RUNNING HEAD: WHAT IS GOOD IS NOT BEAUTIFUL

1 of 7

What is good is not beautiful: the attractiveness stereotype does not work in reverse
Carly Watt Connie Imbault Amanda Howitt Kelsey Harpur Keywords Bias Facial Attractiveness Personality Physical attractiveness Sexuality Stereotype What is beautiful is good Abstract Beautiful people and are better liked by society (Dion, Bersheid, &

Walster, 1972). This what is beautiful is good bias leads people to believe attractive people are happier and live better lives. The goal of the present study was to assess the reversal on the what is beautiful is good stereotype. Participants were presented with faces and an accompanying single sentence lifestyle description. The sentences were placed into three categories of positive, neutral, or negative statements. Participants then rated the faces for attractiveness on a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 being extremely unattractive and 7 being extremely attractive. There was no main effect of the description and no significant interaction between the description and stimuli sex. Traits attributed to beautiful people did not increase stimulis attractiveness ratings. Although it has been argued that personality plays a large role in mate choice (Buss, 1989; Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997), our experiments show no such findings. We speculate that ratings of attractiveness are not influenced by personality, as participants rated faces based on looks alone. Introduction Beautiful people have it all. They are favoured in court (Sigall & Ostrove, 1975), receive higher salaries (Solnick & Schweitzer, 1999), and are better liked by society (Dion, Bersheid, & Walster, 1972). The what is beautiful is good bias leads people to believe

WHAT IS GOOD IS NOT BEAUTIFUL

2 of 7

attractive people are happier and live better lives. The goal of the present study was to assess the reversal on the what is beautiful is good stereotype. Specifically, we evaluated the correlation between lifestyle descriptions and attractiveness ratings on subjective perception of beauty. In males, high-positioned cheekbones, prominent eyebrow ridges, and a long jaw characterize attractiveness (Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002). These features compose a masculine face, which females are attracted to. Higher testosterone levels are present in males with these attractive masculine faces, whereas higher estrogen levels are present in males with less attractive faces. Male features display genotypic quality, as masculine features indicate the ability to cope with the negative effects of testosterone on the immune system. Attractiveness ratings of males reflect both attraction to physical features and their underlying effect on the human body. Prominent cheekbones, a small nose, and a short jaw define female attractiveness (Fink, Grammer, & Thornhill, 2001; Feng, 2002; Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002). These features compose a feminine face, which males are attracted to. A female possessing these features has a high ratio of estrogen to testosterone. This correlates with high fertility and a strong immune system (Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002). These females are in better condition and will have higher reproductive success, making them ideal mates. Attractiveness ratings of females are based on what they can reproductively offer to males. Both sexes prefer smooth skin (Fink, Grammer, & Thornhill, 2001; Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002). Skin that contains lesions, warts, acne, etc. displays a disturbance in the

WHAT IS GOOD IS NOT BEAUTIFUL

3 of 7

production of androgens. This results in reduced reproductive ability. Skin that appears lightly red or yellow is preferred (Stephen, Coetzee, Smith, & Perrett, 2009; Stephen, Law Smith, Stirrat, & Perrett, 2009). These skin tones display efficient reproductive success due to a healthy diet and functioning immune system. Smooth skin indicates a stable production of androgens and a healthy immune systemqualities that are attractive in a mate. Attractive faces are average (Langlois & Roggman, 1990). Digitizing faces on a computer to form a composite image of 32 faces resulted in significantly higher attractiveness ratings than any of the individual faces. The more faces the composite included, the higher its attractiveness ratings were. Facial features consistent with the average are less likely to carry disadvantageous genetic traits, as genetic and developmental abnormalities are represented in extreme deviations. It is evolutionarily beneficial to be attracted to and mate with someone whose facial features are consistent with the average. The preference for average faces is a by-product of our preference for averages in general (Halberstadt & Rhodes, 2000). Participants rated composite dogs, watches, and birds as more attractive than individual stimuli. The correlation between composites and attractiveness is as strong as that found for human faces. We have a preference for averages across many stimuli. This allows for easy recognition and generalizability, saving time and energy in dangerous situations. Although it has been argued otherwise (Perrett et al., 1991), symmetry does not contribute to the attractiveness of average faces (Langlois, Roggman, Musselman, 1994).

WHAT IS GOOD IS NOT BEAUTIFUL

4 of 7

Average faces are symmetrical, but not all symmetrical faces are average. Participants rated the attractiveness of unaltered and computerized symmetrical faces. The attractiveness ratings were not significantly different between the stimuli. Symmetry plays little to no part in the attractiveness of human faces. Attraction to the specific facial features mentioned above is shown from infancy (Langlois, Ritter, Roggman, Vaughn, 1991; Langlois, Roggman, Musselman, 1994). Infants were shown attractive or unattractive faces and spent a longer time looking at attractive faces. Even newborns spent more time looking at attractive faces (Slater et al., 1998). This preference suggests that what we deem as attractive is hardwired from birth. Ratings of facial attractiveness are similar among diverse cultures (Bernstein, Lin, & McClellan, 1982; Maret, 1985; Cunningham, 1986). Ethnically diverse faces were rated as attractive regardless of the racial and cultural background of the rater. Cultural consistencies and early childhood preferences add credence to the to the notion that what is perceived as attractive is modulated by innate preferences. Attraction to specific facial features is therefore reliant on innate mechanisms. The most important factor in mate choice is personality (Buss, 1989; Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997). We are attracted to mates that have similar personalities to us (Buss, 1989). Newlywed couples report that personality plays a critical role in mate selection and total marital happiness, after rating themselves and their partners on various personality dimensions. Both sexes desire mates similar to themselves in personality, with many similar individuals married. This aligning in personality is an evolutionary

WHAT IS GOOD IS NOT BEAUTIFUL

5 of 7

strategy, as it results in coordination and synchronization of action to attain mutual goals. This is preventative of sexual conflict among the sexes. Males and females, however, possess some dissimilar personality traits (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1980). Males are more assertive and less anxious, while females are more social and trusting. This stems from males being more aggressive and introverted, while females are more extraverted and have higher ego development. These traits are seen in early in childhood, with males displaying physical aggression and females participating in emotional aggression. Mate choice is therefore a complex phenomenait goes far beyond merely determining who of the opposite sex is most attractive. A biological model states the gender differences in personality reflect innate temperamental differences (Feingold, 1994). There is a strong biological basis underlying the human genome, which affects the development of personality traits. High levels of gonadal chemicals correlate with dominant and aggressive personalities, whereas having two X chromosomes correlates with emotional vulnerability and anxious personalities. The genetic differences between the two sexes can account for behavioural differences in personalities. What is beautiful is good (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972). Participants rated attractive and unattractive faces on a variety of personality and lifestyle dimensions. Responses showed that attractive men and women were rated as more socially desirable, had more prestigious occupations, were more likely to be married, were more competent in their marriages, were more socially and professionally happy, and had more total happiness than unattractive individuals.

WHAT IS GOOD IS NOT BEAUTIFUL Physically attractive people are more likely to have internalized socially desirable

6 of 7

personality characteristics than unattractive people (Adams, 2010). Participants answered questionnaires about physical attractiveness and personality characteristics. The attractiveness of both sexes, rated by an observer, correlated with a positive self-concept. Attractive males had a higher sense of responsibility for their behaviour, while attractive females had more self-confidence. Attractive individuals are seen as more socially desirable. Attractive people have advantages over their unattractive counterparts (Sigall & Ostrove, 1975). An attractive person engaging in a negative act, such as a crime, is viewed less negatively than when an unattractive person engages in the same act. Participants also believed that the unattractive individual was more likely to continue to partake in negative acts in the future, compared to attractive individuals. Those that are beautiful are believed to do good as well as be good. Attractiveness elicits positive emotional reactions, creating a desire to be around attractive individuals (Lemay, Clark, & Greenberg, 2010). Participants report more interest in establishing relationships, working, and interacting with attractive targets compared to unattractive targets. Exposure to attractive faces stimulates activity in the medial orbitofrontal cortex, a brain region involved in rewarding (ODoherty et al., 2003). We are thus motivated to interact with attractive people, which projects onto the attractive person. This motivation to worth with attractive people, and the reward through medial orbitofrontal cortex in the brain, further strengthens the what is beautiful is good stereotype.

WHAT IS GOOD IS NOT BEAUTIFUL Scope of the present study

7 of 7

The primary goal of the present research was to examine the what is beautiful is good effect in reverse. That is, we sought to see if there is a what is good is beautiful stereotype. Are attractiveness ratings influenced by lifestyle? Participants were presented with individual faces and a brief description of that persons lifestyle. The descriptions were positive, neutral, or negative. Participants then rated the attractiveness of each face. We predicted a correlation would exist between positive descriptions and higher attractiveness ratings. We anticipated this correlation because of the importance that humans put on personality and attractiveness on mate preference.