when perceivers try to form an impression of someone,
that individual’s physical appearance is a primary focus.
Impressions are influenced by several aspects of physical
appearance, including facial attractiveness and hair color,
10
as well as specific facial features.
11,12
In fact, research suggests
that physical appearance may be the single most important
element of first impressions.
13
Thus, the gender and physical
attractiveness of the profile owner should play a significant
role in attention paid to different features of the profile.
Gender
Gender is likely to affect what aspects of the profile draw
perceivers’ attention. Physical attractiveness is more essential
to the female than to the male gender role,
14
and feminist
theory has long suggested that physical appearance is more
1
Psychology Department, Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania.
2
Psychology Department, Chestnut Hill College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
CYBERPSYCHOLOGY,BEHAVIOR,AND SOCIAL NETWORKING
Volume 16, Number 1, 2013
ªMary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0305
20
important for women’s than for men’s status in society,
whereas men are more likely to be judged on a broader array
of traits.
15,16
Studies have shown that unattractive women are
viewed more negatively by coworkers than unattractive
men,
17,18
and that physical attractiveness has a greater effect
on the popularity and romantic success of women than
men.
19,20
In addition, media images frequently depict women
as objects of beauty or sexual interest.
21,22
Research on OSN
profiles has found that women are more likely to use facial
self-portraits as main profile photographs, whereas men are
more likely to use distant photographs or photographs in-
cluding other people, suggesting that women may be more
concerned about projecting a positive image of their facial
attractiveness.
23
Taken together, this research suggests that in
the context of an OSN profile, the physical appearance of
females should attract more attention than the physical ap-
pearance of males, and factual information about males
should attract more attention than similar information about
females.
Hypothesis 1: When viewing Facebook profiles, more visual
attention will be paid to the physical appearance (main
photograph) of female than male targets, whereas more at-
tention will be paid to factual information (About Me and
Likes and Interests) for male than for female targets.
Physical attractiveness
Several studies examining online profiles have shown a
preference for the physically attractive. In a study of online
daters, Hitsch, Hortac¸su, and Ariely
24
found that physical
attractiveness predicted the popularity of both men and
women. With respect to OSNs in particular, Wang, Moon,
Kwon, Evans, and Stefanone
25
found that participants were
more likely to express interest in befriending physically at-
tractive than physically unattractive opposite-gender Face-
book profile owners. However, these studies focused on
explicit preferences for the physically attractive, whereas vi-
sual attention while viewing OSN profiles is a more auto-
matic process. One study focusing on automatic processes
found that women’s implicit preferences for online daters
were influenced only by the physical attractiveness of the
profile owner and not other potentially dating-relevant fac-
tors, such his social ambition.
26
Research has also shown that physically attractive indi-
viduals receive more attention from others.
27
People are more
involved in their interactions with physically attractive indi-
viduals,
28
which can lead to more accurate personality
judgments of these individuals.
29
In a study examining visual
attention to physically attractive or unattractive individuals,
Maner and colleagues
30
monitored participants’ gaze as they
viewed arrays of facial photographs of men and women
varying in physical attractiveness. They found that partici-
pants paid the most attention to attractive female targets, and
had a tendency to pay more attention to attractive than un-
attractive opposite-gender faces. This suggests that when
choosing among many faces to attend to, individuals will
attend to the most attractive ones. Unlike Maner’s research,
the current study examines attention to attractive faces in a
social context (OSNs) where attention can be paid not to
different individuals, but rather to different types of infor-
mation about a single individual or information that is un-
related to any individual (advertisements). Past research
suggests that greater visual attention will be paid to the
profiles of attractive than unattractive individuals, specifi-
cally because perceivers are more interested in learning about
attractive individuals
27,28
and tend to pay more visual at-
tention to attractive faces.
30
In addition, research has shown
that users prefer more attractive individuals as friends in a
social networking context.
25
Because a Facebook profile gives
the perceiver an opportunity to not just look at, but also to
learn about, the target, we expect that perceivers will attend
to information that allows them to form an impression of the
profile owner.
Hypothesis 2: Perceivers will spend less time looking at
extraneous information (advertisements) when viewing the
profiles of physically attractive than unattractive users.
Method
Participants
Fifty-one undergraduate students (33 women and 18 men)
at a small liberal arts college in the Northeastern United States
(M
age
=20.27, SD
age
=1.84) participated in the current study.
About 90.2 percent of the participants indicated that they
possessed a Facebook profile. Of those who had a profile,
they spent an average of 1.84 hours (SD =0.57) on Facebook
each day, and 65.2 percent reported checking their account
multiple times throughout the typical day.
Participants were recruited through flyers, an online bul-
letin board accessible to psychology students, and experi-
menter visits to psychology classes. Most volunteers were
enrolled in psychology courses and received extra credit in
these courses as an incentive for their participation.
Materials
Facebook profiles. The Facebook profiles were created
by saving and editing an actual Facebook profile with Adobe
Photoshop (version 12, Adobe
TM
). The main photograph
appeared in the upper left-hand corner, About Me and Likes
and Interests appeared in the center column of the page (about
50 percent of the total width), and an advertisement bar ap-
peared along the entire right-hand side of the profile (about
25 percent of the width). Four Info pages displaying different,
but equivalent (neutral), content were created. Eight sets of
profile information (text only) were created and pilot-tested
on a sample of 30 undergraduates. The four text profiles rated
as most equivalent on attractiveness and personality were
selected for use in the current study. For the advertisement
bar, the same four advertisements were included in all pro-
files, displayed from top to bottom, as is typical of this profile
feature. These advertisements were not gender specific, vio-
lent, explicit, or particularly eye-catching.
Photographs. All photographs were full frontal facial
images in which the individual was smiling. During pilot
testing, 22 photographs (11 men and 11 women) were rated
by 30 undergraduate students on a series of 7-point Likert
scales assessing physical attractiveness and personality traits.
Eight photographs were selected for this experiment (two
attractive and two unattractive for each gender). The mean
attractiveness ratings were 5.5 (SD =0.89) and 6.4 (SD =0.99)
for the attractive female targets, 3.0 (SD =0.83) and 2.8
(SD =0.89) for the unattractive female targets, 5.5 (SD =1.10)
VISUAL ATTENTION TO FACEBOOK PROFILES 21
and 5.8 (SD =0.77) for the attractive male targets, and 2.5
(SD =0.89) and 2.45 (SD =0.51) for the unattractive male tar-
gets. These photographs received roughly equivalent ratings
on personality traits for each gender/attractiveness combi-
nation with the expected exception that attractive photo-
graphs received more positive ratings on personality traits
than unattractive photographs, consistent with the ‘‘what is
beautiful is good’’ stereotype.
27
Tobii (T60) eye-tracking software. Eye-tracking systems
estimate gaze direction and collect data on several para-
meters, including fixation duration (amount of viewing time)
for different stimulus areas. Tobii (T60) software is a com-
puter-based eye-tracking system containing a light source
and camera permanently attached to a monitor.
31
The T60
does not require special equipment to hold the head in place,
allowing participants to maintain a natural posture.
Procedure
Participants were greeted by a female experimenter who
explained that the study was designed to examine how they
viewed Facebook profiles and asked them to sign a consent
form and complete a demographic questionnaire. For the
eye-tracking portion of the procedure, each participant was
seated approximately two feet from the monitor. The experi-
menter then calibrated the participants’ eyes to the device by
asking them to follow, with their eyes only, a red dot that
moved across all four corners of the monitor. Proper calibra-
tion was achieved once eye movements could be tracked for
each dot as it appeared in all screen locations. This procedure
was repeated until proper calibration was attained.
Participants were told they would be viewing four Face-
book profiles for one minute each (without the use of a scroll
bar), and that they should try to form an impression of the
profile owner. They were also instructed to keep a natural
posture and look at the page in a natural manner. Each profile
was displayed for 60 seconds followed by a black screen.
Participants viewed four profiles: an attractive female, an
unattractive female, an attractive male, and an unattractive
male. The pairing of photographs and profile information
was counterbalanced such that each of the two female and
two male profile contents were alternately presented with
each of the female or male photographs. The order in which
participants viewed the profiles was counterbalanced using a
Latin square design.
Results
To test the effects of the profile owner’s gender and
physical attractiveness on attention to elements of the Face-
book profile, we examined the amount of time (fixation du-
ration) in seconds participants spent viewing information
areas of the profile (About Me and Likes and Interests), the main
photograph, and unrelated information (advertisements). For
each of these profile elements, a 2 ·2 (target gender ·physical
attractiveness) repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted.
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, participants spent margin-
ally significantly more time viewing the main profile photo-
graphs of female (M=3.61, SD =3.45) than male (M=3.09,
SD =2.83) targets, F(1, 49) =2.80, p<0.10. Also consistent with
Hypothesis 1, participants spent more time focusing on the
Likes and Interests section of the profile for male (M=12.78,
SD =6.53) than for female targets (M=11.29, SD =5.76),
F(1, 49) =8.42, p<0.01, but there was no gender effect for the
About Me section. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, participants
spent more time viewing the advertisements on the profiles of
unattractive (M=2.72, SD =3.51) than attractive (M=1.81,
SD =2.31) targets, F(1, 49) =6.83, p<0.05. There were no ad-
ditional significant main effects or interactions, and the effects
reported above were not altered by controlling for presenta-
tion order. It should also be noted that participants signifi-
cantly differed in the total amount of time they spent viewing
each profile area, with Likes and Interests viewed for the lon-
gest amount of time (M=12.04), followed by About Me
(M=8.37), the main profile photograph (M=3.52), and the
advertisements (M=2.26), F(3, 150) =109.10, p<0.001.
Discussion
In the current study, participants’ gaze was tracked as they
viewed Facebook profiles. While gaze patterns have been
studied in the context of Web page viewing and person per-
ception, this study was the first to examine gaze while
viewing OSN profiles. The effects of gender and physical
attractiveness of the profile owner on attention to profile el-
ements were examined. In accord with research finding that
people pay more attention to physically attractive individu-
als,
27,29,30
participants spent less time viewing the advertise-
ments (information unrelated to forming impressions) when
the profile owner was physically attractive than unattractive,
but these effects were not gender specific. Participants also
spent marginally significantly more time focusing on the
physical appearance (main photograph) of female targets and
significantly more time focusing on factual information (Likes
and Interests) about male targets.
Results also showed that participants spent more time
examining large textual areas of the profile (About Me and
Likes and Interests) than images of the profile owner or ad-
vertisements. This is in contrast to research that has shown
that Web page viewers attend to pictures more than text.
8,9,32
This effect is likely due to two phenomena. First, these textual
areas comprise a very large proportion of the total profile
area, as compared to the pictorial areas. Second, the context of
the current study was on impression formation, and the
textual areas were essential to this task. Thus, it appears that
viewers may briefly examine the profile photograph to judge
the physical attractiveness and gender of the profile owner
and then spend more time reading specific information as
they try to form an impression. In support of this notion,
analyses not reported here showed that most participants
viewed the main profile photograph first, before shifting their
attention to other areas. These results also showed that par-
ticipants generally spent very little time viewing the adver-
tisements, suggesting that regardless of the gender and
attractiveness of the profile owner, participants made an ef-
fort to form an impression.
It is reasonable to expect that sexual interest may guide per-
ceivers’ attention toward the profiles of attractive individuals of
the opposite gender, but the context of the current study was not
romantic, and participants had no expectation of meeting the
profile owner. Nonetheless, in analyses not reported here, the
interaction between participant gender, profile gender, and
physical attractiveness was examined and was not statistically
significant for any dependent variables. In fact, effect sizes for
22 SEIDMAN AND MILLER
the 3-way interactions were extremely small (partial g
2
was
between 0.003 and 0.017 for all 3-way interaction effects). De-
spite concerns with statistical power raised by the relatively
small number of male participants in the study (N=18), these
very small-effect sizes are unlikely to have reached statistical
significanceevenwithanexpandedsamplesize.
The current study had several strengths. The four profiles
were the same length and were pilot-tested for equivalence in
the personality perceptions they created. In addition, the
profiles were all based on an actual Facebook profile, in-
creasing the external validity of the findings.
There were several limitations to the current study.
Shortly after the data collection period, Facebook unveiled a
new profile page design that may affect how profiles are
visually processed and attended to. In addition, although
theprofileappearancewasrealistic,participants’viewing
task was not. Participants were told to examine the profile
for 60 seconds, but when users browse Facebook profiles,
they have the option of navigating away from the page. In
the current study, we hypothesized that disinterested indi-
viduals would attend to advertisements, but under more
natural circumstances, they may simply choose to navigate
away from the profile.
The present study has several implications for research on
impression formation on OSNs. The current findings sug-
gest that where people focus attention may be affected
bytheimmediatefeaturesoftheprofileowner(gender
and attractiveness), thus ultimately affecting impressions
formed. The current findings suggest that in a social net-
working context, people make more effort to learn about
physically attractive individuals and pay differential atten-
tion to information regarding physical appearance and
interests in a way that conforms to traditional gender ste-
reotypes. This research also addresses the long-standing
issue of the effects of gender and physical attractiveness on
first impressions in a novel context. Finally, the present
study represents a first step in understanding how indi-
viduals visually process OSN profiles.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
1. Jain S. (2010) 40 most popular social networking sites of
the world. Socialmediatoday.com; http://socialmediatoday
.com/node/195917 (accessed Oct. 6, 2012).
2. Facebook. (2012) Newsroom: Statistics. Facebook.com; http://
newsroom.fb.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaId =22
(accessed Oct. 6, 2012).
3. Walther JB. (2006). Nonverbal dynamics in computer-
mediated communication, or: (and the net: (‘s with you,:)
and you:) alone. In: Manusov V, Patterson ML, eds. Hand-
book of nonverbal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
pp. 461–479.
4. Buffardi LE, Campbell WK. Narcissism and social net-
working web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin 2008; 34:1303–1314.
5. Marcus B, Machilek F, Schu
¨tz A. Personality in cyberspace:
personal websites as media for personality expressions and
impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
2006; 90:1014–1031.
6. Tong S, Van Der Heide B, Langwell L, et al. Too much of a
good thing? The relationship between number of friends and
interpersonal impressions on Facebook. Journal of Compu-
ter-Mediated Communication 2008; 13:531–549.
7. Van der Heide B, D’Angelo JD, Schumaker EM. The effects
of verbal versus photographic self-presentation on impres-
sion formation in Facebook. Journal of Communication 2012;
62:98–116.
8. Djamasbi S, Siegel M, Tullis T. Generation Y, web design,
and eye tracking. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies 2010; 68:307–323.
9. Russell M. Using eye-tracking data to understand first im-
pressions of a website. Usability News 2005; 7:1–14. Re-
trieved from http://www.surl.org/usabilitynews/71/pdf/
Usability%20News%2071%20-%20Russell.pdf
10. Alley TR. (1988) Social and applied aspects of perceiving faces.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Berry DS, Zebrowitz-McArthur L. Perceiving character in
faces: the impact of age-related craniofacial changes on so-
cial perception. Psychological Bulletin 1986; 100:3–18.
12. Hassin R, Trope Y. Facing faces: studies on the cognitive
aspects of physiognomy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 2000; 78:837–852.
13. Hatfield E, Sprecher S. (1986) Mirror, mirror: the importance of
looks in everyday life. New York: SUNY Press.
14. Bar-Tal D, Saxe L. Physical attractiveness and its relationship
to sex-role stereotyping. Sex Roles 1976; 2:123–133.
15. Brownmiller S. (1984) Femininity. New York: Ballantine.
16. Kaschak E. (1992) Engendered lives: a new psychology of
women’s experience. New York: Basic Books.
17. Cash TF, Gillen, B, Burns DS. Sexism and beautyism in
personnel consultant decision making. Journal of Applied
Psychology 1977; 62:301–310.
18. Wallston BS, O’Leary VE, (1981) Sex makes a difference:
differential perceptions of women and men. In Wheeler L,
ed. Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 9–41.
19. Berscheid E, Dion K, Walster E, et al. Physical attractiveness
and dating choice: a test of the matching hypothesis. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology 1971; 7:173–189.
20. Margolin L, White L, The continuing role of physical at-
tractiveness in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family
1987; 49:21–27.
21. Courtney AE, Whipple TW. (1983) Sex stereotyping in adver-
tising. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
22. Kilbourne J. (2003) Mass media: shaping the self-concept:
beauty and the beast of advertising. In Henslin JM, ed. Down
to earth sociology: introductory readings (12th ed.). New York:
Free Press, pp. 421–424.
23. Haferkamp N, Eimler SC, Papadakis A, et al. Men are from
Mars, women are from Venus? Examining gender differences
in self-presentation on social networking sites. Cyberpsy-
chology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2012; 15:91–98.
24. Hitsch GJ, Hortacsu A, Ariely D. (2005) What makes you
click: an empirical analysis of online dating. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Chicago. www.aeaweb.org/assa/
2006/0106_0800_0502.pdf (accessed Oct. 6, 2012).
25. Wang SS, Moon S, Kwon KH, et al. Face off: implications of
visual cues on initiating friendship on Facebook. Computers
in Human Behavior 2010; 26:226–234.
26. Sritharan R, Heilpern K, Wilbur CJ, et al. I think I like you:
spontaneous and deliberate evaluations of potential ro-
mantic partners in an online dating context. European
Journal of Social Psychology 2010; 40:1062–1077.
VISUAL ATTENTION TO FACEBOOK PROFILES 23
27. Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, et al. Maxims or
myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review.
Psychological Bulletin 2000; 126:390–423.
28. Garcia S, Stinson L, Ickes W, et al. Shyness and physical
attractiveness in mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 1991; 61:35–49.
29. Lorenzo GL, Biesanz JC, Human LJ. What is beautiful is
good and more accurately understood: physical attractive-
ness and accuracy in first impressions of personality. Psy-
chological Science 2010; 21:1777–1782.
30. Maner JK, Kenrick DT, Becker D, et al. Sexually selective
cognition: beauty captures the mind of the beholder.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2003; 85:
1107–1120.
31. Weigle C, Banks DC. Analysis of eye-tracking experi-
ments performed on a Tobii T60. Conference on Visualization
and Data Analysis 2008. San Jose, CA. www.cs.unc.edu/
*weigle/Papers/VDA08-Eye_Tracking.pdf
32. Tzanidou E, Minocha S, Petre M, Grayson A. Revisiting web
design guidelines by exploring users’ expectations, prefer-
ences and visual search behavior. People and Computers
XIX—The Bigger Picture 2006; Part 3:421–438.
Address correspondence to:
Dr. Gwendolyn Seidman
Psychology Department
Albright College
13th and Bern Streets
Reading, PA 19612
E-mail: gseidman@alb.edu
24 SEIDMAN AND MILLER
Copyright of CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking is the property of Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
