How much does physical appearance say about the psychological adjustment of competent and dysfunctional children?

Presents a study in which three sets of photographs of socially competent, aggressive, and anxious preschoolers were rated by college students (n = 150 raters per set), blind to the children's group membership. This was done to assess the extent to which adults are able to make valid and reliable evaluations of children's psychological adjustment on the basis of physical appearance alone. Sets 1 and 2 were photographs of different children taken under the same conditions and providing both facial and nonfacial cues. Sets 2 and 3 were of the same children taken under conditions that varied as to the amount of nonfacial cues they provided. Results showed that (a) socially competent children were judged to be better adjusted than their dysfunctional peers (i.e., more competent, less aggressive, less anxious, and less likely to have emotional or behavioral problems); (b) within the dysfunctional group, aggressive and anxious children were distinguished in ways that correspond closely to what is known about them from behavioral and clinical research; (c) irrespective of group membership, girls and boys were generally distinguished in ways that reflect normative beliefs about gender differences from social and developmental research; (d) group differences in ratings of psychological adjustment were generally comparable across photograph sets and could not be accounted for by differences in the children's perceived physical attractiveness; and (e) raters reported that they relied mainly on the children's expression, eyes, and posture to make their judgments of adjustment. These results replicate and extend earlier findings based on 1 of the 3 photograph sets (Serketich & Dumas, 1997). They suggest that when first impressions matter, competent children are at an advantage and their dysfunctional peers at a disadvantage even before their actual behavior comes to confirm or to invalidate these impressions. Theoretical and clinical implications of the findings are discussed.