Physical Attractiveness Stereotyping
JL Rennels, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Glossary
effect size A statistic that quantifies how meaningful a
difference is between two groups. An amount of 0.1–0.3 is
a small effect; 0.3–0.5 is a moderate effect; and > 0.5 is a
large effect.
evolutionary theory Posits that human behavior and
thinking are related to species survival or adaptive life
outcomes.
implicit personality theory Proposes that social category
membership becomes inferentially associated with other
personal attributes as individuals interpret people’s
behavior.
meta-analysis A statistical synthesis of research results
from studies examining related hypotheses or dependent
variables.
self-fulfilling prophecy/behavioral confirmation A
process whereby people’s social expectations about a
Introduction
The physical attractiveness stereotype refers to generalizations
about individuals based on their appearance (high, medium, or
low attractiveness). This stereotype affects perceivers’ beliefs
and expectations about others depending upon the target per­
son’s level of attractiveness. Society places a strong emphasis on
physical appearance as evidenced by media images of attractive
celebrities and advertisements of services for changing physical
appearance (e.g., plastic surgery). Such images and messages
suggest attractiveness is an important characteristic for people
to possess, but how important is physical appearance and what
role does it play in people’s lives? A seminal study addressing
these questions led Dion, Berscheid, and Walster to coin the
phrase, “what is beautiful is good.” Their work demonstrated
that people do form impressions of others based solely on
appearance and that being beautiful has advantages. “What is
ugly is bad” might be another way to characterize the stereo­
type, however, because low attractive individuals experience
more disadvantages than medium or high attractive indivi­
duals. Regardless of how the stereotype is characterized, it is
clear from the preponderance of research investigating the
effects of physical attractiveness that the stereotype affects peo­
ple of all ages in many different situations.
The Physical Attractiveness Stereotype
For the physical attractiveness stereotype to be activated, there
needs to be a person (the perceiver) observing another person
(the target) who is high or low in attractiveness. When viewing
a target at either extreme of attractiveness, perceivers experience
an emotional response. High attractive faces elicit positive
affect and low attractive faces elicit negative affect. These
636 Encyclopedia of Body Image and Human Appearance, Volume 2
person affect their interactions with that person and
subsequently cause the person to corroborate their
expectations.
socialization theory Posits that human behavior and
thinking are influenced by societal norms, values, and
experiences.
status generalization theory Proposes that external status
characteristics elicit expectations about an individual’s
performance regardless of how relevant those external
characteristics are to performance.
stereotype Knowledge, beliefs, and expectations about an
individual based on social group membership.
type A behavior pattern Individuals who exhibit these
behavioral patterns are competitive, impatient, easily
frustrated, hostile, very driven toward their work, and
generally feel a sense of urgency about time, putting them
at risk for coronary heart disease.
quickly activated emotional responses affect subsequent cogni­
tive processing of information and the effects of physical
attractiveness are evident in how perceivers judge targets.
Differential Judgments
Perceivers judge the abilities and traits of high and low attrac­
tive individuals differently, regardless of target age. In general,
individuals evaluate attractive targets more favorably than
unattractive targets. These differential judgments occur regard­
less of whether perceivers assess the attributes of strangers or
familiar targets.
Perceivers view attractive targets as more socially competent
than unattractive targets. Social competence refers to the ease
with which individuals interact during interpersonal situations.
Related to this attribute is the impression that attractive targets
are more socially appealing (friendly and likeable) than unat­
tractive persons. Perceivers also consider attractive targets to be
better adjusted than unattractive targets in terms of self-esteem
and physical and psychological well-being. For example, they
think attractive persons are less maladjusted and less disturbed
and happier than unattractive persons. Furthermore, indivi­
duals believe attractive persons are higher in social status and
are more dominant in everyday social interactions. There is
some belief that attractive individuals are more honest and
law-abiding than unattractive individuals, but this assumption
is not nearly as strong as the social competence, psychological
adjustment, and social power stereotypes. Such evaluations do
not extend to other positive social traits, such as showing con­
cern for others or being emotionally supportive and sensitive.
Attractiveness also affects perceptions of traits related to
romance. Adults view attractive individuals as more sexually
warm than their unattractive counterparts, an effect that is
sometimes stronger for women than for men. In blind date
doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-384925-0.00099-7

situations, individuals’ liking of their date is positively correlated
with the date’s attractiveness. The relationship between likeabil­
ity and attractiveness is especially strong when there is a
difference in attractiveness between the individual and their
date, perhaps because the individual is either particularly disap­
pointed to have been paired with an unattractive person or
particularly pleased to have been paired with an attractive per­
son. Furthermore, likeability and attractiveness are somewhat
more highly related for female than male dates. These same
results and sex differences extend beyond dating contexts to
paradigms where an individual simply meets a stranger of the
other sex. So, romantic judgments are one area in which the
attractiveness stereotype often affects women more so than men.
Outside the social realm, perceivers judge attractive adults as
more likely to be intelligent and to think practically and ration­
ally. These evaluations mean perceivers view attractive college
students as more talented than unattractive students in terms of
their writing and other academic skills. Such views extend to
judgments of a target’s occupational competence. In terms of
careers, perceivers think attractive targets are more successful and
motivated, better suited for the job, and likely to perform better
than unattractive targets. Children are affected by such stereo­
types as well. Teachers expect students to be higher in
intelligence, get higher grades, act appropriately, and be more
successful in future academic endeavors the more attractive they
are. In sum, perceivers view attractive adult and child targets to
be more intellectually competent than less attractive targets.
Attractiveness can also be a disadvantage in that perceivers
view attractive targets, particularly highly attractive women, as
more vain and less humble than unattractive targets. Less
attractive individuals are most likely to judge attractive persons
as self-centered when forming impressions based on a photo­
graph of a stranger. These impressions, however, may not
necessarily translate to biased judgments during actual face­
to-face interactions.
The findings reported in this section reflect data from North
American participants, but the stereotype is prevalent in other
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
Effect size
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Potency Integrity
Trait being rated
Figure 1 Comparing the attractiveness stereotype in North American and Korean culltures. Data from Wheeler, L., and Kim, Y. (1997). What is beautiful is
culturally good: The physical attractiveness stereotype has different content in collectivist cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23, 795–800.
Physical Attractiveness Stereotyping 637
cultures as well. For example, Koreans stereotype individuals
based on attractiveness, although some components of the
stereotype differ from the North American stereotype. The simi­
larities are that both cultures judge attractive individuals as higher
in social competence, adjustment, intellectual competence, and
sexual warmth, and lower in terms of modesty. Unlike North
American culture, however, Koreans rate attractive targets as
showing more integrity and concern for others. Koreans do not,
however, rate attractive targets in their culture as being more
dominant or assertive (i.e., potency) (see Figure 1). These dis­
similarities in the stereotype reflect differences in what the two
cultures value. Koreans value harmony within relationships, so
integrity and concern for others would help to promote
harmony, whereas dominance/assertiveness would not. By con­
trast, North Americans value independence and leadership, so
dominance is an asset and integrity and concern for others is not.
Such cross-cultural differences demonstrate that “what is beauti­
ful is good” is universal, but what is good depends upon the
values of a particular culture.
Clearly the physical attractiveness stereotype affects evalua­
tions of individuals in many valued life outcomes –
friendships, romantic relationships, and intellectual, academic,
and occupational competence. No one is immune to the effects
of physical attractiveness stereotyping. From birth throughout
adulthood, both females and males are impacted by the stereo­
type. Even more pertinent to this issue is that the stereotype
applies regardless of whether or not the perceiver and the target
are familiar with one another. The omnipresence of the stereo­
type means that facial attractiveness may be just as likely to
influence family members, bosses, teachers, and peers as it does
strangers when they interact with and form impressions regard­
ing a target. Differential judgments resulting from the physical
attractiveness stereotype are important to understand because
beliefs about targets typically translate into differential beha­
viors toward targets. If a perceiver thinks positively of a target,
then the perceiver should act in a manner consistent with those
positive impressions.
North Americans
Koreans
Concern for others
638 Physical Attractiveness Stereotyping
Outcomes of the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype
Differential Treatment
Impressions resulting from the physical attractiveness stereo­
type are evident in the types of social interactions that adults
and children experience. Perceivers act differently toward tar­
gets varying in attractiveness, even if they know the target. Such
differential treatment can be considered appearance-based dis­
crimination or prejudice. It can positively or negatively impact
individuals depending on their level of attractiveness.
Individuals interact more positively with attractive targets
than with unattractive targets, perhaps due to the greater social
appeal of attractive persons. Examples of positive interactions
include smiling, prosocial behavior, sharing, playing, and
being near one another. The proximity effects are evident
even when the target intrudes upon the perceivers’ personal
space. When an attractive or unattractive target got too close to
a person waiting to cross the street, the person crossed the street
more slowly when the person was attractive than unattractive,
perhaps because the person was trying to meet the attractive
target or get away from the unattractive target.
Perceivers also treat unattractive targets more negatively
than attractive targets. During negative interactions, an adult
may be punished, treated in an unfriendly manner, avoided, or
deceived. Negative interactions for children involve the child
being punished or rejected, experiencing aggression, or receiv­
ing negative feedback.
This differential experience in punishment is highly evident
during actual and mock trials. In mock trial situations, attrac­
tiveness benefits defendants. Mock jurors are less likely to
convict attractive defendants as compared to unattractive
defendants. Moreover, when mock jurors do sentence a defen­
dant, the sentences tend to be less harsh for attractive than
unattractive defendants. These findings apply predominantly
to crimes such as robbery, rape, sexual harassment, and cheat­
ing, and less so to crimes of negligent homicide and swindling.
In actual court situations, unattractive defendants who are
found guilty receive longer prison sentences than attractive
defendants. The attractiveness of the plaintiff can affect mock
80
70
Likelihood of guilty verdict (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Defendant
Person involved in sexual harrassment case
Figure 2 Effects of attractiveness in sexual harassment judgments. Data from Castellow, W. A., Wuensch, K. L., and Moore, C. H. (1990). Effects of
physical attractiveness of the plaintiff and defendant in sexual harassment judgments. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 5, 547–562.
jurors’ decisions as well, particularly in cases regarding sexual
harassment or rape. When the person filing the allegations is
attractive and the defendant is unattractive, jurors are more
likely to render a guilty verdict. By contrast, when the defendant
is attractive or the plaintiff is unattractive, guilty verdicts are
more at chance level (see Figure 2).
Perceivers also allot more attention toward attractive than
unattractive targets. Attractive adults receive more help and
cooperation from others than unattractive adults. For example,
perceivers are more likely to sign a petition, provide directions,
or offer financial help to attractive than unattractive targets.
Attractive children receive more caregiving than unattractive
children. A real-life outcome of this difference in attention
and caregiving is that preterm infants are more likely to thrive
during their hospital stay the more attractive they are.
Adults tend to disclose more personal information to attrac­
tive than unattractive targets. They also seek help from
attractive individuals more so than from unattractive indivi­
duals. This finding is particularly interesting given that
perceivers do not necessarily view attractive targets as more
sensitive or emotionally supportive than unattractive targets.
Perhaps the view that attractive persons are better adjusted and
more interpersonally competent than unattractive persons
drive these differences.
Differential treatment is also seen in employment and educa­
tional settings. Employers’ more positive impressions of
attractive relative to unattractive job candidates result in recom­
mendations for hiring the more attractive applicant and
providing more support for that individual’s performance once
hired. Attractive employees receive more rewards
(e.g., promotions, pay raises, or bonuses) than unattractive
employees. Voters tend to elect the more attractive political
candidate. These differential benefits related to attractiveness
begin early in development. Teachers’ judgments of attractive
children as more academically competent than unattractive chil­
dren translate to attractive children receiving higher grades and
more positive evaluations of ability during elementary school.
Given the strong consensus regarding who is and is not
attractive and the relative stability of attractiveness throughout
development, differential judgment and treatment of high and
Attractive
Unattractive
Plaintiff

low attractive individuals should maintain across the life span.
In fact, differential treatment becomes even more discrepant
with development; differences in treatment of attractive and
unattractive children increase as children get older. Perhaps not
surprisingly, individuals who vary in physical attractiveness
also differ in traits, behaviors, and self-perceptions. There is
still debate as to why these variations exist, but it is important
to understand because these differences are apparent in many
life outcomes related to well-being.
Differential Behaviors
Impressions that attractive individuals are more socially com­
petent than unattractive individuals have a kernel of truth to
them in that differential social behaviors are seen among indi­
viduals who vary in attractiveness. Both attractive children and
adults display more positive behaviors and traits than unattrac­
tive peers. Furthermore, attractive adults view themselves more
favorably than unattractive adults, although the effects are not
as large as the behavioral differences.
Attractive adults and children are more popular than their
unattractive peers. For adults, these differences in popularity
are evident in both friendships and romantic relationships.
People who are highly attractive generally have more friends
of the other sex than less attractive people. Popularity with
women is particularly strong for men when they reach college
age and may result from heterosexual women seeking friend­
ships with men before they become romantically involved.
Attractiveness is also related to the number of same-sex friend­
ships a person has; more attractive individuals tend to have
more friends than less attractive individuals. Similarities in
attractiveness are common within same-sex friendships.
Attractiveness is also related to the number of romantic
relationships an adult has and that person’s choice of partners.
High attractive individuals date more and have more romantic
partners than less attractive individuals. Not surprisingly, there­
fore, attractiveness is related to a person’s sexual experience.
The relationship between attractiveness and romantic popular­
ity is somewhat stronger for women than for men, perhaps
because men value this trait in their partners more so than
women. Indeed, women are much more likely than men to
enhance their appearance to attract or retain a mate.
Individuals generally choose a romantic partner who is similar
in attractiveness. For couples casually dating one another,
attractiveness similarity predicts their likelihood of staying
together and eventually forming a more committed relation­
ship. Perhaps the similar judgments, treatment, and behaviors
adults experience as a result of their attractiveness play a role in
these decisions: There are not only parallels in attractiveness,
but parallels in the types of interpersonal interactions they have
experienced.
For attractive children, popularity means their peer relation­
ships are more positive than those of unattractive children. This
positivity can be exemplified in preschoolers’ play behaviors.
Unattractive children display more aggressive behaviors
(e.g., fighting and hitting) during play than attractive children
starting around 5 years of age. Lower levels of aggression may
be why peers reciprocate attractive children’s friendships more
often than unattractive children’s friendships. Like adults, this
greater acceptance of attractive than unattractive children places
attractive children at a higher social standing among their
Physical Attractiveness Stereotyping 639
peers. Despite most children preferring an attractive playmate,
3- and 5-year-olds play together more amicably when they are
equal in attractiveness as opposed to unequal in attractiveness.
These differences in affiliative behaviors occur regardless of
whether the two children are both attractive or are both unat­
tractive. Playmates similar in attractiveness spend more time
closer to each other, and smile at, look at, talk to, and touch
one another more often than playmates dissimilar in attractive­
ness. Such findings suggest children have a sense of their own
attractiveness level.
There are other differences in attractive and unattractive
children’s play behaviors as well which are not necessarily
positive or negative, but impact peer relations. Attractiveness
is related to 3- and 5-year-olds’ activity level during play. Boys
move around more (e.g., throwing, running, moving toys
around the room) when playing than do girls, but this differ­
ence is qualified by girls’ attractiveness. When at least one girl
playmate is unattractive, the girl playmates are just as active as
boy playmates and are more active than when both girl play­
mates are attractive. Less active play (e.g., playing with blocks or
puzzles, grooming, sitting) is also more common when both
playmates are attractive. Engagement in sex-typed play beha­
viors is also related to attractiveness. Attractive children engage
in more feminine-typed play, such as grooming and playing
with dolls, than do unattractive children. By contrast, unattrac­
tive children engage in more masculine-typed play, such as
playing with and riding on trucks, than do attractive children.
Given attractive individuals’ popularity, it is not necessarily
surprising that attractiveness positively correlates with adults’
and children’s social skills and adults’ extraversion. Being
somewhat more extraverted means attractive adults are more
likely than unattractive adults to meet others in general and to
be assertive during social situations. Greater social skills and
extraversion could lead to popularity, but popularity could also
lead attractive persons to develop strong social skills and
become socially assertive.
Higher levels of attractiveness are also associated with
higher self-esteem and mental well-being. Attractive adults
report feeling less lonely and less socially anxious than unat­
tractive people. Emotional stability (e.g., less depression and
Type A behavior) is slightly more common among attractive
than unattractive adults. Better psychological adjustment is
seen among attractive children as well. Attractive children
show less delinquent behaviors and less depression and anxiety
than their unattractive peers. Attractiveness is not always an
asset, however. Attractive adults feel more self-conscious in
public places, perhaps because they are slightly more narcissis­
tic and therefore more focused on their appearance than less
attractive individuals. Physical health is also related to a per­
son’s attractiveness. Attractive adults have lower blood pressure
and fewer visits to health centers than unattractive adults.
Substance abuse is less common among attractive than unat­
tractive individuals.
There is also evidence that attractive persons are more intel­
lectually competent than unattractive persons although the
effects are stronger for children than for adults. Among chil­
dren, these differences are evident in IQ scores, high school
grade point average (GPA), vocabulary level, and overall
achievement. Adults also show discrepancies on IQ tests, col­
lege entrance exams, and college GPA based on attractiveness.
Despite attractive adults being only slightly more intelligent
640 Physical Attractiveness Stereotyping
than unattractive adults, attractive persons have substantially
greater success than unattractive persons in the workplace in
terms of advancement, income, and military rank. Such posi­
tive outcomes may be related to attractive persons’ ability to
more successfully negotiate with others or get others to comply
with them relative to unattractive persons. Attractive persons
are most likely to succeed at negotiating when they are frank
about the changes they desire.
Are attractive persons aware of these behavioral differences?
To some extent, attractive adults perceive themselves as more
competent in both social and intellectual/occupational realms
than do unattractive adults. Furthermore, attractiveness is posi­
tively related to viewing oneself as happy, mentally healthy,
and satisfied with life. These differences in self-perception
based on attractiveness, however, are not nearly as large as the
behavioral differences seen among attractive and unattractive
individuals. It is therefore unclear how much attractive and
unattractive individuals incorporate the differential treatment
they receive and the differential behaviors they display into
their self-concept.
Behavioral and self-perception differences among attractive
and unattractive individuals are evident in social, cognitive,
and health domains. Some behavioral differences based on
attractiveness are noticeable as early as 3 years of age. Why
might attractive and unattractive individuals display differen­
tial behaviors? Researchers have proposed various theories to
help explain behavioral differences among individuals varying
in attractiveness.
Theories to Explain Differential Behaviors
Does being the recipient of positive judgments and treatment
result in attractive individuals developing positive behaviors
and traits? Alternatively, did the physical attractiveness stereo­
type develop because it is fairly accurate? If so, that would
suggest positive behaviors and traits are inherent among attrac­
tive individuals and perhaps reinforced through positive
judgment and treatment.
Some theories hypothesize that socialization in general
and social expectancies in particular cause differential beha­
viors among attractive and unattractive persons to manifest.
The premise underlying these theories (e.g., implicit person­
ality theory, status generalization theory) is that the
stereotype becomes a reality via a series of processes. First,
a target’s appearance activates a perceiver’s physical attrac­
tiveness stereotype. The perceiver subsequently expects the
target to have traits consistent with the stereotype and inter­
acts with the target in a manner consistent with these
impressions. Positive treatment of the target is likely to elicit
positive behaviors from the target, whereas negative treatment
of the target is likely to elicit negative behaviors. Because
attractiveness remains relatively stable with development, an
attractive person should develop behaviors and traits that are
generally positive. By contrast, an unattractive person should
develop less positive behaviors and traits. With time, indivi­
duals internalize these behavioral differences and traits and
those positive or negative characteristics become part of their
self-concept. Researchers refer to this series of processes
(or slight variations of it) as a self-fulfilling prophecy or
behavioral confirmation.
In contrast to socialization theories, fitness-related evolu­
tionary theories propose that appearance cues, such as
attractiveness, are truly indicative of a person’s characteristics,
health, and value as a mate. If attractiveness honestly advertises
a person’s quality, then perceivers should judge and treat tar­
gets differently based on attractiveness. Furthermore, attractive
and unattractive individuals should behave differently if attrac­
tiveness is related to internal traits. Unlike socialization
theories, evolutionary theories do not propose that differential
behaviors develop as a function of differential judgments and
treatment. Rather the differential traits and behaviors are reflec­
tive of the quality of the individual’s genes and manifest very
early in life.
Which perspective is most accurate? Meta-analytic findings
support fitness-related evolutionary theories slightly more than
social expectancy theory, but it is quite possible that the two
theories work in conjunction with one another. Variations in
behavior that result from genetic differences could be augmen­
ted (if slight) or reinforced (if large) through differential
judgments and treatment. Furthermore, genetic expression
does not occur without environmental input. Positive interac­
tions may therefore enable expression of positive personality
traits and behaviors.
A major concern about drawing any conclusions, however,
is that there is not enough research examining whether differ­
ential behaviors are present starting at birth or shortly
following birth. If social expectancies cause the differential
behaviors to develop, it should take some time for the differ­
ential behaviors to manifest. If genetic differences translate to
differential behaviors, then behavioral differences should be
evident shortly following birth. Careful observations of infants
and young children are needed to illuminate whether or not
differential behaviors based on attractiveness develop or are
inherent among individuals. Currently more is known about
how the stereotype develops than why the differential beha­
viors manifest.
Development of the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype
It is clear that attractiveness stereotypes affect people’s lives
in a number of ways, but why do people have these stereo­
types? Implicit personality theory suggests that stereotypes
are part of individuals’ normal social cognition. This theory
proposes that as individuals attempt to make sense of other
people’s behavior, they infer relationships among various
personal attributes. Attributes, such as social category mem­
bership, become associated with personal traits and
behaviors. In the case of the “beauty is good” stereotype,
attractiveness becomes associated with positive attributes
(e.g., prosocial behavior, likeability, intelligence), whereas
unattractiveness becomes associated with negative attributes
(e.g., aggressive behavior). Developmental psychologists have
investigated precursors to these associations and have begun
to map out a trajectory regarding how attractiveness stereo­
types develop.
Visual Preferences for Attractive Faces
Surprisingly, rudiments of attractiveness stereotypes are evident
during the first year of life. Infants ranging in age from just a

few days old to 8 months look longer at an attractive face than
an unattractive face when the two are paired together
(see Figure 3). Some people might interpret these findings as
evidence that visual preferences for attractive faces are innate,
but 15-min-old newborns do not show these preferences.
Preferences for attractive faces therefore develop, albeit rather
quickly.
To understand why attractiveness preferences manifest
within a few days following birth requires knowing how attrac­
tiveness is defined. A face is considered attractive when its
configuration is similar to the facial average of the population.
Following birth, a newborn sees a number of faces
(e.g., mother, nurses, doctors, family, and friends). Despite
their young age, newborns recognize a mathematical average
of faces to which they were exposed. Following familiarization
to four faces, newborns look longer at a novel face than a
mathematical average of the four faces, suggesting the averaged
face seems familiar to them. This recognition implies newborns
are beginning to group faces together into a category of human
faces and develop a mental summary representation of those
faces. When they see an attractive face, it should be easier to
process because it is more ‘face-like’ (i.e., more similar to the
representation) than an unattractive face. Ease of processing
produces positive affect and subsequently may account for
the visual preferences infants show for attractive faces very
early in development.
Categorization of Facial Attractiveness
Rudiments of the “beauty is good” stereotype may stem from
these early visual preferences, such as categorization of faces
based on attractiveness. At 6 months of age, infants group
together attractive faces and exclude unattractive faces from
the group. They also group together unattractive faces and
exclude attractive faces from the group. This early categoriza­
tion of faces based on attractiveness is an important step in
stereotype development. Before perceivers begin to link
10
8
Looking time in seconds
6
5
4
0
2- to 3-month-olds
Age of infants
Figure 3 Effects of attractiveness on infant looking times toward the faces. Data from Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., Casey, R. J., et al. (1987). Infant
preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereotype? Developmental Psychology 23, 363–369.
Physical Attractiveness Stereotyping 641
attributes to individuals based on attractiveness, they must
first categorize them as being attractive or unattractive.
Some theories of stereotyping suggest that simply grouping
individuals together based on a salient trait (e.g., attractiveness)
is enough to produce assimilation and contrast effects. In this
case, assimilation effects refer to the assumption that indivi­
duals within the same group have similar attributes. Therefore,
all attractive individuals should be alike and all unattractive
individuals should be alike. Contrast effects refer to the
assumption that individuals from different groups have dissim­
ilar attributes. Therefore, attractive and unattractive individuals
should be unlike one another.
Association of Similarly Valenced Stimuli
The assimilation/contrast effects are useful for understanding
why within-group generalizations and between-group compar­
isons occur, but cannot explain why specific attributes
(e.g., friendliness) become linked to attractive individuals.
One possible mechanism is that infants begin associating simi­
larly valenced stimuli in their environment. Viewing attractive
faces produces positive affect, so infants may begin to associate
other positively valenced stimuli (e.g., smiles) with attractive
faces. Viewing unattractive faces produces negative affect, so
infants may begin to associate other negatively valenced stimuli
(e.g., frowns) with unattractive faces.
There is some evidence to suggest that infants begin making
similarly valenced associations by the end of the first year. When
12-month-olds hear a voice speaking in a pleasant tone, they
look longer at an attractive than unattractive face. By contrast,
when they hear a voice saying the same thing but in an unplea­
sant tone, they look longer at an unattractive than an attractive
face. Infants also look more at an attractive than unattractive face
when they see a smiling schematic face or animation showing
one shape helping another shape. Furthermore, they look more
at an unattractive than attractive face when they see a frowning
schematic face or animation showing one shape hindering
another shape. This longer looking suggests infants are
Attractive
Unattractive
6- to 8-month-olds
642 Physical Attractiveness Stereotyping
associating positive stimuli and behaviors with attractive faces
and negative stimuli and behaviors with unattractive faces. Such
associations are not evident at 9 months of age, so these associa­
tions develop during the past few months of the first year.
The “beauty is good” associations 12-month-olds make are
also evident in the behaviors they display. Infants interacted
differently with the same target when she was wearing an
attractive face mask as opposed to an unattractive face mask
(the masks were professionally made, so the target’s face
looked real while wearing the mask). The target relied on a
set script to interact with each infant and she did not know the
attractiveness of the face mask she was wearing. Such controls
permitted an investigation of infants’ differential responses to
the target based primarily on the attractiveness of her mask.
When the target wore the attractive mask compared to the
unattractive mask, infants showed more positive affect during
their interactions, became more involved in their play with the
target, and were less inclined to move away from her. These
differential behaviors generalize to attractive and unattractive
objects. Twelve-month-olds play more with dolls with attrac­
tive faces than dolls with unattractive faces.
Friendship Preferences and Stereotypical Attributions
At the end of the first year, infants display cognitive associa­
tions and actions consistent with the notion that “beauty is
good.” By toddlerhood, these associations become elaborated
and they show near adultlike physical attractiveness stereotypes
in that they attribute positive behaviors and traits to attractive
peers and want to play with them more so than unattractive
peers. Children do not, however, attribute negative behaviors
and traits to unattractive individuals until the preschool years
(3- to 6-year-olds), suggesting the negative components of the
stereotype take slightly longer to develop than the positive
components. Preschoolers most often choose pictures of attrac­
tive peers when asked who is friendly, who they like, who is
smart, who does not fight or shout, or who will not hit another
child even if they hit first. By contrast, preschoolers most often
choose pictures of unattractive peers when asked who scares
other children, or who hits or hurts other children without
good reason.
Maintenance of the Stereotype
The physical attractiveness stereotype develops early, but why
does it maintain into adulthood? Surely children and adults
encounter attractive targets with negative qualities and unat­
tractive targets with positive qualities. It seems such
counter-stereotypical interactions would reduce the strength
of the stereotype, but research suggests otherwise. The pre­
viously discussed effects of differential judgment and
treatment based on attractiveness are very robust.
One way to understand maintenance of the stereotype is to
consider the tenets of implicit personality theory. The theory
suggests stereotypes are incorporated within larger knowledge
structures regarding the social world and can be characterized
as cognitive schemata. Schemata refer to conceptual structures
related to the stereotype and how those structures are orga­
nized. For the attractiveness stereotype, a target’s appearance
is linked to ideas and beliefs about the target’s internal attri­
butes. Perceivers have expectations regarding how a target
should behave, which may affect what they attend to and
how they process information about the target. The stereotype
can affect how perceivers encode, organize, store, or retrieve
information about an individual.
Preschoolers do process social information to be consistent
with the “beauty is good” stereotype. Children aged 3.5–7
heard stories and viewed pictures depicting two characters in
the story whose behavior and appearance was either consistent
or inconsistent with the stereotype. For example, in a
stereotype-consistent story, a friendly character was attractive
and an unfriendly character was unattractive. In a
stereotype-inconsistent story, the attractiveness of the charac­
ters was reversed. After hearing the story and seeing the picture,
children had to identify the character displaying the positive
trait. Children were twice as likely to make errors on this task
when the story was stereotype inconsistent versus stereotype
consistent, but only when the story characters were female.
They made relatively equal amounts of errors when the char­
acters were male. This differential social information
processing applied to both adult and child targets.
Witnessing females who act in a counter-stereotypical man­
ner may not effectively erode the physical attractiveness
stereotype because children encode, store, or retrieve informa­
tion about these targets to be consistent with the stereotype. For
male targets, however, children do not yet seem to have cogni­
tive schemas related to attractiveness that affect processing of
males’ behaviors. One reason for the sex differences may be
because folk tales, movies, television, and other media place a
greater emphasis on attractiveness for females than for males.
Society may, therefore, socialize children to believe that attrac­
tiveness is more important for females than for males. Believing
that attractiveness is more important for females than for males
may become incorporated into children’s attractiveness stereo­
type schemata and subsequently impact their processing of
information about women, but not men. Another possibility
is that the development of attractiveness stereotypes for men
follows a different trajectory than that for women. Unlike
adults, children may not yet have a full-blown attractiveness
stereotype for male targets.
Different Trajectories for Stereotype Development Based on
Target Sex
The trajectory proposed for the development of the attractive­
ness stereotype is based predominantly on research involving
female targets. It therefore seems important to review the tra­
jectory in terms of sex of target.
Whereas infants’ visual preference for attractive adult female
faces is quite robust, there are inconsistencies among studies
examining infants’ visual preference for attractive adult male
faces. Such discrepancies may be due to infants’ significantly
greater experience with female than male adults during the first
year. Recall that visual preferences are thought to reflect infants’
ease of processing a face whose configuration is similar to the
facial average of the population. Infants have almost 2.5 times
more experience with female than male faces during the first
year, so their summary representation of faces should be much
more female-like than male-like. The female-likeness of this
representation should drive infants’ visual preferences for
attractive female faces, but not necessarily attractive male faces.

Work examining categorization of adult male faces suggests
infants rely more on facial masculinity than attractiveness to
group together and exclude male faces from a group by the end
of the first year. These findings and the results from visual
preference studies suggest attractiveness is not as salient to
infants when perceiving male faces as it is when perceiving
females. If infants do not categorize male faces based on attrac­
tiveness, then it is unlikely they will link particular attributes to
males differing in attractiveness. The research examining infant
association of attractiveness with similarly valenced stimuli
and the behavioral differences infants show when interacting
with an attractive or unattractive stranger used female faces
only, so it is unclear if the findings generalize to male faces.
Furthermore, the research with toddlers and preschoolers
examined how attractiveness influenced their preference to
play with and attribute behaviors to peers, not adults. It is
unclear if young children stereotype adult males based on
attractiveness.
Conclusions
The effects of the physical attractiveness stereotype are ubiqui­
tous and large enough to be observed during actual social
interactions. Developmental research is just beginning to illu­
minate the origins of the physical attractiveness stereotype, but
more is known regarding how the stereotype develops for
female than male targets. Future research should reveal whether
the developmental trajectory of the stereotype truly differs
based on sex of target. Moreover, more research with infants
and young children is needed to examine whether and how
differential judgment and treatment based on attractiveness
influences behavioral development. It is evident, however,
that physical attractiveness affects people in significant and
meaningful ways.
Some positive news is that the effects of the attractiveness
stereotype on occupational outcomes decreased over the
past few decades. One possibility for the decrease is that admin­
istrators became aware of the research on attractiveness
stereotypes and made efforts to rely more on other
individuating factors when making personnel decisions.
Raising perceivers’ awareness about the effects of
attractiveness on impression formation and behavioral
decision-making may be one way to reduce deleterious effects
of the stereotype.
Physical Attractiveness Stereotyping 643
See also: Children’s Media Influences; Cosmetic Surgical and
Non-Surgical Procedures for the Face; Evolutionary
Perspectives on Physical Appearance; Face and Body in
Motion: Nonverbal Communication; Feminist Perspectives on
Body Image and Physical Appearance; Genetics and Human
Appearance; Measurement and Stability of Physical
Attractiveness Judgments; Occupational and Economic
Consequences of Physical Attractiveness; Physical
Appearance and Stigma; Physical Attractiveness and
Personality; Physical Attractiveness: Dating, Mating, and
Social Interaction.
Further Reading
Cash, T. F. (1990). The psychology of physical appearance: Aesthetics, attributes, and
images. In: Cash, T. F., and Pruzinsky, T. (eds.) Body Images: Development,
Deviance, and Change, pp. 51–79. New York: Guilford Press.
Castellow, W. A., Wuensch, K. L., Moore, C. H. (1990). Effects of physical
attractiveness of the plaintiff and defendant in sexual harassment judgments. Journal
of Social Behavior and Personality 5, 547–562.
Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., and Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 24, 285–290.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., and Longo, L. C. (1991). What is
beautiful is good, but: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical
attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin 110, 109–128.
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic
attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 59, 981–993.
Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin
111, 304–341.
Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E. R., and Coats, G. (2003). The effects of physical
attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies.
Personnel Psychology 56, 431–462.
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., et al. (2000). Maxims or myths of
beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin 126,
390–423.
Langlois, J. H., and Stephan, C. (1981). Beauty and the beast: The role of physical
attractiveness in the development of peer relations and social behavior. In: Brehm,
S. S., Kass, S. M., and Gibbons, F. X. (eds.) Developmental Social Psychology:
Theory and Research, pp. 152–168. New York: Oxford University Press.
Langlois, J. H., Roggman, L. A., Casey, R. J., et al. (1987). Infant preferences for
attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereotype? Developmental Psychology 23,
363–369.
Ramsey, J. L., Langlois, J. H., Hoss, R. A., et al. (2004). Origins of a stereotype:
Categorization of facial attractiveness by 6-month-old infants. Developmental
Science 7, 201–211.
Rhodes, G., and Zebrowitz, L. A. (eds) (2002). Facial Attractiveness: Evolutionary,
Cognitive, and Social Perspectives. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Wheeler, L., Kim, Y. (1997). What is beautiful is culturally good: The physical
attractiveness stereotype has different content in collectivist cultures. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 23, 795–800.