









































94

Pretty Privilege vs. Ingroup Bias in Decision Making
Vicky Zhu & Daniel White

University of Technology Sydney, Psychology, Faculty of Health, Sydney, NSW

Graduate Student Journal of Psychology
Fall 2025 - Vol. 25

Copyright 2025 by the Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology
Teachers College, Columbia University

 Throughout our lives, we face situations that re-
quire us to make appropriate and sound decisions. Of-
ten, people make decisions under the misconception 
that their choices are purely the result of objective and 
conscious processing. Nonetheless, research indicates 
that we are susceptible to external influences, includ-
ing attractiveness and in-group bias (Mackie & Ahn, 
1998; Voit et al., 2021). Attractiveness and in-group 
bias may lead individuals to form inaccurate beliefs, 
which in turn influence decision-making. Attractive-
ness bias refers to the tendency for individuals to posi-
tively view attractive people, solely on the basis of their 
physical appearance (Shahani et al., 1993). Meanwhile, 
in-group bias refers to individuals' tendency to view 
members of their own group positively, which is driv-
en by perceived group membership (Knoblock-West-
erwick et al., 2020). Studies examining attractiveness 
bias and its influence in a group setting have shown 
that attractive individuals are stereotyped as being 
more trustworthy, leading to favoritism within groups 
(Cellerino, 2013). Although research has considered 
the impact of attractiveness within in-groups, little re-
search has evaluated their simultaneous impact. When 
individuals face a conflict between appealing to attrac-
tion and in-group bias, it is unknown which factor has 
a greater influence on the decision-making process. 
The current study aims to explore the outcome of 
these conflicting influences on individuals’ decisions. 
In-Group Bias
 In-group bias describes the tendency of an indi-
vidual to favor members of their own group (Scheep-
ers et al., 2006). For early humans, the development 
of collaborative social systems (i.e., division of labor 
and trade) ensured survival (Baumeister et al., 2015). 
Although salient, group membership results in out-
group members being less persuasive as compared to 

in-group members (Mcgarty et al., 1994). When ex-
amining the influence of national in-group identity on 
persuasiveness, Adam-Troian et al. (2020) found that 
when national group identities were made salient, neg-
ative attitudes towards ethnic minorities (out-group) 
were more prevalent. Furthermore, it has been estab-
lished that humans are innately drawn to their own 
group and display out-group xenophobia (Tidwell et 
al., 2017). These traits have historically led to greater 
survival rates. 
 In-group bias has been prevalent since ancestors 
formed closely connected groups that competed with 
others for survival (Hare, 2017). Presently, group ad-
hesion is central across various fields, including edu-
cation and conventional workplaces (Rathbone et al., 
2023). When examining how individuals behave in 
the presence of other in-group members, Castelli et 
al. (2008) found that individuals exhibited more egali-
tarian responses when their behaviors aligned with the 
group’s social norms. Additionally, while egalitarian 
group members were not subject to active discrimi-
nation, in-group members who exhibited behaviors 
aligned with the group’s collective interest received 
more favorable evaluations (Castelli et al., 2008). If an 
individual expressed negative attitudes toward egali-
tarian members, it could diminish the group’s overall 
cohesion and potential contributions. Consequently, 
individuals are less inclined to engage in prejudiced be-
havior and are more likely to make decisions they per-
ceive as beneficial to the group’s welfare (Terry et al., 
2000). This is supported by Terry et al. (2000), which 
looked at attitudes and behaviors in terms of in-group 
bias and decision-making. Participants took part in 
a mock-jury paradigm in which they were presented 
with a hypothetical case and asked to render a verdict 
based on the evidence provided. Participants were 

In-group and attractiveness bias are well-established concepts in social psychology. This study examines the concur-
rent influence of these concepts on the decision-making process using the Minimal Group Paradigm. Confederates, 
individuals who appear to be participants, were used to simulate out-group members. Participants (n = 119,  aged 
20–30 years) answered a series of mathematics questions, followed by a response, agreeing or disagreeing with the 
participant’s answer, from a confederate. Participants were then asked to rate the attractiveness of the confederates. 
Results indicated that in-group bias significantly outweighed attractiveness bias. Participants changed answers more 
frequently when their group disagreed, regardless of the confederate's attractiveness. Results highlighted the robust 
effects of group membership on decision-making. Additional research is required to explore confounds within deci-
sion-making, such as individual differences and familiarity bias. 
 Keywords: in-group bias, attractiveness bias, decision-making, minimal group paradigm, group dynamics



95

ZHU & WHITE

more likely to make decisions consistent with their at-
titudes when they aligned with the in-group’s attitude 
(Terry et al., 2000). 
 Many organisations thrive on teamwork, as per-
formance is largely dependent on group members’ 
ability to work together towards a common goal (Es-
pín et al., 2019). Consequently, groups may be hin-
dered or facilitated by in-group bias, underscoring the 
importance of identifying when it is present. Chai et 
al. (2022) showed that in-group bias was present be-
tween the ages of 5 and 6. When given a fictional story 
about an in-group/out-group member’s sharing be-
havior, researchers predicted that in-group members 
would share more than their out-group peers. As such, 
it is worth noting that these biases became stronger 
in different contexts, and achieving intergroup col-
laboration can depend on how well in-group biases 
are managed (Li et al., 2021). When Li et al. (2021) 
investigated fate control — the belief that the future 
is largely predetermined but can be influenced by 
individuals’ actions — on in-group bias during the 
COVID-19 pandemic, it was found that higher fate 
control was associated with higher risk perception, and 
this led to stronger in-group bias in donating to help 
with COVID-19. However, such behaviors change 
when resources are scarce. Cui et al. (2023) looked at 
how participants allocated resources to themselves and 
an in-group/out-group. The in-group bias was more 
prevalent in the scarcity condition, where participants 
were observed to allocate more resources to in-group 
members. These studies highlight situations when in-
group bias increases, allowing either to reduce its harm 
or use it for positive outcomes.
 In-group bias can manifest in the tendency to agree 
with the group’s opinions (Scheepers et al., 2006). 
This can be seen through members favoring mem-
bers of their own group, with individuals being more 
likely to select attractive people as being supporters of 
their own party (Nicholson et al., 2016). In addition, 
Knippenberg and Wilke (1992) investigated the effects 
of framing arguments on persuasiveness. Participants 
were presented with arguments that either aligned or 
contradicted their group’s attitudes and arguments. 
Results show that individuals were most likely to 
agree with the argument that best aligned with their 
group’s views. Another expression of in-group bias is 
evident in the tendency to agree with group decisions 
depending on the salience of group identity. Skinner 

and Stephenson (1981) explored how highlighting 
group identity and contrasting in-group views with 
out-group views influences individuals’ expression of 
their opinions. It was found that emphasising group 
affiliation led to participants intensely expressing their 
opinions, agreeing with group views. These findings 
highlight how in-group bias shapes individual deci-
sion-making. 
Formation of a “Group”
 It is widely known that individuals are more like-
ly to cooperate with others with whom they share a 
group identity (Calanchini et al., 2022). However, re-
cent evidence suggests that prior interaction may not 
be necessary to identify them as an in-group member 
(Kurzban et al., 2001). Instead, humans use symbol-
ic cues and other ways to elicit favoritism towards in-
group members. Hence, to create a group in laborato-
ry settings, it is necessary to understand the Minimal 
Group Paradigm, which consists of three main com-
ponents (Otten, 2016). Firstly, categorization must be 
novel and arbitrary, meaning there must be no history 
of experiences with any in-group or out-group. Sec-
ond, categorization is anonymous; participants are to 
have no face-to-face interaction with group members. 
Lastly, there are no direct relationships between alloca-
tions and self-interest. A minimal group designed cor-
rectly should evoke behaviors where individuals favor 
their own group members.
The Minimal Group Paradigm 
 Montalan et al. (2012) examined empathy to-
wards in-group/out-group members using the Mini-
mal Group Paradigm. Participants were split into two 
groups using a dot-estimation task: the underestima-
tors (who allegedly underestimated the number of dots 
shown) and the overestimators (who allegedly overesti-
mated the number of dots shown). Due to the fictive 
nature of the groups, participants would have had no 
previous experiences with the in-group or out-group. 
After participants were split into groups, participants 
did a pain stimulator task individually, having no 
face-to-face interactions with other members. Results 
showed evidence of in-group bias: participants made 
decisions to show more empathy for those in their own 
group in comparison to those in the out-group. 
 In another study, Reynolds et al. (2007) looked at 
predisposing factors that could lead to discrimination. 
Participants were assigned to minimal groups. Partic-
ipants in the random condition were told that group 



96

ATTRACTIVENESS VS. IN-GROUP BIAS

allocations were done on a completely random basis. 
On the other hand, participants in the voluntary con-
dition were asked to circle the group they wanted to 
be in. After the group assignment, participants com-
pleted various personality measures. Results showed 
behaviors expected of an in-group member, with in-
group identification alone being the strongest predic-
tor of participants’ tendency to discriminate.   
Attractiveness
 Attractiveness plays an undeniable role in evolu-
tionary success, with attractive traits being associated 
with potentially fitter offspring (Gangestad & Scheyd, 
2005). Although it is difficult to standardize an at-
tractive face, certain features are preferred. Attractive 
women often had fuller lips, high-arched eyebrows, 
smaller and more tapered noses, and less angular jaws 
(Pflüger et al., 2012). These feminine features were as-
sociated with disease resistance, high estrogen levels, 
and fertility (Muñoz-Reyes et al., 2014). In men, those 
with large eyes, prominent cheekbones, large chins, 
big smiles, and high-status clothing were considered 
attractive (Cunningham et al., 1990).
Attractiveness Bias
 Attractiveness plays a role in social encounters, 
as many first impressions are based on visual features 
(Nordholm, 1980). Attractive people are often asso-
ciated with positive personality traits, such as being 
sociable and intelligent (Tsukiura & Cabeza, 2010). 
Whereas non-attractive individuals are characterised 
by negative personality traits, such as being less altru-
istic and less intelligent. In their study of attractive-
ness and selective bias in attributing moral character, 
Tsukiura and Cabeza (2010) found that attractiveness 
biases hinder perceptions of others. Participants were 
more likely to attribute moral states to attractive rather 
than less attractive individuals. In addition, attractive 
individuals are more highly rated in perceived warmth 
in comparison to non-attractive individuals (Klebl et 
al., 2021). This is due to the beauty-is-good (BIG) ste-
reotype.
 The BIG stereotype can be explained using the 
halo effect: the positive evaluation of one trait influ-
ences the evaluation of other unrelated characteristics 
(Klebl et al., 2021). Individuals perceive attractive 
people as more correct, and this can lead to the desire 
to conform to their decisions. Batres and Shiramizu 
(2022) looked at attractiveness having a “halo effect,” 
where people associated social desirability with at-

tractive individuals and provided evidence of the halo 
effect cross-culturally. Hence, simply being attractive 
produces a “halo” effect that increases the chances of 
other people assigning positive traits to them, impact-
ing the decision-making process. 
 Being perceived as attractive offers advantages in 
various aspects of life. In relationships, many attractive 
people report being more satisfied with their dating life 
(Berscheid et al., 1971). In a job setting, it was found 
that non-attractive job candidates need to submit 33% 
more applications in comparison to their attractive 
counterparts (Maurer-Fazio & Lei, 2014). Additional-
ly, unattractive individuals were found to earn 7–10% 
less than average-looking individuals (Hamermesh & 
Biddle, 1993). As well as this, attractive people were 
found to pay lower bail and fine amounts for misde-
meanor charges (Downs & Lyons, 1991). In Griffin 
and Langlois’ (2006) study, the advantages of attrac-
tiveness and the disadvantages of unattractiveness 
were examined. The results suggested that being un-
attractive has disadvantages, with adults and children 
both giving low scores of positive attributes (sociabili-
ty, altruism, and intelligence) to unattractive individu-
als. Another study also found that more physically at-
tractive individuals were viewed in both a positive light 
and more accurately in first impressions (Lorenzo et 
al., 2010). Individuals forming quick impressions of-
ten lead to inaccurate judgments, and these biases in-
fluence the decision-making process in many different 
social situations (Zuckerman et al., 1995). 
 People often make inferences about individuals’ 
character by judging their facial appearance (Øvervoll 
et al., 2020; Willis & Todorov, 2006). As exposure to 
individuals with attractive faces increases due to me-
dia portrayal, it is important to know how often this 
occurs. In Herbozo et al.'s (2004) study, where three 
raters coded messages present in children’s videos, it 
was found that 72% of the analyzed videos emphasized 
physical attractiveness. Additionally, 84% of the videos 
associated female attractiveness with sociability and 
kindness. The results from this study indicate the prev-
alence of attractiveness stereotypes, hence the need to 
understand how this can affect decision-making. Wil-
lis and Todorov (2006) investigated the conditions in 
which participants are likely to make inferences based 
on facial appearance. It was found that merely expos-
ing participants to images for 100 milliseconds was 
enough for judgments of attractiveness to be made. 



97

ZHU & WHITE

Additionally, longer exposure time was found not to 
affect participants’ judgement of characteristics. Such 
results show that exposing participants to just the 
face region is sufficient in generating attraction judge-
ments. 
 The Chicago Face Database (CFD) was created 
using face morphing software and provides sets of fac-
es and norming data (Ma et al., 2015).  The benefits of 
using the CFD include access to a large variety of faces 
(Ma et al., 2020). The availability of large databases of 
faces offers the potential for valuable contributions to 
the field of psychology. The CFD has previously been 
used in various research done on appearances (Freud et 
al., 2020; Landy et al., 2020; Marini et al., 2021). 
Impact of Attractiveness on In-Group Bias
 Despite the concrete evidence on in-group bias, 
recent research suggests that group membership biases 
are malleable (Rudman et al., 2001). Rudman et al.’s 
(2001) study demonstrated that affective and cognitive 
processing play a role in reducing prejudice. Further-
more, individuals’ prejudices are dependent on their 
biases as well as the situation. Despite compelling ev-
idence of the impact of in-group bias, the influence is 
not absolute. Dang et al.’s (2019) study was conduct-
ed to look at the impact of criticism on in-group fa-
voritism. When participants were criticized by an au-
thoritative outside figure, it was found that in-group 
favoritism decreased. It was proposed that these results 
were due to the authoritative figures being viewed 
with admiration and possessing qualities that are con-
sidered attractive. However, the study did not inves-
tigate its impact on the subsequent decision-making 
of the group members. Additionally, those who were 
experiencing a threat to their social self-esteem (their 
in-group) allocated fewer resources to their own group 
members, showing a decrease in behavior consistent 
with in-group bias. However, substantial research is 
still required on the interaction between attractiveness 
and group membership. In another study, Kniffin et al. 
(2014) explored how perceptions of leader attractive-
ness are influenced by group membership. The results 
from this study were that in-group leaders were rated 
as more attractive than out-group leaders. This finding 
suggests that, despite similar levels of familiarity with 
both leaders, the out-group leader’s attractiveness was 
not stronger than the in-group bias. 
 The impact of attractiveness on groups has been 
recognized as influencing people’s feelings and behav-

iors (Krendl et al., 2011). A study looked at sorority 
recruitment and what factors influenced acceptance 
of potential members into high-status and low-status 
groups. The results revealed that high-status sororities 
prioritized the attractiveness of participants during the 
decision-making process. These results highlight the 
complexity behind the effect of attractiveness on so-
cial groups, and the increased likelihood of accepting 
a member depending on attractiveness. 
 Individuals affiliate with others who are like them-
selves, and many groups are formed by a shared interest 
in certain topics (Chen & Kenrick, 2002). A study was 
conducted to investigate the effects of group mem-
bership on the perception of others. Results showed 
that individuals assumed that other members of the 
in-group share attitudes similar to their own, and that 
out-group members tend to have attitudes dissimilar 
to their own. Interestingly, it was found that when a 
member of the out-group shares similar attitudes, par-
ticipants become more attracted to them, especially 
when the out-group has negative stereotypes. These 
results suggest that although an individual may be part 
of the out-group, it is possible that there are other ex-
ternal factors that can change how an in-group mem-
ber perceives them and consequential decision-mak-
ing. Given that most research looks at how in-group 
bias interacts with attractiveness, there is a need to ex-
amine scenarios wherein they contradict each other. 
 While there have been many independent stud-
ies on attractive and in-group bias, further research is 
needed to investigate their conflicting influence. Re-
sults studying these two factors affect our understand-
ing of decision-making and the need to consider attrac-
tiveness while forming decision-making groups (e.g., 
jury panels, debating teams, and soccer teams). With 
research suggesting that in-group bias is not as resilient 
as previously believed, there is a possibility that the at-
tractiveness of an out-group member will affect how 
strong in-group behaviors are. Furthermore, results 
further support the use of the CFD in future experi-
ments. Further research is required to delve into deci-
sion-making and how attractiveness can interfere with 
in-group bias to affect this process. Hence, the purpose 
of the current experiment is to investigate whether at-
tractiveness influences in-group bias. It is hypothesised 
that the presence of an attractive out-group member 
will overpower in-group bias and participants will be 
more likely to change their answer when they deem 



98

ATTRACTIVENESS VS. IN-GROUP BIAS

the out-group member attractive, regardless of their 
group’s answer. 

Method
Participants 
 The convenience sample consisted of 119 Univer-
sity of Technology Sydney (UTS) students aged 20 to 
30. Recruitment was conducted through online post-
ings on the SONA system, and participants were reim-
bursed with 0.5 credits for their participation.
Ethical Clearance
 Ethical clearance to conduct research with human 
subjects was obtained through UTS Psychology Low 
and Negligible Risk (LNR) Ethics Panel (G-15-2023; 
see Appendix A). Informed consent from participants 
was obtained through a Participation Information 
Sheet provided prior to the commencement of the 
study. Participants were informed that they could 
withdraw consent at any time without penalty. 
The CFD
 The study utilized the CFD (Ma et al., 2015). For 
the purposes of the current experiment, only eight fac-
es were chosen as the confederates. Using the norm-
ing data provided, the chosen faces had to be between 
the ages of 20 and 30, as this reflected the ages of the 
participants. This allows for controlling age as a con-
founding variable for perceived attractiveness, as it has 
previously been shown that younger people are con-
sidered more attractive (Zebrowitz & Franklin, 2014). 
For the CFD, attractiveness was measured on a 7-point 
Likert scale (1 = least attractive to 7 = most attractive). 
The images used (confederates) were chosen from the 
extreme ends of the given attractiveness ratings. Four 
of the most highly rated faces were chosen as the at-
tractive confederates. This included faces with the rat-
ings of 5.48, 5.31, 5.24, and 5.12. In addition, four of 
the lowest-rated faces were chosen as the non-attrac-
tive confederates. This included faces with the ratings 
of 1.61, 1.55, 1.54, and 1.52. Attractiveness ratings 
and ages were the only two factors considered when 
choosing confederates.
The Minimal Group Paradigm 
 To stimulate in-group bias in a short period of 
time, the current study utilized the Minimal Group 
Paradigm (Otten, 2016). Creating a new group was 
necessary as it eliminates the confounding effect of 
biases on results. This means that any preconceptions 
and previous experiences would not influence partici-

pants’ responses. 
 It has been established that prior interaction may 
not be necessary for participants to identify themselves 
as an in-group member (Kurzban et al., 2001). Ad-
ditionally, it has been found that merely categorizing 
individuals into two social groups is enough to elicit 
behaviors of group members. 
 A novel or arbitrary categorization means par-
ticipants had no prior experiences with the in-group 
or out-group. The current experiment addresses 
this through participants being randomly assigned 
to groups, as well as them being informed that their 
groups are based on their study sign-up time. This also 
ensured that participants had no relationship between 
their allocated group and their self-interests. Anony-
mous categorization means participants do not have 
any face-to-face interactions with in-group or out-
group members. The online nature of the experiment 
addresses this. Participants’ identities were kept anon-
ymous, and they did not encounter other participants. 
A minimal group designed correctly will evoke behav-
iors of in-group favoritism (Hertel & Kerr, 2001). 
 This study utilized the Minimal Group Paradigm 
in an online format. Janneck et al. (2013) conducted 
an experiment to replicate the Minimal Group Para-
digm in an online setting. Arbitrary groups were cre-
ated, and varying degrees of information about other 
group members were made available to participants. In 
both informal and work settings, participants showed 
in-group favoritism. Additionally, when less informa-
tion was made available to participants, in-group bias 
was more prominent. This study exhibits the effective-
ness of Minimal Group Paradigms in online settings.
Online Groups
 The current study was conducted online via Qual-
trics. This was due to convenience, time constraints, 
financial constraints, and being a standard practice for 
research conducted with UTS. Furthermore, online 
environments allow for the convenience in creating 
and conducting experiments involving manipulation 
online if the task does not require any physical pres-
ence (Horton et al., 2010). This environment ensured 
participant anonymity while allowing for controlled 
deception regarding the existence of other peers. 
Group Allocation 
 Participants were informed that there were groups 
as well as independent individuals. However, the par-
ticipants were unaware that they had been placed in 



99

ZHU & WHITE

Group A and completed the study individually at dif-
ferent times. They were informed that their group allo-
cation was dependent on the time frame in which they 
signed up for the study. As per the Minimal Group 
Paradigm, categorization was novel, and there was 
no relationship between allocations and participants’ 
self-interests. 
Testing Phase 
 To ensure that participants answered honestly, 
they were informed that their responses and choices 
would be anonymous (Schitter et al., 2019). Partici-
pants were asked to complete eight multiple-choice 
mathematics questions (see Appendix A). They were 
given 10 seconds to answer each question. None of the 
questions had correct answers. The intention was to 
create uncertainty within the participants regarding 
the correct answer. 
 After the participants answered each question, 
they were shown a summary of their group’s (Group 
A) response and a response from a confederate (see 
Appendix B).  The responses from the group and the 
confederate were predetermined and not dependent 
on active participation. The eight possible responses 
were randomized (see Table D1). Participants were 
then given 10 seconds to decide if they wanted to 
change or retain their answer. This was repeated eight 
times. 
Rating Phase
 After participants had completed the mathemat-
ics questions and made their decision to change or 
maintain their original question, they were asked to 
state whether they think the person in the image is 
attractive in a yes/no questionnaire (see Appendix C). 
Although the more “attractive” faces from the CFD 
have been included, it is important to factor in individ-
ual preference. Participants were again reminded that 
their responses were kept anonymous. 
Calculator Use and Debrief 
 Participants with incomplete responses and par-
ticipants who responded “Yes” when asked whether 
they used a calculator had their responses removed. A 
total of 32 responses were removed. Participants were 
then informed of the manipulation being used. They 
were debriefed as per UTS requirements. 

Results 
Data Management 
 Data was collected on Qualtrics, and a copy of the 

data was placed on UTS’s OneDrive as per UTS’s re-
quirements. Data was de-identified and password-pro-
tected. Data was de-individualized and exported onto 
a personal laptop to conduct analysis, and was deleted 
promptly after data analysis was complete. 
Statistical Test and Hypothesis 
 The relationship between in-group bias and at-
tractiveness bias was examined using a Chi-squared test 
of independence. This was done by looking at partic-
ipants’ likelihood of changing their answer when pre-
sented with the group and an attractive/unattractive 
individual who agreed or disagreed with their answer. 
Chi-Square Test of Independence
Attractiveness of Confederate vs. Answer Change
 The results of the Chi-squared test of indepen-
dence revealed no significant difference between an-
swer change and attractiveness, X2(1, N = 696) = 2.12,  
p = .145. There was some variation between the ob-
served and expected scores (Table D2 in Appendix D), 
and participants were more likely to retain their answer 
when the confederate was unattractive (see Figure 1). 
However, the Chi-squared test of independence indi-
cated that these results were non-significant (p > .05). 
Cramér’s V of .06 revealed little, if any, association be-
tween the two variables.
Group Response vs. Answer Change 
 Results from the Chi-squared test of indepen-
dence revealed a significant relationship between 
group response and answer change, X2(1, n = 696) 
= 20.80,  p < .001.  There was variation between ob-
served and expected results (Table D3 in Appendix 
D). Participants were more likely to change their an-
swer when the group disagreed with their answer (see 
Figure 2). Cramér’s V value of .17 revealed the strong 
relationship between the two variables. 
Attractiveness vs. Answer Change When Group 
Agrees and Confederate Disagrees 
 The Chi-squared test of independence was used 
to examine the relationship between answer change 
and attractiveness bias when the group agreed, and the 
confederate disagreed with the participants’ answer. It 
showed that the relationship between these two vari-
ables was non-significant, X2(1, n = 348) = 1.88, p = 
1.70. Although there was some variation in observed 
(Figure 3) and expected values (Table D4 in Appendix 
D), Cramér’s V of 0.07 revealed the low association 
between answer change and attractiveness of the con-
federate when the group agrees, and the confederate 



100

ATTRACTIVENESS VS. IN-GROUP BIAS

disagrees with participants’ answers.
 The relationship between the answer change and 
attractiveness when the group disagreed and the con-
federate agreed with the participant's answer showed 
no significance, X2(1, n = 348) = 0.34, p = .562. There 
were variations in observed and expected scores (Table 
D5 in Appendix D), and the likelihood of retaining an 
answer was observed (Figure 4), but the Chi-square 
test of independence showed that there was no signif-
icant difference between conditions. The Cramér’s V 
of .03 revealed little to no significance between answer 
change and attractiveness in this context.

Discussion 
 The aim of the study was to examine whether at-
tractiveness influences in-group bias. More specifically, 
the present study investigated whether the presence of 
an attractive out-group member would override the ef-
fects of in-group bias in decision-making. Contrary to 
the initial prediction that participants would be more 
likely to change their answer in the presence of an at-
tractive out-group member, the results of the study 
revealed no significant differences. This suggests that 
attractiveness does not affect in-group bias. However, 
group responses had a significant effect on whether 
participants changed their answers. More specifically, 
when the group disagreed with the participant’s an-
swer, participants were more likely to change their an-
swer, irrespective of the attractiveness of the out-group 
member (confederate). This suggests that in-group 
bias is stronger than the attractiveness bias. Such re-
sults highlight that the Minimal Group Paradigm is a 
valid approach to developing a sense of cohesion with-
in individuals. 
 There was a lack of significant findings when look-
ing at:

1. Individuals’ ratings of attractiveness versus an-
swer change. 

2. Individuals’ ratings of attractiveness versus 
answer change when the group agrees and the 
confederate disagrees.

3. Individuals’ ratings of attractiveness versus an-
swer change when the group disagrees and the 
confederate agrees.

 The current study explored the contradicting 
effects of attractiveness and in-group bias, and the 
weight individuals give each influence by creating 
a situation wherein these two influences come into 

conflict. While both factors are known to have an in-
fluence on individuals, the current study reveals their 
relative weighting. Results suggest that in-group bias 
has a stronger influence than attractiveness on deci-
sion-making.
 A few factors could explain the findings. The con-
text in which participants were required to decide may 
have led to these results. Based on previous research, 
the nonsignificant results suggest that although attrac-
tiveness has been shown to have a “halo effect” on indi-
viduals, its influence may not be as strong as in-group 
bias (Batres & Shiramizu, 2022). Such results high-
light the importance of social context over individual 
traits. Another notable limitation is the lack of direct 
supervision during survey completion. Without su-
pervision, there is a possibility of participants collud-
ing with other participants. Such interactions could 
disrupt the Minimal Group Paradigm and affect the 
findings.
While it is clearly identified that in-group bias had a 
stronger influence than attractiveness bias, there was 
substantial variation in the responses of individuals. 
This suggests the possibility of other factors having an 
influence on the results. While this level of analysis is 
beyond the scope of the current study, a comprehen-
sive analysis on some confounding variables is worth-
while for future research.
Individual Differences 
 Individual differences could have also played a 
role in the insignificant results. These differences af-
fect how individuals interact with the world and could 
affect how participants perceive group dynamics and 
attractiveness (Newheiser et al., 2012). Although the 
relationship between attractiveness and answer change 
was insignificant, participants were most likely to re-
tain their answers when they found the confederate 
unattractive. This suggests the possibility that the in-
fluence of attractiveness and in-group bias has differ-
ing levels of influence on different individuals.  
 This is not the first study identifying the impact 
of individual differences in terms of decision-making. 
A study looking at a dual-strategy model of reason-
ing suggests that people have two reasoning strategies 
which affect the way social cues affect them (Gagnon-
St-Pierre et al., 2021). This includes a statistical strat-
egy which involves estimating a likely conclusion of 
a social interaction or the counterexample strategies 
which involve generating counterexamples of a con-



101

ZHU & WHITE

clusion. Results from this study suggest that these 
processing distinctions underlie individual differences 
in responding to attractiveness and in-group bias. 
Cultural Differences
 The current study did not identify culture as a 
confounding variable, and this could prove to be a rich 
area of research for the future. The sample was a con-
venience sampling, meaning participants were selected 
due to availability. All participants were also enrolled 
in an Australian university. While their cultural iden-
tification was not collected, it can be assumed that 
students have had interactions with Australian cul-
ture, which is a highly individualistic culture (Emiko 
& Hidehumi, 2019). Cultural differences are known 
to affect how individuals perceive others who are part 
of their group (Sam & Berry et al., 2010). Hence, it is 
possible for individuals to have varying levels of loyalty 
to their group. Cox et al. (1991) examined the role of 
cultural backgrounds on teamwork. It was found that 
people from collectivist cultures displayed more coop-
erative behaviors compared to those from individual-
istic cultures. In other words, people from collectivist 
cultures place more emphasis on group success com-
pared to individual success. In another study, Fischer 
and Derham (2016) examined cultural influences on 
in-group bias across 18 societies. The results showed 
that in-group bias was present but varied across the so-
cieties. The variation of in-group bias was dependent 
on the following cultural influences: individualistic 
versus collectivist cultures, uncertainty avoidance, and 
power distance. Similarly, it was found that collectiv-
ist cultures tend to exhibit stronger in-group biases. 
In cultures wherein hierarchical structures are more 
acceptable, more in-group behaviors were displayed. 
Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, the extent 
to which individuals are affected by unfamiliar/un-
known situations, displayed high levels of in-group 
bias. These cultural differences can affect how substan-
tial the influence of attractiveness is in a group setting.
Personality Traits and Familiarity Bias
 Personality traits have also been shown to influ-
ence responses to social cues. Traits such as agreeable-
ness, extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness 
have been linked to group cohesion (Larsen et al., 
2020; Saapna & Suman, 2012). This may shape how 
individuals engage with attractive others, affecting de-
cision-making. Additionally, familiarity bias –where 
repeated exposure increases preference – was not ac-

counted for in the current study (Monin, 2003). Prior 
research shows that even brief exposure to faces can en-
hance attractiveness ratings (Rhodes et al., 2001) and 
increased interaction fosters interpersonal attraction 
(Rei et al., 2001). Both these factors may have influ-
enced responses and, therefore, should be considered 
as potential variables in future research examining the 
interplay between in-group bias and attractiveness.
Implications 
 The results from the current study suggest that 
facial attractiveness—a measure of overall attraction—
is dependent on the context, and in situations where 
there are other social cues—such as in-group bias—it 
may not be as influential. This demonstrates the bene-
fits of considering social context when looking at how 
attractiveness influences behaviors. Rather than solely 
addressing and mitigating the attractiveness bias in a 
group setting, it may be more advantageous to pro-
mote inclusive behaviors and encourage the accep-
tance of out-group individuals. 
 Results from previous experiments show that 
a properly designed Minimal Group Paradigm pro-
motes in-group behaviors. This study’s results support 
the fact that arbitrarily created groups can lead indi-
viduals to display in-group behaviors, as indicated by 
individuals choosing to change their answers when the 
group disagreed with them. These findings enhance 
the understanding of the underlying themes of group 
creation and allow for the promotion or mitigation of 
group biases. 
Future Directions 
 Future research should consider replication of the 
current experiment in broader contexts with applica-
tion of potential factors as described above and be-
yond,such as considering subjectivity due to race and/
or ethnicity. Exploring dimensions such as personality 
traits and familiarity bias not only mitigates some indi-
vidual differences but also offers a better understand-
ing of different ways other dimensions interact with 
attractiveness and whether this could override other 
biases, such as in-group bias.
 While the current study did not offer evidence for 
the effect of attractiveness on answer changes in group 
settings, it further supports evidence of in-group bias 
in decision-making. It enhances the understanding of 
social influences and encourages further research on 
how individual characteristics interact in group set-
tings.



102

ATTRACTIVENESS VS. IN-GROUP BIAS

References
Adam-Troian, J., Bonetto, E., & De Oliveira, P. (2020). 

National identity salience increases prejudice: Ev-
idence from a large-scale experiment. Group Pro-
cesses & Intergroup Relations, 23(6), 849–866. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430219876180

Batres, C., & Shiramizu, V. (2022). Examining the “at-
tractiveness halo effect” across cultures. Current 
Psychology, 42(29), 25515–25519. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12144-022-03575-0 

Baumeister, R. F., Ainsworth, S. E., & Vohs, K. D. 
(2015). Are groups more or less than the sum of 
their members? The moderating role of individual 
identification. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x15000618

Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. 
(1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: 
A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of 
Experimental Social Psychology, 7(2), 173–189. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(71)90065-5 

Calanchini, J., Schmidt, K., Sherman, J. W., & Klein, 
S. A. (2022). The contributions of positive out-
group and negative ingroup evaluation to implicit 
bias favoring outgroups. Proceedings of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences, 119(40). https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.2116924119 

Castelli, L., Tomelleri, S., & Zogmaister, C. (2008). 
Implicit ingroup metafavoritism: Subtle pref-
erence for ingroup members displaying in-
group bias. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 34(6), 807–818. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167208315210 

Cellerino, A. (2003). Psychobiology of facial attrac-
tiveness. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation, 
26(3), 45–48. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/12834020/

Chai, Q., Yin, J., He, J., & Lansu, T. A. M. (2022). 
Preschoolers’ ingroup bias in predicting oth-
ers’ sharing: The role of contexts and theory of 
mind. Journal of Experimental Child Psychol-
ogy, 215, 105340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jecp.2021.105340 

Chen, F. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Repulsion or 
attraction?: Group membership and assumed 
attitude similarity. Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology, 83(1), 111–125. https://doi.
org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.1.111

Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Ef-
fects of ethnic group cultural differences on coop-
erative and competitive behavior on a group task. 
Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 827–
847. https://doi.org/10.5465/256391

Cui, F., Deng, K., Liu, J., Huang, X., Yang, J., Luo, 
Y.-J., Feng, C., & Gu, R. (2023). Resource scar-
city aggravates ingroup bias: Neural mechanisms 
and cross-scenario validation. The British Jour-
nal of Psychology, 114(4), 778–796. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bjop.12654

Dang, J., Liu, L., Zhang, Q., & Li, C. (2019). Leav-
ing an attacked group: Authoritative criticism 
decreases ingroup favoritism. Journal of Pacific 
Rim Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.1017/
prp.2019.5

Downs, A. C., & Lyons, P. M. (1991). Natural obser-
vations of the links between attractiveness and 
initial legal judgments. Personality and Social 
Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 541–547. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0146167291175009 

Espín, A. M., Correa, M., & Ruiz-Villaverde, A. (2019). 
Patience predicts cooperative synergy: The roles of 
ingroup bias and reciprocity. Journal of Behavioral 
and Experimental Economics, 83, 101465. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.101465 

Fischer, R., & Derham, C. (2016). Is in-group bias 
culture-dependent? A meta-analysis across 18 
societies. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 70–70. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40064-015-1663-6

Freud, E., Stajduhar, A., Rosenbaum, R. S., Avidan, 
G., & Ganel, T. (2020). The COVID-19 pan-
demic masks the way people perceive faces. Sci-
entific Reports, 10(1), 22344–22344. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-020-78986-9

Gagnon-St-Pierre, É., Doucerain, M. M., & Markov-
its, H. (2021). Reasoning strategies explain indi-
vidual differences in social reasoning. Journal of 
Experimental Psychology. General, 150(2), 340–
353. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000852 

Gangestad, S. W., & Scheyd, G. J. (2005). The evolu-
tion of human physical attractiveness. Annual Re-
view of Anthropology, 34(1), 523–548. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.143733

Griffin, A. M., & Langlois, J. H. (2006). Stereotype 
directionality and attractiveness stereotyping: 
Is beauty good or is ugly bad? Social Cogni-
tion, 24(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1521/



103

ZHU & WHITE

soco.2006.24.2.187 
Hare, B. (2017). Survival of the friendliest: Homo sa-

piens evolved via selection for prosociality. Annu-
al Review of Psychology, 68(1), 155–186. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044201 

Horton, J., Rand, D., & Zeckhauser, R. (2010). The 
online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a 
real labor market. National Bureau of Economic 
Research Working Paper Series, 15961. https://
doi.org/10.3386/w15961 

Klebl, C., Rhee, J. J., Greenaway, K. H., Luo, Y., & 
Bastian, B. (2021). Beauty goes down to the core: 
Attractiveness biases moral character attributions. 
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 46(1), 83–97. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-021-00388-w 

Kniffin, K. M., Wansink, B., Griskevicius, V., & Wil-
son, D. S. (2014). Beauty is in the in-group of the 
beholded: Intergroup differences in the perceived 
attractiveness of leaders. The Leadership Quarter-
ly, 25(6), 1143–1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
leaqua.2014.09.001 

Krendl, A. C., Magoon, N. S., Hull, J. G., & Heath-
erton, T. F. (2011). Judging a book by its cover: 
The differential impact of attractiveness on pre-
dicting one’s acceptance to high- or low-status 
social groups. Journal of Applied Social Psycholo-
gy, 41(10), 2538–2550. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1559-1816.2011.00824.x 

Kurzban, R., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001). Can 
race be erased? Coalitional computation and social 
categorization. Proceedings of the National Acade-
my of Sciences, 98(26), 15387–15392. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.251541498

Landy, J. F., Jia, M. (Liam), Ding, I. L., Viganola, 
D., Tierney, W., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M., 
Pfeiffer, T., Ebersole, C. R., Gronau, Q. F., Ly, 
A., van den Bergh, D., Marsman, M., Derks, K., 
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Proctor, A., Bartels, D. M., 
Bauman, C. W., Brady, W. J., … Uhlmann, E. L. 
(2020). Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making 
transparent how design choices shape research 
results. Psychological Bulletin, 146(5), 451–479. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000220

Larsen, M. M., Esenaliev, D., Brück, T., & Boehnke, 
K. (2020). The connection between social cohe-
sion and personality: A multilevel study in the 
Kyrgyz Republic. International Journal of Psy-
chology, 55(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/

ijop.12551
Li, W.-Q., Li, L. M., Jiang, D., & Liu, S. (2021). Fate 

control and ingroup bias in donation for the fight 
with the coronavirus pandemic: The mediating 
role of risk perception of COVID-19. Personality 
and Individual Differences, 171, 110456. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110456 

Lorenzo, G. L., Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). 
What is beautiful is good and more accurately un-
derstood. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1777–1782. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610388048 

Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The 
Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of fac-
es and norming data. Behavior Research Meth-
ods, 47(4), 1122–1135. https://doi.org/10.3758/
s13428-014-0532-5

Ma, D. S., Kantner, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2020). Chi-
cago face database: Multiracial expansion. Behav-
ior Research Methods, 53(3), 1289–1300. https://
doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01482-5 

Mackie, D. M., & Ahn, M. N. (1998). Ingroup and out-
group inferences: When ingroup bias overwhelms 
outcome bias. European Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 28(3), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/
(sici)1099-0992(199805/06)28:3&lt;343::aid-
ejsp863&gt;3.0.co;2-u

Marini, M., Ansani, A., Paglieri, F., Caruana, F., & Vi-
ola, M. (2021). The impact of facemasks on emo-
tion recognition, trust attribution and re-iden-
tification. Scientific Reports, 11(1). https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-021-84806-5 

Maurer-Fazio, M., & Lei, L. (2014). ‘As rare as a panda’: 
How facial attractiveness, gender, and occupation 
affect interview callbacks at Chinese firms. SSRN. 
Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.2520780

Mcgarty, C., Haslam, S. A., Hutchinson, K. J., 
& Turner, J. C. (1994). The effects of salient 
group memberships on persuasion. Small 
Group Research, 25(2), 267–293. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1046496494252007 

Monin, B. (2003). The warm glow heuristic: When 
liking leads to familiarity. Journal of Personality 
and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1035–1048. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1035

Montalan, B., Lelard, T., Godefroy, O., & Mouras, H. 
(2012). Behavioral investigation of the influence of 
social categorization on empathy for pain: A min-



104

ATTRACTIVENESS VS. IN-GROUP BIAS

imal group Paradigm Study. Frontiers in Psycholo-
gy, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00389

Newheiser, A.-K., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Individual 
differences and intergroup bias: Divergent dynam-
ics associated with prejudice and stereotyping. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 53(1), 70–74. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.024

Nicholson, S. P., Coe, C. M., Emory, J., & Song, A. V. 
(2016). The politics of beauty: The effects of par-
tisan bias on physical attractiveness. Political Be-
havior, 38(4), 883–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11109-016-9339-7

Nordholm, L. A. (1980). Beautiful patients are good 
patients: Evidence for the physical attractiveness 
stereotype in first impressions of patients. Social 
Science &amp; Medicine. Medical Psychology 
and Medical Sociology, 14(1), 81–83. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0160-7979(80)90013-2 

Otten, S. (2016). The minimal group paradigm and its 
maximal impact in research on social categoriza-
tion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 85–89. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.06.010

Øvervoll, M., Schettino, I., Suzuki, H., Okubo, M., & 
Laeng, B. (2020). Correction: Filtered beauty in 
Oslo and Tokyo: A spatial frequency analysis of 
facial attractiveness. PLOS ONE, 15(2). https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229523 

Qualtrics. (2020). Qualtrics XM (April/May 2024). 
Qualtrics. https://www.qualtrics.com

Rathbone, J. A., Cruwys, T., Stevens, M., Ferris, L. 
J., & Reynolds, K. J. (2023). The reciprocal rela-
tionship between social identity and adherence 
to group norms. British Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 62(3), 1346–1362. https://doi.org/10.1111/
bjso.12635

Rei, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., East-
wick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Familiarity does 
indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 
557–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022885

Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Alexander Haslam, 
S., Ryan, M. K., Bizumic, B., & Subasic, E. 
(2007). Does personality explain in‐group iden-
tification and discrimination? Evidence from 
the minimal group paradigm. British Journal of 
Social Psychology, 46(3), 517–539. https://doi.
org/10.1348/014466606x153080

Rudman, L. A., Ashmore, R. D., & Gary, M. L. (2001). 

“Unlearning” automatic biases: The malleability 
of implicit prejudice and stereotypes. Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 856–868. 
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.81.5.856 

Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2010). Acculturation: 
When individuals and groups of different cul-
tural backgrounds meet. Perspectives on Psy-
chological Science, 5(4), 472–481. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1745691610373075

Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Manstead, A. 
S. R. (2006). Diversity in in-group bias: Structur-
al factors, situational features, and social func-
tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 
90(6), 944–960. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.90.6.944

Schitter, C., Fleiß, J., & Palan, S. (2019). To claim 
or not to claim: Anonymity, symmetric exter-
nalities and honesty. Journal of Economic Psy-
chology, 71, 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
joep.2018.09.006 

Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Gehrlein, T. M. (1993). 
Attractiveness bias in the interview: Exploring 
the boundaries of an effect. Basic and Applied 
Social Psychology, 14(3), 317–328. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15324834basp1403_5

Skinner, M., & Stephenson, G. M. (1981). The effects 
of intergroup comparison on the polarization of 
opinions. Current Psychology, 1(1), 49

Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & McKimmie, B. M. (2000). 
Attitude-behaviour relations: The role of in-group 
norms and mode of behavioural decision-making. 
British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(3), 337–
361. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164534

Tidwell, N. D., Eastwick, P. W., & Kim, A. (2017). 
She’s not one of us: Group membership mod-
erates the effect of fertility cues on attrac-
tiveness ratings. Social Psychological and Per-
sonality Science, 8(6), 689–697. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1948550616676878

Tsukiura, T., & Cabeza, R. (2010). Shared brain ac-
tivity for aesthetic and moral judgments: Impli-
cations for the beauty-IS-good stereotype. Social 
Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(1), 138–
148. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq025 

Voit, M., Weiß, M., & Hewig, J. (2021). The benefits 
of beauty–individual differences in the pro-attrac-
tiveness bias in social decision making. Current 
Psychology, 42(14), 11388–11402. https://doi.



105

ZHU & WHITE

org/10.1007/s12144-021-02366-3  
Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: 

Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a 
face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592–598. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.x  

Zebrowitz, L. A., & Franklin, R. G. (2014). The attrac-
tiveness halo effect and the babyface stereotype in 
older and younger adults: Similarities, own-age 
accentuation, and older adult positivity effects. 
Experimental Aging Research, 40(3), 375–393. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073x.2014.897151

Zuckerman, M., Miyake, K., & Elkin, C. S. (1995). 
Effects of attractiveness and maturity of face and 
voice on interpersonal impressions. Journal of Re-
search in Personality, 29(2), 253–272. https://doi.
org/10.1006/jrpe.1995.1015 



106

ATTRACTIVENESS VS. IN-GROUP BIAS

Table D1

Response Possibilities 

Note. This table displays all the possible responses from Group A and Group B.



107

ZHU & WHITE

Figure 1

Answer Change vs Attractiveness of Confederate 



108

ATTRACTIVENESS VS. IN-GROUP BIAS

Figure 2

Group Response vs. Answer Change



109

Figure 3

Attractiveness vs Answer Change when Group Agrees but Confederate Disagrees 

ZHU & WHITE



110

Figure 4

Answer Change vs. Attractiveness When Group Disagrees and Confederate Agrees

ATTRACTIVENESS VS. IN-GROUP BIAS



111

ZHU & WHITE

Appendix A

Quiz

This appendix consists of the mathematical questions and summaries of group and confederate answers.
1. √8.237 = ?
 a) 2.56
 b) 2.67
 c) 2.78
 d) 2.97

1a. Members of Group A agree with your answer.
 This member of group B disagrees with your answer. 
 Are you going to change your answer?
  a) Yes 
  b) No

2. √7.338 = ?
 a) 2.134
 b) 2.456
 c) 2.356
 d) 2.982

2a. Members of Group A disagree with your answer. 
 This member of group B agrees with your answer.
 Are you going to change your answer?
  a) Yes 
  b) No

3. √10.234 = ?
 a) 3.356
 b) 3.423
 c) 2.951
 d) 2.999

3a. Members of Group A agree with your answer.
This member of group B disagrees with your answer.
Are you going to change your answer? 
a) Yes
b) No

4. √4.222 = ?
 a) 1.572
 b) 2.132
 c) 1.794
 d) 1.994



112

ATTRACTIVENESS VS. IN-GROUP BIAS

4a. Members of Group A disagree with your answer.
 This member of group B agrees with your answer.
 Are you going to change your answer?
  a) Yes 
  b) No

5. √12.343 = ?
 a) 2.988
 b) 3.261
 c) 3.942
 d) 3.619

5a. Members of Group A agree with your answer.
 This member of group B disagrees with your answer.
 Are you going to change your answer?
  a) Yes
  b) No

6. √85.263 = ?
 a) 9.163
 b) 8.859
 c) 7.295
 d) 9.255

6a. Members of Group A disagree with your answer.
 This member of group B agrees with your answer. 
 Are you going to change your answer?
  a) Yes 
  b) No

7. √124.33 = ?
 a) 12.483
 b) 12.131
 c) 11.173
 d) 11.298

7a. Members of Group A agree with your answer.
This member of group B disagrees with your answer. 
Are you going to change your answer?
a) Yes
b) No

8. √78.452 = ?
 a) 7.762
 b) 8.583
 c) 7.589
 d) 8.969



113

ZHU & WHITE

8a. Members of Group A disagree with your answer. 
 This member of group B agrees with your answer.
 Are you going to change your answer?
  a) Yes 
  b) No



114

ATTRACTIVENESS VS. IN-GROUP BIAS

Appendix B

Attractiveness Questionnaire

This appendix consists of the questions regarding whether participants find the confederates depicted attractive.

1. Is this person attractive? 
 

 A. Yes 
 B. No

2. Is this person attractive? 
 

 A. Yes 
 B. No

3. Is this person attractive? 
 

 A. Yes 
 B. No

4. Is this person attractive? 
 

 A. Yes 
 B. No

5. Is this person attractive? 
 

 A. Yes 
 B. No

6. Is this person attractive? 
 

 A. Yes 
 B. No

7. Is this person attractive? 
 

 A. Yes 
 B. No

8. Is this person attractive? 
 

 A. Yes 
 B. No



115

ZHU & WHITE

Appendix C

Contingency Tables
Table D2

Contingency Table for the Attractiveness of Confederate and Answer Change

Note. n = 696

Table D3

Contingency Table for Group Response vs Answer Change

Note. n = 696



116

ATTRACTIVENESS VS. IN-GROUP BIAS

Appendix C (cont.)

Table D4

Attractiveness and Answer Change When the Group Agrees and Confederate Disagrees 

Note. n = 348

Table D5

Attractiveness and Answer Change When the Group Agrees and Confederate Disagrees 

Note. n = 348


