08832323.2011.652695
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Influence of Student Perceived Professors’
“Hotness” on Expertise, Motivation, Learning
Outcomes, and Course Satisfaction
Jeanny Liu , Jing Hu & Omid Furutan
To cite this article: Jeanny Liu , Jing Hu & Omid Furutan (2013) The Influence of
Student Perceived Professors’ “Hotness” on Expertise, Motivation, Learning Outcomes,
and Course Satisfaction, Journal of Education for Business, 88:2, 94-100, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2011.652695
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.652695
Published online: 04 Dec 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 901
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:57
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 88: 94–100, 2013
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.652695
The Influence of Student Perceived Professors’
“Hotness” on Expertise, Motivation, Learning
Outcomes, and Course Satisfaction
Jeanny Liu
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:57 11 January 2016
University of La Verne, La Verne, California, USA
Jing Hu
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, USA
Omid Furutan
University of La Verne, La Verne, California, USA
Recent research has indicated a noticeable increase in students who rate their professors as
either “hot” or “not” on RateMyProfessors.com. The authors further explored this issue by
examining the influence of professors’ perceived hotness in the classroom. Results indicate
that when professors are perceived to be high in attractiveness, students view these professors
as having more expertise. Furthermore, students are more motivated to learn, perceive that they
learn better, are more satisfied, and give higher teaching evaluations. Additionally, there appears
to be an interaction between the gender of the student and the influence of attractiveness; levels
of attractiveness appear to affect female students more than male students.
Keywords: hotness, motivation to learn, physical attractiveness, student evaluations
In this era of Internet reliance, students have increased their
use of unconventional rating scales that are outside of a typical student teacher evaluation form as an evaluative component in searching for prospective professors. Typically, a standardized teaching evaluation form would be a good source
to understand professors’ teaching effectiveness. However,
students are turning to the Internet for information and a
number of websites have emerged where students can review
course experiences and rate professors. Computer-mediated
word-of-mouth sites, such as RateMyProfessors.com and
PickAProf.com, are largely used by students to gather and
shop for information about prospective professors (Hossain,
2010). These sites are widely used and serve as an information hub by students in their selection of future courses and instructors. One popular website, RateMyProfessors.com, offers students the opportunity to anonymously quantify and
post perceptions of their professors based on five rating
Correspondence should be addressed to Jeanny Liu, University of La
Verne, Department of Marketing and Law, 1950 3rd Street, La Verne, CA
91750, USA. E-mail: jeanny.liu@laverne.edu
factors: easiness, hotness, helpfulness, clarity, and interest
level. While instructors’ certain personality dimensions have
demonstrated an influence in student evaluations, research
investigating professors’ hotness or physical attractiveness
has been limited. Additionally, there is limited research on
the actual usefulness of the hotness rating of professors. Professors’ hotness has been shown to impact student evaluation
of them (Felton, Koper, Mitchell, & Stinson, 2008). Thus, as
students continue to evaluate their professors through these
sites, these new ratings of teaching evaluation raises the question of how useful hotness is as a crowd sourced rating attribute in predicting teacher performance, teacher’s ability
to motivate and the learning experience, for a prospective
student. Since the inception of RateMyProfessors.com, there
has been limited research investigating the use of a hotness
measure in evaluating teaching effectiveness. Several studies examined at teachers’ hotness and its impact on student
teacher evaluations. These studies have found teachers’ hotness to be associated with more positive affect and more positive student evaluation of attractive teachers (Felton et al.;
Hamermesh & Parker, 2005; Hossain; Riniolo, Johnson,
Sherman, & Misso, 2006). In several of these studies, the
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:57 11 January 2016
STUDENT PERCEPTION OF PROFESSORS’ HOTNESS
results indicate that attractive teachers also demonstrated
a substantial positive impact on instructional productivity
(Felton et al.; Hamermesh & Parker).
Results from these studies raised some particularly interesting questions. Other than the positive impact on student
evaluations, do attractive or hot professors also impact the
student learning experience? If so, how does it influence their
learning experience? What are some positive (or negative)
outcomes that might be associated with attractive professors? To what extent do attractive professors influence students’ perception of their learning experience? The present
study attempts to investigate the effect of student-perceived
instructors’ hotness and students’ perception of their own
learning, motivation, and course satisfaction. Specifically,
we attempted to investigate this assumption in a higher education environment examining both undergraduate and graduate students to examine the potential impact, either positive
or negative, stemming from professors’ attractiveness.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Defining Hotness
It is becoming increasingly popular to evaluate professors
based on their hotness (Felton et al., 2008; Hossain, 2010;
Riniolo et al., 2006). However, the meaning of this construct
is still unclear. Existing literature has defined hotness in various ways, such as physical attractiveness (Bonds-Raacke &
Raacke, 2007; Riniolo et al., 2006; Silva et al., 2008), sexiness (Felton et al., 2008; Felton, Mitchell, & Stinson, 2004),
or good looks (Hamermesh & Parker, 2005). Hotness, despite
its description, remains a subjective measure and can be interpreted differently by individuals. This may account for
the seemingly random chili peppers (assigned indicators of
hotness) on evaluations posted on RateMyProfessors.com.
In this article, hotness is defined as a student’s subjective
perception of a professor’s physical features. Aspects of this
perception are further explored using student feedback later
in the study. We expect that students would have varying perceived levels of hotness for the same instructor and that the
overall level of hotness would take into consideration various
aspects of the hotness perceptions from students.
Physical Attractiveness, Expertise,
and Motivation
The influence of physical attractiveness in education is not
new. Prevalent literature documents that attractive-looking
students are often judged more positively than unattractive
students. Students’ physical attributes have been considered
to influence teachers’ behaviors and attitudes toward goodlooking students. This influence exists in teachers’ impression formations and judgment of students (Ritts, Patterson,
& Tubb, 1992). This is also a factor in teachers’ judgment
of students’ intelligence and academic competence (Adams,
1978; Ross & Salvia, 1975); in the frequency of teacher-
95
student interactions (Adams & Cohen, 1974; Algozzine,
1977); and in teachers’ expectations (Clifford & Walster,
1973). Adams and Cohen (1974) demonstrated that teachers
utilize a beauty-is-good stereotype in students, as their study
discovered that attractive looking students are a salient factor
in the frequency of teacher-student interactions. Studies have
also found that children consistently choose playmates based
on facial appearances, favoring attractive over unattractive
individuals (Adams & Crane, 1980). Physical attractiveness
has further been demonstrated to influence parents’ attitudes
on the choice of peers for their children (Adams & Crane) and
their attitudes toward their own infants (Stephan & Langois,
1984). The influence of physical attractiveness has generated
much attention from researchers in the past, and there is a
great amount of literature and history on this stereotype both
in educational and social contexts.
Friedrich Schiller defined beauty as being both “physical
and spiritual” (Hohr, 2002, p. 64); the two aspects act as
powers complementing, supporting, and yet simultaneously
depending on each other. Hohr argued that attractiveness is
a response to the growing phenomenon of “socio-economic
complexity, differentiation and social disintegration” (p. 59).
This growing awareness gives physically attractive communicators certain advantages as demonstrated in social psychology literature. In the workplace, physical attractiveness
is prominent in receiving benefits such as higher job evaluations (Dipboye, Arvey, & Terpstra, 1977). In the communication literature, attractive communicators are found to be
more persuasive, treated better in social settings, and achieve
greater career success (Langlois et al., 2000). Additionally,
Joseph (1982) indicated that physically attractive models are
liked more, perceived more favorably, and have a positive
impact on the products with which they are associated in the
advertising industry. Here we summarize the effects of physically attractive communicators and concludes that attractive
sources consistently are perceived more favorably and assigned more positive qualities. Consequently, it was reasonable for us to hypothesize that hot professors would be more
likely to generate favorable feelings among students and perceived with more expertise, and students would be motivated
to learn under the influence of such favorable feelings.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Students would perceive hot professors
to have more expertise.
H2: Students would be more motivated to learn by a hot
professor.
Physical Attractiveness, Instructional
Productivity, and Immediacy in the Classroom
Professors’ physical attractiveness has been demonstrated to
have an impact on student-teacher evaluation and immediacy in the classroom. Greater immediacy, in turn, has been
shown to lead to higher student motivation and better student learning experience. Riniolo et al. (2006) found that
professors who were perceived as attractive consistently received higher student evaluations when compared with the
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:57 11 January 2016
96
J. LIU ET AL.
unattractive group. Those who are perceived as physically attractive receive about 0.8 of a point higher on a 5-point evaluation. The research suggests that attractive instructors trigger
positive responses by the students and receive positive benefits in student evaluations. If students perceive their teachers
as more physically attractive, they would have more generally positive feelings toward the teacher and consequently
have an increased desire to give higher ratings on evaluations.
A study by Hamermesh and Parker (2005) found the same
positive relationship between teachers’ facial beauty and instructional ratings by undergraduate students. Students’ high
evaluation of the teacher can be partially explained by their
high immediacy to the teacher as the immediacy level increases when students have physically attractive professors
(McCroskey, Sallinen, Fayer, Richamond, & Barraclough,
1996; Rocca & McCroskey, 1999).
The construct of immediacy has received much attention
by the communication scholars since 1970s. The construct
was first defined as the perceived distance between people,
where positive affect enhances closeness or immediacy between them (Mehrabian, 1971). Research has pointed to the
importance of teachers’ immediacy in the classroom and
that it increases student interactions with the teacher and encourages reciprocity responses in students (Gouldner, 1960).
Within the work of immediacy, teachers’ nonverbal immediacy behaviors have been associated with student-teacher
evaluations (McCroskey, Richmond, Sallinen, Fayer, &
Barraclough, 1995) and perceived cognitive learning
(McCroskey & Richmond, 1992). Examples of nonverbal behaviors include eye contact, voices, facial expressions, body
movement and position, and gestures while talking in class
(Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987). This research
suggests that teachers across all discipline must pay attention to their nonverbal behaviors in class and to develop the
communication skills necessary in order to build positive
immediacy and to enhance instructional productivity.
The relationship between teachers’ hotness and how their
students learn is not clear. However, physical attraction has
been documented as a contributing factor for immediacy
(Rocca & McCroskey, 1999), and teachers who are thought
as more immediate are also more effective in encouraging (Comstock, Rowell, & Bowers, 1995) and motivating
(Christophel, 1990) student learning. Therefore, we believe
that physically attractive teachers have a positive effect on
student learning and students are more satisfied with their
class because of the immediacy that the attractiveness creates.
H3: Students would be more satisfied with the class, have
better learning outcomes, and give better instructor evaluations when having a hot professor.
METHODOLOGY
We conducted an empirical study in order to find out: what
is hotness in students’ minds, and what is the relationship
between hotness and students’ motivation to learn, learning
outcomes, satisfaction, and instructor evaluation. In the initial
stage of the study, a small group of students were asked
to define hotness using six words. A content analysis of
students’ responses revealed five dimensions in the meaning
of hotness. These five dimensions were used to create a scale
of hotness for the main study. In the main study, the hotness
scale was incorporated into a student survey to examine its
relationship with student learning. This survey was then given
to a larger sample.
Sample
A survey was conducted with business students at a private university located in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.
These students were asked about their perceptions of their
professors, their learning outcomes, as well as their personal
profiles. By using a cluster-sampling procedure, we created a
sample frame consisting of a list of graduate and undergraduate classes. From the list, students from 12 business classes
volunteered to participate in the survey, resulting in a total
of 207 survey participants. Those that did not respond were
ignored since the rate was less than two percent (Miller &
Smith, 1983).
The participants in the study were almost evenly divided
by gender (55.8% men). It should be noted that female participation in the study was much higher than the national
average for business school enrollment, but was consistent
with the gender profile of the private university in the study.
This study included graduate and undergraduate students
(63.1% undergraduate) and a relatively large ratio of Hispanic
and Asian participation when compared with the rest of the
country (24.4% Caucasian, 29.5% Hispanic, 5.5% African
American, 30% Asian).
Study Design
To compare the effectiveness of a professor with a high hotness score versus a professor with a low hotness score, we
chose a different approach from the popular professor rating websites, which have the students rate their professors at
the end of a course. In this study, we used the critical incident technique. A situation was described to students first.
Students were then asked to think of a professor (either hot
or not) that would fit in this situation and answer questions
about this professor. The situation included two parts. In the
first part, students were given the following scenario:
Imagine that you are invited to post a review of your professors on RateMyProfessor.com relevant to a few dimensions,
such as hotness, easiness, helpfulness, and clarity. Think of a
class you had in the past 3 years with a professor with whom
you would rate high in hotness (with a red chili pepper).
Think about the class he/she was teaching and answer the
following questions.
STUDENT PERCEPTION OF PROFESSORS’ HOTNESS
The participants then answered questions about the gender
of the professor, their perceptions of the hotness of the professor, the expertise of the professor, their motivation to learn,
and their satisfaction with the course. The students were also
asked about learning outcomes and asked to evaluate their
professor. In the second part of the survey, students were
asked the same set of questions, but in reference to a professor for whom they would rate low in hotness.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:57 11 January 2016
Instrumentation
To test the hypotheses, six key measurements were employed
in the main survey, including hotness, expertise, motivation
to learn, satisfaction, learning outcome, and instructor rating.
The hotness measure was developed in the initial stage of this
study using content analysis of a student survey, as there was
no existing scale to measure hotness. Other measures were
borrowed from established scales for better validity and reliability and then modified slightly to fit in the circumstances
of this study.
Hotness. To create a scale to measure hotness, in the
initial stage of the study we asked students what the word
hotness meant in the context of evaluating professors. Students were asked to take a moment to write down six words
that they might associate with the word hotness. Forty students participated in this study. Five dimensions of hotness
emerged after a content analysis of students’ responses: good
looks, good figure, well dressed, attractive, and sexy. These
five dimensions were then used to measure hotness in the
main study. Reliability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha in
SPSS, version 17. This scale appeared reliable (Cronbach’s
α = .905). All the measurements used the 5-point Likerttype scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree).
Expertise. Expertise was a modified scale from Ohanian (1990) to fit in this study. These items included “the
instructor seemed like an expert,” “the instructor seemed
experienced,” “the instructor seemed knowledgeable,” “the
instructor seemed qualified,” and “the instructor seemed
skilled” (Cronbach’s α = .820).
Motivation to learn. Questionnaire items measuring
motivation to learn were derived from a scale in the pedagogical study by Ackerman and Hu (2009). This measure
97
contained items such as “I was very motivated to learn the
material associated with this class,” “I thoroughly read every
assigned chapter in this class,” and “Relative to other classes
I have taken, I worked more in this class” (Cronbach’s α =
.743).
Satisfaction. This measure was derived from Oliver’s
(1980) scale on satisfaction. The scale included three items:
“I was satisfied with my experience in this class,” “I believe
I did the right thing when I took this class,” and “Overall, I
am satisfied with the decision to take this class” (α = .912).
Learning outcome. The measure of perceived learning
outcome has five items. It was a modified scale from Bamber
and Castka (2006). The items included “I think the course
has been very important for me,” “Overall, I think the course
was excellent,” “Overall, I think the course content was very
interesting,” “Overall, I found the course material to be very
useful,” and “I feel I retained what I have learned in this class,
even after the end of the semester” (Cronbach’s α = .898).
Instructor evaluation. This scale came from Serva and
Fuller (2004) and included three items “I was satisfied with
this instructor,” “I learned a lot from this instructor,” and “I
would love to take another course with this instructor again”
(Cronbach’s α = .904).
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Manipulation Check
The five-item hotness measure served as a manipulation
check in this study. The results showed that the manipulation of the two conditions was successful. When asked to
think of a professor high in hotness, students gave higher
values on the hotness measure than they did when they were
asked to think of a professor low in hotness (M high = 3.40,
M low = 1.94) = 16.942, p < .001.
Results
Because each student was asked to give responses to both
scenarios, a repeated measures analysis of variance was suitable for the analysis. The results revealed that students did
react to a professor high in hotness and low in hotness differently (see Table 1). When having professors high in hotness,
TABLE 1
Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Results
Expertise
Hotness
Hotness∗ Gender
Motivation to learn
Learning outcomes
Satisfaction
Instructor rating
F
p
F
p
F
p
F
p
F
p
25.740
6.178
.000
.014
88.339
5.883
.000
.016
104.973
5.031
.000
.026
111.920
2.100
.000
.149
127.019
4.664
.000
.032
98
J. LIU ET AL.
TABLE 2
Means of Perceptions of Female Versus Male Students
Expertise
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:57 11 January 2016
Male
High hotness
Low hotness
Female
High hotness
Low hotness
Motivation to learn
Learning outcomes
Satisfaction
Instructor rating
4.040
3.790
3.267
2.654
3.597
2.790
3.940
2.954
3.868
2.747
4.262
3.532
3.462
2.421
3.801
2.541
4.044
2.745
4.084
2.432
the students viewed the professors as having more expertise,
F(1, 205) = 25.740, p < .001. The students were more motivated to learn, F(1, 205) = 88.339, p < .001; perceived they
learned better, F(1, 205) = 104.973, p < .001; were also more
satisfied with their class, F(1, 205) = 111.920, p < .001; and
gave their professors higher ratings, F(1, 205) = 127.019,
p < .001. Thus, all three hypotheses were supported.
The effect of perceived hotness of professors differed between the genders of students. There was an interaction effect
between the hotness of professors and genders of students.
Levels of hotness appeared to affect female students more
than male students (see Table 2). Compared with male students, female students perceived hot professors to have higher
expertise, F(1, 205) = 6.178, p = .014. With hot professors,
female students, compared with male students, were more
motivated to learn, F(1, 205) = 5.883, p = .016, perceived
they learned better, F(1, 205) = 5.031, p = .026, and gave
these professors higher ratings, F(1, 205) = 4.664, p = .032.
Although this interaction effect was not significant on the
satisfaction variable, the mean perception of female students
versus male students showed the same tendency (see Table 2).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this research was to examine professors’
physical attractiveness and its relationship to students’ own
evaluation of their behavior and learning outcomes. One of
the assumptions made in this study was that the physical
appearances of teachers can potentially affect instructional
productivity. Specifically by having an attractive appearance,
teachers can provide more opportunities for student interaction and make learning more enjoyable. Results in the
data support the idea that students consider themselves to be
more motivated and learned more when they had an attractive
professor. These results confirmed our assumption and that
professors’ attractiveness can contribute in important ways
toward increasing a teacher’s effectiveness. Nevertheless, additional research can be done to clarify the effects of different
levels of attractiveness on student learning and the perception
of attractiveness across time.
It was found that as perceived teachers’ attractiveness increased, students’ satisfaction in course also increased. It
would appear that attractive teachers contribute to teachers
receiving higher student evaluations. This finding reinforces
the prior research (Felton et al., 2008; Felton et al., 2004;
Riniolo et al., 2006), which acknowledged the positive impact of attractive instructors on student evaluations. Our study
extends previous research on the impact of teachers’ attractiveness by suggesting that teachers’ appearances play an
important role on student perceptions and learning experiences in the classroom. Specifically, physical attractiveness
may generate a positive effect in student perception. Our results are also consistent with Rocca and McCroskey’s (1999)
findings that attractiveness increases immediacy and greater
immediacy benefits the learning experience.
This result has implications for teachers, administrators,
and faculty looking for ways to improve student learning.
An important implication of this study for teachers is if perceived attractiveness can increase students’ motivation to
learn should a teacher go out of their way to look attractive?
To what extend should a teacher go out of their way to look
attractive? While teachers may be the catalyst between students and the subject matter, are attractive teachers capable of
stimulating any subject matter? While our study indicates a
relationship between professors’ attractiveness and students’
own learning evaluations, it did not measure students’ motivation level toward a particular subject matter. Nevertheless,
our findings provide preliminary support that teachers’ physical appearance and student learning outcomes are in fact
significantly correlated.
One interesting result from the study uncovered a gender
difference in the effect of professors’ perceived attractiveness between female and male students. The results suggest
that female students, when compared to male students, perceived attractive professors as having higher expertise (Ms =
4.26 vs. 4.04, )F(1, 205) = 6.178, p = .014; were more motivated to learn (Ms = 3.46 vs. 3.28, F(1, 205) = 5.883, p =
.016; perceived they learned better (Ms = 3.80 vs. 3.60, F(1,
205) = 5.031, p = .026; and gave these professors higher
ratings (Ms = 4.08 vs. 3.87, F(1, 205) = 4.664, p = .032.
The level of hotness appeared to influence female students
more than male students.
This leads to an interesting question: Is the perception of
physical attractiveness more salient for women than for men?
Social psychological research has somewhat supported the
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:57 11 January 2016
STUDENT PERCEPTION OF PROFESSORS’ HOTNESS
claim that physical attractiveness has greater consequences
for women’s self-esteem and life chances (Jackson, 1992).
The beauty ideal as seen in media demonstrates that thinness
in women continues to be highly valued, more by women
than men (Sypeck et al., 2006). Hill (2002) also indicated
that skin color has influenced assessment of physical attractiveness differently between genders and that the association
is significantly weaker for men. Such findings are consistent
with our study that physical attractiveness affects assessment differently between men and women; it also explains
the stronger effect observed on female students than male
students.
There were some limitations with our study. First, our
findings should be interpreted with some caution. The survey for this study was done at a private university in the
Los Angeles metropolitan area. It is not clear whether the
findings can be fully generalizable as the sample represented
students at a single university and in an area where physical
appearances are valued. Students in private universities and
in coastal metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles or New
York may be more prone to fashion and therefore put greater
emphasis on appearance or hotness of professors when evaluating them. Thus, the hotness bias may be more apparent
in these areas. However, our results on the relationship between attractiveness and teaching evaluations are consistent
with previous studies (Felton et al., 2008; Felton et al., 2004;
Riniolo et al., 2006). It will be useful to further our study by
confirming other findings, such as learning outcomes, motivation, and perceived expertise, in nonmajor metropolitan
areas and other types of universities.
A second limitation of this study was that the hotness
measure could be further refined. Because there was no established scale ready for use, a more systematic scale development can be done to ensure its reliability, validity, and
extensibility. For example, more caution should be used in
selecting sample, more methods should be used to describe
its meaning in addition to word association used here, the
scale should be tested on a second sample to examine its
consistency, and additional work needs be done to examine
its validity. However, this study has laid the groundwork in
developing a scale for instructor hotness.
Third, the effectiveness of teaching was measured based
on student perception. Students’ expectations for themselves
and their baseline used for comparison may be different, so
their self-iterated learning outcomes may be different from
real leaning outcomes, such as classroom performance and
career development related to that course. As anonymity was
required in the survey, there was no way for us to get this
information. Real course performance could be included in
the research design in the future for a more credible measure
of learning effectiveness.
Furthermore, we inferred teaching competence by asking
students for their perception of learning outcomes. Hence,
we did not directly measure learning benefits. It would be
interesting to see if there are actual learning benefits to
99
hotness or if the results are only perceived. An objective
test, controlling for curriculum and teaching style, should be
conducted between hot and nonhot teachers. Such an objective test would not necessarily have to cover a real subject or
be a long course.
CONCLUSION
Here we focused on examining the meaning of hotness and its
impact on others, specifically, whether hot professors actually
impact students’ learning. The research showed that hotness
has multiple dimensions and significant influences on student
learning, motivation to learn, and satisfaction. Overall, this
research offers a good preliminary basis for further research
on the effect of physical appearance on student learning. We
also present a basis for additional testing for actual teaching
effectiveness and the role that gender plays in the academic
environment.
While a wide range of other factors demonstrate important
implications for student learning, the present study presents
additional insights into professor-student communication in
the classroom. The principle of immediacy has been used
in the field of communication to explain increased effort
and communication effectiveness between individuals when
attraction exists (Roger & Bhowmik, 1971), and also that
attraction between individuals can increase the quantity of
communication attempts (Rocca & McCroskey, 1999). It is
important to note that a professor’s attractiveness can also
play an important role in giving a professor greater opportunities to engage students and increase the quantity of information exchanged. In addition, a professor who is rated
highly by students is more likely to exert influence on student
behavior and to achieve better learning outcomes.
Despite the progression of society, individual stereotypes
still exist that grant people with more or less credit based
on their attractiveness. While having limitations, the present
study validates the findings of previous literature on the influence of physical attractiveness and sheds new light on
outcomes that have not been previously addressed. Although
we do not suggest that academic institutions should include
hotness criteria as part of their recruiting strategy, we hope
that the findings will help to increase awareness that efforts
should also be made to maintain a professional physical appearance in the classroom.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, D., & Hu, J. (2009, April). Effect of active learning on learning
motivation and outcomes among marketing students with different learning styles. Paper presented at the Marketing Education Association 2009
Conference, Newport Beach, CA.
Adams, G. R. (1978). Racial membership and physical attractiveness effects
on preschool teachers’ expectations. Child Study Journal, 8, 29–41.
Adams, G. R., & Cohen, A. S. (1974). Children’s physical and interpersonal
characteristics that effect student-teacher interactions. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 43, 1–5.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:57 11 January 2016
100
J. LIU ET AL.
Adams, G. R., & Crane, P. (1980). An assessment of parents’ and teachers’
expectations of preschool children’s social preference for attractive or
unattractive children and adults. Child Development, 5, 224–231.
Algozzine, B., (1977). Perceived attractiveness and classroom interactions.
The Journal of Experimental Education, 46, 63–66.
Bamber, D., & Castka, P. (2006). Personality, organizational orientations
and self-reported learning outcomes. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18,
73–92.
Bonds-Raacke, J., & Raacke, J. D. (2007). The relationship between physical
attractiveness of professors and students’ ratings of professor quality.
Journal of Psychiatry, Psychology and Mental Health, 1(2), 1–7.
Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy
behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education,
37, 323–340.
Clifford, M. M., & Walster, E. (1973). The effect of physical attractiveness
on teacher expectations. Sociology of Education, 46, 248–258.
Comstock, J., Rowell, D., & Bowers, J. W. (1995). Food for thought: Teacher
nonverbal immediacy, student learning and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44, 251–266.
Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., & Terpstra, D. E. (1977). Effects of student’s
race physical attractiveness, and dialect on teacher evaluations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3, 77–86.
Felton, J., Koper, P. T., Mitchell, J., & Stinson, M. (2008). Attractiveness,
easiness and other issues: student evaluations of professors on Ratemyprofessors.com. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 45–61.
Felton, J., Mitchell, J., & Stinson, M. (2004). Web-based student evaluation of professors: The relations between perceived quality, easiness and
sexiness. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 91–108.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). A norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.
American Sociological Review, 26, 161–178.
Hamermesh, D. S., & Parker, A. M. (2005). Beauty in the classroom: Instructors’ pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity. Economics
of Education Review, 24, 369–376.
Hill, M. E. (2002). Skin color and the perception of attractiveness among
African Americans: Does gender make a difference? Social Psychology
Quarterly, 65, 77–91.
Hohr, H. (2002). Does beauty matter in education? Friedrich Schiller’s neohumanistic approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34, 59–75.
Hossain, T. M. (2010). Hot or not: An analysis of online professor-shopping
behavior of business students. Journal of Education for Business, 85,
165–167.
Jackson, L. A. (1992). Physical appearance and gender: Sociobiological
and sociocultural perspectives. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Joseph, W. B. (1982). The credibility of physically attractive communicators:
A review. Journal of Advertising, 11(3), 15–24.
Langlois, J. H., & Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallamm,
M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic
and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1992). Increasing teacher influence
through immediacy. In V. P. Richamond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Power
in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern (pp. 101–119).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., &
Barraclough, R. A. (1995). A cross-cultural and multi-behavioral analysis
of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and teacher evaluation.
Communication Quarterly, 44, 281–291.
McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richamond, V. P., &
Barraclough, R. A. (1996). Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning:
A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Education, 45, 200–211.
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages (vol. viii). Oxford, UK: Wadsworth.
Miller, L. E., & Smith, K. L. (1983). Handling nonresponse issues.
Journal of Extension, 21(5). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/
1983september/83–5-a7.pdf
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure
celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences
of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469.
Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship
between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. A.
McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 574–590). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
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, 19–34.
Ritts, V., Patterson, M. L., & Tubbs, M. E. (1992). Expectations, impressions,
and judgments of physically attractive students: A review. Review of
Educational Research, 62, 413–426.
Rocca, K. A., & McCroskey, J. C. (1999). The interrelationship of student
ratings of instructors’ immediacy, verbal aggressiveness, homophily, and
interpersonal attraction. Communication Education, 48, 308–316.
Roger, E., & Bhowmik, D. (1971). Homophily-heterophily: Relational
concepts for communication research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34,
523–538.
Ross, M., & Salvia, J. (1975). Attractiveness as a biasing factor in teacher
judgments. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 80, 96–98.
Serva, M. A., & Fuller, M. A. (2004). Aligning what we do and what we
measure in business schools: Incorporating active learning and effective
media use in the assessment of instruction. Journal of Management Education, 28, 19–38.
Silva, K. M., Silva, F. J., Quinn, M. A., Draper, J. N., Cover, K. R., &
Munoff, A. (2008). Rate my professor: Online evaluations of psychology
instructors. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 71–80.
Stephan, C. W., & Langlois, J. H. (1984). Baby beautiful: Adult attributions of infant competence as a function of infant attractiveness. Child
Development, 55, 576–585.
Sypeck, M. F., Gray, J. J., Etu, S. F., Ahrens, A. H., Mosimann, J. E., &
Wiseman, C. V. (2006). Cultural representations of thinness in women,
redux: Playboy magazine’s depiction of beauty from 1979 to 1999. Body
Image, 3, 229–235.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The Influence of Student Perceived Professors’
“Hotness” on Expertise, Motivation, Learning
Outcomes, and Course Satisfaction
Jeanny Liu , Jing Hu & Omid Furutan
To cite this article: Jeanny Liu , Jing Hu & Omid Furutan (2013) The Influence of
Student Perceived Professors’ “Hotness” on Expertise, Motivation, Learning Outcomes,
and Course Satisfaction, Journal of Education for Business, 88:2, 94-100, DOI:
10.1080/08832323.2011.652695
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.652695
Published online: 04 Dec 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 901
View related articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 20:57
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 88: 94–100, 2013
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.652695
The Influence of Student Perceived Professors’
“Hotness” on Expertise, Motivation, Learning
Outcomes, and Course Satisfaction
Jeanny Liu
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:57 11 January 2016
University of La Verne, La Verne, California, USA
Jing Hu
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, USA
Omid Furutan
University of La Verne, La Verne, California, USA
Recent research has indicated a noticeable increase in students who rate their professors as
either “hot” or “not” on RateMyProfessors.com. The authors further explored this issue by
examining the influence of professors’ perceived hotness in the classroom. Results indicate
that when professors are perceived to be high in attractiveness, students view these professors
as having more expertise. Furthermore, students are more motivated to learn, perceive that they
learn better, are more satisfied, and give higher teaching evaluations. Additionally, there appears
to be an interaction between the gender of the student and the influence of attractiveness; levels
of attractiveness appear to affect female students more than male students.
Keywords: hotness, motivation to learn, physical attractiveness, student evaluations
In this era of Internet reliance, students have increased their
use of unconventional rating scales that are outside of a typical student teacher evaluation form as an evaluative component in searching for prospective professors. Typically, a standardized teaching evaluation form would be a good source
to understand professors’ teaching effectiveness. However,
students are turning to the Internet for information and a
number of websites have emerged where students can review
course experiences and rate professors. Computer-mediated
word-of-mouth sites, such as RateMyProfessors.com and
PickAProf.com, are largely used by students to gather and
shop for information about prospective professors (Hossain,
2010). These sites are widely used and serve as an information hub by students in their selection of future courses and instructors. One popular website, RateMyProfessors.com, offers students the opportunity to anonymously quantify and
post perceptions of their professors based on five rating
Correspondence should be addressed to Jeanny Liu, University of La
Verne, Department of Marketing and Law, 1950 3rd Street, La Verne, CA
91750, USA. E-mail: jeanny.liu@laverne.edu
factors: easiness, hotness, helpfulness, clarity, and interest
level. While instructors’ certain personality dimensions have
demonstrated an influence in student evaluations, research
investigating professors’ hotness or physical attractiveness
has been limited. Additionally, there is limited research on
the actual usefulness of the hotness rating of professors. Professors’ hotness has been shown to impact student evaluation
of them (Felton, Koper, Mitchell, & Stinson, 2008). Thus, as
students continue to evaluate their professors through these
sites, these new ratings of teaching evaluation raises the question of how useful hotness is as a crowd sourced rating attribute in predicting teacher performance, teacher’s ability
to motivate and the learning experience, for a prospective
student. Since the inception of RateMyProfessors.com, there
has been limited research investigating the use of a hotness
measure in evaluating teaching effectiveness. Several studies examined at teachers’ hotness and its impact on student
teacher evaluations. These studies have found teachers’ hotness to be associated with more positive affect and more positive student evaluation of attractive teachers (Felton et al.;
Hamermesh & Parker, 2005; Hossain; Riniolo, Johnson,
Sherman, & Misso, 2006). In several of these studies, the
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:57 11 January 2016
STUDENT PERCEPTION OF PROFESSORS’ HOTNESS
results indicate that attractive teachers also demonstrated
a substantial positive impact on instructional productivity
(Felton et al.; Hamermesh & Parker).
Results from these studies raised some particularly interesting questions. Other than the positive impact on student
evaluations, do attractive or hot professors also impact the
student learning experience? If so, how does it influence their
learning experience? What are some positive (or negative)
outcomes that might be associated with attractive professors? To what extent do attractive professors influence students’ perception of their learning experience? The present
study attempts to investigate the effect of student-perceived
instructors’ hotness and students’ perception of their own
learning, motivation, and course satisfaction. Specifically,
we attempted to investigate this assumption in a higher education environment examining both undergraduate and graduate students to examine the potential impact, either positive
or negative, stemming from professors’ attractiveness.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Defining Hotness
It is becoming increasingly popular to evaluate professors
based on their hotness (Felton et al., 2008; Hossain, 2010;
Riniolo et al., 2006). However, the meaning of this construct
is still unclear. Existing literature has defined hotness in various ways, such as physical attractiveness (Bonds-Raacke &
Raacke, 2007; Riniolo et al., 2006; Silva et al., 2008), sexiness (Felton et al., 2008; Felton, Mitchell, & Stinson, 2004),
or good looks (Hamermesh & Parker, 2005). Hotness, despite
its description, remains a subjective measure and can be interpreted differently by individuals. This may account for
the seemingly random chili peppers (assigned indicators of
hotness) on evaluations posted on RateMyProfessors.com.
In this article, hotness is defined as a student’s subjective
perception of a professor’s physical features. Aspects of this
perception are further explored using student feedback later
in the study. We expect that students would have varying perceived levels of hotness for the same instructor and that the
overall level of hotness would take into consideration various
aspects of the hotness perceptions from students.
Physical Attractiveness, Expertise,
and Motivation
The influence of physical attractiveness in education is not
new. Prevalent literature documents that attractive-looking
students are often judged more positively than unattractive
students. Students’ physical attributes have been considered
to influence teachers’ behaviors and attitudes toward goodlooking students. This influence exists in teachers’ impression formations and judgment of students (Ritts, Patterson,
& Tubb, 1992). This is also a factor in teachers’ judgment
of students’ intelligence and academic competence (Adams,
1978; Ross & Salvia, 1975); in the frequency of teacher-
95
student interactions (Adams & Cohen, 1974; Algozzine,
1977); and in teachers’ expectations (Clifford & Walster,
1973). Adams and Cohen (1974) demonstrated that teachers
utilize a beauty-is-good stereotype in students, as their study
discovered that attractive looking students are a salient factor
in the frequency of teacher-student interactions. Studies have
also found that children consistently choose playmates based
on facial appearances, favoring attractive over unattractive
individuals (Adams & Crane, 1980). Physical attractiveness
has further been demonstrated to influence parents’ attitudes
on the choice of peers for their children (Adams & Crane) and
their attitudes toward their own infants (Stephan & Langois,
1984). The influence of physical attractiveness has generated
much attention from researchers in the past, and there is a
great amount of literature and history on this stereotype both
in educational and social contexts.
Friedrich Schiller defined beauty as being both “physical
and spiritual” (Hohr, 2002, p. 64); the two aspects act as
powers complementing, supporting, and yet simultaneously
depending on each other. Hohr argued that attractiveness is
a response to the growing phenomenon of “socio-economic
complexity, differentiation and social disintegration” (p. 59).
This growing awareness gives physically attractive communicators certain advantages as demonstrated in social psychology literature. In the workplace, physical attractiveness
is prominent in receiving benefits such as higher job evaluations (Dipboye, Arvey, & Terpstra, 1977). In the communication literature, attractive communicators are found to be
more persuasive, treated better in social settings, and achieve
greater career success (Langlois et al., 2000). Additionally,
Joseph (1982) indicated that physically attractive models are
liked more, perceived more favorably, and have a positive
impact on the products with which they are associated in the
advertising industry. Here we summarize the effects of physically attractive communicators and concludes that attractive
sources consistently are perceived more favorably and assigned more positive qualities. Consequently, it was reasonable for us to hypothesize that hot professors would be more
likely to generate favorable feelings among students and perceived with more expertise, and students would be motivated
to learn under the influence of such favorable feelings.
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Students would perceive hot professors
to have more expertise.
H2: Students would be more motivated to learn by a hot
professor.
Physical Attractiveness, Instructional
Productivity, and Immediacy in the Classroom
Professors’ physical attractiveness has been demonstrated to
have an impact on student-teacher evaluation and immediacy in the classroom. Greater immediacy, in turn, has been
shown to lead to higher student motivation and better student learning experience. Riniolo et al. (2006) found that
professors who were perceived as attractive consistently received higher student evaluations when compared with the
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:57 11 January 2016
96
J. LIU ET AL.
unattractive group. Those who are perceived as physically attractive receive about 0.8 of a point higher on a 5-point evaluation. The research suggests that attractive instructors trigger
positive responses by the students and receive positive benefits in student evaluations. If students perceive their teachers
as more physically attractive, they would have more generally positive feelings toward the teacher and consequently
have an increased desire to give higher ratings on evaluations.
A study by Hamermesh and Parker (2005) found the same
positive relationship between teachers’ facial beauty and instructional ratings by undergraduate students. Students’ high
evaluation of the teacher can be partially explained by their
high immediacy to the teacher as the immediacy level increases when students have physically attractive professors
(McCroskey, Sallinen, Fayer, Richamond, & Barraclough,
1996; Rocca & McCroskey, 1999).
The construct of immediacy has received much attention
by the communication scholars since 1970s. The construct
was first defined as the perceived distance between people,
where positive affect enhances closeness or immediacy between them (Mehrabian, 1971). Research has pointed to the
importance of teachers’ immediacy in the classroom and
that it increases student interactions with the teacher and encourages reciprocity responses in students (Gouldner, 1960).
Within the work of immediacy, teachers’ nonverbal immediacy behaviors have been associated with student-teacher
evaluations (McCroskey, Richmond, Sallinen, Fayer, &
Barraclough, 1995) and perceived cognitive learning
(McCroskey & Richmond, 1992). Examples of nonverbal behaviors include eye contact, voices, facial expressions, body
movement and position, and gestures while talking in class
(Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987). This research
suggests that teachers across all discipline must pay attention to their nonverbal behaviors in class and to develop the
communication skills necessary in order to build positive
immediacy and to enhance instructional productivity.
The relationship between teachers’ hotness and how their
students learn is not clear. However, physical attraction has
been documented as a contributing factor for immediacy
(Rocca & McCroskey, 1999), and teachers who are thought
as more immediate are also more effective in encouraging (Comstock, Rowell, & Bowers, 1995) and motivating
(Christophel, 1990) student learning. Therefore, we believe
that physically attractive teachers have a positive effect on
student learning and students are more satisfied with their
class because of the immediacy that the attractiveness creates.
H3: Students would be more satisfied with the class, have
better learning outcomes, and give better instructor evaluations when having a hot professor.
METHODOLOGY
We conducted an empirical study in order to find out: what
is hotness in students’ minds, and what is the relationship
between hotness and students’ motivation to learn, learning
outcomes, satisfaction, and instructor evaluation. In the initial
stage of the study, a small group of students were asked
to define hotness using six words. A content analysis of
students’ responses revealed five dimensions in the meaning
of hotness. These five dimensions were used to create a scale
of hotness for the main study. In the main study, the hotness
scale was incorporated into a student survey to examine its
relationship with student learning. This survey was then given
to a larger sample.
Sample
A survey was conducted with business students at a private university located in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.
These students were asked about their perceptions of their
professors, their learning outcomes, as well as their personal
profiles. By using a cluster-sampling procedure, we created a
sample frame consisting of a list of graduate and undergraduate classes. From the list, students from 12 business classes
volunteered to participate in the survey, resulting in a total
of 207 survey participants. Those that did not respond were
ignored since the rate was less than two percent (Miller &
Smith, 1983).
The participants in the study were almost evenly divided
by gender (55.8% men). It should be noted that female participation in the study was much higher than the national
average for business school enrollment, but was consistent
with the gender profile of the private university in the study.
This study included graduate and undergraduate students
(63.1% undergraduate) and a relatively large ratio of Hispanic
and Asian participation when compared with the rest of the
country (24.4% Caucasian, 29.5% Hispanic, 5.5% African
American, 30% Asian).
Study Design
To compare the effectiveness of a professor with a high hotness score versus a professor with a low hotness score, we
chose a different approach from the popular professor rating websites, which have the students rate their professors at
the end of a course. In this study, we used the critical incident technique. A situation was described to students first.
Students were then asked to think of a professor (either hot
or not) that would fit in this situation and answer questions
about this professor. The situation included two parts. In the
first part, students were given the following scenario:
Imagine that you are invited to post a review of your professors on RateMyProfessor.com relevant to a few dimensions,
such as hotness, easiness, helpfulness, and clarity. Think of a
class you had in the past 3 years with a professor with whom
you would rate high in hotness (with a red chili pepper).
Think about the class he/she was teaching and answer the
following questions.
STUDENT PERCEPTION OF PROFESSORS’ HOTNESS
The participants then answered questions about the gender
of the professor, their perceptions of the hotness of the professor, the expertise of the professor, their motivation to learn,
and their satisfaction with the course. The students were also
asked about learning outcomes and asked to evaluate their
professor. In the second part of the survey, students were
asked the same set of questions, but in reference to a professor for whom they would rate low in hotness.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:57 11 January 2016
Instrumentation
To test the hypotheses, six key measurements were employed
in the main survey, including hotness, expertise, motivation
to learn, satisfaction, learning outcome, and instructor rating.
The hotness measure was developed in the initial stage of this
study using content analysis of a student survey, as there was
no existing scale to measure hotness. Other measures were
borrowed from established scales for better validity and reliability and then modified slightly to fit in the circumstances
of this study.
Hotness. To create a scale to measure hotness, in the
initial stage of the study we asked students what the word
hotness meant in the context of evaluating professors. Students were asked to take a moment to write down six words
that they might associate with the word hotness. Forty students participated in this study. Five dimensions of hotness
emerged after a content analysis of students’ responses: good
looks, good figure, well dressed, attractive, and sexy. These
five dimensions were then used to measure hotness in the
main study. Reliability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha in
SPSS, version 17. This scale appeared reliable (Cronbach’s
α = .905). All the measurements used the 5-point Likerttype scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree).
Expertise. Expertise was a modified scale from Ohanian (1990) to fit in this study. These items included “the
instructor seemed like an expert,” “the instructor seemed
experienced,” “the instructor seemed knowledgeable,” “the
instructor seemed qualified,” and “the instructor seemed
skilled” (Cronbach’s α = .820).
Motivation to learn. Questionnaire items measuring
motivation to learn were derived from a scale in the pedagogical study by Ackerman and Hu (2009). This measure
97
contained items such as “I was very motivated to learn the
material associated with this class,” “I thoroughly read every
assigned chapter in this class,” and “Relative to other classes
I have taken, I worked more in this class” (Cronbach’s α =
.743).
Satisfaction. This measure was derived from Oliver’s
(1980) scale on satisfaction. The scale included three items:
“I was satisfied with my experience in this class,” “I believe
I did the right thing when I took this class,” and “Overall, I
am satisfied with the decision to take this class” (α = .912).
Learning outcome. The measure of perceived learning
outcome has five items. It was a modified scale from Bamber
and Castka (2006). The items included “I think the course
has been very important for me,” “Overall, I think the course
was excellent,” “Overall, I think the course content was very
interesting,” “Overall, I found the course material to be very
useful,” and “I feel I retained what I have learned in this class,
even after the end of the semester” (Cronbach’s α = .898).
Instructor evaluation. This scale came from Serva and
Fuller (2004) and included three items “I was satisfied with
this instructor,” “I learned a lot from this instructor,” and “I
would love to take another course with this instructor again”
(Cronbach’s α = .904).
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Manipulation Check
The five-item hotness measure served as a manipulation
check in this study. The results showed that the manipulation of the two conditions was successful. When asked to
think of a professor high in hotness, students gave higher
values on the hotness measure than they did when they were
asked to think of a professor low in hotness (M high = 3.40,
M low = 1.94) = 16.942, p < .001.
Results
Because each student was asked to give responses to both
scenarios, a repeated measures analysis of variance was suitable for the analysis. The results revealed that students did
react to a professor high in hotness and low in hotness differently (see Table 1). When having professors high in hotness,
TABLE 1
Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Results
Expertise
Hotness
Hotness∗ Gender
Motivation to learn
Learning outcomes
Satisfaction
Instructor rating
F
p
F
p
F
p
F
p
F
p
25.740
6.178
.000
.014
88.339
5.883
.000
.016
104.973
5.031
.000
.026
111.920
2.100
.000
.149
127.019
4.664
.000
.032
98
J. LIU ET AL.
TABLE 2
Means of Perceptions of Female Versus Male Students
Expertise
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:57 11 January 2016
Male
High hotness
Low hotness
Female
High hotness
Low hotness
Motivation to learn
Learning outcomes
Satisfaction
Instructor rating
4.040
3.790
3.267
2.654
3.597
2.790
3.940
2.954
3.868
2.747
4.262
3.532
3.462
2.421
3.801
2.541
4.044
2.745
4.084
2.432
the students viewed the professors as having more expertise,
F(1, 205) = 25.740, p < .001. The students were more motivated to learn, F(1, 205) = 88.339, p < .001; perceived they
learned better, F(1, 205) = 104.973, p < .001; were also more
satisfied with their class, F(1, 205) = 111.920, p < .001; and
gave their professors higher ratings, F(1, 205) = 127.019,
p < .001. Thus, all three hypotheses were supported.
The effect of perceived hotness of professors differed between the genders of students. There was an interaction effect
between the hotness of professors and genders of students.
Levels of hotness appeared to affect female students more
than male students (see Table 2). Compared with male students, female students perceived hot professors to have higher
expertise, F(1, 205) = 6.178, p = .014. With hot professors,
female students, compared with male students, were more
motivated to learn, F(1, 205) = 5.883, p = .016, perceived
they learned better, F(1, 205) = 5.031, p = .026, and gave
these professors higher ratings, F(1, 205) = 4.664, p = .032.
Although this interaction effect was not significant on the
satisfaction variable, the mean perception of female students
versus male students showed the same tendency (see Table 2).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this research was to examine professors’
physical attractiveness and its relationship to students’ own
evaluation of their behavior and learning outcomes. One of
the assumptions made in this study was that the physical
appearances of teachers can potentially affect instructional
productivity. Specifically by having an attractive appearance,
teachers can provide more opportunities for student interaction and make learning more enjoyable. Results in the
data support the idea that students consider themselves to be
more motivated and learned more when they had an attractive
professor. These results confirmed our assumption and that
professors’ attractiveness can contribute in important ways
toward increasing a teacher’s effectiveness. Nevertheless, additional research can be done to clarify the effects of different
levels of attractiveness on student learning and the perception
of attractiveness across time.
It was found that as perceived teachers’ attractiveness increased, students’ satisfaction in course also increased. It
would appear that attractive teachers contribute to teachers
receiving higher student evaluations. This finding reinforces
the prior research (Felton et al., 2008; Felton et al., 2004;
Riniolo et al., 2006), which acknowledged the positive impact of attractive instructors on student evaluations. Our study
extends previous research on the impact of teachers’ attractiveness by suggesting that teachers’ appearances play an
important role on student perceptions and learning experiences in the classroom. Specifically, physical attractiveness
may generate a positive effect in student perception. Our results are also consistent with Rocca and McCroskey’s (1999)
findings that attractiveness increases immediacy and greater
immediacy benefits the learning experience.
This result has implications for teachers, administrators,
and faculty looking for ways to improve student learning.
An important implication of this study for teachers is if perceived attractiveness can increase students’ motivation to
learn should a teacher go out of their way to look attractive?
To what extend should a teacher go out of their way to look
attractive? While teachers may be the catalyst between students and the subject matter, are attractive teachers capable of
stimulating any subject matter? While our study indicates a
relationship between professors’ attractiveness and students’
own learning evaluations, it did not measure students’ motivation level toward a particular subject matter. Nevertheless,
our findings provide preliminary support that teachers’ physical appearance and student learning outcomes are in fact
significantly correlated.
One interesting result from the study uncovered a gender
difference in the effect of professors’ perceived attractiveness between female and male students. The results suggest
that female students, when compared to male students, perceived attractive professors as having higher expertise (Ms =
4.26 vs. 4.04, )F(1, 205) = 6.178, p = .014; were more motivated to learn (Ms = 3.46 vs. 3.28, F(1, 205) = 5.883, p =
.016; perceived they learned better (Ms = 3.80 vs. 3.60, F(1,
205) = 5.031, p = .026; and gave these professors higher
ratings (Ms = 4.08 vs. 3.87, F(1, 205) = 4.664, p = .032.
The level of hotness appeared to influence female students
more than male students.
This leads to an interesting question: Is the perception of
physical attractiveness more salient for women than for men?
Social psychological research has somewhat supported the
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:57 11 January 2016
STUDENT PERCEPTION OF PROFESSORS’ HOTNESS
claim that physical attractiveness has greater consequences
for women’s self-esteem and life chances (Jackson, 1992).
The beauty ideal as seen in media demonstrates that thinness
in women continues to be highly valued, more by women
than men (Sypeck et al., 2006). Hill (2002) also indicated
that skin color has influenced assessment of physical attractiveness differently between genders and that the association
is significantly weaker for men. Such findings are consistent
with our study that physical attractiveness affects assessment differently between men and women; it also explains
the stronger effect observed on female students than male
students.
There were some limitations with our study. First, our
findings should be interpreted with some caution. The survey for this study was done at a private university in the
Los Angeles metropolitan area. It is not clear whether the
findings can be fully generalizable as the sample represented
students at a single university and in an area where physical
appearances are valued. Students in private universities and
in coastal metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles or New
York may be more prone to fashion and therefore put greater
emphasis on appearance or hotness of professors when evaluating them. Thus, the hotness bias may be more apparent
in these areas. However, our results on the relationship between attractiveness and teaching evaluations are consistent
with previous studies (Felton et al., 2008; Felton et al., 2004;
Riniolo et al., 2006). It will be useful to further our study by
confirming other findings, such as learning outcomes, motivation, and perceived expertise, in nonmajor metropolitan
areas and other types of universities.
A second limitation of this study was that the hotness
measure could be further refined. Because there was no established scale ready for use, a more systematic scale development can be done to ensure its reliability, validity, and
extensibility. For example, more caution should be used in
selecting sample, more methods should be used to describe
its meaning in addition to word association used here, the
scale should be tested on a second sample to examine its
consistency, and additional work needs be done to examine
its validity. However, this study has laid the groundwork in
developing a scale for instructor hotness.
Third, the effectiveness of teaching was measured based
on student perception. Students’ expectations for themselves
and their baseline used for comparison may be different, so
their self-iterated learning outcomes may be different from
real leaning outcomes, such as classroom performance and
career development related to that course. As anonymity was
required in the survey, there was no way for us to get this
information. Real course performance could be included in
the research design in the future for a more credible measure
of learning effectiveness.
Furthermore, we inferred teaching competence by asking
students for their perception of learning outcomes. Hence,
we did not directly measure learning benefits. It would be
interesting to see if there are actual learning benefits to
99
hotness or if the results are only perceived. An objective
test, controlling for curriculum and teaching style, should be
conducted between hot and nonhot teachers. Such an objective test would not necessarily have to cover a real subject or
be a long course.
CONCLUSION
Here we focused on examining the meaning of hotness and its
impact on others, specifically, whether hot professors actually
impact students’ learning. The research showed that hotness
has multiple dimensions and significant influences on student
learning, motivation to learn, and satisfaction. Overall, this
research offers a good preliminary basis for further research
on the effect of physical appearance on student learning. We
also present a basis for additional testing for actual teaching
effectiveness and the role that gender plays in the academic
environment.
While a wide range of other factors demonstrate important
implications for student learning, the present study presents
additional insights into professor-student communication in
the classroom. The principle of immediacy has been used
in the field of communication to explain increased effort
and communication effectiveness between individuals when
attraction exists (Roger & Bhowmik, 1971), and also that
attraction between individuals can increase the quantity of
communication attempts (Rocca & McCroskey, 1999). It is
important to note that a professor’s attractiveness can also
play an important role in giving a professor greater opportunities to engage students and increase the quantity of information exchanged. In addition, a professor who is rated
highly by students is more likely to exert influence on student
behavior and to achieve better learning outcomes.
Despite the progression of society, individual stereotypes
still exist that grant people with more or less credit based
on their attractiveness. While having limitations, the present
study validates the findings of previous literature on the influence of physical attractiveness and sheds new light on
outcomes that have not been previously addressed. Although
we do not suggest that academic institutions should include
hotness criteria as part of their recruiting strategy, we hope
that the findings will help to increase awareness that efforts
should also be made to maintain a professional physical appearance in the classroom.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, D., & Hu, J. (2009, April). Effect of active learning on learning
motivation and outcomes among marketing students with different learning styles. Paper presented at the Marketing Education Association 2009
Conference, Newport Beach, CA.
Adams, G. R. (1978). Racial membership and physical attractiveness effects
on preschool teachers’ expectations. Child Study Journal, 8, 29–41.
Adams, G. R., & Cohen, A. S. (1974). Children’s physical and interpersonal
characteristics that effect student-teacher interactions. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 43, 1–5.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 20:57 11 January 2016
100
J. LIU ET AL.
Adams, G. R., & Crane, P. (1980). An assessment of parents’ and teachers’
expectations of preschool children’s social preference for attractive or
unattractive children and adults. Child Development, 5, 224–231.
Algozzine, B., (1977). Perceived attractiveness and classroom interactions.
The Journal of Experimental Education, 46, 63–66.
Bamber, D., & Castka, P. (2006). Personality, organizational orientations
and self-reported learning outcomes. Journal of Workplace Learning, 18,
73–92.
Bonds-Raacke, J., & Raacke, J. D. (2007). The relationship between physical
attractiveness of professors and students’ ratings of professor quality.
Journal of Psychiatry, Psychology and Mental Health, 1(2), 1–7.
Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy
behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education,
37, 323–340.
Clifford, M. M., & Walster, E. (1973). The effect of physical attractiveness
on teacher expectations. Sociology of Education, 46, 248–258.
Comstock, J., Rowell, D., & Bowers, J. W. (1995). Food for thought: Teacher
nonverbal immediacy, student learning and curvilinearity. Communication Education, 44, 251–266.
Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., & Terpstra, D. E. (1977). Effects of student’s
race physical attractiveness, and dialect on teacher evaluations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3, 77–86.
Felton, J., Koper, P. T., Mitchell, J., & Stinson, M. (2008). Attractiveness,
easiness and other issues: student evaluations of professors on Ratemyprofessors.com. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 45–61.
Felton, J., Mitchell, J., & Stinson, M. (2004). Web-based student evaluation of professors: The relations between perceived quality, easiness and
sexiness. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 91–108.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). A norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.
American Sociological Review, 26, 161–178.
Hamermesh, D. S., & Parker, A. M. (2005). Beauty in the classroom: Instructors’ pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity. Economics
of Education Review, 24, 369–376.
Hill, M. E. (2002). Skin color and the perception of attractiveness among
African Americans: Does gender make a difference? Social Psychology
Quarterly, 65, 77–91.
Hohr, H. (2002). Does beauty matter in education? Friedrich Schiller’s neohumanistic approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34, 59–75.
Hossain, T. M. (2010). Hot or not: An analysis of online professor-shopping
behavior of business students. Journal of Education for Business, 85,
165–167.
Jackson, L. A. (1992). Physical appearance and gender: Sociobiological
and sociocultural perspectives. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Joseph, W. B. (1982). The credibility of physically attractive communicators:
A review. Journal of Advertising, 11(3), 15–24.
Langlois, J. H., & Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallamm,
M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic
and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1992). Increasing teacher influence
through immediacy. In V. P. Richamond & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Power
in the classroom: Communication, control, and concern (pp. 101–119).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., &
Barraclough, R. A. (1995). A cross-cultural and multi-behavioral analysis
of the relationship between nonverbal immediacy and teacher evaluation.
Communication Quarterly, 44, 281–291.
McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richamond, V. P., &
Barraclough, R. A. (1996). Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning:
A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Education, 45, 200–211.
Mehrabian, A. (1971). Silent messages (vol. viii). Oxford, UK: Wadsworth.
Miller, L. E., & Smith, K. L. (1983). Handling nonresponse issues.
Journal of Extension, 21(5). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/
1983september/83–5-a7.pdf
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure
celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39–52.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences
of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469.
Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship
between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. A.
McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 574–590). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
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, 19–34.
Ritts, V., Patterson, M. L., & Tubbs, M. E. (1992). Expectations, impressions,
and judgments of physically attractive students: A review. Review of
Educational Research, 62, 413–426.
Rocca, K. A., & McCroskey, J. C. (1999). The interrelationship of student
ratings of instructors’ immediacy, verbal aggressiveness, homophily, and
interpersonal attraction. Communication Education, 48, 308–316.
Roger, E., & Bhowmik, D. (1971). Homophily-heterophily: Relational
concepts for communication research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34,
523–538.
Ross, M., & Salvia, J. (1975). Attractiveness as a biasing factor in teacher
judgments. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 80, 96–98.
Serva, M. A., & Fuller, M. A. (2004). Aligning what we do and what we
measure in business schools: Incorporating active learning and effective
media use in the assessment of instruction. Journal of Management Education, 28, 19–38.
Silva, K. M., Silva, F. J., Quinn, M. A., Draper, J. N., Cover, K. R., &
Munoff, A. (2008). Rate my professor: Online evaluations of psychology
instructors. Teaching of Psychology, 35, 71–80.
Stephan, C. W., & Langlois, J. H. (1984). Baby beautiful: Adult attributions of infant competence as a function of infant attractiveness. Child
Development, 55, 576–585.
Sypeck, M. F., Gray, J. J., Etu, S. F., Ahrens, A. H., Mosimann, J. E., &
Wiseman, C. V. (2006). Cultural representations of thinness in women,
redux: Playboy magazine’s depiction of beauty from 1979 to 1999. Body
Image, 3, 229–235.