1. Kayla McCaleb, Sara Sohr-Preston, and Karen Phung
The Effect of Professor “Hotness” and Gender on Student Ratings of Instruction
Kayla McCaleb, Sara Sohr-Preston, and Karen Phung
Department of Psychology, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA
INTRODUCTION
In both the personal evaluation of their current professors and the selection of professors for potential classes to be taken in the future, college students use a variety of tools, including websites such as Rate My Professors.com (RMP).
RMP allows users to assign a chili pepper to denote “hot” professors.
Previous research has shown a positive correlation between attractiveness and perceived overall quality of instruction (Felton, Koper, Mitchell, & Stinson, 2008; Freng & Webber, 2009; Liu, Hu, & Furutan, 2013; Riniolo, Johnson, Sherman, & Misso, 2006).
Plus, prior research has indicated that college students tend to rate male professors more favorably than female professors (Abel & Meltzer, 2007).
Based on such findings, it was hypothesized that students would expect a higher quality classroom experience from professors indicated to be “hot” and male.
Mean Ratings By Hotness
METHODS
Participants (N = 223) were undergraduate Psychology students (80.43% female; 70.00% White; mean age = 19.54) who completed a survey on demographic information and their ratings of expectations of a hypothetical professor based on online professor ratings (formatted to match RMP summary statistics) and three sample comments from supposed former students.
Participants were randomly assigned to read different versions of the RMP-type entry: male with a chili pepper, male without a chili pepper, female with a chili pepper, and female without a chili pepper.
Follow-Up Testing for Professor Hotness using ANCOVA
RESULTS
Results of a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) controlling for participants age and sex and including the dependent variables of expected enjoyment of teaching, physical attractiveness, enhancement of classroom activities, fairness, and clarity indicated a non-significant effect for sex but a statistically significant effect (p <.01) effect for having a chili pepper.
Post-hoc tests suggest that participants expected “hot” professors to be more physically attractive, but lower in clarity.
There was no significant interaction effect for sex and “hotness.”
MANCOVA Main Effects Results
(Effects of sex/hotness on DVs as a group)
Wilk’s Λ F p
Participant sex
.97
1.13
.35
Participant age
.99
.46
.80
Professor sex
.55
.74
Professor hotness
.53
37.38
.00 F p
Enjoyment
.32
.57
Attractiveness
145.34
.00
Enhancement
1.47
.23
Fairness
3.36
.07
Clarity
9.13
CONCLUSIONS
Results from the present study were not entirely consistent with previous research exploring professor ratings.
Gender bias in interpreting RMP-type entries was not supported by the results of this study. Bias may be more evident in how students evaluate actual current professors.
As far as attractiveness is concerned, at least in one domain (clarity), results suggested that being viewed as a more attractive professor could actually be detrimental to student expectations and evaluations of teaching.
More research is warranted to allow for greater understanding of the uses and usefulness of student ratings of their professors and the implications of these (potentially) biased evaluations.