Psychological Bulletin Copyright 1991 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1991, Vol. L10, No. 1,109-128 0033-2909/91/i3.00

What Is Beautiful Is Good, But. . .: A Meta-Anatytic Review of Research

on the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype

Alice H. Eagjy Richard D. Ashmore

Purdue University Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey

Mona G. Makhijani Laura C. Longo

Purdue University Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey

This review demonstrates that the physical attractiveness stereotype established by studies of per-
son perception is not as strong or general as suggested by the often-used summary phrase what is
beautiful is good. Although subjects in these studies ascribed more favorable personality traits and
more successful life outcomes to attractive than unattractive targets, the average magnitude of this
beauty-is-good effect was moderate, and the strength of the effect varied considerably from study to
study Consistent with our implicit personality theory framework, a substantial portion of this
variation was explained by the specific content of the inferences that subjects were asked to make:
The differences in subjects* perception of attractive and unattractive targets were largest for indexes
of social competence; intermediate for potency, adjustment, and intellectual competence; and near
zero for integrity and concern for others. The strength of the physical attractiveness stereotype also
varied as a function of other attributes of the studies, including the presence of individuating
information.

One of the most widely cited conclusions from research on
physical attractiveness is summarized by Dion, Berscheid, and
Walster's (1972) claim that, in people's perceptions of others,
"what is beautiful is good" (p. 285). This statement linking
beauty and goodness suggests the existence of a stereotype
whereby physically attractive individuals are believed to possess
a wide variety of positive personal qualities. In this article, we
integrate the available research on the physical attractiveness
stereotype to determine the extent to which the statement that
what is beautiful is good provides an accurate summary of peo-
ple's inferences from cues that convey physical attractiveness.
In the classic study on the physical attractiveness stereotype,
Dion and her associates (1972) had subjects rate facial photo-
graphs that had been selected on the basis of judges' agreement
that the pictured individuals were low, medium, or high in phys-
ical attractiveness. Subjects' ratings pertained to various person-
This research was supported by National Science Foundation
Grants BNS-8616149 to Richard EX Ashmore and Frances K. Del
Boca, Co-Principal Investigators, and BNS-S605256 to Alice H. Eagl>;
Principal Investigator. A preliminary report of this research was re-
ported at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society,
June 1989. A table showing the effect sizes and study characteristics for
each study included in the meta-analysis is available from Alice H.
Eagly or Richard EX Ashmore.
We thank Thomas Alley, Ellen Berscheid, Linda Jackson, and three
anonymous reviewers for their comments on a draft of the article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Alice H. Eagly, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue Univer-
sity, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-1364, or Richard D. Ashmore, De-
partment of Psychology, Tillett Hall, Kilmer Campus, Rutgers Univer-
sity, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903.
ality traits as well as to life outcomes such as marital happiness
and career success. Indeed, subjects ascribed more favorable
personality traits and more successful life outcomes to the pic-
tured individuals to the extent that they were physically attrac-
tive.
The experimental paradigm introduced by Dion and her col-
leagues (1972) has guided many subsequent investigators, and
there is, thus, a relatively large body of research on the attractive-
ness stereotype. Most narrative reviewers of this literature have
agreed that the beauty-is-good stereotype is a strong and gen-
eral phenomenon (Adams, 1982; Alley & Hildebrandt, 1988;
Berscheid, 1981; Berscheid & Walster, 1974; Dion, 1981,1986;
Hatfield &Sprecher, 1986; Patzer, 1985). For example, Hatfield
and Sprecher wrote that "people believe good-looking people
possess almost all the virtues known to humankind" (p. xix).
Most secondary sources, especially introductory social psychol-
ogy textbooks, have likewise treated the beauty-is-good stereo-
type as a homogeneous, potent, and firmly established phenom-
enon (e.g, see Baron & Byrne, 1987, p. 197; Deaux & Wrights-
man, 1988, p. 250). In this article, we report the first use of
meta-analytic procedures to combine quantitatively the exist-
ing studies to examine the strength and generality of the attrac-
tiveness stereotype.
Although the general consensus in social psychology is that
an attractive target leads perceivers to make strong inferences of
personality goodness, reviewers have noted exceptions to this
phenomenon. Dion (1981,1986) suggested that the beauty-is-
good effect is strongest for measures of social competence and
interpersonal ease, and Bassili (1981) reached a similar conclu-
sion, arguing that the core of the physical attractiveness stereo-
type is social vitality or extroversion. Also, beginning with
Dermer and Thiel (1975), reviewers noted a dark side to the

109
110 EAGLY, ASHMORE, MAKHIJANI, AND LONGO
stereotype. Cash and Janda (1984, p. 52) labeled this aspect the
"what is beautiful is self-centered" stereotype on the basis of
their observation that attractive people may be thought to be
vain and egotistical. What is needed at this point is a formal and
general scheme for understanding these qualifications and ex-
ceptions. As a step in this direction, we conceptualize the pro-
cess underlying the attractiveness stereotype in terms of the
person-perception construct of implicit personality theory (see
also Adams, 1982; McArthur, 1982). We then frame predictions
about variation in the beauty-is-good effect in terms of this
conceptual approach. These hypotheses are tested by means of
a quantitative review of the accumulated research. Before pre-
senting the details of this review, we situate our discussion of the
beauty-is-good stereotype within the total body of research and
theory on physical attractiveness.
Social Psychology of Beauty
A large amount of research has accumulated on physical at-
tractiveness (see Cash's, 1981, bibliography of almost 500 nonre-
dundant entries). Because this research area is multidisciplin-
ary, the studies are methodologically diverse and pertain to a
variety of specific hypotheses. However, among studies formu-
lated at a social psychological level of analysis, most research
has addressed three broad questions: (a) Are attractive people
perceived differently than unattractive people? (b) Are attractive
people treated differently than unattractive people? (c) Do at-
tractive people have different characteristics (i£., personality
traits, skills, behavioral tendencies) than unattractive people?
The first research area, the perception of beautiful people,
concerns stereotyping on the basis of physical appearance. The
second area, which concerns differential treatment as a func-
tion of physical attractiveness, examines looks-based discrimi-
nation, a phenomenon that depends on factors in addition to
stereotypes about physical attractiveness (e.g., the social roles
governing interaction). The third type of research focuses not
on people's reactions to targets, but on the characteristics of
attractive and unattractive individuals, as measured by various
methods of psychological assessment (e.g., personality tests,
self-reports of behavior, observations of behavior). The findings
of this third type of research have often been interpreted in
terms of self-fulfilling prophecies (e.g, Snyder, Tanke, & Ber-
scheid, 1977) or a kernel of truth that underlies the attractiveness
stereotype (e.g., Alley & Hildebrandt, 1988).
Our review concerns only the first area of social psychologi-
cal research on attractiveness: the perception of attractive and
unattractive individuals. There are several reasons for this
focus. One reason is practical: A thorough review of all three
aspects of physical attractiveness research would require many
years to complete and would produce an outcome too large for
presentation in an article format. A second reason is strategic:
Meta-analyses are best targeted to research literatures that are
not defined extremely broadly and that have at least a moderate
amount of methodological coherence (see Mullen, 1989). A
third reason is analytic: The beauty-is-good stereotype is gener-
ally regarded as providing the major mechanism underlying
differential treatment based on attractiveness and the develop-
ment of differential assessed characteristics, at least insofar as
these characteristics are mediated by self-fulfilling prophecies.
Therefore, the stereotype question can be regarded as more
basic to social psychological analysis than the questions of
treatment and assessed characteristics. If the physical attractive-
ness stereotype is not at least moderately strong and robust, it is
unlikely to underlie the effects of physical attractiveness on
treatment and people's characteristics.
Our decision to focus on the physical attractiveness stereo-
type has two important implications—one methodological and
one theoretical. Methodologically, we targeted our meta-analy-
sis to include only studies that assess the physical attractiveness
stereotype in a relatively pure form, without the constraints of
particular role relationships such as those that regulate social
interaction between teachers and students or therapists and
patients. To examine stereotyping in a relatively role-free envi-
ronment, we included in our review only those studies in which
subjects inferred the attributes of people to whom they were not
linked by particular social roles. Subjects' inferences from phys-
ical appearance in role-regulated environments should be con-
sidered in future reviews that are conceptualized to take the
specifics of role relationships into account. In terms of theoreti-
cal implications, our focus on the physical attractiveness stereo-
type led us to formulate our review in terms of existing psycho-
logical research on impression formation and stereotyping. We
now turn to this formulation.
Physical Attractiveness Stereotype and Implicit
Personality Theory
Ashmore and Del Boca (1979; see also Ashmore, 1981; Ash-
more, Del Boca, & Wohlers, 1986) argued that stereotypes can
be fruitfully conceptualized in terms of the concept of implicit
personality theory (D. J. Schneider, 1973). By treating stereo-
types as part of ordinary social cognition (see also Hamilton,
1981), Ashmore and his co-workers placed stereotypes within
the larger set of knowledge structures that individuals use to
make sense of other people's behavior. More specifically, im-
plicit personality theories are hypothetical cognitive structures
whose primary components are personal attributes (e.g., person-
ality traits) and inferential relations that specify the degree to
which these attributes covary. The link between such implicit
theories and stereotypes about group members becomes appar-
ent when we regard group membership as one of the personal
attributes inferentially associated with other attributes in such
an implicit theory (Ashmore, 1981). In fact, the inferential rela-
tions between group membership and other personal attributes
can be regarded as synonymous with the stereotype itself. Thus,
translating the usual definition of stereotype as a set of beliefs
about the characteristics of group members into the language of
implicit personality theory, Ashmore and Del Boca (1979) de-
fined stereotype as "a structured set of inferential relations that
link a social category with personal attributes" (p. 225).
The utility of this conceptualization has been demonstrated
for gender stereotypes. Using the implicit personality theory
approach, Ashmore and his colleagues identified the inferential
relations linking the social categories of male and female to
various dimensions of personality perception (see Ashmore,
1981). Specifically, the distinction between male and female
was closely associated with the personality dimension of
strong-weak (or potency). Also men were thought to possess
 REVIEW OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS STEREOTYPE
positive intellectual qualities such as scientific and negative so-
cial attributes such as sternness. In contrast, women were asso-
ciated with negative intellectual qualities such as naivete and
positive social attributes such as helpfulness.
From this same perspective, research on the beauty-is-good
stereotype can be viewed as examining the inferential relations
between physical attractiveness and personal attributes. The
social categories of attractive and unattractive people should
thus be associated in individuals' cognitions with various di-
mensions of personality. This approach contrasts with those
analyses of the physical attractiveness stereotype that take into
account only inferences from attractiveness to the general fa-
vorability of personality. This presumed inference from attrac-
tiveness to evaluation is precisely described by the statement
that beauty is good. This one-dimensional evaluative model
treats the different trait and life-outcome dependent variables
used in attractiveness research as if they indexed a single, ab-
stract good-bad continuum. Although the notion of a content-
free evaluative dimension has much conceptual and empirical
value (e.g., Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957), research on
implicit personality theory has demonstrated that the evalua-
tive dimension can be partitioned by perceivers into content-
specific types of evaluative meaning. Support for this partition-
ing of evaluative meaning exists in Rosenberg and his col-
leagues' research using multidimensional scaling (Kim &
Rosenberg, 1980; Rosenberg, 1977; Rosenberg, Nelson, & Vive-
kananthan, 1968; Rosenberg & Sedlak, 1972). According to this
research, one particularly important distinction between types
of evaluative meaning, at least for young adults, is between so-
cial and intellectual competence (Rosenberg, 1977; Rosenberg et
al, 1968). In addition, on the basis of his own and others' re-
search, Rosenberg identified the content-specific evaluative cat-
egories of maturity, concern for others, integrity, psychological
stability, and physical attractiveness. He also designated potency
as an important category that is sometimes relatively indepen-
dent of evaluation (Kim & Rosenberg, 1980; Rosenberg et al,
1968; see also Ashmore, 1981). In view of Rosenberg's inclusion
of physical attractiveness among these content-specific evalua-
tive categories, analyzing the beauty-is-good stereotype within
the framework of implicit personality theory is especially ap-
propriate.
This conceptual framework suggests that part of the varia-
tion in the impact of physical attractiveness on subjects' infer-
ences about personality and life outcomes may be explained by
the specific content of these inferences (see also Bull & Rumsey,
1988, pp. 296-297). In particular, physical attractiveness may
be more strongly linked to some dimensions of implicit person-
ality theories than to other dimensions. To test this possibility,
we developed a content-analysis scheme for classifying the de-
pendent variables used in studies of the physical attractiveness
stereotype into the components identified in research on im-
plicit personality theory. This scheme takes Rosenbergls (1977)
evaluative categories as its starting point. Although Rosenberg's
maturity category could not be treated as a separate class be-
cause it was.seldom represented in research on the physical
attractiveness stereotype, dependent variables corresponding
to Rosenberg's other types were common enough to include
them as categories in the meta-analysis: social competence, in-
111
tellectual competence, concern for others, integrity, adjustment
(i£, psychological stability), and potency.
The core of the social competence category is those interper-
sonal skills and traits concerned with sociability (e.g., extraver-
sion) as well as the outcomes of such skills and inclinations (e.g.,
popularity). Social competence, as here construed, corresponds
closely with Bassili's (1981, p. 242) "social vitality" and Dion's
(1986, p. 8) "social competence and interpersonal ease." The
intellectual competence category centers on intellectual and
task-relevant ability (e.g, intelligent) and the results of such abil-
ity and motivation (eg, career success); this category also en-
compasses a hard and rational mental style (e.g., practical). Con-
cern for others, like social competence, implies interpersonal
skills. The emphasis, however, is not on sociability and popular-
ity, but concern for others' welfare and the associated quality of
selflessness. The positive side of this category involves being
emotionally supportive as well as sensitive and generous to
others. The negative side of this category, which includes traits
such as vain and egotistical, is the dark side of the attractiveness
stereotype acknowledged by some reviewers (eg., Adams, 1982;
Cash & Janda, 1984). The crucial issue for defining the integrity
category is honesty. This quality can take the form of interper-
sonal actions such as telling the truth (vs. being a liar) or abiding
by laws and norms (vs. breaking them). The adjustment cate-
gory, which is a slight enlargement of Rosenberg's (1977) psycho-
logical stability category, includes not only normal (vs. abnor-
mal) psychological functioning, but also other indicators of pos-
itive adult adjustment, such as self-esteem and good health.
Potency resembles Osgood and colleagues' (1957) potency or
strong versus weak factor. In interpersonal terms, potency im-
plies dominance over other people (Ashmore, 1981; White,
1980).
Sources of the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype
Understanding how these types of evaluative meanings
might he mentally associated with physical attractiveness re-
quires consideration of how people learn their implicit theories
of personality including their beliefs about what is associated
with good looks. Two general types of inputs seem most impor-
tant: (a) direct observations of attractive and unattractive people
in oneTs social environment and (b) exposure to cultural repre-
sentations of attractive and unattractive people.1 With regard to
direct observation, perceivers no doubt observe that better look-
ing people receive more favorable reactions from others; for
example, attractive people are more popular with peers and
receive preferential treatment from others (see reviews by
Adams, 1982; Dion, 1981,1986; Feingold, 1990b; Patzer, 1985;
but see Bull & Rumsey, 1988; Langlois, 1986). Perceivers may
assume that these favorable reactions are elicited, not merely by
1
In addition, physical attractiveness may be aesthetically pleasing
and therefore may elicit positive affect that leads perceivers to infer,
perhaps to account for the affect, that attractive people have favorable
characteristics. Although there is little evidence that the sight of physi-
cally attractive people induces positive affect, researchers who manipu-
late affect by presenting photographic slides commonly include images
of physically attractive people among the stimuli that induce positive
affect (e.g., Larsen, Diener, & Cropanzano, 1987).
112 EAGLY, ASHMORE, MAKHUANI, AND LONGO
people's good looks, but by other positive aspects of people's
behavior and personality.
Depending in part on the impact that popularity and favor-
able treatment have on personality and behavior, perceivers
may observe that physical attractiveness is correlated with
various positive traits. Consistent with Feingold's (1990b) re-
view, research on the true covariation between physical attrac-
tiveness and other personal attributes suggests that good looks
covary with social skills, social adjustment, and an absence of
shyness and social anxiety (e.g., Adams, 1977; Adams & Ware-
ham, no date; Goldman & Lewis, 1977; Lerner & Lerner, 1977;
Pilkonis, 1977). Aside from this relation between physical at-
tractiveness and social competence, evidence for true covaria-
tion between good looks and personal attributes is much less
convincing, although there is some suggestion of a weak posi-
tive correlation with adjustment (see Cash, 1985) and potency
(Adams, 1977; Chaiken, 1979,1986).
Turning to cultural messages about appearance, we suggest
that American culture associates beauty with good things and
ugliness with bad things. In children's television and books, the
wicked witch and evil giant are ugly and the heroic prince and
virtuous princess are attractive. In advertising, attractive mod-
els appear in positive settings (e.g, in happy crowds, as the ob-
ject of admiration) and with valued possessions (e.g- fancy cars,
fashionable clothes). In addition, as shown by Downs and
Harrison's (1985) content analysis of the verbal content of tele-
vision commercials, statements extolling the virtues of attrac-
tive appearance are quite common. \et in these cultural produc-
tions, beauty may be associated more often with some positive
qualities than others. Although appropriate content analyses of
media content are lacking, we suspect that the media most
often link good looks with sociability and popularity, especially
with the opposite sex. We doubt that the media consistently
associate physical attractiveness with integrity, concern for
others, adjustment, or potency. Cultural portrayals of individ-
uals outstanding in these qualities are not clearly distinguished
by positive appearance, nor are beautiful people necessarily
exemplars of such qualities.
Despite the possibility that the media may portray attractive
people as successful in their careers, we doubt that physical
attractiveness is strongly linked with intellectual competence in
the popular culture. People depicted as outstanding in intellect
or accomplishment are not uniformly good-looking, nor are
good-looking people necessarily portrayed as smart and ac-
complished (e.g, those labeled as dumb blondes). A weaker im-
pact of attractiveness on intellectual competence than on social
competence was supported by Ashmore, Tumia, and Schreier's
(1980) variation of the classic Asch (1946) experiment on the
effect of the adjectives warm or cold on impression formation.
Ashmore and colleagues substituted good-looking for warm and
unattractive for cold, and they found that this attractiveness
manipulation strongly influenced the ascription of social com-
petence to the stimulus person but not the ascription of intellec-
tual competence.
In understanding the content of the physical attractiveness
stereotype, we also need to take into account the inferences by
which perceivers may associate stereotypic attributes with other
personal attributes. In particular, given the strong link we have
demonstrated between attractiveness and social competence,
perceivers may infer on the basis of attractive people's pre-
sumed social competence that they have other favorable traits.
For example, given that popularity is valued, physical attractive-
ness may be viewed as a valued commodity and thereby as a
source of interpersonal power. As a consequence, perceivers
may associate beauty with interpersonal potency. In addition,
perceivers may assume that good looks are not only a source of
power but also major ingredients of happiness, self-esteem, and
the other aspects of adjustment. Yet, all these second-order in-
ferences that people make from attractiveness may not lead to
positive impressions of beautiful targets. For example, concern-
ing integrity, people might infer that attractive individuals are
exposed to more opportunities for interpersonal cheating (e.g,
married people having affairs; see Brigham, 1980). Also per-
ceivers may assume that the popularity of attractive people
makes it unnecessary for them to develop nurturant qualities or
interpersonal sensitivity to maintain their friendships and other
relationships.
In conclusion, our reasoning suggests a number of principles
that might underlie the content and structure of the physical
attractiveness stereotype. Most important, good looks should
strongly imply social competence because of (a) the perception
that attractive individuals elicit positive reactions from others,
(b) the perception of true covariation between attractiveness
and social competence, and (c) the media portrayal of attractive-
ness as critical to heterosexual popularity and social attention.
In addition, good looks may imply a variety of other positive
qualities based on the inferential linkages we have noted and
possibly based to some extent on observations of true (or media-
depicted) covariation between attractiveness and other attri-
butes. This analysis, therefore, does support the notion of a
general mental association between beauty and nonphysical
goodness. However, as our analysis has also implied, the ten-
dency for good looks to be associated with positive qualities
may not be very strong overall and may vary considerably in
strength, depending on the particular dimension of personality
assessed.
Predictions for Meta-Analysis
Predictions about specific content of physical attractiveness
stereotype. Our primary predictions follow from the implicit
personality theory framework as well as from the additional
assumptions that we introduced about (a) social attention and
rewards received by beautiful people, (b) genuine covariation
between physical attractiveness and various attributes, (c) me-
dia content, and (d) perceivers' inferential linkages. These pre-
dictions concern the differential effects that physical attractive-
ness has on perceivers' inferences about the personality traits
that represent the various dimensions of their implicit theories
of personality. Although we predict that attractive targets
should be assigned more positive attributes than unattractive
targets, we hypothesize that this tendency will vary consider-
ably as a function of type of evaluative meaning. Specifically for
the reasons we have indicated, information about physical at-
tractiveness should have its strongest impact on inferences
about social competence. Bassili (1981) and Dion (1981,1986)
would probably agree with this prediction. Because of the likely
spillover that we described from social competence to potency
 REVIEW OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS STEREOTYPE
and adjustment, physical attractiveness should affect inferences
to these dimensions, albeit somewhat more weakly than infer-
ences to social competence.
According to the reasoning we have presented, manipula-
tions of physical attractiveness should have a relatively small
effect on inferences about intellectual competence and an even
weaker impact on integrity and concern for others. The impact
of attractiveness on concern for others may be especially weak
given that this category includes traits such as vanity and ego-
tism. As we have already noted, reviewers have implicated such
traits in the dark side of the physical attractiveness stereotype
(Adams, 1982; Cash & Janda, 1984; Dermer & Thiel, 1975).2
These predictions suggest that the specific content of the
dependent variables used in studies of the physical attractive-
ness stereotype contributes to observed differences in the
strength of the stereotype. Studies that happened to include
many dependent variables assessing perceptions of social com-
petence should show a stronger impact of physical attractive-
ness than studies containing higher proportions of dependent
variables selected from the other dimensions of personality.
The content of dependent variables should also account for vari-
ations within studies in the strength of subjects' inferences from
physical appearance to aspects of targets' personalities.
Other predictions. Because implicit theories of personality
comprise much more than beliefs about attractiveness, our
framework raises the issue of whether information that subjects
receive about attributes other than physical attractiveness may
also account for inconsistencies in the outcomes of studies. In
particular, receiving information that conveys attributes of the
target other than physical attractiveness may moderate infer-
ences from physical attractiveness to personality traits.
In general, the beauty-is-good effect should become smaller
as the amount of other information about targets increases. This
prediction is consistent, first of all, with Bull and Rumsey's
(1988) survey of existing research. It is also congruent with gen-
eral models describing how people combine items of informa-
tion into an overall judgment. Specifically, averaging models
(see N. H. Anderson, 1974,1981) postulate that the weight or
importance of an item of information as a determinant of a
judgment becomes smaller as a perceiver takes more items of
information into account. Such combinatorial models predict
that the impact of physical attractiveness on judgments of per-
sonality lessens as more other information is received.
In analyzing the probable effect of giving subjects additional
information about the target, we must also consider the infor-
mativeness or diagnosticity of physical attractiveness compared
with other information that subjects may receive about targets.
In experiments on the physical attractiveness stereotype, sub-
jects sometimes receive information about targets' personal his-
tory and personality, and, in videotaped or live presentations of
targets, subjects receive extensive information about targets'
personal style. This other information may very commonly be
more diagnostic than physical attractiveness in relation to the
traits and behaviors that subjects were asked to predict. This
argument is analogous to one made in relation to gender stereo-
types, namely, that information other than sex may be more
strongly linked than sex to the various dimensions of personal-
ity that comprise perceivers' implicit theories. When perceivers
receive such information, their inferences from sex to personal-
113
ity traits should be weakened. This prediction has been repeat-
edly confirmed in research showing that perceivers' inferences
from sex to personality or behavior are reduced or even re-
versed by giving subjects other information about targets (e.g,
Deaux & Lewis, 1984; Del Boca & Ashmore, 1980; Eagry &
Steffen, 1984; Locksley, Borgida, Brekke, & Hepburn, 1980;
Locksley, Hepburn, & Ortiz, 1982).
The sex of the target is an item of information that subjects in
physical attractiveness experiments almost always possess. This
fact raises the question of whether the attractiveness stereotype
may be stronger for female targets than for male targets. Such a
trend would be consistent with reviewers' conclusions that at-
tractiveness is more central to the gender role of women than of
men as well as to women's personal identity, self-esteem, and
interpersonal outcomes (see Bar-Tal & Saxe, 1976; Rodin, Sil-
berstein, & Striegel-Moore, 1985). Moreover, the media more
often portray women than men as decorative and sexual objects
(see Courtney & Whipple, 1983; Roberts, 1982). In addition, in
television commercials explicit verbal statements linking
beauty and good outcomes are more commonly paired with
female actors than with male actors (Downs & Harrison, 1985),
and viewers of televised advertisements regard the women who
are depicted as more concerned with their looks than the men
are (Scheibe, 1979). Finally, Jackson, Sullivan, and Rostker
(1988) found that women, compared with men, rated physical
attractiveness as more important to them and reported engag-
ing in more behaviors to improve their looks. Such findings
suggest that physical attractiveness may be more important in
perceiving women than in perceiving men.
Whether physical attractiveness is more important to per-
ceivers of one sex than the other is not entirely clear. In view of
Feingold's (1990a) meta-analysis showing that men place greater
value on physical attractiveness than women do, especially
when romantic attraction is considered, ft is possible to argue
that physical attractiveness could be a more powerful dimen-
sion in men's than women's implicit theories of personality.
However, the research we review on the physical attractiveness
stereotype was not carried out in the context of romantic rela-
tionships. Moreover, the question addressed in research on the
physical attractiveness stereotype pertains to the meaning in-
ferred from attractiveness cues, not the importance of attractive-
ness. Men and women may differ in the importance they ac-
cord to attractiveness even though they infer similar meaning
(e.g., social competence) from attractiveness cues. Particularly
in view of evidence that the content of gender stereotypes
differs little for male and female subjects (e.g., Deaux & Lewis,
1983,1984; Eagly & Steffen, 1984), we suspect that the physical
attractiveness stereotype is widely shared in American culture
and is therefore little affected by variation in subject character-
istics, including subject sex. To the extent that some studies on
the physical attractiveness stereotype used male subjects and
2
One reason we do not predict a negative relation between attractive-
ness and concern for others is that the findings cited by some narrative
reviewers to provide evidence for the dark side of the physical attractive-
ness stereotype may not be representative of the total domain of find-
ings on egotism and vanity. In addition, our concern for others class of
attributes is somewhat broader than egotism and vanity because ft
includes the positive facets of concern for others and selflessness.
114 EAGLY, ASHMORE, MAKHIJANI, AND LONGO
others used female subjects, our meta-analytic method allows
us to approach this issue empirically by examining subjects' sex
as a predictor of their inferences about targets' personalities.
Method
Sample of Studies
Computer-based information searches were conducted using the fol-
lowing keywords: physical attractiveness, unattractive, beautiful, ugly,
ugliness, facial feature, and physical appearance. These keywords were
searched in the following data bases: PsycINFO (Psychological Ab-
stract^, 1967 to 1987; ERIC (Educational Resources Information
Center), 1966 to 1987; Dissertation Abstracts Online, 1861 to 1987; ABI/
INFORM (a worldwide business and management data base), 1971 to
1987; Sociological Abstracts, 1963 to 1987; Mental Health Abstracts,
1969 to 1987; MEDLINE (Medical Subject Headings), 1966 to 1987;and
AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), 1985 to 1987. The
Social SciSearch data base was also searched to locate articles that
cited Dion and associates (1972) or Dermer and Thiel (1975). Each
search ended with the latest information available in the summer of
1987.
We also consulted Cash's (1981) bibliography, which contains almost
500 abstracts obtained through computer-assisted searches using the
keyword physical attractiveness. Finally, we searched through the refer-
ence lists of all located studies and carefully read numerous review
articles (e.g., BerscheidA Walster, 1974), books (eg., Patzer, 1985), and
chapters of books (e.g., Adams, 1982).
Selecting studies that focus on physical attractiveness stereotype.
These search procedures yielded over 600 possibly relevant reports.
Given our focus on the physical attractiveness stereotype (and not on
the treatment of attractive and unattractive people or their actual char-
acteristics), we initially pared down the sample to include only studies
in which subjects rated attractive and unattractive targets on evaluative
attributes. The resulting sample was reduced further to include in the
final sample only studies that assessed the beauty-is-good stereotype in
situations unconstrained by particular role relationships (eg., teacher-
student). To select those studies that assessed the attractiveness stereo-
type in this relatively pure form, we implemented a number of addi-
tional exclusion rules:
1. Studies were included in the sample if the general physical attrac-
tiveness of target persons was one of its independent variables. Studies
were excluded if they instead examined the impact of specific physical
characteristics of target persons, such as height, weight, body type, or
disfiguring facial characteristics (e.g., Dibiase & Hjelle, 1968).
2. Studies were included only if physical attractiveness was defined
independently of the subjects who rated the targets' characteristics.
Attractiveness was in fact manipulated in almost all these studies. In a
few of the included studies, high- and low-attractiveness targets were
identified only after the subjects had participated, by attractiveness
ratings that were independent of subjects' own perceptions of targets'
physical attractiveness (e.g., Barnes & Rosemhal. 1985). We excluded
studies in which the attractiveness stereotype was defined only in
terms of subjects' own perceptions of targets* physical attractiveness;
that is, the stereotype was assessed by correlations between subjects'
own ratings of targets' physical attractiveness and their ratings of these
targets on traits and life outcomes (e.g., P. A. Schneider, Conger, &
Firth. 1986). Such studies are causally ambiguous and could illustrate
the "what is good is beautiful" principle (Gross & Crofton, 1977) if
subjects inferred good looks from positive personality characteristics.
3. Studies were included only if one or more of their dependent
variables was a rating of stimulus persons' personality traits (e.g.,
warmth, intelligence, trustworthiness) or life outcomes (eg., career suc-
cess, marital success) on a dimension that could be considered evalua-
tive (i.e.. one pole could be identified as more positive than the other).
Consistent with our focus on partitioning evaluative meaning into its
components, we excluded studies if their dependent measures were not
clearly evaluative. For example, we eliminated studies that examined
only ratings of masculinity and femininity because they concern a
different hypothesis, what is beautiful is sex-typed (e.g. Cash & Janda,
1984), rather than what is beautiful is good. Similarly, we did not con-
sider ascriptions of attitudes or group membership to targets (e.g, be-
ing a "feminist"; Jacobson & Koch, 1978) or causal attributions for
targets' success and failure (e.g.. Turkat & Dawson, 1976). We also ex-
cluded studies if their dependent measures assessed subjects' personal
reactions to targets (eg., ratings of whether the subject would like to
have the target as a date; Touhey, 1979) rather than the ascription of
evaluative characteristics to targets. Because the meta-analysis did not
concern the treatment of attractive and unattractive targets, we also
excluded studies using only behavioral measures (e.g., shocking a tar-
get; Miller, Gillen, Schenker, & Radlove, 1974). In addition, we elimi-
nated the following types of dependent variables reported in studies
accepted for the sample: (a) ratings of targets' productions (eg., essays;
Bull & Stevens, 1979), (b) ratings of targets' effectiveness in a specific
occupational role (eg., counselor; Cash & Kehr, 1978), and (c) ratings of
targets' behavior (e.g., audibility of voice; Jackman, 1979). These elimi-
nations reflect our interest in the personality stereotype rather than
perceptions of people's products or role enactments. For studies report-
ing more than one dependent variable, the meta-analysis included only
those measures that met these criteria for allowable dependent mea-
sures (eg., behavioral measures were excluded). .
4. Consistent with our focus on the physical attractiveness stereo-
type, we included studies only if, following the precedent of Dion and
co-workers' (1972) seminal experiment, subjects judged personality
traits and life outcomes of target persons with whom they had no prior
role relationship. Because the review is not concerned with the effects
of specialized role relationships on the impact of physical attractive-
ness, we excluded studies in which subjects and targets had an ongoing
role relationship, for example, studies of students' ratings of their
teachers (e.g., O'Reilly, 1987) or of therapists' ratings of their patients
(eg., Nordholm, 1980). We also excluded studies in which subjects role-
played a relationship with one or more targets, for example, studies in
which subjects were instructed to rate a counselor from the perspective
of a client (e.g., Cash & Kehr, 1978). In addition, studies were deleted if
the target persons were described as paired by means of a role relation-
ship (eg., Hartnett & Secord's, 1983, targets were described as married
couples).
5. Several other criteria excluded studies examining specialized
types of target persons. Although studies presenting targets in specific
job categories (eg., counselor) were included as long as the subjects
were not in an actual or hypothetical role relationship with these tar-
gets, studies were eliminated if the targets were mentally ill (eg., men-
tal hospital patients in the Martin, Friedmeyer, & Moore, 1977, study),
victimized (eg., rape victims in the Jacobson & Popovich, 1983, study),
or specialized in certain other ways (eg., described as having had pre-
marital sexual intercourse in the Hocking, Walker, & Fink, 1982,
study). Studies with targets of these types were excluded because physi-
cal attractiveness would probably have specialized implications in
these contexts (e.g, it would not imply good social skills in mentally ill
targets; it might have atypical moral and sexual implications for rape
victims or unmarried persons described as sexually active).
6. To confine our review to the presumably fully developed stereo-
type among late adolescents and adults, studies were included only if
the subjects (and targets) were over the age of 14 years. The developmen-
tal aspects of physical attractiveness stereotyping could well be the
object of a separate meta-analysis.
7. Finally, numerous studies were excluded because they lacked suf-
ficient information for the computation of at least one effect size (eg.,
 REVIEW OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS STEREOTYPE
R. Anderson &Nida, 1978). Such reports either lacked statistical detail
or presented statistical information in a form that does not allow the
computation of effect sizes (e.g., a multivariate analysis of variance
[MANOVA]; a regression with physical attractiveness included along
with other predictors).
In summary, our selection criteria narrowed our sample to studies
that examined the effects that targets' general physical attractiveness
has on perceivers' inferences about evaluative personal attributes in
settings that eliminate specialized roles and personal relationships
linking perceivers and targets. The resulting sample (see Appendix)
consisted of 69 documents reporting 76 studies.3
Variables Coded From Each Study
The following information was coded from each report: (a) date of
publication; (b) number of observations;' (c) number of judgments ag-
gregated into each observation underlying the study-level effect sizes;5
(d) publication form (journal article, dissertation or unpublished docu-
ment); (e) source of subject population (college undergraduates, other);
(f) nationality of subject population (American, Canadian); (g) sex of
subjects (male, female, male and female, unknown); (h) instructional
set (accuracy, i.e., of subject's judgment in relation to a presumed crite-
rion [see Dion et al., 1972], impression formation, other, none or un-
clear); (i) type of attractiveness variation (attractive and unattractive
targets selected, changed appearance of same target, other);' (j) evi-
dence that attractiveness varied as intended (preselection judgments,
postexperimental ratings, both, none); (k) control for confounds be-
tween attractiveness and other attributes of targets (multiple targets at
each attractiveness level, changed appearance of same target, other
controls, no such control or unknown); (1) within versus between varia-
tion of attractiveness (within, between); (m) stimulus modality (photo-
graph, videotape, live, written description, other or more than one); (n)
part of target's body viewed (face, head and shoulders, full body, un-
clear, mixed or irrelevant); (o) stimuli in color (yes, no, unknown,
mixed or irrelevant); (p) source of stimuli (college yearbook, researcher
took own photographs or videotapes, other, unknown, irrelevant or
more than one); (q) basis of stimuli selection (means and variances of
judges' ratings, means of judges' ratings, consensual meaning of
words, unknown or intuitive, mixed or irrelevant); (r) sex of targets
(male, female, male and female); (s) race of targets (whites only, other
exclusion, not restricted, unknown, mixed or irrelevant); (t) restric-
tions on target's appearance (eyeglasses excluded, other exclusion,
more than one exclusion, no or unknown exclusion or appearance ma-
nipulated, mixed or irrelevant); (u) presence of individuating informa-
tion along with attractiveness information (present, absent); (v) inde-
pendent variables other than physical attractiveness in design, regard-
less of whether they provided individuating information (yes, no); and
(w) unusual features of statistical analysis (yes, no).
The categories we listed for some of these variables were simplified
from an initially more detailed set because (a) some of these more
detailed categories had few or no entries and (b) prediction of the effect
sizes was not improved by the more detailed categories. The variables
for which the initial coding was more detailed are the following: publi-
cation form, instructional set, type of attractiveness variation, control
for confounds, and presence of individuating information.
These variables were independently coded by Alice H. Eagly and
Mona G. Makhijani, with a median agreement of 95% (estimated *
[kappa] = .90); "other independent variables in design" yielded the
lowest agreement: 85% If = .39). Disagreements were resolved by dis-
Computation and Analysis of Effect Sizes
The effect size calculated is g, the difference between the means of
two groups, divided by the relevant standard deviation.7 The sign of the
115
difference was positive when attractive targets were rated more favor-
ably than unattractive targets and negative when unattractive targets
were rated more favorably. The computation of g was based on (a)
means and standard deviations or error terms for 446 effect sizes, (b) Fs
and K for 110 effect sizes, (c) correlations or chi-squares for 26, and (d)
level p values (e.g, p < .05) for 14. Thus, 596 effect sizes were computed.
To reduce computational error, these effect sizes were calculated
independently by Alice H. Eagly and Mona G. Makhijani. When the
data for a study were reported separately for male and female targets,
effect sizes were calculated separately for each sex. These additional
reports, separated by sex of target, supplemented the reports combined
over sex of target, which were used in most analyses.
The 596 effect sizes that we computed reported data on 104 different
individual rating scales as well as on 100 different composite measures
that authors of the studies had computed by aggregating two or more
ratings. To facilitate the analysis of these extremely diverse measures,
we aggregated them in various ways before analyzing them. To provide
a single measure for each study, thus creating effect sizes that satisfy the
independence assumption of meta-analytic statistics (Hedges & Olkin,
1985), we computed a single effect size for each study, combining all
separately calculated effect sizes. This study-level effect size was calcu-
lated using Rosenthal and Rubin's (1986) suggested formula and assum-
3
A list of the studies excluded by these criteria is available from
either Alice H. Eagly or Richard D. Ashmore.
4
The number of observations is the n taken into account by the
statistical analysis for the effects of physical attractiveness.
5
Study-level effect sizes were aggregated across all of the dependent
variables (see Computation and Analysis of Effect Sizes). For example,
each observation might represent a subject's ratings of 4 target persons
on 10 items, for a total of 40 judgments. To the extent that measures
were based on multiple judgments, they should yield more reliable
estimates of the physical attractiveness stereotype, in the manner that
the number of items in a test relates to the reliability of the total test
(e.g, Ghiselli, 1964).
6
When a study's design included more than two levels of attractive-
ness, we compared only the highest and lowest levels, if the report was
sufficient to yield this comparison. This rule maximized comparabil-
ity of effect sizes across the studies because the typical study presented
targets preselected to be extremely attractive and extremely unattrac-
tive. The following variations were coded as "other" but included as
separate categories in preliminary analyses: high versus medium (when
only these conditions were present in experiment), changed verbal de-
scription, median split on attractiveness, and attractiveness treated as a
continuous variable.
7
When physical attractiveness was a between-subjects variable, this
standard deviation was computed separately within the high- and low-
attractiveness conditions and pooled. When physical attractiveness
was a within-subjects variable, the standard deviation was the standard
deviation of the differences between the paired observations. These
standard deviations were estimated, whenever possible, only from the
portion of each study's data entering into the effect size.
Some statisticians have recommended that, when estimating stan-
dard deviations from the mean square error of an ANOVA, meta-ana-
lysts reconstitute this error term by adding into the sum of squares
error all other sums of squares except that for the independent variable
of interest (see Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981; Hedges & Becker, 1986).
This strategy was not chosen for this meta-analysis because physical
attractiveness was crossed with manipulated variables that in some
experiments were quite powerful. Consequently, adding sums of
squares for manipulated variables to the sum of squares error would
have had differing impact on these error terms across the studies. In
addition, statistical information was typically not extensive enough to
allow us to reconstitute the error terms.
116 EAGLY, ASHMORE, MAKHIJANI, AND LONGO
ing that the correlation between measures was .48. This correlation was
estimated by averaging the correlations between dependent variables
(a) reported in the studies or (b) derived from coefficient alphas
reported for multiple-kern dependent variables used in the meta-
analysis.
Categorization of dependent variables. To enable us to test our hy-
pothesis that physical attractiveness has more impact on some types of
evaluative beliefs than others, we also classified each study's variables
into the following six categories: (a) social competence, including inter-
personal skills and traits (sociable, fun loving) and successful outcomes
of such skills (popular, likable); (b) intellectual competence, including
intellectual ability (intelligent, skillful), rational mental style (rational,
scientific), high task motivation (ambitious, hard working), and suc-
cessful outcomes of task endeavors (receiving good grades, achieving
career success); (c) concern for others, including social sensitivity (sensi-
tive, empathic), nurturance (compassionate, generous), and lack of ego-
tism (modest, not egotistic); (d) integrity, including honesty (trust-
worthy, honest) and respect for norms (faithfulness to spouse); (e) ad-
justment, including good mental health (normal, well adjusted),
happiness (satisfied, happy), high self-esteem (confident, positive self-
regard), and well-being (maturity, good health); and (f) potency includ-
ing power (strong, self-assertive) and dominance (dominant, acting as
leader). A composite measure reported in a study was placed into one
of these categories only if 60% or more of its component ratings fit into
the category.
In addition, some measures were placed into one of two other catego-
ries. The first of these categories is general evaluation, which was cho-
sen for single-item measures whose evaluative meaning was completely
nonspecific (e.g., good) and for composite measures whose component
scales fit two or more of our specific categories and failed to attain the
criterion of at least 60% fitting any one category. The second of these
additional categories is other, which was chosen for measures that nei-
ther fit into any of the six specific categories nor qualified as measures
of general evaluation.
The measures from a study were thus placed into one or more of
these eight categories. This classification was accomplished by the four
authors' independent categorizations of the measures; three of the four
authors placed 80% of the single-item dependent variables and 72% of
composite measures in the same category. Disagreements were re-
solved by discussion between Richard D. Ashmore and Laura C.
Longo. The 596 effect sizes calculated from the studies' reported find-
ings were aggregated into category-level effect sizes for each study for as
many of the eight categories as the study represented. These aggrega-
tions were calculated under the assumption that the correlation be-
tween measures placed in the same category was .48. Each study thus
yielded, in addition to a study-level effect size, one or more of these
eight category-level effect sizes.
Analysis of effect sizes. The gs were converted to ds by correcting
them for bias (i.e., g's overestimate of the population effect size, which
occurs especially for small samples; see Hedges, 1981; Hedges & Olkin,
1985). Then the study outcomes were combined by averaging thet/s. To
determine whether each set of ds shared a common effect size (i.e., was
consistent across the studies), we calculated a homogeneity statistic, Q,
which has an approximate chi-square distribution with k — 1 degrees of
freedom, where k is the number of effect sizes (Hedges, 1981; Hedges &
Olkin, 1985).
In the absence of homogeneity, we accounted for variability in hetero-
geneous effect sizes by relating them to the attributes of the studies. To
determine the relation between these study characteristics and the
magnitude of the effect sizes, both categorical and continuous models
were tested (Hedges, 1982a, 1982b; Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Categorical
models, which are analogous to ANOVAs, may show that heteroge-
neous effect sizes are homogeneous within the subgroups established
by dividing studies into classes based on study characteristics. The
techniques for calculating categorical models provide a between-
classes effect (analogous to a main effect in an ANOVA) and a test of the
homogeneity of the effect sizes within each class. The between-classes
effect is estimated by QB, which has an approximate chi-square distri-
bution with p—1 degrees of freedom, where pis the number of classes.
The homogeneity of the effect sizes within each class is estimated by
<2w, which has an approximate chi-square distribution with m - \
degrees of freedom, where m is the number of effect sizes in the class.
The tables reporting tests of categorical models also include the mean
weighted effect size for each class, calculated with each effect size
weighted by the reciprocal of its variance, and an indication of whether
this mean differed significantly from the 0.00 value that indicates ex-
actly no effect of physical attractiveness.
The continuous models are least squares simple linear regressions,
calculated with each effect size weighted by the reciprocal of its vari-
ance. Each such model yields a test of the significance of a predictor as
well as a test of model specification, which evaluates whether signifi-
cant systematic variation remains unexplained in the regression model
(Hedges, 1982b; Hedges & Olkin, 1985). The sum of squares error sta-
tistic, QEr which provides this test of model specification, has an ap-
proximate chi-square distribution with k - p -1 degrees of freedom,
where k is the number of effect sizes and p is the number of predictors
(not including the intercept). If correctly specified models are not
achieved when implementing continuous models (or homogeneity is
not achieved within the classes when implementing categorical mod-
els), the results of these analyses cannot be interpreted as confidently as
they would otherwise be.
As a supplementary analysis, we attained homogeneity by identify-
ing outliers among the effect sizes and sequentially removing those that
reduced the homogeneity statistic by the largest amount (see Hedges &
Olkin, 1985). Using such a procedure, Hedges (1987) found for several
meta-analyses on psychological topics that the removal of up to 20% of
the outliers in a group of heterogeneous effect sizes usually resulted in a
high degree of homogeneity. Inspection of the percentage of effect sizes
removed to attain homogeneity allows one to determine whether the
effect sizes are homogeneous aside from the presence of relatively few
aberrant values. The mean attained after removal of such outliers may
better represent the distribution of effect sizes than would the mean
based on all of the effect sizes.
Results
Characteristics of the Studies
Before considering the findings reported in research on the
physical attractiveness stereotype, we examined the character-
istics of the studies from which conclusions about this research
will be drawn. Table 1 shows many of these study characteris-
tics.
As shown by the central tendencies of the characteristics
listed in Table 1, studies (a) were published relatively recently, (b)
were published as journal articles, (c) involved a moderate num-
ber of observations, and (d) aggregated a moderate number of
judgments into each observation. The studies used subjects
who were college undergraduates, Americans, and both male
and female. In addition, the studies generally (a) established an
impression-formation instructional set; (b) compared percep-
tions of targets selected to be attractive and unattractive; (c)
presented both preselection and postexperimental evidence
that attractiveness varied as intended; (d) controlled confounds
by means of multiple targets at each attractiveness level, within
each level of target sex; (e) varied attractiveness on a between-
subjects basis; (f) presented targets by means of photographs or
 REVIEW OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS STEREOTYPE 117

Table 1
Summary of Study Characteristics

Variable and class Value Variable and class Value

Median publication year 1980 Stimulus modality

Photograph or slide 60
Publication form Videotape 8
Journal article 53 Live 5
Dissertation or unpublished document 23 Written description I
Other or more than one 2
Median number of observations 108
Median number of judgments aggregated into each Part of target's body viewed
observation 12 Face 11
Head and shoulders 37
Source of subject population Full body 15
College undergraduates 70 Unclear 11
Other 6 Mixed or irrelevant 2

Nationality of subjects Stimuli in color

American 70 Yes 19
Canadian 6 No 18
Unknown 37
Sex of subjects Mixed or irrelevant 2
Male 9
Female 8 Source of stimuli
Male and female 58 College yearbook 22
Unknown 1 Researcher took own photographs or videotapes 21
Other 6
Instructional set Unknown 20
Accuracy 19 Irrelevant or more than one 7
Impression formation 38
Other 9 Basis of stimuli selection
None or unclear 10 Means and variances of judges' ratings 35
Means of judges' ratings 28
Type of attractiveness variation Consensual meaning of words 1
Attractive and unattractive targets selected 57 Unknown or intuitive 11
Changed appearance of same target 10 Mixed or irrelevant 1
Other 9
Sex of targets
Evidence that attractiveness varied as intended Male 8
Preselection judgments 19 Female 30
Postexperimental ratings 8 Male and female 38
Both 46
None 3 Race of targets
Whites only 21
Control for confounds Other exclusion 1
Multiple targets 52 Not restricted 1
Changed appearance of same target 9 Unknown 51
Other controls' 3 Mixed or irrelevant 2
No such control or unknown 12
Restrictions on target's appearance
Within versus between variation of attractiveness Eyeglasses excluded 2
Within 18 Other exclusion 12
Between 58 More than one exclusion 13
No or unknown exclusion or appearance changed 47
Mixed or irrelevant 2

Presence of individuating information

Present 48
Absent 28

Note. For categorical variables, numbers in tables represent frequencies of reports in each class.
* Includes changed written description and use of both multiple targets and changed appearance in same study

slides; (g) used head-and-shoulders poses of targets; (h) did not source of stimuli; (j) selected stimuli based on means and vari-
mention whether stimuli were presented in color or black and ances of judges' ratings or on means only; (k) used female tar-
white; (i) used college yearbook photographs, or photographs or gets only or both male and female targets; (1) did not report on
videotapes taken by the researcher, or did not mention the the race of the targets; (m) did not report on or had no restric-
118 EAGLY, ASHMORE, MAKHIJANI, AND LONGO
tions on targets' appearance or used targets whose appearance
was changed; and (n) presented individuating information
along with the attractiveness information.
Summary of Study-Level Effect Sizes
The summary of the study-level effect sizes given in Table 2
allows one to determine whether more favorable characteristics
were ascribed to attractive individuals than to unattractive indi-
viduals based on the available reports. An overall difference in
the stereotypic direction is shown by a positive mean effect size
that differed significantly from the 0.00 value that indicates
exactly no difference (i*, by a confidence interval that did not
include 0.00). As expected, evaluations were more favorable for
attractive targets than for unattractive targets, as shown by the
weighted mean of the effect sizes8 as well as by the unweighted
mean and the median. In addition, a large proportion (.91) of
these study-level effect sizes favored the attractive targets over
the unattractive targets. This proportion differed significantly
from .50, the proportion expected under the null hypothesis
(/K.001).
As also shown in Table 2, the effect sizes were not homoge-
neous, and homogeneity was not attained until a relatively large
proportion of the effect sizes C33) was removed. The removal of
outliers produced a somewhat smaller weighted mean that also
differed significantly from 0.00.
The various indexes of the central tendency of the effect sizes
thus substantiate the existence of an attractiveness stereotype,
as documented by the ascription of more favorable characteris-
tics to attractive men and women than to unattractive men and
Table 2
Summary of Study-Level Effect Sizes
Criterion Value
Including outliers
« 76
Mean weighted effect size (dj- 0.58
95%CIforrf + 0.54/0.62
Homogeneity (Q) of effect sizes comprising rf+" 450.62*
Mean effect size (mean d) 0.61
95% CI for mean d 0.50/0.72
Median effect size 0.57
Differences favoring attractive targets" 69/76 (.91)
Excluding outliers
n 51
n removed outliers 25 (.33)
Mean weighted effect size (d+) 0.49
95% CI for d+ 0.44/0.54
Homogeneity (Q) of effect sizes comprising rf+ 69.11
Note. Effect sizes are positive for more favorable evaluation of attrac-
tive than unattractive targets and negative for more favorable evalua-
tion of unattractive targets. CI = confidence interval.
" Effect sizes were weighted by the reciprocal of the variance. b Signi-
ficance indicates rejection of the hypothesis of homogeneity. ° Fre-
quencies are the number of study-level effect sizes favoring the more
attractive targets divided by the total number of effect sizes. The pro-
portion appears in parentheses.
women. This stereotype was inconsistent in magnitude across
the studies and somewhat smaller once outlying effect sizes
were deleted.
Physical Attractiveness Stereotype and Type of Attributes
Ascribed to Targets
The categorical model in Table 3 tests our prediction that the
strength of the physical attractiveness stereotype depends on
the particular dimension of meaning that was assessed. This
model produced a highly significant between-classes effect. As
expected, the largest mean effect size was produced for ratings
of social competence and the smallest effect sizes for concern
for others and integrity. Ratings on the remaining three specific
dimensions of meaning (intellectual competence, adjustment,
potency) produced effect sizes that were in between these
classes of effect sizes. Consistent with this pattern, the general
evaluation category produced effect sizes in the middle range of
the means for the six specific types of meaning, as did the
category labeled other, which contained an extremely diverse
set of ratings that did not fit into the six specific categories that
we established. We evaluated the significance of the differences
between these classes of effect sizes by means of post hoc com-
parisons, which are represented by the subscripts attached to
the mean effect sizes given in Table 3 (see Hedges & Becker,
1986; Hedges & Olkin, 1985).'
Relations Between Other Study Attributes and the
Physical Attractiveness Stereotype
The relations between other study attributes and the physical
attractiveness stereotype were evaluated on the study-level ef-
fect sizes. The categorical models that produced significant be-
tween-classes effects are given in Table 4. The first model indi-
cates a significant between-classes effect for publication form;
journal articles produced a stronger stereotype than disserta-
tions and unpublished articles. The second model shows a sig-
nificant effect for instructional set; the accuracy set yielded a
weaker stereotype. Given Dion's (1981,1986) logic that the accu-
racy set would reduce stereotyping and encourage careful think-
ing about targets' personal characteristics, a priori compari-
sons between the accuracy class of effect sizes and the three
other classes seem appropriate. By such comparisons, the
stereotype was significantly weaker with the accuracy set than
each of the other three sets (ps < .05).
Although the physical attractiveness stereotype related to the
type of method researchers used to vary attractiveness, post
hoc contrasts show only that the quite diverse category of other
manipulations produced a stronger stereotype than the more
typical manipulation that compared stimuli preselected to be
high or low in attractiveness ( p < .001). The type of control that
researchers established for confounds of the physical attractive-
* The weighted means were computed by weighting each effect size
by the reciprocal of its variance (Hedges & Olkin, 1985), a procedure
that gives more weight to effect sizes that are more reliably estimated.
9
Although our dimensions differed somewhat from those used by
Feingold (1990b), the ordering of the dimensions was substantially simi-
lar.
 REVIEW OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS STEREOTYPE 119

Table3
Categorical Model for Type of Attributes Ascribed to Targets

95% CI for <k

Between-classes Mean weighted Homogeneity within
Attribute type effect (G>) n efiect size (d,+) Lower Upper each class (G^

279.97*
Social competence 35 0.68. 0.62 0.73 213.60*
Adjustment 18 0.52.J 0.45 0.60 239.59*
Potency 14 0.49^ 0.39 0.58 36.67*
Intellectual competence 38 0.46t 0.41 0.51 178.48*
Integrity 11 0.13, 0.03 0.23 80.84*
Concern for others 22 0.01, -0.06 0.09 284.65*
General evaluation 39 0.57^ 0.52 0.62 414.59*
Other 13 0.54^ 0.44 0.64 154.00*

Note. Effect sizes are positive for more favorable evaluation of attractive than unattractive targets and negative for more favorable evaluation of
unattractive targets. Differences between means that do not have a subscript in common are significant at the .05 level or beyond. CI = confidence
interval.
* Significance indicates rejection of the hypothesis of homogeneity.
*p<.001.

ness variable also produced a significant between-classes effect.
Yet, using post hoc contrasts, the only significant comparison
among the four classes showed that the stereotype was stronger
when no control was used or when the nature of any controls
was unknown than it was when the typical multiple-target tech-
nique was used (p < .05). In addition, consistent with the
greater control of extraneous variables and the more precise
error term in within-subjects designs, within-subjects varia-
tions of attractiveness produced a stronger stereotype than be-
tween-subjects variations.
As also shown in Table 4, several attributes of the target per-
sons affected the strength of the physical attractiveness stereo-
type. The use of color (vs. black and white) stimuli related signifi-
cantly to the effect sizes. Post hoc comparisons showed that
smaller efiect sizes were produced by stimuli that were known
to be black and white than by stimuli that were in color (p <
.005) or for which color was unknown (p < .001). The next
model given in Table 4 failed to confirm our hypothesis that the
physical attractiveness stereotype is stronger for female targets
than for male targets. This hypothesis was tested on the 98
effect sizes produced when studies reporting separate data for
male and female targets were represented by these separate
effect sizes and the other studies were represented by study-level
effect sizes. Although the variable of target sex produced a sig-
nificant categorical model, the attractiveness stereotype was
stronger for reports combined over male and female targets (i.e,
reports that could not be partitioned by sex of target) than for
reports on either male targets (p < .01) or female targets (p <
.001). Contrary to hypothesis, the stereotype did not differ for
male and female targets. Moreover, we calculated the sex-of-
target model separately within each of the dimensions shown in
Table 3 and obtained no evidence of a stronger stereotype for
female than male targets within any of these dimensions. Also,
sex of subjects did not produce a significant model. Finally,
consistent with our hypothesis that individuating information
would attenuate inferences made on the basis of physical attrac-
tiveness, the stereotype was weaker when such information was
present rather than absent.
The number of judgments aggregated into each observation
was the only continuous variable that produced a significant
model. Thus, the physical attractiveness stereotype was
stronger when a greater number of judgments (i£., items) were
aggregated into each of the observations underlying the study-
level effect sizes (b = 0.0017, tf = .11, p < .025; QE[74] =
445.38, p < .001). This analysis raises the question of whether
the various dimensions of evaluative meaning shown in Table 3
differed with respect to the number of judgments aggregated
into each observation. Although some differences were ob-
served, they showed no relation to the strength of the evaluative
stereotype (Le, to the means shown in Table 3).
Discussion
Strength of the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype
Although the consensus among social psychologists has been
that the beauty-is-good stereotype is extremely strong and ro-
bust, our implicit personality theory framework led us to ex-
pect that the tendency for people to ascribe more favorable
personal attributes to attractive targets than to unattractive tar-
gets would be somewhat modest in size and quite variable
across studies. Relevant to the overall magnitude of the physical
attractiveness stereotype are the several measures of efiect size
central tendency reported in Table 2. These measures varied
from a high of 0.61 for the unweighted mean to a low of 0.49 for
the weighted mean with outliers excluded. These figures indi-
cate approximately one-half standard deviation in the direction
of more positive personality traits and life outcomes ascribed to
attractive compared with unattractive targets.
Methodological features, both of our meta-analysis and of
the research paradigms of the studies we reviewed, should be
taken into account in interpreting the magnitude of the effect
sizes we obtained. Among the important features of our meta-
analytic methods are the rules we followed for including studies
in the present sample. In particular, studies were included only
if we could compute at least one effect size, and among the
120 EAGLY, ASHMORE, MAKHIJANI, AND LONGO

Table 4
Categorical Models on Study-Level Effect Sizes

95% CI for rf,+

Between-classes Mean weighted Homogeneity within
Variable and class effect (Q,) « effect size (dH) Lower Upper each class (Gw,)'

Publication form 23.98***

Journal article 53 0.64 0.60 0.68 258.01***
Dissertation or unpublished document 23 0.45 0.39 0.51 168.64***
Instructional set 9.20*
Accuracy 19 0.50 0.43 0.56 156.86***
Impression formation 38 0.60 0.54 0.65 227.00***
Other 9 0.62 0.47 0.77 21.90**
None or unclear 10 0.64 0.57 0.71 35.36***
Type of attractiveness variation 16.03***
Attractive and unattractive targets selected 57 0.54 0.50 0.58 60.30***
Changed appearance of same target 10 0.66 0.52 0.81 23.14**
Other 9 0.73 0.64 0.82 51.16***
Control for confounds 10.18**
Multiple targets 52 0.55 0.51 0.59 382.92***
Changed appearance of same target 9 0.66 0.51 0.81 23.14**
Other controls 3 0.54 0.35 0.73 4.36
No control or unknown 12 0.69 0.61 0.78 30.00**
Within versus between variation of attractiveness 13.03***
Within 18 0.66 0.60 0.72 126.87***
Between 58 0.53 0.48 0.57 310.72***

Stimuli in color" 23.15***

Yes 19 0.63 0.55 0.72 112.12***
No 18 0.42 0.35 0.50 137.89***
Unknown 37 0.63 0.58 0.68 172.99***

Sex of targets 24.23***

Male 30 0.57 0.51 0.64 154.49***
Female 52 0.50 0.45 0.56 280.24***
Both 16 0.72 0.65 0.79 52.80***

Presence of individuating information 36.63***

Present 48 0.46 0.41 0.51 172.96***
Absent 28 0.68 0.63 0.73 241.03***

Note. Effect sizes are positive for more favorable evaluation of attractive than unattractive targets and negative for more favorable evaluation of
unattractive targets. Cl = confidence interval.
"Significance indicates rejection of the hypothesis of homogeneity. b The category "mixed or irrelevant*1 (n = 2) was omitted from this analysis.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

included studies, only effect sizes that we could compute en-
tered into our aggregations. Although some meta-analysts have
assigned the value of 0.00 to unknown effect sizes, we were
reluctant to compromise the accuracy of our data in this way,
especially in view of the fact that our computed effect sizes were
then aggregated into study-level effect sizes. Nonetheless, our
procedure probably increased the magnitude of our average
effect sizes because of the tendency for minimally reported find-
ings to be nonsignificant and generally relatively small.
An additional consideration in evaluating meta-analytic
methods is the extent to which the magnitude of the physical
attractiveness stereotype may have been exaggerated in our re-
view because of a publication bias in favor of significant find-
ings (Greenwald, 1975; Lane & Dunlap, 1978). Indeed, in our
data the effect sizes were larger in published than unpublished
research (see Table 4), a typical result in meta-analyses (see
Glass et al., 1981). Although publication bias must therefore be
considered an influence, our inclusion of all available unpub-
lished findings diluted the impact of this bias on our aggregated
effect sizes. Moreover, the mean effect size in the unpublished
studies remained substantial (see Table 4).
One of the methodological features of physical attractiveness
studies relevant to interpreting the magnitude of our effect sizes
is the degree to which extraneous variables were controlled in
typical experiments. Such control reduces the standard devia-
tions that serve as the denominator of the effect sizes. Com-
pared with many other areas of research in social and personal-
ity psychology (e.g., prosocial and antisocial behavior, group
process), research on the physical attractiveness stereotype is
relatively controlled, because carefully selected target stimuli
are presented to subjects in a laboratory setting that usually
precludes social interaction between the subjects and targets. In
addition, because dependent variables that aggregate subjects'
responses ordinarily strengthen effects (Abelson, 1985; Ajzen,
 REVIEW OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS STEREOTYPE
1988), the fact that the observations analyzed in the studies we
reviewed typically represented a moderate number of judg-
ments should also be taken into account (see Table 1). Thus, two
important methodological features of this research literature—
the relatively high level of experimental control and the moder-
ate amount of aggregation of responses—favored the produc-
tion of large effect sizes.
Several additional considerations are relevant to evaluating
the magnitude of the average ds produced by our meta-analysis
(see Eagly, 1987). One set of guidelines for the d metric has been
suggested by Cohen (1977), who proposed that 0.20 can be
described as small, 0.50 as medium, and 0.80 as large. Cohen
based these standards on his impressions of effect sizes in the
behavioral sciences and maintained that phenomena repre-
sented by medium effect sizes would ordinarily be noticed in
daily life. Cohen's characterization of medium effect sizes as
discriminable is consistent with the transformation of our
mean weighted effect size of 0.58 into the metric of Rosenthal
and Rubin's (1982) binomial effect-size display. By this transfor-
mation, 64% of attractive people but only 36% of unattractive
people were perceived as having above-average personalities.
This difference of 28% suggests a substantial tendency, despite
the fact that a d of 0.5 8 can be interpreted as signifying that only
8% of the variability in subjects' inferences about targets' per-
sonalities was explained by their physical attractiveness.
Another basis for interpreting the average effect sizes for the
physical attractiveness stereotype is to compare them with aver-
age effect sizes typically produced by meta-analyses on other
hypotheses in social and personality psychology. Eagly's (1987)
overview of such effect sizes suggested that they ranged from
roughly 0.00 to 1.20. For example, mean </s for sex differences
in social behavior ranged from a low of 0.13 for helping behav-
ior to a high of 1.19 for the use of pause fillers in vocal behavior.
Another such comparative standard is provided by Cooper and
Findley's (1982) computation of a mean d of 0.92 for the find-
ings cited in a sample of social psychology textbooks.10 Because
studies cited in textbooks are likely to provide the best demon-
strations of those phenomena that social psychologists believe
are genuine, this figure no doubt considerably overestimates the
strength of typical findings for these phenomena.
In summary, the magnitude of the physical attractiveness
stereotype in our meta-analytic findings was enhanced by (a)
our exclusion of studies for which we could not calculate an
effect size, (b) an apparent publication bias in favor of positive
findings, and (c) experimental designs featuring a high degree of
experimental control and moderate aggregation of judgments.
In view of these considerations as well as the numeric guide-
lines commonly used for evaluating the magnitude of effect
sizes, the beauty-is-good effect should be considered moderate
in magnitude but certainly not extremely strong.
Finally, in relation to the robustness of the beauty-is-good
stereotype, it is worth commenting on the consistency of the
findings across the studies. The direction of the effect proved
quite consistent, as shown by the fact that 91% of the study-level
effect sizes favored the attractive targets (see Table 2). Nonethe-
less, as shown by the large value of the Q statistic (see Table 2),
the findings were quite inconsistent in magnitude. Moreover, to
achieve a homogeneous set of findings, 33% of the study-level
effect sizes had to be removed. This figure compares with the
121
20% or less of effect sizes that Hedges (1987) removed to attain
homogeneity among studies on several diverse psychological
hypotheses. Furthermore, other recent meta-analyses on social
psychological topics have achieved homogeneity by removal of
smaller proportions of effect sizes than the 33% removed in the
present review (see Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Johnson & Eagly,
1989). Thus, the effect sizes produced by studies on the physical
attractiveness stereotype should be viewed as quite inconsistent
in magnitude.
Impact of Type of Attributes on the Physical
Attractiveness Stereotype
Congruent with our hypotheses, which built on the excep-
tions and qualifications noted in some narrative reviews (e.g.,
Adams, 1982; Alley & Hildebrandt, 1988; Bassili, 1981; Bull &
Rumsey, 1988; Cash & Janda, 1984; Dermer & Thiel, 1975;
Dion, 1981, 1986), there was considerable variation in the
strength of the beauty-is-good effect from study to study and
from measure to measure within studies. As expected, some of
this variation was explained by the type of dependent variable
researchers had used. The fact that physical attractiveness had
its strongest impact on social competence supports our conten-
tion that the core of the physical attractiveness stereotype is
sociability, popularity, and similar attributes. Other evaluative
dimensions varied considerably in how closely they were psy-
chologically connected to good looks versus bad looks. Physical
attractiveness had little impact on integrity and concern for
others; potency, adjustment, and intellectual competence
showed intermediate impact.
In none of our categories of evaluative meaning were attrac-
tive people perceived less favorably than unattractive people,
although attractive people possessed no advantage in our con-
cern for others class. Because the argument that the attractive-
ness stereotype has a dark side (e.g. Cash & Janda, 1984;
Dermer & Thiel, 1975) suggests that attractive people are per-
ceived to be more likely than unattractive people to possess the
negative attributes of vanity and selfishness, we performed sepa-
rate analyses to determine whether ratings of modesty versus
vanity (« = 6) or egotism versus selflessness (n = 6)—two compo-
nents of our concern for others class—would show significant
reversals of the usual tendency to ascribe more favorable quali-
ties to beautiful people. Indeed, both means differed signifi-
cantly from 0.00 in the predicted negative direction: d+ — —0.67,
CI = -0.51/-0.84 for modesty versus vanity; d< = -0.25, CI =
—0.08/-0.41 for egotism versus selflessness. However, the
mean for egotism became positive when one highly negative
outlying effect size was removed. Thus, we conclude only that
attractive people are perceived more negatively than unattrac-
tive people in one respect: They are thought to be more vain
and less modest. The present results, then, serve to clarify the
dark side of the physical attractiveness stereotype. It includes
10
This mean effect size aggregates comparisons involving (tests, F
tests, and correlation coefficients.
122 EAGLY, ASHMORE, MAKHUANI, AND LONGO
vanity but perhaps not the apparently similar attribute of ego-
tism."
The heterogeneity of the attractiveness stereotype across di-
mensions of evaluative meaning has important implications for
interpreting research in this area. These meta-analytic findings
raise questions about the common practice of aggregating sub-
jects' responses into composite indexes. To take the Social De-
sirability Index used by Dion and her collaborators (Dion et al,
1972) as an example, we placed 7 of the 14 items in this compos-
ite in our social competence category, 3 in potency, 3 in concern
for others, and 1 in other. Because this composite emphasized
social competence, its distribution of items across the dimen-
sions of personality resulted in a relatively strong stereotype, a
much stronger stereotype than would have been obtained by
choosing, for example, a large number of items representing
integrity and concern for others. Our meta-analytic results thus
suggest that researchers should select items systematically by
designing indexes that represent the content-specific dimen-
sions of subjects' implicit theories of personality. Aggregate
measures consisting of items that were selected through more
arbitrary methods produce unreliable estimates of the strength
of the physical attractiveness stereotype and obscure the subtle-
ties of people's stereotypic thinking about looks.
Impact of Other Variables on the Physical
Attractiveness Stereotype
Individuating information. The implicit personality theory
framework guiding the present analysis also suggested that the
strength of the physical attractiveness stereotype would be af-
fected by information about the targets in addition to their
physical attractiveness. As predicted, the beauty-is-good effect
was weaker when subjects received individuating information
along with attractiveness cues. This finding, which is consistent
with the prior research we noted early in this article, suggests
that the evaluative implications of looks may be somewhat weak
in many natural settings in which perceivers have extensive in-
formation about other people in addition to their physical ap-
pearance. Looks should thus be relatively less important in per-
ceptions of friends, acquaintances, family members, and co-
workers than in perceptions of strangers.
Sex of targets. The prediction that the attractiveness stereo-
type is stronger for female targets than for male targets was not
supported.12 In seeking to explain why, we offer two quite dif-
ferent lines of reasoning. One possibility is that this hypothesis
may be valid under circumstances not present in the research
paradigms represented in this meta-analysis. In particular, the
greater weight of attractiveness in perceivers' judgments of
women may occur in the context of face-to-face interaction or,
more generaUy, in situations in which perceivers are likely to
interact with targets. If women take more interest in and respon-
sibility for the interpersonal aspects of daily experience (see
Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Wood, in press), physical attractiveness
may have more impact on judgments of women than men in
natural settings where people engage in social interaction, and
social competence therefore has important consequences. The
greater importance of attractiveness to perceptions of women
may not be revealed in the typical stereotype study, in which
subjects merely rate photographs of targets whom they do not
expect to meet.
A second, more radical interpretation is that our hypothesis
about the greater weight of attractiveness in judgments of
women is incorrect. If so, how can this conclusion be reconciled
with research suggesting that physical attractiveness is more
important to the female gender role than to the male gender
role and to women's self-esteem and personal identity (see sum-
mary presented early in this article)? To resolve this apparent
paradox, we suggest framing the effects of physical attractive-
ness in terms of two stages: (a) In a first stage, perceivers infer
from appearance cues that targets have certain personality
characteristics; and (b) in a second stage, the implications of
these inferences unfold during social interaction. In the first
stage, physical attractiveness may cause perceivers to draw the
same conclusions about women's and menls personalities (iff., it
conveys the same information about social competence and
other attributes). However, in the second stage, conclusions
based on attractiveness may be more consequential for women
than men. Specifically, as social interaction proceeds, the gains
in perceived social competence enjoyed by good-looking peo-
ple may have more important consequences for women be-
cause the structuring of interaction by means of gender roles
assigns women more responsibility for the maintenance of posi-
tive and friendly relationships (see Eagly, 1987). Therefore,
women may work harder to be perceived as socially competent,
accounting for women's greater interest in their personal ap-
pearance and the greater centrality of looks in their self-
concepts. Also if marriage and family relationships are more
central to women than men (see Wood, Rhodes, & Whelan,
1989), the implications of looks for heterosexual attraction may
be more important to women than men.
Within- versus between-subjects manipulation of attractive-
ness. The finding that the attractiveness stereotype was
stronger for within-subjects manipulations than for between-
subjects manipulations of appearance is amenable to two possi-
ble explanations. One interpretation is that the within-subjects
procedure provides a more precise error term because subjects
served as their own controls (see also footnote 7). A second
interpretation is that the context in which stimuli are perceived
in within-subjects experiments—namelji exposure to targets of
widely differing levels of physical attractiveness—may induce a
perceptual contrast effect whereby attractive targets are seen as
more attractive and unattractive targets as less attractive than
they would otherwise be. Such contrast effects are well docu-
mented in research on judgments of physical attractiveness (see
Patzer, 1985, for a summary). The more extreme judgments of
attractiveness that result from such a contrast effect could in-
duce more extreme judgments of personality.
Color versus black-and-white stimuli. Another finding of our
" Our conclusion about egotism is somewhat tentative because five
of the six egotism effect sizes were based on composite measures of
egotism that included some attributes in addition to egotism and its
synonyms.
12
Yet Feingold (1990b) showed that physical attractiveness led to
stronger inferences of sexual warmth for female targets than for male
targets.
 REVIEW OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS STEREOTYPE
meta-analysis is that the beauty-is-good effect was more pro-
nounced for color stimuli than for black-and-white stimuli. In-
terpretation of this finding must remain tentative because, as a
result of the correlational nature of meta-analytic findings, the
color versus black-and-white aspect of the stimuli was con-
founded to some extent with other features of the experiments
(e.g., the studies with color stimuli encompassed all of those
with face-to-face interaction). Nonetheless, if we assume that
color stimuli are more vivid than black-and-white photographs,
this finding can be interpreted in terms of the greater psycholog-
ical impact of vivid (vs. pallid) stimuli. Vivid information is
presumed to attract and hold people's attention because it is, for
example, concrete and imagery provoking, emotionally interest-
ing, or proximal in a sensory, temporal, or spatial way (Nisbett
& Ross, 1980). Although empirical support for the hypothesis
that vividly presented information has more impact on judg-
ments than pallid information has been mixed, many of the
failures to confirm vividness hypotheses may have been due to
researchers' failures to specify exactly what was made vivid by
their particular vividness manipulations (see Chaiken & Eagly,
1983; Taylor & Thompson, 1982). This ambiguity was for the
most part not present in this research because photographs
were typically presented, making the physical appearance of
the target vivid. Thus, the typical experimental paradigm for
research on the physical attractiveness stereotype may be espe-
cially well adapted to demonstrating vividness effects, and pri-
mary research within this paradigm might well explore these
effects.
Number of judgments aggregated into dependent variable.
The finding that the beauty-is-good effect was stronger when a
larger number of judgments was aggregated into the dependent
variable is explicable in terms of ordinary principles of reliabil-
ity and aggregation: Dependent variables show stronger rela-
tions to appropriate predictors to the extent that measures of
these variables are more reliable because they are based on
aggregations of correlated responses (e.g., Ajzen, 1988). This
relation between the strength of findings and response aggrega-
tion has been obtained in other meta-analyses (Eagly & John-
son, 1990; Eagly & Steffen, 1986), and it is appropriate to rou-
tinely track the effects of aggregation in quantitative reviews.
Other findings. The relation that the physical attractiveness
stereotype showed to instructional set, type of attractiveness
variation, and control for confounds are of somewhat less inter-
est because it is difficult to interpret these findings in any but
the most tentative way. \fet the tendency for the accuracy in-
structional set to produce a weaker stereotype than other in-
structional sets is interesting and consistent with Dion and col-
leagues' (1972) logic in choosing this particular set (see Dion,
1981,1986). It is also worth noting the tendency for the stereo-
type to be more pronounced in studies that apparently did not
(vs. did) implement any control for confounds of attractiveness
with other features of target stimuli. Because such studies pre-
sented only two individuals, one attractive person and one unat-
tractive person (of each sex if both sexes of targets were in-
cluded), attractiveness could have been confounded with other
aspects of targets' physical appearance. The fact that this lack of
control was associated with a stronger beauty-is-good effect sug-
gests that confounds favored researchers' hypothesis.
123
Limitations of This Meta-Analysis
Our integration of research on the physical attractiveness ste-
reotype addressed only a limited number of questions, and fu-
ture meta-analyses of this research literature could well con-
sider several other important issues. In particular, the beauty-is-
good hypothesis might be compared with an ugly-is-bad
hypothesis (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986; Patzer, 1985). Such a
meta-analysis would compare the differences in judgments of
high- and medium-attractiveness targets with the differences in
judgments of medium- and low-attractiveness targets. We did
not compute effect sizes comparing medium-attractiveness tar-
gets with high- or low-attractiveness targets because the design
comparing high- and low-attractiveness targets is the prototype
for research on this topic. In fact, 71% of the studies in our
sample did not include a middle or medium level of attractive-
ness.
Another limitation of our meta-analysis is that we had no
satisfactory way to gauge the strength of researchers' manipula-
tions of physical attractiveness. Some of the between-study vari-
ability in findings was no doubt due to variation in the strength
of the attractiveness manipulation. Most researchers used
judges' ratings to select their target stimuli, but rules for select-
ing good- and bad-looking stimuli varied (e.g, some investiga-
tors excluded targets that were rated as extremely attractive or
unattractive, whereas others did not; see Wallston & O*Leary's,
1981, discussion of this point). Although manipulation checks
were often present, data were generally not reported in suffi-
cient detail to allow the computation of effect sizes representing
the perceived difference in the physical attractiveness of the
high- and low-attractiveness targets. Moreover, norms of attrac-
tiveness probably changed over time so that the features of
highly attractive faces varied somewhat from study to study.
These variations in looks may have influenced the particular
inferences that perceivers made.
The conclusions of our meta-analysis are also limited by the
characteristics of the existing paradigm for assessing the attrac-
tiveness stereotype. Many researchers from Dion and co-
workers (1972) onward have used the same basic laboratory
experimental procedure. In the interest of experimental con-
trol, Dion and associates' paradigm presented only one type of
stimulus in a particular way: namely, college students depicted
in head-and-shoulders photographs. In this study and in most
subsequent research, the targets were young adults with the
physical appearance idiosyncracies of people who attend col-
lege. This stimulus domain reduced the likelihood that good-
looking but bad types (e.g, dumb blonde, whore/tramp, femme
fatale, sleazy guy, gigolo) were represented. For example, the
prototypic femme fatale is generally depicted in the media as
older than the modal college woman and identified by clothes,
makeup, and jewelry that are unlikely to be worn by college
women posing for yearbook photos.
The most important limitation of the present meta-analysis
follows directly from our goal of evaluating the strength and
generality of the physical attractiveness stereotype. Because of
our decision to study only the stereotype itself, we included only
studies that assessed evaluative perceptions of targets in situa-
tions that did not involve personal or role relationships between
perceiver and target. Although this emphasis allowed us to do
124 EAGLY, ASHMORE, MAKHIJANI, AND LONGO
the best possible job of documenting the overall size of the
attractiveness stereotype and its variability, especially as a func-
tion of the specific type of inference, it did not permit us to
probe the impact that the beauty-is-good stereotype has on ac-
tion. We have thus not examined the impact of attractiveness
stereotyping in ongoing social interaction and everyday role
relationships. Quantitative summaries of the large research liter-
ature addressing such issues can now proceed given the rela-
tively clear description that the present review provides of the
physical attractiveness stereotype itself.
Conclusion
This meta-anatysis indicates that narrative reviewers were
correct in concluding that, in terms of perceivers' inferences
from cues that convey physical attractiveness, what is beautiful
is good. At the same time, our findings reveal that this effect is
highly variable, and that the implicit personality theory frame-
work successfully identifies factors that help account for this
variation. Thus, our results indicate that the beauty-is-good ef-
fect depends crucially on the type of inference the perceiver is
asked to make. Good looks induce strong inferences about so-
cial competence and weaker inferences about potency, adjust-
ment, and intellectual competence, but have little impact on
beliefs about integrity and concern for others. One important
direction for future primary research is to design explicit tests
of the effects we demonstrated of the type of attributes con-
tained in dependent measures. Such research would require the
development of reliable and valid indexes of the content-speci-
fic dimensions of personality represented in people's implicit
theories. Indeed, some researchers have already taken steps in
this direction. Specifically, Bassili (1981), who also proposed
that the attractiveness stereotype is not as general as implied by
the phrase beauty is good (see discussion early in this article),
used factor analysis to demonstrate that Dion and colleagues'
(1972) Social Desirability Index contains several content-
specific types of evaluative meaning. He also offered a more
general instrument for measuring dimensions of personality
that are affected by positive versus negative appearance.
Other parts of the social psychological research literature on
attractiveness also provide fruitful domains for quantitative re-
viewing. The most pressing next step is to integrate the results
of the large number of studies that have examined the effects of
physical appearance on how people are treated (e.g, in educa-
tional settings, Adams & Cohen, 1974; in judicial proceedings,
Stewart, 1980). Our finding that the strength of the beauty-is-
good stereotype depends on the type of inference perceivers
make yields some predictions about treatment effects. For ex-
ample, targets' physical attractiveness should have greater im-
pact on how people treat them in the general domain of social
competence (eg., peer popularity achieved) than intellectual
competence (e.g., school grades received), integrity (e.g, sen-
tences assigned for legal violations), or concern for others (e.g.,
opportunities provided for prosocial behavior). In addition, by
extending our logic about the dampening effect of individuat-
ing information, we expect a weakening of the overall effect of
beauty as one moves from stereotype studies to research assess-
ing behavior in natural settings and even more reduction when
these natural settings require that people interact within the
constraints imposed by social roles and by organizational
norms and hierarchies.
References
Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is
a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97,129-133.
Adams, G. R. (1977). Physical attractiveness research: Toward a devel-
opmental social psychology of beauty. Human Development, 20,
217-239.
Adams, G. R. (1982). Physical attractiveness. In A. G. Miller (Ed), In
the eye of the beholder: Contemporary issues in stereotyping(pp. 253-
304). New York: Praeger.
Adams, G. R., & Cohen, A. S. (1974). Children's physical and interper-
sonal characteristics that affect student-teacher interactions. Journal
of Experimental Education, 43,1-5.
Adams, G. R., & Wareham, J. (no date). Beautiful is good: Mechanism of
self and others'perceptions. Unpublished manuscript, Utah State Uni-
versity; Logan, UT.
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey
Press.
Allen, B. P. (1978). Social behavior: Facts and falsehoods about common
sense, hypnotism, obedience, altruism, beauty, racism, and sexism.
Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Alley, T. R, & Hildebrandt, K. A. (1988). Determinants and conse-
quences of facial aesthetics. In T. R. Alley (Ed), Social and applied
aspects of perceiving faces (pp. 101-140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, N. H. (1974). Cognitive algebra: Integration theory applied
to social attribution. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 1-101). New York: Academic Press.
Anderson, N. H. (1981). Integration theory applied to cognitive re-
sponses and attitudes. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock
(Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 361-397). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, R., & Nida, S. A. (1978). Effect of physical attractiveness on
opposite- and same-sex evaluations. Journal of Personality, 46,401-
413.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Ab-
normal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290.
Ashmore, R. D. (1981). Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory.
In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and inter-
group behavior (pp. 37-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1979). Sex stereotypes and implicit
personality theory: Toward a cognitive-social psychological concep-
tualization. Sex Roles, 5, 219-248.
Ashmore, R. D., Del Boca, E K., & Wohlers, A. J. (1986). Genderstereo-
types. In R. D Ashmore & F. K. Del Boca (Eds.), The social psychol-
ogy of female-male relations: A critical analysis of central concepts
(pp. 69-119). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Ashmore, R. D, Tumia, M, & Schreier, P. (1980). Forming impressions
of personality: A reanalysis of the central trait effect through multidi-
mensional scaling. Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University,
New Brunswick, NJ.
Barnes, M. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Interpersonal effects of experi-
menter attractiveness, attire, and gender. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 48, 435-446.
Baron, R. A, & Byrne, D. (1987). Social psychology: Understanding
human interaction (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bar-Tal, D, & Saxe, L. (1976). Physical attractiveness and its relation-
ship to sex-role stereotyping. Sex Roles, 2,123-133.
Bassili, J. N. (1981). The attractiveness stereotype: Goodness or glam-
our? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 235-252.
Berscheid, E. (1981). A review of the psychological effects of physical
attractiveness. In G. W Lucker, K. A. Ribbens, & J. A. McNamara
 REVIEW OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS STEREOTYPE
(Eds), Psychological aspects of facial form (pp. 1-23). Ann Arbor,
MI: Center for Human Growth.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7,
pp. 157-215). New York: Academic Press.
Brigham, J. C. (1980). Limiting conditions of the "physical attractive-
ness stereotype": Attributions about divorce. Journal of Research in
Personality, 14, 365-375.
Bull, R., & Rumsey, N. (1988). The social psychology of facial appear-
ance. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bull, R, & Stevens, J. (1979). The effects of attractiveness of writer and
penmenship on essay grades. Journal of Occupational Psychology.
52, 53-59.
Cash, T. F. (1981). Physical attractiveness: An annotated bibliography
of theory and research in the behavioral sciences. Psychological Doc-
uments, 11, 83. (Ms. No. 2370)
Cash, T. F. (1985). Physical appearance and mental health. In J. A.
Graham & A. M. Kligman (Eds.), The psychology of cosmetic treat-
ments (pp. 196-216). New York: Praeger.
Cash, T. F, & Janda, L. H. (1984, December). The eye of the beholder.
Psychology Today, pp. 46-52.
Cash, T. F, & Kehr, J. (1978). Influence of nonprofessional counselors'
physical attractiveness and sex on perceptions of counselor behavior.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 336-342.
Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persua-
sion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,1387-1397.
Chaiken, S. (1986). Physical appearance and social influence. In C. P.
Herman, M. P. Zanna, & E. T. Higgins (Eds), Physical appearance,
stigma, and social behavior: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 3, pp. 143-
177). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communication modality as a deter-
minant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 241-256.
Cohen, S. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(rev. ed). New York: Academic Press.
Cooper, H. M., & Findley, M. (1982). Expected effect sizes: Estimates
for statistical power analysis in social psychology. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 8,168-173.
Courtney, A. E., & Whipple, T. W (1983). Sex stereotyping in advertis-
ing. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1983). Components of gender stereotypes.
Psychological Documents, 13. 25. (Ms. No. 2583)
Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes:
Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 991-1004.
Deaux, K., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1988). Social psychology. Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Del Boca, F. K., & Ashmore, R. D. (1980). Sex stereotypes through the
life cycle. In L. Wheeler (Ed), Review of personality and social psy-
chology (Vol. 1, pp. 163-192). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Dernier, M., & Thiel, D. L. (1975). When beauty may fail. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, SI, 1168-1176.
Dibiase, W J., &Hjelle, L. A. (1968). Body-image stereotypes and body-
type preferences among male college students. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 27,1143-1146.
Dion, K. K. (1981). Physical attractiveness, sex roles and heterosexual
attraction. In M. Cook (Ed), The bases of human sexual attraction
(pp. 3-22). London: Academic Press.
Dion, K. K. (1986). Stereotyping based on physical attractiveness: Is-
sues and conceptual perspectives. In C. R Herman, M. P. Zanna, &
E. T. Higgins (Eds), Physical appearance, stigmaand social behavior:
The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3, pp. 7-21). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is
good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
125
Downs, A. C, & Harrison, S. K. (1985). Embarrassing age spots or just
plain ugly? Physical attractiveness stereotyping as an instrument of
sexism on American television commercials. Sex Roles, 13,9-19.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role
interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the
distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 46, 735-754.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A
meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 100, 309-330.
Eagty, A. H., & Wood, W (in press). Explaining sex differences in social
behavior: A meta-analytic perspective. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin.
Feingold, A. (1990a). Gender differences in effects of physical attrac-
tiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research
paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981-
993.
Feingold, A. (1990b). Good-looking people are not what we think. Un-
published manuscript.
Ghiselli, E. E. (1964). Theory of psychological measurement. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Glass, G. V, McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-anafysis in social
research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goldman, W, & Lewis, P. (1977). Beautiful is good: Evidence that the
physically attractive are more socially skillful. Journal of Experimen-
tal Social Psychology, 13,125-130.
Greenwald, A. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null
hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82,1-20.
Gross, A. E, & Crofton, C. (1977). What is good is beautiful. Socio-
metry, 40, 85-90.
Hamilton, D. L. (Ed). (1981). Cognitive processes in stereotyping and
intergroup behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hartnett, J. I, & Secord, G. (1983). Physical attraction and its effects on
the perception of extra-marital affairs. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
56, 310.
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, mirror: The importance of
looks in everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hedges, L. V(1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect
size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6,107-
128.
Hedges, L. V (1982a). Fitting categorical models to effect sizes from a
series of experiments. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7,119-137.
Hedges, L. V (1982b). Fitting continuous models to effect size data.
Journal of Educational Statistics, 7,245-270.
Hedges, L. V (1987). How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science?
The empirical cumulativeness of research. American Psychologist,
42, 443-455.
Hedges, L. V, & Becker, B. J. (1986). Statistical methods in the meta-
analysis of research on gender differences. In J. Hyde & M. C. Linn
(Eds), The psychology of gender: Advances through meta-anafysis
(pp. 14-50). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hedges, L. V, & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-anafysis.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hocking, J. E, Walker, B. A., & Fink, E. L. (1982). Physical attractive-
ness and judgments of morality following an "immoral" act. Psycho-
logical Reports, 51,111-116.
Jackman, D. M. (1979). Effects of physical attractiveness and sex on the
perception of assertiveness, aggressiveness, and submissiveness.
Dissertations Abstracts International, 39, 5648B. (University Micro-
films No. 79-10272)
126 EAGLY, ASHMORE, MAKHIJANI, AND LONGO
Jackson, L. A, Sullivan, L. A., & Rostker, R. (1988). Gender, gender
role, and body image. Sex Roles, 19,429-443.
Jacobson, M. B., & Koch, W (1978). Attributed reasons for support of
the feminist movement as a function of attractiveness. Sex Roles, 4,
169-174.
Jacobson, M. B, & Popovich, P. M. (1983). Victim attractiveness and
perceptions of responsibility in an ambiguous rape case. Psychology
ofWomen Quarterly, 8,100-104.
Johnson, B. T, & Eagly, A. H. (1989). The effects of involvement on
persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
Kim, M. R, & Rosenberg, S. (1980). Comparison of two structural
models of implicit personality theory. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 38, 375-389.
Lane, D. M., & Dunlap, W P. (1978). Estimating effect size: Bias result-
ing from the significance criterion in editorial decisions. British
Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 31,107-112.
Langlois, J. H. (1986). From the eye of the beholder to behavioral real-
ity: Development of social behaviors and social relations as a func-
tion of physical attractiveness. In C. P. Herman, M. P. Zanna, & E. T.
Higgins (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior:The
Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3, pp. 23-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Larsen. R. J., Diener, E., &Cropanzano, R. S. (1987). Cognitive opera-
tions associated with individual differences in affect intensity. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 767-774.
Lerner, R., & Lerner, J. (1977). Effects of age, sex and physical attrac-
tiveness on child-peer relations, academic performance, and elemen-
tary school adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 13,585-590.
Locksley, A, Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Sex stereo-
types and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 39.S21-S31.
Locksley, A, Hepburn, C, & Ortiz, Y (1982). Social stereotypes and
judgments of individuals: An instance of the base-rate fallacy. Jour-
nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 23-42.
Martin, P. 1, Friedmeyer, M. H, & Moore, J. E. (1977). Pretty patient/
healthy patient? A study of physical attractiveness and psychopathol-
ogy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33,990-994.
McArthur, L. Z. (1982). Judging a book by its cover: A cognitive analy-
sis of the relationship between physical appearance and stereotyp-
ing. In A. H. Hastorf & A. M. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology
(pp. 149-211). New York: Elsevier.
Miller, A. G., Gillen, B., Schenker, C., & Radlove, S. (1974). The predic-
tion and perception of obedience to authority. Journal of Personality,
42, 23-42.
Mullen, B. (1989). Advanced BASIC meta-analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Nisbett, R. E.,& Ross. L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and short-
comings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nordholm, L. A. (1980). Beautiful patients are good patients: Evidence
for the physical attractiveness stereotype in first impressions of pa-
tients. Social Science and Medicine, 14A, 81-83.
O'Reilly, M. T. (1987). Physical attractiveness of professors in dental
education: Its relationship to students' ratings of teaching effective-
ness (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1986). Disser-
tation Abstracts International, 47, 433A.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J, & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measure-
ment of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Patzer, G. L. (1985). The physical attractiveness phenomena. New York:
Plenum Press.
Pilkonis, P. A. (1977). The behavioral consequences of shyness. Journal
of Personality, 45, 596-611.
Roberts, E. J. (1982). Television and sexual learning in children. In D.
Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds), Television and behavior: Ten
years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties (Vol. 2, pp.
209-223). Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office.
Rodin, J, Silberstein, L., & Striegel-Moore, R. (1985). Women and
weight: A normative discontent. In T. B. Sonderegger & R. A.
Dienstbier (Eds), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1984 (Vol. 33,
pp. 267-307). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Rosenberg, S. (1977). New approaches to the analysis of personal con-
structs in person perception. In A. L. Land & J. K. Cole (Eds.),
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1976 (Vol. 24, pp. 179-242).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C, & Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). A multidi-
mensional approach to the structure of personality impressions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 283-294.
Rosenberg, S., & Sedlak, A. (1972). Structural representations of im-
plicit personality theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experi-
mental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 235-297). New York: Academic
Press.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display
of magnhudeof experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 74,166-169.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1986). Mela-analytic procedures for
combining studies with multiple effect sizes. Psychological Bulletin,
99, 400-406.
Scheibe, C. (1979). Sex roles in TV commercials. Journal of Advertising
Research, 19, 23-27.
Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psycholog-
ical Bulletin, 79, 294-309.
Schneider, P. A, Conger, A, & Firth, E. A. (1986, April). Sex as a
moderator of the beauty-good relationship. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Association for Counseling and Develop-
ment, Los Angeles.
Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and
interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereo-
types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656-666.
Stewart, J. E. (1980). Defendant's attractiveness as a factor in the out-
come of criminal trials: An observational study. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 10, 348-361.
Taylor, S. E., & Thompson, S. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive "vividness"
effect. Psychological Review, 89,155-181.
Touhey, J. C. (1979). Sex-role stereotyping and individual differences in
liking for the physically attractive. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42,
285-289.
Turkat, D., & Dawson, J. (1976). Attributions of responsibility for a
chance event as a function of sex and physical attractiveness of target
individual. Psychological Reports, 39, 275-279.
Wallston, B. S, & O"Leary, Y E. (1981). Sex makes a difference: Differ-
ential perceptionsof women and men. In L. Wheeler (Ed),/tevfewo/
personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 9-41). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
White, G. M. (1980). Conceptual universal in interpersonal language.
American Anthropologist, 82, 759-781.
Wood, W, Rhodes, N., & Whelan, M. (1989). Sex differences in positive
well-being: A meta-analytic review of the effects associated with
marital status. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 249-264.
 REVIEW OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS STEREOTYPE
Appendix
References for Studies in Meta-Analysis
Adams, G. R., & Huston, T. L. (1975). Social perception of middle-aged
persons varying in physical attractiveness. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 11. 657-658.
Alicke, M. n, Smith, R. H., & Klotz, M. L. (1986). Judgments of physi-
cal attractiveness: The role of faces and bodies. Personality and So-
cial Psychology Bulletin, 12, 381-389.
Anderson, S. M., & Bern, S. L. (1981). Sex typing and androgyny in
dyadic interaction: Individual differences in responsiveness to physi-
cal attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41,
74-86.
Armstrong, D P. (1979). The facial attractiveness riddle (Doctoral dis-
sertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1978). Disser-
tation Abstracts International, 39, 5127B.
Barnes, M. L, & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Interpersonal effects of experi-
menter attractiveness, attire, and gender. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 48, 435-446.
Barocas, R., & Karoly, P. (1972). Effects of physical appearance on
social responsiveness. Psychological Reports, 31, 495-500.
Bassili, J. N. (1981). The attractiveness stereotype: Goodness or glam-
our? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 235-252.
Benassi, M. A. (1981). The effects of order of presentation and physical
attractiveness on attributions of ability (Doctoral dissertation, De
Paul University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 2596B.
Black, H. K. (1974). Physical attractiveness and similarity of attitude in
interpersonal attraction. Psychological Reports, 35, 403-406.
Boor, M., & Zeis, E R. (1975). Effect of physical attractiveness on 1Q
estimation: A failure to extend results of prior research. Psychologi-
cal Documents, 5, 234. (Ms. No. 929).
Byrne, D, London, O., & Reeves, K. (1968). The effects of physical
attractiveness, sex, and attitude similarity on interpersonal attrac-
tion. Journal of Personality, 36,259-271.
Carter, J. A. (1978). Impressions of counselors as a function of coun-
selor physical attractiveness. Journal ofCou,:'eling Psychology, 25,
28-34.
Cash, T. E, Begley, P I, McCown, D. A, & Weise, B. C. (1975). When
counselors are heard but not seen: Initial impact of physical attrac-
tiveness. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 273-279.
Cash, T. E, Kehr, J. A., Poryson, J., & Freeman, V (1977). Role of physi-
cal attractiveness in peer attribution of psychological disturbance.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 987-993.
Covington, J. K. (1981). The communicator's physical attractiveness
and credibility as determinants of the effectiveness of a speech (Doc-
toral dissertation, Louisiana State University). Dissertation Ab-
stracts International, 42, 437A.
Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attrac-
tiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial
beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925-935.
Dermer, M. (1974). When beauty fails (Doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Minnesota, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 34,
4402A.
Dermer, M, & Thiel, D. L. (1975). When beauty may fail. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, J/,1168-1176.
Dion, K.., Berscheid, E, & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
Dushenko, T. W, Perry, R. P., Schilling, J., &Smolarski, S. (1978). Gener-
ality of the physical attractiveness stereotype forage and sex. Journal
of Social Psychology, 105, 303-304.
Gallucci, N. T. (1984). Effects of men's physical attractiveness on inter-
personal attraction. Psychological Reports, 55, 935-938.
127
Gallucci, N. T, & Meyer, R. G. (1984). People can be too perfect:
Effects of subjects' and targets' attractiveness on interpersonal at-
traction. Psychological Reports, 55, 351-360.
Gillen, B. (1981). Physical attractiveness: A determinant of two types
of goodness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7.277-281.
Gillen, B. (1975). Physical attractiveness and sex as determinants of
trait attributions. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36,1945B.
(University Microfilms No. 75-21,693)
Gillen, B., & Sherman, R. C. (1980). Physical attractiveness and sex as
determinants of trait attributions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
15, 423^37.
Green, C. E, Cunningham, 1, & Yanico, B. J. (1986). Effects of coun-
selor and subject race and counselor physical attractiveness on im-
pressions and expectations of a female counselor. Journal of Counsel-
ing Psychology, 33, 349-352.
Guise, B. J., Pollans, C. H., & Turkat, I. D. (1982). Effects of physical
attractiveness on perception of social skill. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 54,1039-1042.
Hailey, B. J. (1976). Selective attention as a factor in the maintenance of
physical attractiveness and sex role stereotypes (Doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Georgia, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 36, 4227B.
Havassy, V J. (1981). Reactions to professional women as a function of
attractiveness and level of competence (Doctoral dissertation, Cali-
fornia School of Professional Psychology). Dissertation Abstracts In-
ternational, 42, 2130B.
Heilman, M. E.,&Stopeck, M. H. (1985). Attractiveness and corporate
success: Different causal attributions for males and females. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 70, 379-388.
Hicks, R. A., Pellegrini, R. I, & Tomlinson, N. (1978). Attributions of
female college students to male photographs as a function of attrac-
tiveness and pupil size. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47,1265-1266.
Hill, M. K., & Lando, H. A. (1976). Physical attractiveness and sex-role
stereotypes in impression formation. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
43,1251-1255.
Jackson, L. A. (1983). The perception of androgyny and physical attrac-
tiveness: Two is better than one. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 9, 405-413.
Janda, L. H., O'Grady, K. E., & Barnhart, S. A. (1981). Effects of sexual
attitudes and physical attractiveness on person perception of men
and women. Sex Roles, 7,189-199.
Joseph, W B. (1977). Effect of communicator physical attractiveness
and expertness on opinion change and information processing. Dis-
sertation Abstracts International, 38, 5017A. (University Microfilms
No. 77-31,899)
Kaplan, R. M. (1978). Is beauty talent? Sex interaction in the attractive-
ness halo effect. Sex Roles, 4,195-204.
Kleinke, C. L, & Kahn, M. L. (1980). Perceptions of self-disclosers:
Effects of sex and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 48,
190-205.
Kleinke, C. L., Staneski, R. A, & Pipp, S. L. (1975). Effects of gaze,
distance, and attractiveness on males' first impressions of females.
Representative Research in Social Psychology, 6, 7-12.
Kollar, M. M. (1973). The beautiful is rotten phenomenon: A negative
stereotype of physical attractiveness. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 34, 4632B. (University Microfilms No. 74-07,769)
Landy, D., & Sigall, H. (1974). Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a
functionof the performer's physical attractiveness. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 29, 299-304.
128 EAGLY, ASHMORE, MAKHIJANI, AND LONGO
La Voie, J. C, & Adams, G. R. (1978). Physical and interpersonal attrac-
tiveness of the model and imitation in adults. Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 106,191-202.
Lee, L. J., Adams, G. R, & Dobson, W R. (1984). Male and female
attributions and social influence behavior towards a physically at-
tractive female. Journal of Psychology, 117,97-103.
Lewis, K. N, & Walsh, W B. (1978). Physical attractiveness: Its impact
on the perception of a female counselor. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 25, 210-216.
Longtain, M. J. (1981). Status generalization and performance expec-
tation effects of sex role stereotypes, physical attractiveness, and
expertise. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 3034B. (Univer-
sity Microfilms No. 81-28,655)
Lucker, G. W (1977). Physical attractiveness, individual differences
and personality stereotyping (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Texas at Austin, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37,
4219B.
Maddux, J. E, & Rogers, R. W (1980). Effects of source expertness,
physical attractiveness, and supporting arguments on persuasion: A
case of brains over beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 39, 235-244.
Miller, A. G. (1970). Role of physical attractiveness in impression for-
mation. Psychonomic Science, 19, 241-243.
Mims, P. R, Hartnett, J. J., & Nay, W R. (1975). Interpersonal attrac-
tion and help volunteering as a function of physical attractiveness.
Journal of Psychology, 89,125-131.
Molberg, A. N. (1977). The effects of interpersonal distance, physical
attractiveness, and sex on impression formation (Doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Minnesota, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 37, 6408B.
Moore, J. S., Graziano, W G., & Miller, M. G. (1987). Physical attractive-
ness, sex role orientation, and the evaluation of adults and children.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 95-102.
Nielsen, J. P., & Kernaleguen, A. (1976). Influence of clothing and
physical attractiveness in person perception. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 42, 775-780.
Osterkamp, M. B. (1980). Impressions of older persons in initial inter-
actions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1979). Disser-
tation Abstracts International, 41,849A.
Patzer, G. L. (1983). Source credibility as a function of communicator
physical attractiveness. Journal of Business Research, 11, 229-241.
Pistilli.J. A. (1976). Stereotyped perceptionsof women asafunctionof
menstrual cycle phase and physical attractiveness (Doctoral disser-
tation, Kent State University, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 36, 4760B.
Reeves, R. A. (1982). The effects of source physical attractiveness, simi-
larity, and message type on persuasion: When beauty is not enough
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia). Dissertation Ab-
stracts International, 43, 2044B.
Saner, S. I. (1983). Beyond the halo effect: Physical attractiveness and
impression formation as a function of cue availability (Doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Connecticut). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 44,1253B.
Sanders, C. H, & Borowy, T. D. (1983). Physical attractiveness: Its influ-
ence on the perceptions of counselors (Report No. CG-017-587).
Knoxville: University of Tennessee. (ERIC Document Reproduc-
tion Service No. ED 246-345)
Saxe, L. (1976). Perceiver characteristics as determinants of judgments
of physically attractive and unattractive others (Doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Pittsburgh, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 37, 2577B.
Small-Weil, S. B. (1981). The relationship between gender, physical
attractiveness and occupational prestige (Doctoral dissertation,
Tufts University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41,
3613B.
Snyder, M, &Rothbart, M. (1971). Communicator attractiveness and
opinion change. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 3, 377-
387.
Solomon, S., & Saxe, L. (1977). What is intelligent, as well as attractive,
is good. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 670-673.
Stretch, R. H, & Figley, C. R. (1980). Beauty and the boast: Predictors
of interpersonal attraction in a dating experiment. Psychology: A
Quarterly Journal of Human Behavior, 17, 35-43.
Tanke, E. D. (1982). Dimensions of the physical attractiveness stereo-
type: A factor/analytic study. Journal of Psychology, 110, 63-74.
Thornton, B., & Linnstaedter, L. (1980). The influence of physical
attractiveness and sex-role congruence on interpersonal attraction.
Representative Research in Social Psychology, 11, 55-63.
Webster, M., & Driskell, J. E. (1983). Beauty as status. American Jour-
nal of Sociology, 89,140-165.
Widgery, R. N. (1974). Sex of receiver and physical attractiveness of
source as determinants of initial credibility perception. Western
Speech, 38,13-17.
Widgery, R. N., & Webster, B. (1969). The effects of physical attractive-
ness upon perceived initial credibility. Michigan Speech Journal, 4,
9-19.
Wiener, S., Saxe, L, & Bar-Tal, D. (1975). The effects of physical attrac-
tiveness on attributions of causality for success and failure (Report
No. CG-010-288). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 117-588)
Wilson, M., Crocker, J., Brown, C. E., Johnson, D, Liotta, R, & Konat,
J. (1985). The attractive executive: Effects of sex of business asso-
ciates on attributions of competence and social skills. Basic and Ap-
plied Social Psychology, 6, 13-23.
Received May 17,1989
Revision received November 20,1989
Accepted November 6,1990 •