Age and Perception of Age

Subjects of both sexes and two age groups, one ranging from 19 to 30 years and the otherfrom 56 to 88 years, individually made ratings of the attractiveness and age of 12

precategorized artists' drawings of human faces. Significant age group effects were found inage and attractiveness ratings. The findings were viewed from the perspectives of both

psychoanalytic and Adlerian theory, the former dealing with the ego's regulation of pleasureand reality issues in the preservation of ego integrity and the latter with compensatory striving.

Key Words: Attractiveness, Age perception, Psychoanalytic theory, Adlerian theory

Age and the Perception of Age andAttractiveness1

Mark Wernick, MEd2 and Guy J. Manaster, PhD:

The study of developmental change in face percep-tions has not been undertaken in a systematic way.Inquiries into the relationships among perceptionsof face and body features are usually cross-sectionalstudies at unitary age levels. For example, Kagan(1970a, 1970b) studied patterns of attention in humaninfants to faces and face facsimiles. Studies on inter-personal attraction (Berscheid & Walster, 1974; Wals-ter et al., 1966) and physical attraction in impressionformation (Miller, 1970) do not investigate the de-velopmental implications of their effects. Other faceperception studies have explored affective orienta-tion in the structuring of perceptions of faces (Roth-bart & Birrell, 1977) and visual versus verbal informa-tion in impression formation (Hagiwara, 1975).Seefeldt et al. (1977) employed drawings of malefaces to explore children's attitudes toward theelderly.

Two studies which do raise particular questionsabout the importance of developmental changes inperceptions of human faces are those of Cross andCross (1971) and Adams and Huston (1975). Theseinvestigators sought to ascertain the relative effect ofage differences on the perception of faces. Cross andCross (1971) found no age group effects_ betweenyoung (age 7-17) and adult (age 28-57, X = 36.0)samples rating stimulus photographs, but they didnot include a sample of elderly subjects in theirstudy. Adams and Huston (1975) used an older sam-ple (mean age 66.3 years) and found that the elderlystereotyped middle-aged stimulus photographs inmore favorable ways than did young adults.

It could be expectedand is hypothesized herethat the elderly have greater reason to report percep-tions of faces significantly at variance with such re-

1The authors thank the University Research Institute, University of Texasat Austin, for the funds to develop and produce the drawings used in thisstudy, and Diane Linimon and Richard Poe for their assistance.

2Doctoral Candidate, Department of Educational Psychology, Universityof Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.

3Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas atAustin, Austin, TX 78712.

ports by the young and middle-aged, at least in partbecause the young and middle aged are not faced asimminently with bodily decline as are the elderly,although other reasons may also prevail. This ideacan be developed from Freud's (1923/1963) statementthat "the ego is first and foremost a body ego; it is notmerely a surface entity but it is itself the projection ofa surface" (p. 16) namely, the body surface, ofwhich the face is an important, and possibly the mostimportant, representation. As this surface alters inform and nature through time, perceptions of it, par-ticularly perceptions of the face, can be expected toundergo parallel change, given that the face as animportant body surface is also an important compo-nent of the developing and perceiving ego. Withrespect to the question of the direction of thatchange Freud (1923/1963) described the ego as havingan executive status which sometimes functions tosubordinate libidinal strivings for pleasure to a realityprinciple grounded in the social context and con-science. An aging ego monitoring the deteriorationof its own bodily origins could be expected to sub-ordinate a comfortable conformity to body percep-tions, inherited from a youth emphasizing suchperceptions, to a reality that "life is for the living,"including the aged living. A reassessment or altera-tion of face perceptions would help the aged to meetthe requirements of living with ego integrity, a matu-rational and genetic complement to developmentand aging (Erikson, 1950), as intact as possible in themidst of the body's gradual change. This would occurby freeing the ego to "reassign" pleasurable assess-ments or by freeing it to become receptive to new ordifferent sources of pleasurable input, thereby aid-ing the reality testing function of ego.

Adlerian theory also lends itself to an expectationof altered human face perceptions among the elder-ly. As fundamental compensatory striving, Adler(1956) posits striving to overcome a "felt minus" inorder to establish a "felt plus" in a particular area.Although this idea was conceived primarily as anexplanation for motivation in early development and,

408 The Gerontologist

at BIB

LIOTECA

CENTRA

L UN

IV ESTA

DU

AL CA

MPIN

AS on M

ay 1, 2012http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

originally, in response to organ inferiority, Adlermodified his view so that it could be expanded tohuman development throughout the life cycle. Thus,one might expect the elderly to compensate for thefelt minus of their deteriorating bodily features andcapabilities by altering perceptions of aging and bodyfeatures.

The hypothesis that the perception of face stimuliis related to age, generated from both the Adlerianand psychoanalytic perspectives, also reflects theconventional folk wisdom that what is prized byyouth is indulged by the wiser aged. More specifical-ly, differences in the perception of face stimuli pre-categorized according to age and attractivenessshould diminish with advancing age. The followinginvestigation tested this hypothesis.

Method

SampleOne hundred thirty-eight persons of both sexes

participated in this study: 84 young raters, ranging inage from 19 to 30, with a mean age of 22.11 years, and54 older raters, ranging in age from 56 to 88, with amean age of 70.65 years. The young raters weredrawn entirely from undergraduate classes in educa-tional psychology, a required course for educationmajors, in which female students outnumbered malestudents by a large margin. The older raters weredrawn from six different senior activity centers lo-cated in Austin, Texas, where female volunteersagain outnumbered male volunteers by a large mar-gin. This was due, in part, to the fact that femalesoutnumber males in this age group. The raters repre-sented all socioeconomic groups, three racialgroups, and a wide variety of occupations and levelsof educational attainment.

Although, for a sample of this size gathered in thisway, no claim can be made to randomness or repre-sentativeness, the two age subsamples were chosenwith the aim of yielding comparability by sex andsimilarity in socioeconomic background and race. Itwas believed that the population in teacher educa-tion classes would approximate the female-dominantaged population as well as provide a spread of socio-economic and racial background which could begenerally matched by sampling from senior activitycenters drawing from neighborhoods of differentSES and racial concentrations.

Stimulus MaterialTwo university artists were commissioned to make

12 drawings of human faces (Figure 1): 6 male and 6female, 6 attractive and 6 unattractive, and 4 youngadult (20s), 4 middle aged (40-50), and 4 old (over 65).The artists were instructed to keep irregular featuresto a minimum; avoid the use of glasses, braces, orother artifacts on the face; avoid extremes of beautyor ugliness; and give each face as neutral an expres-sion as possible. Hairstyles were conventional,although one old male was depicted as bald. Theoriginal drawings were made in pencil on 16"x20"

white paper. A number of psychology graduate stu-dents and faculty informally provided their subjec-tive impressions of the age and attractiveness of thedrawings as well as opinions about the correspon-dence between their impressions and the intendedage and attractiveness categories. Ultimately thevalidity and consistency of the categories of age andattractiveness were measured by the statistical corre-spondence between the intended categories and theratings made by respondents.

ProcedureThe data were gathered from the sample collective-

ly in the aforementioned groups. Prospective partici-pants were told that a study was being conducted ofbody perceptions throughout the life cycle, forwhich volunteers were needed from a young agegroup and from an older age group. Volunteers werethen given a rating form with a 7-point Likert-typescale for each of the 12 stimulus drawings of humanfaces. The ratings corresponding to numbers 1through 7 were, respectively, beautiful, very attrac-tive, somewhat attractive, average, somewhat un-attractive, very unattractive, and ugly. The ratingform also included a space for the participant's ageestimate of the face in the drawing. Almost all raterssaw the drawings flashed via transparencies on anoverhead screen, although a small number saw theidentical drawings in an 8"x10" folder when the rat-ing situation disallowed use of an overhead projec-tor. An unannounced rough maximum of about 30-40 seconds was allotted for each joint age and attrac-tiveness rating, but almost all subjects completedtheir ratings well before this time period had elapsed.

The first stimulus drawing was changed after rat-ings by 45 young and 6 older subjects indicated that itwas eliciting age ratings too high for its intendedcategory. The substitute drawing proved to be effec-tive in eliciting appropriate ratings. This substitutionwas taken into account in the data analysis, whichomitted the 51 ratings of the replaced drawing.Results

Validity and Consistency Age EstimatesThe mean age and attractiveness ratings for 12 age-

sex-attractiveness drawings are displayed in Table 1.Using f-tests of mean age estimates for the threedrawing age categories, all comparisons of young-old, young-middle, and middle-old drawings forboth young and older raters differed at p < .0001,indicating adequate discrimination among the pic-tures' intended age categories. Ratings made by theyoung group all conformed to the intended cate-gories; their mean age estimates for young facesranged from 22.13 to 29.97; for middle-aged faces,from 40.66 to 49.98; and for old faces, from 59.33 to70.02. Thus it can be concluded that construct validityexisted for the young, middle, and old facial cate-gories for young raters.

Ratings by the older group also conformed with theintended categories, although for young and middle-aged drawings the age estimates were elevated rela-

Vol. 24, No. 4, 1984 409

at BIB

LIOTECA

CENTRA

L UN

IV ESTA

DU

AL CA

MPIN

AS on M


Dow

nloaded from

Figure 1. Stimulus drawings. (Drawings coincide with descriptions by number in Table 1, read left to right across and then down rows.)


at BIB

LIOTECA

CENTRA

L UN

IV ESTA

DU

AL CA

MPIN

AS on M


Dow

nloaded from

K2 z o 00Ta

ble

1. M

ean

A

ge a

nd

Attr

activ

enes

s Ra

tings

o

f 12

St

imul

us D

raw

ings

Dra

win

g

1.

YUF

2. YA

F

3.

OAM

a

4.

MU

Ma

5.

OU

Ma

6.

MU

F

7.

MA

Ma

8.

OUF

9.

OAF

10. YA

Ma

11.

YUM

a

12.

MAF

A =

a

ttrac

tive,

Age

Rat

ing

29.2

8n =

43

25.6

1n =

84

64.5

0n =

82

45.8

2n =

84

70.0

2n =

84

49.9

9n =

84

40.0

6n =

83

63.4

8n =

83

59.3

4n =

83

22.1

3n =

82

28.4

5n =

83

41.4

9n =

82

Youn

g

SD 7.89

5.11

6.93

6.24

11.2

2

7.22

5.46

11.3

0

10.3

4

3.11

6.13

8.44

U =

u

na

ttrac

tive,

Attra

ctiv

enes

s

Rat

ing

4.44

n=

433.

45n =

84

4.11

n =

84

5.99

n =

84

6.25

n =

84

6.09

n =

84

3.23

n =

83

5.41

n =

82

3.47

n =

53

2.48

n =

82

6.36

n =

83

4.07

n =

81

F =

fe

mal

e,

SD 1.14

1.12

1.03

.74

.79

.86

.90

1.15

.98

.89

.67

1.10 Ma

=

Old

Age

Ratin

g

38.53

n =

47

32.64

n =

53

61.54

n =

52

52.7

4n =

53

66.57

n =

53

52.09

n =

53

43.35

n =

52

55.5

2n =

50

62.33

n =

52

33.40

n =

50

38.62

n =

50

47.9

4n =

47

SD 12.8

1

9.75

10.8

8

10.4

8

11.7

1

12.7

2

11.0

3

12.4

0

12.1

8

13.4

9

12.9

3

12.4

6

ma

le, Y

=

youn

g, M

=

Attra

ctiv

enes

s

Rat

ing

3.98

n =

47

4.53

n =

53

4.74

n =

53

5.44

n =

52

5.98

n =

53

5.53

n =

53

3.28

n =

51

4.82

n =

51

4.22

n =

50

3.38

n =

49

5.88

n =

59

4.38

n =

48

SD 1.22

1.68

1.29

1.18

1.08

1.32

1.39

1.35

1.36

1.38

1.36

1.21

mid

dle

a

ged,

O

Age

Rat

ing

34.1

1n =

90

28.2

9n =

14

163

.46

n =

14

048

.47

n =

14

168

.84

n =

14

150

.77

n =

14

141

.25

n =

13

960

.46

n =

13

760

.51

n =

13

926

.23

n =

13

632

.08

n =

13

743

.70

n =

13

3

=

old

Com

bine

d

SD 11.6

5

7.91

8.75 8.69

11.3

9

9.64

8.10

12.1

3

10.9

8

10.1

0

10.3

9

10.4

4

Attra

ctiv

enes

s

Rat

ing

4.20

n =

90

3.86

n =

14

14.

33n =

13

95.

77n =

14

06.

16n =

14

15.

89n =

14

13.

23n =

13

85.

20n =

13

73.

74n =

13

72.

79n =

13

56.

19n =

13

64.

20n =

13

3

SD 1.20

1.44

1.17

.96

.92

1.08

1.09

1.25

1.18

1.16

1.00

1.15

at BIB

LIOTECA

CENTRA

L UN

IV ESTA

DU

AL CA

MPIN

AS on M


Dow

nloaded from

tive to estimates made by the young group. Means ofyoung faces ranged from 32.64 to 38.62, and middle-aged faces ranged from means of 43.34 to 52.73. In aninteresting reversal of the pattern of rating pictures ofyoung and middle-aged faces older than did theyoung raters, however, older raters rated pictures ofold faces younger than did young raters, with meanage estimates ranging from 55.52 to 66.56. Despitethese relative differences between age estimates ofyoung and older raters, the desired differences be-tween intended age categories were also apparentfor the older raters and confirmed the constructvalidity of the age-face stimuli. Their consistency ineliciting the intended age estimates was also upheld,since significant differences were obtained acrossboth age groups of raters.

Validity and Consistency Attractiveness EstimatesAs indicated in Table 1, in the combined ratings of

young and older raters, 10 of the 12 ratings of thestimulus drawings conformed to the intended cate-gories of attractiveness-unattractiveness, usingscores below 4 as a cutoff for attractive faces andabove 5 for unattractive faces. Drawing number 3,intended as an old attractive male, and drawing num-ber 12, intended as a middle-aged attractive female,receiving ratings of 4.34 and 4.20, slightly over thecutoff. These high means were also found for theyoung group alone (4.11 and 4.07, respectively).

For the older raters, 4 of the 6 intended attractiveface stimuli elicited ratings over 4. These ratings fellin the area between "average" and "somewhat un-attractive," but they were close to the cutoff pointand discrepant enough from ratings of unattractiveface counterparts to merit Mests of the differencesbetween the ratings of attractive and unattractivefaces. The mean combined rating of attractive faceswas 3.66, and the mean combined rating of unattrac-tive faces was 5.53, a difference which is significant atp < .001. By raters' age groups, the mean attractive-ness and unattractiveness ratings were, respectively,3.46 and 5.92, p < .001 by young raters and 3.79 and5.15, p < .001, by older raters.

A more detailed analysis of the attractiveness andage ratings given by both age groups is presented inTable 2. Comparisons of attractiveness ratings be-tween attractiveness categories were made withineach stimulus age category and by young and oldraters. The discrimination between attractivenesscategories was upheld within each age category andbetween each attractiveness category for all raters.These differences confirmed the construct validity ofthe attractiveness stimuli for all attractive and un-attractive face pictures in combination and for attrac-tive faces and unattractive faces within each of thethree stimulus age groups (Table 2).

Age by Attractiveness RatingsComparisons of age ratings between each attrac-

tiveness category within each age category (Table 2)revealed significantly discrepant ratings. Unattrac-tive faces were uniformly and significantly perceived

Table 2. Breakdown of Compared Age andAttractiveness Ratings by Rater Group

RaterGroup

MeanPaired

AttractivenessRatings

Attractiveness RatingsYoung

YoungAttractive-UnattractiveMiddle AgedAttractive-UnattractiveOldAttractive-Unattractive

OlderYoungAttractive-UnattractiveMiddle AgedAttractive-UnattractiveOldAttractive-Unattractive

2.95-5.89

3.64-6.06

3.79-5.85

3.92-5.06

3.80-5.47

4.44-5.44

Age RatingsYoung

YoungAttractive-UnattractiveMiddle AgedAttractive-UnattractiveOldAttractive-Unattractive

OlderYoungAttractive-UnattractiveMiddle AgedAttractive-UnattractiveOldAttractive-Unattractive

23.89-28.81

40.65-47.74

61.85-66.69

32.62-38.29

44.82-51.05

61.97-60.94

df

81

80

79

47

46

48

81

81

82

48

46

48

t

26.18*

29.80*

22.27*

5.23*

10.14*

5.70*

7.70*

9.58*

4.94*

5.33*

4.72*

- .91

*p < .001

by all raters to be older, except that no age differenceappeared in ratings by older respondents of oldattractive and unattractive faces.

A comparison of attractiveness ratings betweenage categories showed that young faces were uni-formly rated as more attractive than old faces byyoung and older raters singly and in combination.The young rated young faces as significantly moreattractive than middle-aged and old faces, but differ-ences in attractiveness between middle-aged and oldfaces were not apparent among the young raters. Nodifference appeared between attractiveness ratingsof young and middle-aged faces by older raters, butthey also rated young and middle-aged faces as sig-nificantly more attractive than old faces.

In a comparison of attractiveness ratings of eachstimulus age category across both attractivenesscategories (i.e., with both attractiveness categoriescombined), young and older subjects did not differ intheir ratings of the general attractiveness of young,middle-aged, and old faces.

HypothesisGroup differences in age and attractiveness ratings.

The general hypothesis that the elderly would


at BIB

LIOTECA

CENTRA

L UN

IV ESTA

DU

AL CA

MPIN

AS on M


Dow

nloaded from

collapse the differences as perceived by the youngon the dimensions of age and attractiveness by com-pensating for the loss of previously perceived orvalued assets was tested by a multivariate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA), correcting for a significant in-tercorrelation between the ratings (Table 3).

The MANOVA reveals significant differences in allof the expected directions between young and oldraters for all categories of age and attractiveness. Theolder participants rated unattractive faces as less un-attractive and attractive faces as less attractive thandid the younger raters. The older raters also ratedyoung and middle-aged faces as older and rated oldfaces as younger than did the young raters. This find-ing confirms the hypothesis that the older raters, inmaking judgments about age and attractiveness, col-lapse differences in comparison to, and as perceivedby, the young on these dimensions.

Two separate MANOVAs which supported the hy-pothesis were conducted to test for group differ-ences within each stimulus age and attractivenesscategory. As displayed in Table 4, unattractive youngand middle-aged faces were judged older by the old-er raters than by the young raters, and old unattrac-tive faces were judged younger by older raters thanby young raters. This is in keeping with the generaltrend among older raters to judge all old faces asyounger and all young and middle-aged faces as old-er than the corresponding judgments of young ra-ters. Older raters also made higher age ratings ofyoung and middle-aged attractive faces than didyoung raters, in keeping with the same trend, butdifferences between young and older raters on theirage estimates of old attractive faces were nonsignifi-cant. Thus the variance between young and olderraters in their age ratings of old faces was accountedfor entirely by the older respondents' ratings of un-attractive faces.

Table 4 also presents group differences in attrac-tiveness ratings within each of the stimulus age andattractiveness categories. It can be seen that youngrespondents gave both young and old attractive faceshigher attractiveness ratings than did older respon-dents. Age group differences for middle-aged attrac-tive faces were nonsignificant but in the same direc-t ion. Young respondents gave unattractive faceshigher unattractiveness ratings than did older re-spondents for all categories of unattractive faces.

Preference Analysis of Stimulus SexNo differences in age or attractiveness ratings by

sex of rater were found. The only age group differ-ence revealed that older raters made older age esti-mates of male faces than did young raters. All age andsex groups rated female faces as more attractive thanmale faces.

DiscussionAlthough the findings support the hypothesis, they

need to be replicated and idiosyncracies in the stimu-lus faces must be further understood. Two patterns

Table 3. Rater Group Ratings by Stimulus Category

StimulusCategory

YoungMiddle agedOldAttractiveUnattractive

an = 77bn = 44cdf = 1,119*p < .001

Table 4.

StimulusCategory

AttractiveYoungMiddle agedOld

UnattractiveYoungMiddle agedOld

AttractiveYoungMiddle agedOld

UnattractiveYoungMiddle agedOld

Rater Group

Young3

25.7944.1164.303.465.90

Means

Older6

33.5347.7360.984.015.34

ms

29.6634.7453.86

.50

.36

Breakdown of Rater Group Ratingsby Stimulus Category

Rater Group

Young

Means

Older

Age Ratings*

23.8140.5461.97

28.6647.7366.72

31.2844.9261.44

37.4250.8860.66

Attractiveness Ratings6

2.943.653.80

5.886.075.87

3.883.774.44

5.085.545.50

ms

32.6645.3067.53

52.1550.7175.39

.96

.67

.81

.74

.64

.68

F56.51*10.53*5.71*

16.97*25.04*

F

50.17*12.43*

.11

43.20*5.75*

14.26*

26.77*.65

14.53*

24.26*12.56*5.94*

aYoung n = 81, old n = 46; df = 1,125bYoung n = 78, old n = 45; df = 1,121*p < .01

related to the stimulus faces merit comment. Un-attractive faces were perceived to be older in all casesexcept for old faces rated by older respondents (seeTable 2). It may be that in this particular set of stimulithe unattractive faces were drawn to look older thanthe attractive faces, but it may also be that peopleweight unattractive faces with additional age. Thesecond aspect of the stimulus faces meriting com-ment is that young faces were rated as more attractivethan old faces by both young and older respondents.A general conclusion can be drawn that attractive-ness, even if not prized equally by the young and old,is perceived equally by the two age groups and isattributed most to the young and least to the old.

The results of this study partly contradict Cross andCross's (1971) conclusion that in ratings of attractive-ness of faces, sex and race, but not age, of the ratersand age, sex, and race of the face judged will prob-ably influence response. Sex differences were notfound, but strong age differences, as hypothesized,

Vol. 24, No. 4, 1984 413

at BIB

LIOTECA

CENTRA

L UN

IV ESTA

DU

AL CA

MPIN

AS on M


Dow

nloaded from

were found: older raters diminished age and attrac-tiveness differences reported by young raters.

The results of this study might also be explainedwithin the framework of ageist stereotypes (Kalish,1979). However, the findings do not fit a descriptionof ageist stereotypes held by the aged as detrimentalto the aged; rather, the results more aptly fit themodel of the positive personal and social effects ofthese stereotypes among the elderly proposed byKearl (1981-82), although this fit is by no means exact.

In a strict sense, the differences found may resultfrom generational rather than developmental differ-ences, and the only way to correct for such a problemwould be through a longitudinal study. But, if theseresults should be generalizable, the confirmation ofthe general hypothesis does lend support to thepsychoanalytic explanation of ego integrity as linkedmaterially to the body and its vicissitudes. It alsosupports the Adlerian principle that people are moti-vated to compensate for adversely experienced vicis-situdes. Reassessment of perceptions as part of theindividual's adaptation to bodily change is not initself necessarily a process of preserving ego integrityor an effective compensation. Such reassessment ofperceptions is more likely a symptom of the wish forcompensation and ego preservation, which in turncalls attention to the singular needs of the aged in away that may or may not result in effective compensa-tion and enhancement of ego integrity. The success-ful reality-testing function of the ego must remainintact for ego integrity to be preserved; similarly,social interest must be served in successful com-

pensatory striving. This study suggests that develop-mental changes in the perception of aging and attrac-tiveness may be part of these processes.

References

Adams, C , & Huston, T. (1975). Social perception of middle-aged personsvarying in physical attractiveness. Developmental Psychology, 11, 657-658.

Adler, A. (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler. (H. L. Ansbacher& R. R. Ansbacher, Eds.) New York: Basic Books.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7). New York:Academic Press.

Cross, J., & Cross, J. (1971). Age, sex, race, and the perception of facialbeauty. Developmental Psychology, 5, 433-439.

Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W. W. Norton.Freud, S. (1963). The ego and the id (I Riviere, Trans.; J. Strachey, Ed.). New

York: W. W. Norton. (Originally published, 1923.)Hagiwara, S. (1975). Visual versus verbal information in impression forma-

tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 692-698..Kagan, J. (1970). Attention and psychological change in the young child.

Science, 170, 826-832. (a)Kagan, J. (1970). The determinants of attention in the young infant. American

Scientist, 58, 298-306. (b)Kalish, R. (1979). The new ageism and the failure model: A polemic. The

Cerontologist, 19, 398-402.Kearl, M. C. (1981-82). An inquiry into the positive personal and social

effects of old age stereotypes among the elderly. International journal ofAging and Human Development, 14, 277-290.

Miller, A. C. (1970). Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation.Psychonomic Science, 19, 241-243.

Rothbart, M., & Birrell, P. (1977). Attitude and the perception of faces.Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 209-215.

Seefeldt, C , Jantz, R. K., Calper, A., & Serock, K. (1977). Using pictures toexplore children's attitudes toward the elderly. The Cerontologist, 17,506-512.

Walster, E. H., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). The impor-tance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 5, 508-516.

R. I. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH,RETARDATION AND HOSPITALS

GENERAL HOSPITAL, RHODE ISLAND MEDICAL CENTERMEDICAL PROGRAM DIRECTOR

General Hospital, Rhode Island Medical Center, is accepting applications for the position of Medical Program Director.The Hospital is a 680-bed chronic disease hospital, JCAH accredited facility with acute services and specialized treatment in

Physical Rehabilitation, Oncology, Respiratory, Psychogeriatrics, In-patient and Out-patient Geriatric Center.Qualifications for this position include graduation from an approved medical school of recognized standing supplemented by

advanced study in the field of Gerontology, Internal Medicine, Family Practice, Rehabilitation Medicine and a minimum of five (5)years administrative experience and/or supervisory experience in a large hospital setting. The Medical Program Director will beresponsible for the overall clinical and administrative direction of the medical services unit which include knowledge of budgeting,experience in Joint Commission and Hospital Accreditation and knowledge of labor relations; scheduling a staff of 46 fulltime and 98consultant physicians.

At the time of appointment, the selected candidate must meet established requirements of the Rhode Island State Departmentof Health, licensed to practice medicine in Rhode Island, Board Eligible, Board Certified preferred.

Excellent salary and fringe benefits. Opportunity to become part of the faculty of the School of Medicine, Brown University.Please send your resume, complete with salary history, in confidence to: Mr. Richard H. Freeman, Associate Director, Divisionof Hospitals & Community Rehabilitative Services, Chairman, SEARCH COMMITTEE, 600 New London Avenue, Cranston,Rhode Island 02920.

An Equal Opportunity Employer

414 The Cerontologist

at BIB

LIOTECA

CENTRA

L UN

IV ESTA

DU

AL CA

MPIN

AS on M


Dow

nloaded from

Age and Perception of Age

Documents

Transcript of Age and Perception of Age