Physical attractiveness stereotype

Last updated

The physical attractiveness stereotype, commonly known as the "beautiful-is-good" stereotype, [1] is the tendency to assume that physically attractive individuals, coinciding with social beauty standards, also possess other desirable personality traits, such as intelligence, social competence, and morality. [2] The target benefits from what has been coined as “pretty privilege”, namely social, economic, and political advantages or benefits. Physical attractiveness can have a significant effect on how people are judged in terms of employment or social opportunities, friendship, sexual behavior, and marriage.

Contents

The physical attractiveness stereotype will bias an observer's opinions and decisions when comparing people of different attractiveness levels. There is evidence of this stereotype affecting decision making within social settings, but also within the workplace and the judicial system. [3] [4]

History

The physical attractiveness stereotype was first formally observed in a study done by Karen Dion, Ellen Berscheid, and Elaine Walster in 1972. [1] The goal of this study was to determine whether physical attractiveness affected how individuals were perceived, specifically whether they were perceived to have more socially desirable personality traits and quality of life. Participants, all university students, were informed that they would be tested on how well they could "read" a person after seeing a single photo of them, where their performance would then be compared to individuals trained in reading body language and other interpersonal skills. The subjects were then given three envelopes that contained a photo of either a male or female near the subjects' age, who the researchers had categorized as either attractive, average, or unattractive. Findings demonstrated that, overall, attractive individuals judged to be more socially desirable, have better job and marital prospects, be better spouses, and have better social, marital and professional lives compared to unattractive individuals. The only dimension that did not realise the same results was parenting, where attractive individuals were not rated higher on the expectation of being a better parent. [1] Hence, this study coined the term "beautiful-is-good".

There are some proposed theoretical underpinnings and evidence for the physical attractiveness stereotype.

Implicit personality theory

The implicit personality theory is the unconscious assumptions one makes about another's personality based on their characteristics. [5] These assumptions can be based on other personality traits but in the context of the physical attractiveness stereotype, they are based on physical traits. Using this theory, researchers explain the physical attractiveness stereotype in that attractive physical features are linked with positive assumptions of personality and unattractive physical features are linked with negative assumptions of personality. [3] These unconscious linkages can explain why those seen as more physically attractive are treated and perceived differently. However, this theory becomes inaccurate when individuals make assumptions based on pre-concieved judgements they believe make sense without applying them to real-world circumstances.

One prevalent study conducted a meta-analysis which used the implicit personality theory to challenge the “beauty-is-good” theory. The study found that the traits associated with attractiveness were only remarkably strong for social competence (e.g, sociability, popularity), whereas people also tended to view them as more vain and less modest. With evidence finding that the “beauty-is-good” theory was not one-dimensional, using the implicit personality framework was argued to be most appropriate, encouraging the context-dependent nature and complexity of the physically attractive stereotype to be acknowledged. [6]

Evolution

The principle of evolutionary biology is that, in case of genetic variation within a population in a characteristic, the form which improves the individual's chance of survival and reproduction will be selected over other forms and becomes more frequent within the population. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that the physical attractiveness stereotype has evolved for individuals to assess potential mates and reproductive partners and as a means to assess our status ranking among same-sex members. [7]

The reproductive strategy of women and men differ; however, both include advertising to potential mates and competing with same-sex members to demonstrate one's value. [8] Attractiveness or beauty is the display of these traits and one of the most important predictors of reproductive success. Physical attractiveness may have evolved as a signal of good health, fitness, and genetic quality. Certain physical features, including symmetry, clear skin, and waist-to-hip ratio, signal reproductive health. Individuals with these features are perceived as more attractive because they possess genes which they could pass on to the next generation.

The physical attractiveness stereotype may have also evolved as a result of natural selection. Attractive individuals may have a greater chance of mating and passing on desirable traits and are therefore preferred as mates over others based on their physical attractiveness.

Physical attractiveness, therefore, provides the target with direct benefits where they gain directly for themselves and their offspring, and indirect benefits whereby the target gains genetic benefits to the offspring. [9]

Brain regions involved in perceiving attractiveness

Here only the brain regions used in assessing facial beauty will be discussed, since there is little research of how the brain processes body judgements. [10]

The brain uses at least three cognitive domains to decide the value of attractiveness. [11] At first, the occipital and temporal regions of the cortex process face views. [12] The information about facial features is then passed on to the fusiform face area of the fusiform gyrus (FG) for facial recognition. [13] When judging an unfamiliar face, the FG responds more strongly to attractive faces than unattractive ones, suggesting that the recognition of attractive features occurs even before the rest of the brain is included in the evaluation. [14]

The second module interprets facial movements and then interacts with other brain regions such as the amygdala, insula, and limbic system for the emotional content of facial expressions and movements.

Information is then passed on to the third module, the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) which makes judgments of beauty and produces the neurological rewards, namely dopamine and other neurotransmitters, for finding the face's beauty. [15] The OFC is more active when viewing an attractive face versus an unattractive face. [16] These areas of the bran are also associated with reward processing and regulating experiences of pleasure motivation. [17] Researchers suggest that our brains find attractive faces rewarding which could be part of the reason more attractive people benefit from pretty privilege.

Memory

See also: Memory

In memory systems, stereotypes form as information is encoded and stored, primarily as semantic memory, integrating into existing schemas. They are then primed and retrieved into working memory when forming judgements. [18] [19]

Studies have suggested stereotypes foster efficiency in encoding, where information congruent with stereotypes can readily assimilate and consolidate into existing schemas. [20] Information, hence, was also better recalled, though potentially motivated by confirmation biases. [21] Studies found people often mistakenly recognised stereotype-congruent information as familiar, [22] bolstered by findings of recognition biases stemmed from stereotypes generating false memories. [23] [24] Furthermore, when memory processes were compromised, stereotypes were exercised as heuristic cues in facilitating the retrieval of information and formation of judgements. For example, studies found upon recounting episodic memories, people relied on semantic memory in reinterpreting forgotten details, as it is more easily retrievable. [25] Similar behaviours were also observed when complexity or cognitive demand of tasks increased. [26] For instance, one study found that as decision-making became harder, jurors exhibited stronger stereotype-congruent recall of case details and judgements on defendants. [27] Hence, though stereotypes can sometimes allow people to remember, recall and recognise more easily, it comes at the expense of accurately recalling and utilising these concepts later on. [28]

Findings from Jean-Christophe Rohner and Anders Rasmussens' support such findings, whilst tailoring their study’s focus specifically to the physically attractive stereotype.

Their 2011 study found evidence that both explicit (conscious) and implicit (unconscious) memory systems recognised stereotype-congruent better than incongruent information. Across three experiments, researchers presented participants with equally divided sets of congruent and incongruent face-word pairs (e.g., an attractive face with “kind” or “cruel”, respectively). Researchers then conducted subsequent memory tests, presenting new face-word pairs along with the old pairs. Explicit memory was investigated by observing whether participants could accurately recognise and categorise the pairs as "old" or "new". Implicit memory was measured similarly, albeit participants only focused on the word's valence (e.g., "kind" is "positive") to judge whether the presented “face” influenced response/reaction time. The study also measured the participants' subjective confidence in their responses [29]

Though results demonstrated participants had recognised congruent pairs most accurately and quickly, they also frequently categorised them as "old" regardless. No significant correlation between answers and measures of low confidence was found, demonstrating participants confidently believed they encountered congruent pairs before, supporting previous notions of bias imposed on recognition memory. [25] [29] [22]

Moreover, their 2012 study extended this by investigating the effects of nine moderating variables on stereotype-guided behaviours. Results demonstrated no moderator had a statistically significant impact in reducing bias, indicating the need for potentially accommodating real-world scenarios to account for the strength of the physically attractive stereotype. [30]


Real-Life Implications

In the years since the publication of the original study, further research has bolstered the physical attractiveness stereotype and expanded its influence into other areas.

Intelligence ratings

Physical attraction also has a strong relationship with how intelligent one is perceived. For both adults and children, attractive individuals are expected to be more intellectually competent than unattractive individuals. This effect is stronger in adults and also stronger in males. Between equally attractive males and females, the males will be perceived as more intelligent. This perception exists despite little to no evidence that attractiveness is correlated with actual competence. [31]

Workplace

Research has shown that this stereotype exists in the workplace as well. A meta-analysis looking at how one's level of physical attractiveness can affect various job-related outcomes showed a strong relationship between attractive individuals and better job outcomes. The report accumulated over 60 study results and showed that attractive individuals were perceived as better employees. They are more likely to be hired and promoted, as well as ranked higher in performance evaluations and employment potential than unattractive counterparts. This stereotype is present for and affects both men and women as neither the gender of the attractive individual nor the gender of the observer influences the relationship. [3]

Judicial system

See also: Physically attractive stereotype— Memory

Studies have demonstrated how attractive defendants also receive more lenient treatment in judicial settings, being viewed as less dangerous and more virtuous. [1] [32]

A meta-analysis conducted by Ronald Mazella and Alan Feingold investigated the effect of a defendant’s physical attractiveness on jury rulings through mock trials to better understand juries’ decision-making. It was found that defendants who were physically attractive, female, and of high socioeconomic status received weaker sentences. Juries were more likely to find a physically unattractive defendant guilty than an attractive defendant. Additionally, for certain crimes, juries recommended lesser punishments for attractive individuals. In the case of robbery, rape, and cheating, the attractiveness of the defendant contributed to a lesser sentence. However, in the case of negligent homicide, attractive individuals received harsher punishments than their unattractive counterparts, though the effect size of these findings were notably small. Researchers posit that this occurs because attractive individuals are held to higher standards than unattractive individuals. Therefore, they are treated harsher when they make a mistake, such as in the case of negligent homicide. [4]

Most studies also found that attractiveness led to weaker punishments. [33] [34] However, for crimes that shared relations with attractiveness, such as swindling, they received harsher sentences compared to their unattractive counterparts. This is potentially a result of jurors perceiving defendants to weaponise their attractiveness, hindering stereotype-congruent associations to be exercised in decision-making. [4] [35] [36] Generally, such results were rationalised by acknowledging that benefits reaped from the physically attractive stereotype were not unidirectional. Some studies posited that when attractive defendants provided justification, jurors anchored to this more positively, and were more forgiving in sentencing. However, when justification was low, jurors could not characterise defendants with stereotype-congruent traits of attractiveness, realising no benefits over unattractive defendants. [35] [37] [38]

The effects physically-attractive stereotypes have on memory also underscore the fragility of certain judicial processes. Empirical evidence revealed that people rely on stereotypes in inferring forgotten details when recalling personal memories, or as a heuristic to ease complex decision-making. [25] [27] Such findings further shed light on potentially detrimental biases impinging jurors, with similar implications applying to memory-based judgements like eyewitness testimonies.

Many studies have found unattractive faces are stereotypically associated with untrustworthiness, and hence, criminality and guilt in crime-settings. [39] [40] One study found that unattractive/“criminal” faces were more memorable and easier recognised. [41] Another study indirectly supported this, however, their results indicated that, more significantly, participants failed to recognise individuals intra-categorically (e.g., attractive individuals from each other). [28] [42] Such recognition error was also demonstrated with other variables such as race, with some highlighting that people were notably confident in their judgements. [43] [44] The implications of this on eyewitness testimonies can be inferred, where unattractive individuals are particularly vulnerable to these stereotype-motivated recognition errors, especially when sharing similar characteristics to the actual perpetrator or those associated with criminality.

Current literature has also found that asking witnesses to select out of options can make them feel more confident in their answers, where this is misconstrued as accurate. [45] For example, providing a series of mugshots for them to select the perpetrator. It is encouraged for them to freely recall information instead. Studies have also found that stereotype-motivated behaviour is potentially easily reversible, where simply informing participants to be more deliberate and conscious in mitigating stereotypical thinking can almost entirely remove its biassed effects. [19] [46] [47] [48]

Education

In a review of studies done that examine perception of students in the education system, it was found that attractive students were treated more favorably by their teachers than unattractive students. Consistent with the perception that attractive individuals are more intelligent, research shows that teachers have higher expectations for attractive students. They expect these students to be more intelligent, earn better grades, and have better social attributes than other, less attractive students. Furthermore, various studies done between 1960–1985 show that attractive students actually earned higher scores on standardized tests. Researchers believe this is an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the teacher's higher expectations for the attractive students cause them to work harder and perform better. [49]

Criticism

There are recent studies that indicate that the physical attractiveness stereotype can also be a negative bias and disadvantage the target. [50] Research suggests that there might exist an exception to pretty privilege when the viewer and the target are of the same sex. In the study, targets were less likely to be recommended for a job and admission into university compared to average-looking individuals. This might stem from a desire to avoid perceived self-threats posed by attractive same-sex targets. [51] Especially individuals who lack self-esteem are more likely to avoid these threats than those with high self-esteem. [52]

See also

Related Research Articles

The halo effect is the tendency for positive impressions of a person, company, country, brand, or product in one area to positively influence one's opinion or feelings. Halo effect is ”the name given to the phenomenon whereby evaluators tend to be influenced by their previous judgments of performance or personality.” The halo effect is a cognitive bias which can prevent someone from accepting a person, a product or a brand based on the sum of all objective circumstances at hand.

Interpersonal attraction, as a part of social psychology, is the study of the attraction between people which leads to the development of platonic or romantic relationships. It is distinct from perceptions such as physical attractiveness, and involves views of what is and what is not considered beautiful or attractive.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Physical attractiveness</span> Aesthetic assessment of physical traits

Physical attractiveness is the degree to which a person's physical features are considered aesthetically pleasing or beautiful. The term often implies sexual attractiveness or desirability, but can also be distinct from either. There are many factors which influence one person's attraction to another, with physical aspects being one of them. Physical attraction itself includes universal perceptions common to all human cultures such as facial symmetry, sociocultural dependent attributes, and personal preferences unique to a particular individual.

Stereotype threat is a situational predicament in which people are or feel themselves to be at risk of conforming to stereotypes about their social group. It is theorized to be a contributing factor to long-standing racial and gender gaps in academic performance. Since its introduction into the academic literature, stereotype threat has become one of the most widely studied topics in the field of social psychology.

Behavioral confirmation is a type of self-fulfilling prophecy whereby people's social expectations lead them to behave in ways that cause others to confirm their expectations. The phenomenon of belief creating reality is known by several names in literature: self-fulfilling prophecy, expectancy confirmation, and behavioral confirmation, which was first coined by social psychologist Mark Snyder in 1984. Snyder preferred this term because it emphasizes that it is the target's actual behavior that confirms the perceiver's beliefs.

Self-enhancement is a type of motivation that works to make people feel good about themselves and to maintain self-esteem. This motive becomes especially prominent in situations of threat, failure or blows to one's self-esteem. Self-enhancement involves a preference for positive over negative self-views. It is one of the three self-evaluation motives along with self-assessment and self-verification . Self-evaluation motives drive the process of self-regulation, that is, how people control and direct their own actions.

Aversive racism is a social scientific theory proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner & John F. Dovidio (1986), according to which negative evaluations of racial/ethnic minorities are realized by a persistent avoidance of interaction with other racial and ethnic groups. As opposed to traditional, overt racism, which is characterized by overt hatred for and discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities, aversive racism is characterized by more complex, ambivalent expressions and attitudes nonetheless with prejudicial views towards other races. Aversive racism arises from unconscious personal beliefs taught during childhood. Subtle racist behaviors are usually targeted towards African Americans. Workplace discrimination is one of the best examples of aversive racism. Biased beliefs on how minorities act and think affect how individuals interact with minority members.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

Thin-slicing is a term used in psychology and philosophy to describe the ability to find patterns in events based only on "thin slices", or narrow windows, of experience. The term refers to the process of making very quick inferences about the state, characteristics or details of an individual or situation with minimal amounts of information. Research has found that brief judgments based on thin-slicing are similar to those judgments based on much more information. Judgments based on thin-slicing can be as accurate, or even more so, than judgments based on much more information.

Impression formation in social psychology refers to the processes by which different pieces of knowledge about another are combined into a global or summary impression. Social psychologist Solomon Asch is credited with the seminal research on impression formation and conducted research on how individuals integrate information about personality traits. Two major theories have been proposed to explain how this process of integration takes place. The Gestalt approach views the formation of a general impression as the sum of several interrelated impressions. As an individual seeks to form a coherent and meaningful impression of another individual, previous impressions significantly influence the interpretation of subsequent information. In contrast to the Gestalt approach, the cognitive algebra approach asserts that individuals' experiences are combined with previous evaluations to form a constantly changing impression of a person. A related area to impression formation is the study of person perception, making dispositional attributions, and then adjusting those inferences based on the information available.

The Proteus effect describes a phenomenon in which the behavior of an individual, within virtual worlds, is changed by the characteristics of their avatar. This change is due to the individual's knowledge about the behaviors that other users who are part of that virtual environment typically associate with those characteristics. Like the adjective protean, the concept's name is an allusion to the shape changing abilities of the Greek god Proteus. The Proteus effect was first introduced by researchers Nick Yee and Jeremy Bailenson at Stanford University in June 2007. It is considered an area of research concerned with the examination of the behavioral effects of changing a user's embodied avatar.

An implicit bias or implicit stereotype is the pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities by an individual to a member of some social out group. Recent studies have determined that "implicit bias" towards those of the opposite gender may be even more influential than racial implicit bias.

Personality judgment is the process by which people perceive each other's personalities through acquisition of certain information about others, or meeting others in person. The purpose of studying personality judgment is to understand past behavior exhibited by individuals and predict future behavior. Theories concerning personality judgment focus on the accuracy of personality judgments and the effects of personality judgments on various aspects of social interactions. Determining how people judge personality is important because personality judgments often influence individuals' behaviors.

Lookism is prejudice or discrimination toward people who are considered to be physically unattractive. It occurs in a variety of settings, including dating, social environments, and workplaces. Lookism has received less cultural attention than other forms of discrimination and typically does not have the legal protections that other forms often have, but it is still widespread and significantly affects people's opportunities in terms of romantic relationships, job opportunities, and other realms of life. The same concept from the opposite angle is sometimes named pretty privilege.

Alice H. Eagly is the James Padilla Chair of Arts and Sciences Emerita and emerita professor of psychology at Northwestern University. She is also a fellow at the Institute of Policy Research at Northwestern University. Her primary research focus is social psychology, as well as personality psychology and Industrial Organizational Psychology. She was elected as a member of the National Academy of Sciences in 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cheerleader effect</span> Psychological effect on perceptions of attractiveness

The cheerleader effect, also known as the group attractiveness effect or the friend effect, is a proposed cognitive bias which causes people to perceive individuals as 1.5–2.0% more attractive in a group than when seen alone. The first paper to report this effect was written by Drew Walker and Edward Vul, in 2013.

The horn effect, closely related to the halo effect, is a form of cognitive bias that causes one's perception of another to be unduly influenced by a single negative trait. An example of the horn effect may be that an observer is more likely to assume a physically unattractive person is morally inferior to an attractive person, despite the lack of relationship between morality and physical appearance.

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Dion, Karen; Berscheid, Ellen; Walster, Elaine (1972). "What is beautiful is good". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 24 (3): 285–290. doi:10.1037/h0033731. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   4655540. S2CID   10152052.
  2. ↑ Eagly, Alice H.; Ashmore, Richard D.; Makhijani, Mona G.; Longo, Laura C. (1991). "What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype". Psychological Bulletin. 110 (1): 109–128. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.109. ISSN   1939-1455.
  3. 1 2 3 Hosoda, Megumi; Stone-Romero, Eugene F.; Coats, Gwen (June 2003). "The Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Job-Related Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Studies". Personnel Psychology . 56 (2): 431–462. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00157.x. ISSN   0031-5826.
  4. 1 2 3 Mazzella, Ronald; Feingold, Alan (August 1994). "The Effects of Physical Attractiveness, Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Gender of Defendants and Victims on Judgments of Mock Jurors: A Meta-Analysis1". Journal of Applied Social Psychology . 24 (15): 1315–1338. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01552.x. ISSN   0021-9029.
  5. ↑ "Implicit personality theory". Oxford Reference . Retrieved 2023-06-06.
  6. ↑ Eagly, Alice H.; Ashmore, Richard D.; Makhijani, Mona G.; Longo, Laura C. (1991). "What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype". Psychological Bulletin. 110 (1): 109–128. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.109. ISSN   1939-1455.
  7. ↑ Senior, Carl (2003-05-22). "Beauty in the Brain of the Beholder". Neuron . 38 (4): 525–528. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00293-9 . PMID   12765605. S2CID   15749275.
  8. ↑ Spencer, Steven J.; Josephs, Robert A.; Steele, Claude M. (1993), Baumeister, Roy F. (ed.), "Low Self-Esteem: The Uphill Struggle for Self-Integrity", Self-Esteem, Boston, MA: Springer US, pp. 21–36, doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-8956-9_2, ISBN   978-1-4684-8958-3
  9. ↑ Thornhill, Randy; Gangestad, Steven W.; Thornhill, Randy; Gangestad, Steven W. (2008-09-25). The Evolutionary Biology of Human Female Sexuality. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-534099-0.
  10. ↑ Langlois, Judith H.; Kalakanis, Lisa; Rubenstein, Adam J.; Larson, Andrea; Hallam, Monica; Smoot, Monica (2000). "Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review". Psychological Bulletin . 126 (3): 390–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390. ISSN   1939-1455. PMID   10825783. S2CID   18665543.
  11. ↑ Ramsey, Jennifer L.; Langlois, Judith H.; Hoss, Rebecca A.; Rubenstein, Adam J.; Griffin, Angela M. (April 2004). "Origins of a stereotype: categorization of facial attractiveness by 6-month-old infants". Developmental Science . 7 (2): 201–211. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00339.x. ISSN   1363-755X. PMID   15320380.
  12. ↑ Rodgers, Rachel F.; Campagna, Jenna; Attawala, Raihaan (December 2019). "Stereotypes of physical attractiveness and social influences: The heritage and vision of Dr. Thomas Cash". Body Image . 31: 273–279. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.01.010 . PMID   30713132. S2CID   73447614.
  13. ↑ Bovet, Jeanne (2018), Kapoula, Zoï; Volle, Emmanuelle; Renoult, Julien; Andreatta, Moreno (eds.), "The Evolution of Feminine Beauty", Exploring Transdisciplinarity in Art and Sciences, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 327–357, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-76054-4_17, ISBN   978-3-319-76053-7
  14. ↑ Bzdok, D.; Langner, R.; Caspers, S.; Kurth, F.; Habel, U.; Zilles, K.; Laird, A.; Eickhoff, Simon B. (January 2011). "ALE meta-analysis on facial judgments of trustworthiness and attractiveness". Brain Structure and Function . 215 (3–4): 209–223. doi:10.1007/s00429-010-0287-4. ISSN   1863-2653. PMC   4020344 . PMID   20978908.
  15. ↑ Kirsch, Louise P.; Urgesi, Cosimo; Cross, Emily S. (March 2016). "Shaping and reshaping the aesthetic brain: Emerging perspectives on the neurobiology of embodied aesthetics". Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews . 62: 56–68. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.12.005. hdl: 11390/1093985 . PMID   26698020. S2CID   3401618.
  16. ↑ Little, Anthony C.; Jones, Benedict C.; DeBruine, Lisa M. (2011-06-12). "Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences . 366 (1571): 1638–1659. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0404. ISSN   0962-8436. PMC   3130383 . PMID   21536551.
  17. ↑ Park, Lora E.; Maner, Jon K. (2009). "Does self-threat promote social connection? The role of self-esteem and contingencies of self-worth". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 96 (1): 203–217. doi:10.1037/a0013933. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   19210075.
  18. ↑ Lan, Mengxue; Peng, Maoying; Zhao, Xiaolin; Li, Huixiang; Yang, Juan (May 2021). "Neural processing of the physical attractiveness stereotype: Ugliness is bad vs. beauty is good". Neuropsychologia. 155: 107824. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107824. ISSN   0028-3932. PMID   33713669.
  19. 1 2 Amodio, David M. (2014). "The neuroscience of prejudice and stereotyping". Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 15 (10): 670–682. doi:10.1038/nrn3800. ISSN   1471-003X. PMID   25186236.
  20. ↑ Fyock, Jack; Stangor, Charles (1994). "The role of memory biases in stereotype maintenance". British Journal of Social Psychology. 33 (3): 331–343. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01029.x. ISSN   0144-6665. PMID   7953221.
  21. ↑ Bodenhausen, Galen V. (1988). "Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: Testing process models of stereotype use". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 55 (5): 726–737. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.726. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   3210142.
  22. 1 2 Stangor, Charles; McMillan, David (1992). "Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-incongruent information: A review of the social and social developmental literatures". Psychological Bulletin. 111 (1): 42–61. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.42. ISSN   1939-1455.
  23. ↑ MacRae, C. Neil; Schloerscheidt, Astrid M.; Bodenhausen, Galen V.; Milne, Alan B. (January 2002). "Creating memory illusions: Expectancy-based processing and the generation of false memories". Memory. 10 (1): 63–80. doi:10.1080/09658210143000254. ISSN   0965-8211. PMID   11747577.
  24. ↑ Lenton, Alison P.; Blair, Irene V.; Hastie, Reid (2001). "Illusions of Gender: Stereotypes Evoke False Memories". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 37 (1): 3–14. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1426.
  25. 1 2 3 Sherman, Jeffrey W.; Bessenoff, Gayle R. (1999). "Stereotypes as Source-Monitoring Cues: On the Interaction Between Episodic and Semantic Memory". Psychological Science. 10 (2): 106–110. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00116. ISSN   0956-7976.
  26. ↑ Sherman, Jeffrey W.; Lee, Angela Y.; Bessenoff, Gayle R.; Frost, Leigh A. (1998). "Stereotype efficiency reconsidered: Encoding flexibility under cognitive load". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 75 (3): 589–606. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.589. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   9781404.
  27. 1 2 Bodenhausen, Galen V.; Lichtenstein, Meryl (1987). "Social stereotypes and information-processing strategies: The impact of task complexity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52 (5): 871–880. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.871. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   3585699.
  28. 1 2 Klatzky, Roberta L.; Martin, Gale L.; Kane, Robbie A. (1982). "Semantic interpretation effects on memory for faces". Memory & Cognition. 10 (3): 195–206. doi:10.3758/BF03197630. ISSN   1532-5946. PMID   7121241.
  29. 1 2 Rohner, Jean-Christophe; Rasmussen, Anders (2011). "Physical attractiveness stereotype and memory". Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 52 (4): 309–319. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00873.x. ISSN   1467-9450. PMID   21255024.
  30. ↑ Rohner, Jean-Christophe; Rasmussen, Anders (2012). "Recognition bias and the physical attractiveness stereotype". Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 53 (3): 239–246. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2012.00939.x. ISSN   0036-5564. PMID   22416805.
  31. ↑ Jackson, Linda A.; Hunter, John E.; Hodge, Carole N. (June 1995). "Physical Attractiveness and Intellectual Competence: A Meta-Analytic Review". Social Psychology Quarterly . 58 (2): 108–122. doi:10.2307/2787149. ISSN   0190-2725. JSTOR   2787149.
  32. ↑ Efran, Michael G. (1974). "The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task". Journal of Research in Personality. 8 (1): 45–54. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(74)90044-0. ISSN   0092-6566.
  33. ↑ Desantts, Andrea; Kayson, Wesley A. (October 1997). "Defendants' Characteristics of Attractiveness, Race, and Sex and Sentencing Decisions". Psychological Reports. 81 (2): 679–683. doi:10.2466/pr0.1997.81.2.679. ISSN   0033-2941.
  34. ↑ Leventhal, Gloria; Krate, Ronald (February 1977). "Physical Attractiveness and Severity of Sentencing". Psychological Reports. 40 (1): 315–318. doi:10.2466/pr0.1977.40.1.315. ISSN   0033-2941.
  35. 1 2 Sigall, Harold; Ostrove, Nancy (1975). "Beautiful but dangerous: Effects of offender attractiveness and nature of the crime on juridic judgment". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31 (3): 410–414. doi:10.1037/h0076472. ISSN   1939-1315.
  36. ↑ Izzett, Richard; Fishman, Leslie B. (December 1976). "Defendant Sentences as a Function of Attractiveness and Justification for Actions". The Journal of Social Psychology. 100 (2): 285–290. doi:10.1080/00224545.1976.9711940. ISSN   0022-4545.
  37. ↑ Abwender, David A.; Hough, Kenyatta (2001). "Interactive Effects of Characteristics of Defendant and Mock Juror on U.S. Participants' Judgment and Sentencing Recommendations". The Journal of Social Psychology. 141 (5): 603–615. doi:10.1080/00224540109600574. ISSN   0022-4545. PMID   11758038.
  38. ↑ Smith, Edward D.; Hed, Anita (1979). "Effects of Offenders' Age and Attractiveness on Sentencing by Mock Juries". Psychological Reports. 44 (3): 691–694. doi:10.2466/pr0.1979.44.3.691. ISSN   0033-2941. PMID   482492.
  39. ↑ Kramer, Robin SS; Jarvis, Janie-Lea; Green, Michaela; Jones, Alex L (2023). "The relationship between facial attractiveness and perceived guilt across types of crime". Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1177/17470218231218651. ISSN   1747-0218. PMID   37997346.
  40. ↑ MacLin, M.K. (2006). "The criminal stereotype". North American Journal of Psychology. 8 (2): 197–208.
  41. ↑ MacLin, Otto; MacLin, M. (2004). "The effect of criminality on face attractiveness, typicality, memorability, and recognition". North American Journal of Psychology. 6: 145–154.
  42. ↑ Miller, Carol T. (1988). "Categorization and the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype". Social Cognition. 6 (3): 231–251. doi:10.1521/soco.1988.6.3.231. ISSN   0278-016X.
  43. ↑ Malpass, Roy S.; Kravitz, Jerome (1969). "Recognition for faces of own and other race". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 13 (4): 330–334. doi:10.1037/h0028434. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   5359231.
  44. ↑ Meissner, Christian A.; Brigham, John C.; Butz, David A. (2005). "Memory for own- and other-race faces: a dual-process approach". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 19 (5): 545–567. doi:10.1002/acp.1097. ISSN   0888-4080.
  45. ↑ Robinson, Michael D.; Johnson, Joel T. (1996). "Recall memory, recognition memory, and the eyewitness confidence–accuracy correlation". Journal of Applied Psychology. 81 (5): 587–594. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.5.587. ISSN   1939-1854.
  46. ↑ Patry, Marc W. (2008). "Attractive but Guilty: Deliberation and the Physical Attractiveness Bias". Psychological Reports. 102 (3): 727–733. doi:10.2466/pr0.102.3.727-733. ISSN   0033-2941. PMID   18763443.
  47. ↑ Blank, Hartmut; Launay, Céline (2014). "How to protect eyewitness memory against the misinformation effect: A meta-analysis of post-warning studies". Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 3 (2): 77–88. doi:10.1037/h0101798. ISSN   2211-369X.
  48. ↑ Blank, Hartmut; Rutter, Lauren; Armstrong, Rebecca (2019). "Enlightenment beats prejudice: The reversibility of stereotype-induced memory distortion". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 26 (3): 1001–1007. doi:10.3758/s13423-018-1541-7. ISSN   1069-9384. PMC   6557864 . PMID   30604403.
  49. ↑ Ritts, Vicki; Patterson, Miles L.; Tubbs, Mark E. (Winter 1992). "Expectations, Impressions, and Judgments of Physically Attractive Students: A Review". Review of Educational Research . 62 (4): 413–426. doi:10.3102/00346543062004413. S2CID   145563047.
  50. ↑ Agthe, Maria; Spörrle, Matthias; Maner, Jon K. (August 2011). "Does Being Attractive Always Help? Positive and Negative Effects of Attractiveness on Social Decision Making". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin . 37 (8): 1042–1054. doi:10.1177/0146167211410355. ISSN   0146-1672. PMID   21636731. S2CID   9854865.
  51. ↑ Wiese, Holger; Kloth, Nadine; Güllmar, Daniel; Reichenbach, Jürgen R.; Schweinberger, Stefan R. (2012). "Perceiving age and gender in unfamiliar faces: An fMRI study on face categorization". Brain and Cognition . 78 (2): 163–168. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.10.012. PMID   22104172. S2CID   23694344.
  52. ↑ Yarosh, Daniel (2019-03-29). "Perception and Deception: Human Beauty and the Brain". Behavioral Sciences. 9 (4). MDPI: 34. doi: 10.3390/bs9040034 . ISSN   2076-328X. PMC   6523404 . PMID   30934856.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.