See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/371879829

Physical and Psychosocial Correlates of Facial Attractiveness

Article in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences · June 2023

DOI: 10.1037/ebs0000331

CITATION READS

1 177

2 authors, including:

Marco Costa
University of Bologna
65 PUBLICATIONS 1,580 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Marco Costa on 26 September 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Paper published in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 2023
https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000331

Physical and Psychosocial Correlates of Facial Attractiveness

Marco Costa1 and Dario Maestripieri2, 3

1 Department of Psychology, University of Bologna

2 Institute of Advanced Studies, University of
Bologna
3 Department of Comparative Human Development,
The University of Chicago

This research aimed to investigatewhetherand how facial attractiveness relatesto

physical (height and weight), social (relationship status), and psychological
characteristics (personality traits, self-esteem, locus of control, self-evaluated social
status, trait anxiety, and time perspective) in a sample of college students. In the first
study, 231 participants (males and females) provided a standardized photo of their faces,
self-rated their attractiveness, answered some anthropometric and demographic
questions, and completed some psychological questionnaires. In a second study, the
faces were evaluated for attractiveness by an external group of same-aged judges (N =
236). Attractiveness was negatively correlated with body mass index and with height
(only in males). Attractive individuals reported being in a long-term romantic
relationship more than others. Selfrated and/or other-rated attractiveness were positively
correlated with self-reported social status, self-esteem, and past-positive time
perspective, and negatively correlated with trait anxiety, neuroticism, and past-negative
time perspective. The findings of this study suggest that more attractive individuals
possess characteristics that favor psychological wellbeing and good mental health and
that make them desirable and successful as social or romantic partners. Attractiveness
may also be associated with adaptive cognitive biases that promote self-enhancement.

Keywords: attractiveness, self-esteem, trait anxiety, personality, time perspective

2 COSTA AND MAESTRIPIERI

Facial attractiveness is universally recognized and highly valued, especially in a potential sexual
partner, friend, or ally (e.g., Langlois et al., 2000; Little et al., 2011; Rhodes, 2006). A large body of
research has shown that attractive individuals are treated more favorably by others in a variety of
contexts and, as a result, enjoy a wide range of social and financial benefits (Hamermesch, 2011;

Maestripieri et al., 2017; but see Agthe et al., 2010, 2011). To account for this preferential
treatment, many studies have explored whether attractive individuals are different also in other
characteristics, for example, in other physical, physiological, or psychological/behavioral traits,
or whether are perceived by others to be different.
It has been suggested that attractive individuals, on average, have better health than others,
possibly because they have good genes and/or have been exposed to a lesser extent to stressful
perturbations of their early development and growth (e.g., Kanazawa, 2011; Kanazawa & Kovar,
2004). Consistent with this suggestion, there is some evidence for an association, especially for
women in Western societies, between physical attractiveness, health, fertility, and reproductive
success both across and within individuals (Jokela, 2009; Langlois et al., 2000; Maestripieri et al.,
2014; Pawlowski et al., 2008; Rhodes et al., 2005; Weeden & Sabini, 2005).

Early on in research on attractiveness, social psychologists suggested that attractive people are
often perceived as friendlier, more intelligent, more competent, more generous, and more
trustworthy (the “beautiful is good” stereotype; Dion et al., 1972), whereas unattractive people are
perceived as dull, introverted, and less generous or trustworthy (e.g., Adams, 1977; Dion et al., 1972;
Eagly et al., 1991; Feingold, 1992; Gillen, 1981; Hosoda et al., 2003; Jackson et al., 1995; Langlois
et al., 2000; Lewis & Bierly, 1990; Webster & Driskell, 1983). The stereotypes about some specific
personality traits (e.g., extraversion or agreeableness) or prosocial behavior (e.g., friendliness or
generosity), or competence of attractive individuals generally do not correspond to reality (Dermer
& Thiel, 1975; Eagly et al., 1991; Jackson et al., 1995; Langlois et al., 2000; Segal-Caspi et al.,
2012; but see Bourdage et al., 2007; Lukaszewski & Roney, 2011; Mathes & Kahn, 1975).
The association between physical attractiveness and intelligence is weak, though slightly positive
(Kanazawa & Kovar, 2004; Langlois et al., 2000, but see Feingold, 1992). With regard to prosocial
behavior, studies conducted with experimental economic games have found either no significant
differences in behavior between attractive and unattractive people (see Solnick & Schweitzer, 1999;
Takahashi et al., 2006), or differences in the opposite direction to that expected based on the
“beautiful is good” stereotype: Attractive people are generally less cooperative, less generous, less
trusting, and less trustworthy (Andreoni & Petrie, 2008; Eckel, 2007; Mulford et al., 1998; Muñoz-
Reyes et al., 2015; Sanchez-Pages & Turiegano, 2010; Shinada & Yamagishi, 2014; Takahashi et
al., 2006; Zaatari & Trivers, 2007).
 FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS 3

Two meta-analyses have examined the relation between attractiveness and

psychological/personality traits, which were generally assessed with questionnaires (Feingold, 1992;
Langlois et al., 2000). These meta-analyses found that attractive adults had higher self-confidence
and self-esteem (but in Feingold’s 1992 study, self-confidence and self-esteem were correlated only
with self-rated attractiveness, not with other-related attractiveness) and lower anxiety; they were
also slightly more extroverted than unattractive adults. The direction of causation in the correlation
between higher attractiveness, higher self-confidence and self-esteem, and lower anxiety remains
unclear. On the one hand, it is possible that attractive people receive mainly positive feedback from
others (i.e., they are treated more favorably), and this leads them to have higher self-esteem and
lower anxiety. On the other hand, it is possible that individuals with higher self-esteem and lower
anxiety view themselves as more attractive (self-rated attractiveness and other-rated attractiveness
are generally positively correlated, e.g., Feingold, 1992)andmakemore of anefforttolookattractive to
others (with self-grooming, healthy lifestyle, and makeup). These two possibilities are not mutually
exclusive.
A few other studies have reported an association between attractiveness and other psychological
traits or behaviors. Anderson (1978) explored attractiveness in relation to internal versus external
locus of control (internal: The individual feelsthat he orshe isfullyincontrolofhis/herownbehavior
and life; external: The individual feels that his/her own behavior and life are controlled by outside
forces, such as other people, luck, or chance) in a small sample of undergraduate students using the
Rotter’s Locus of Control Scale (LCS; Rotter, 1966). Moderate attractiveness was associated with
an internal locus of control, whereas moderate unattractiveness was associated with an external locus
of control. Both extreme attractiveness and extreme unattractiveness, however, were associated with
external locus of control.
In this study, we aimed to re-examine the association between facial attractiveness and some
physical and psycho-social traits in a relatively large sample of college students; we investigated
both self- and other-evaluated attractiveness as well as any discrepancy between the two. While the
hypothesis that individuals with some psychological traits (e.g., high self-esteem) make themselves
more attractive to others is plausible, we believe that this effect is probably weak and there is little
evidence in support of it (Barkhoff & Heiby, 2010). There is much stronger evidence that attractive
individuals are treated preferentially byothers,virtuallyfrombirthandthroughouttheir entire lives
(Maestripieri et al., 2017). Therefore, our predictions were derived from the hypothesis that
consistent preferential treatment and positive experiences should shape psychological/personality
traits in a particular way. This hypothesis is consistent with the evolutionary notion that
psychological/personality traits can be calibrated to the environment and to one’s own condition, via
4 COSTA AND MAESTRIPIERI

feedback from the environment and others (Tooby & Cosmides, 2015). Specifically, physical
attractiveness is a markerof high embodied capital and therefore expected to be associated with the
development of psychological traits and beliefs that anticipate safety and success in life.
We tested the following main predictions regarding the psychological traits of more attractive
individuals (compared to less attractive ones): (a) higher self-esteem, (b) lower trait anxiety, (c)
higher extraversion, (d) lower neuroticism, (e) internal locus of control, (f) higher self-perceived
social status, and (g) in general, a less pessimistic, less fatalistic outlook on life, including the past,
the present, and the future. We predicted that these effects would be stronger for self-evaluated
attractiveness than for other-evaluated attractiveness (we expect these to be significantly positively
correlated) and be stronger for women than for men, as the evidence for preferential treatment of
attractive people, particularly byopposite-sex individuals,suggeststhat this effect is stronger for
women than for men (Maestripieri et al., 2017).

Method

Study 1

Participants

Participants were 231 students at the University of Bologna: 145 females (Mage= 22.46, SD = 2.66)
and 86 males (Mage= 22.15, SD = 2.51). They were recruited mainly through word of mouth and
participation was on a voluntary basis. The students were told that this was a study investigating the
relationship between facial characteristics and personality traits.

Procedure

Data were collected using the Qualtrics online platform. After signing the consent form,
participants were asked to upload to Qualtrics a digital photograph of their face that met these
requirements: (a) face upright to the shoulder axis; (b) neutral expression; (c) homogeneous
background; and (d) no hat, sunglasses, or makeup.
Participants were asked to answer some questions about their sex, age, height, weight, occupation,
and status in a romantic relationship (single, in a relationship for less than 3 months, in a relationship
for more than 3 months), to provide a self-rating of their facial attractiveness and to fill out the
following questionnaires in a randomized order.
The Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999) is a 56-item
questionnaire that measures individual differences in time orientation, or tendency to focus on
different aspects of the past, present, and future. The questionnaire consists of five subscales: (1)
pastnegative, including items such as, “I think about the bad things that have happened to me in the
 FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS 5

past,” (2) present-hedonistic, including items such as, “taking risks keeps my life from becoming
boring,” (3) future, including 13items such as, “I complete projects on time by making steady
progress,” (4) past-positive, including nine items such as, “it gives me pleasure to think about the
past,” and (5) present-fatalistic, including nine items such as, “often luck pays off better than hard
work.” Answers to the questions can range from 1 (very uncharacteristic) to 5 (very characteristic).
The Rotter’s LCS (Rotter, 1966) is a 29-item questionnaire that measures an individual’s level of
internal–external control. Locus of control is a psychological construct referring to the degree to
which an individual perceives that a reward follows from, or is contingent upon, theirown
behaviororattributes, versusthe degree to which they feel the reward is controlled by forces outside
of him/herself, and occurring independently of his/her actions.
The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger et al., 1983) is a widely used questionnaire
for assessing trait and state anxiety. In our study, only the section for trait anxiety was used. It
consists of 20 items rated on a 4-point scale (e.g., from almost never to almost always). Higher
scores indicate greater anxiety. The Big Five Inventory (BFI; John et al., 1991) is a personality
questionnaire including 44 items that assess extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
neuroticism, and openness. Participants had to rate each BFI item on a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) is a 10-item scale that measures global
selfworth by measuring both positive and negative feelings about the self. All items are answered
using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
The McArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (Adler & Steward, 2007) is composed by one
item representing a stepladder image. The respondent has to place an X next to a rung in the ladder
to indicate his/her perceived rank relative to his/her group of friends. The scores vary from a
minimum of one to a maximum of 10.
6 COSTA AND MAESTRIPIERI

Study 2

Participants

Participants were 236 students (149 females Mage= 23.08, SD= 5.37; 87 males,
Mage= 26.74, SD= 10.03) recruited at the University of Bologna–Cesena campus (recruitment
occurred on a different campus, in a different town, to minimize
theprobabilitythatStudies1and2participantswere acquainted with each other). Participation was on
a voluntary basis.
Procedure

The 231 face images collected in Study 1 served as visual stimuli for Study 2. All procedures
were conducted online using Qualtrics. Participants were asked to enter information about their
sex and age. Then, the visual stimuli were presented to them in a randomized order, and
participants were asked to evaluate the attractiveness of each face using a horizontal slider ranging
to 0 ( far left) to 100 ( far right).
For both studies, all procedures were approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of
Bologna and all participants had to digitally sign an informed consent form prior to participation.
We complied with APA ethical standards in the treatment of our subjects.
 FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS 7

Figure 1
Distribution Density for Attractiveness Ratings of Female (Top) and Male (Bottom) Faces as a Function of the
Rater
8 COSTA AND MAESTRIPIERI

Results

Which Faces Were Rated as More Attractive and by Whom

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) assessed attractiveness ratings as a function of sex (male and
female faces) and rater (self, other males, and other females) (Figure 1). Mean effect for sex was
significant, F(1, 229) = 27.81, p < .001, η2= .11. Overall, female faces were evaluated as more
attractive (M= 53.95, SE= 0.90) than male faces (M= 46.11, SE = 1.17). Rater main effect was also
significant, F(1.067, 244.28) = 160.58, < .001, η2= .41. Paired comparisons showed that
attractiveness was rated highest in the self-rating condition (M = 60.84, SE = 1.39), intermediate by
males (M= 48.52, SE = 0.71), and lowest by female raters (M = 40.74, SE= 0.71). Pairwise
comparisons showed that all the differences between other-male-, other-female-, and self-rater were
significant with a p, .001. The interaction between sex and rater was also significant, F(1.067, 244.28)
= 28.93, p < .001, η2= .11. Paired comparisons showed that the comparison between male and female
attractiveness was significantly different when considering both other-male raters (p < .001) and
otherfemale raters (p < .001) but not when considering self-rated attractiveness (p = .48). For male
faces, attractiveness was highest in the self-rating condition (M= 61.82, SE= 2.20), followed by
ratings by males (M = 42.81, SE= 1.126), and by females (M= 33.70, SE = 1.11). For female faces,
attractiveness was highest in the self-rating condition (M= 59.85, SE = 1.69), followed by ratings
males (M= 54.23, SE= 0.86), and by females (M= 47.78, SE= 0.86).

The correlation between self-rated and otherrated attractiveness was positive and significant (r =
.16, p < .001). The Pearson’s correlation coefficient was r = .29 (p < .001) for females and r = .24 (p
= .02) for males. The discrepancy between self- and other-evaluated attractiveness was significantly
higher for male (M = 28.11, SD = 18.52) than for female (M = 5.62, SD = 21.18) participants, F(1,
229) = 66.71, p , .001, η2= .23.

Facial Attractiveness in Relation to Physical and Social Variables

Height and BMI were not significantly correlated (p = .08). For female study participants, BMI
(but not height) was a significant negative predictor of other-rated attractiveness; therefore, women
with higher BMI were perceived to have less attractive faces than those with lower BMI, F(2, 140)
= 5.41, p= .005, R2= .07, β=−.26.
 FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS 9

For male study participants, both BMI and height were negatively correlated with other-rated
attractiveness, F(2, 83) = 7.83, p < .001, R2= .14. Beta coefficients were −30 for height (t =−2.98, p=
.004), and −.30 for BMI (t =−2.95, p= .004). Self-rated attractiveness was not related to height or
BMI in males or females.
Other-rated attractiveness was significantly associated with status in a romantic relationship, F(1,
229) = 10.54, p = .001, β= .22, R2= .04. Attractiveness ratings were lower for singles (M = 43.59, SD
= 14.18) and for those engaged in a romantic relationship for less than 3 months (M = 43.92, SD =
15.63) than for those engaged in a romantic relationship for more than 3 months (M = 50.26, SD =
13.72). Thus, the most attractive individuals were likely to be in long-term relationships. Similar
results were found with self-rated attractiveness.

Facial Attractiveness and Psychological Functioning

The relationship between self-rated and otherrated attractiveness and the psychological variables
considered in this study was examined in two distinct multivariate linear regression analyses in
which self-rated or other-rated attractiveness was included as the dependent variable. Independent
variables were the following questionnaire measures: Big-Five Inventory, Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale, STAI, Rotter’s LCS, and ZTPI. Sex was also included in the model as a covariate to control
for sex-differences (see Table 1).
Self-rated attractiveness was positively related to social status (β= 0.009), self-esteem (β= 2.96),
and past-positive time perspective (β= 0.18), and negativelyrelatedtotrait-
anxiety(β=−4.50),neuroticism (β=−0.46), and past-negative time perspective (β=−0.17). Other-rated
attractiveness was positively related to self-esteem (β= 2.53) and negatively related to trait anxiety
(β=−4.50) and past-negative time perspective (β=−0.24).
Significant sex differences were found forconscientiousness, with females having a higher score
(M = 30.89, SD = 6.54) than males (M = 28.33, SD = 6.67), and for past-positive time perspective with
females having a higher score (M = 3.37, SD = 0.67) than males (M = 3.11, SD = 0.66) (Table 1).
The possibility that the data would better fit with a quadratic trend was tested with multivariate
quadratic regressions. These regressions were performed separately for other-rated and selfrated
attractiveness. None of these regressions showed significant quadratic trends.
A multivariate linear regression analysis explored the possible association between the
discrepancy between self- and other-rated attractiveness and the psychological variables examined
inthisstudy. The results of the multivariateregression are reported in Table 1, last column. A
significant positive relationship was found for social status (β= 0.08) and self-esteem (β= 2.24),
10 COSTA AND MAESTRIPIERI

whereas a significant negative relationship was found for trait anxiety (β=−3.19) and neuroticism
(β=−0.44). A test with quadratic multivariate regressions led to nonsignificant results for both males
and females.

Discussion

Our study provides new information on the sources of variation in facial attractiveness among
young adults. Although self-rated and other-rated attractiveness were positively correlated, ratings
of one’s own facial attractiveness were higher, especially among men, than those made by other
people. This effect, which was very robust, may be interpreted through the framework of positive
biases that have been demonstrated for a wide range of dispositional and cognitive activities (e.g.,
self-esteem, intelligence, perception of control, and optimism) and which presumably enhance, in
an adaptive way, an individual’s mental health, motivation, and resilience under stress (e.g., Snyder,
1989;
Taylor & Brown, 1988; Wolfe & Grosch, 1990). Interestingly, Gabriel et al. (1994) reported that
males, but not females, overestimated their attractiveness, that positive illusions for intelligence and
attractiveness were correlated, and that males showed greater positive illusions than females. These
positive illusions are enhanced during romantic relationships (Bale & Archer, 2013; Barelds et al.,
2011; Cai et al., 2018), when individuals are extremely biased when assessing their own versus their
partner’s physical attractiveness.
In our study population, female faces were rated as more attractive than male ones, by both males
and females. Males generally rated male and female faces as more attractive than females
FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS 11
did. The extent to which these patterns are specific and idiosyncratic to our study population or can
be extended also to other populations remains unclear.
Our study also revealed some significant associations between facial attractiveness and the study
participants’ self-reported physical, social, and psychological characteristics. Among the physical
characteristics, BMI was a significant predictor of facial attractiveness such that males and females
with lower BMI were rated as more attractive. Height was negatively associated with attractiveness
in males. Since body weight can be inferred from faces, the association between low BMI and
attractiveness confirms the well-established relationship between weight, BMI, and a person’s
overall attractiveness (e.g., Tovée & Cornelissen, 2001). Previous studies of the association between
attractiveness and height have produced mixed results (e.g., Beigel, 1954; Gillis & Avis, 1980;
Graziano et al., 1978; Shepperd & Strathman, 1989), suggesting that more research on this issue
with a larger sample size is needed.
In addition to the participants’ physical characteristics, we also found a significant association
between their self-reported relationship status and their facial attractiveness. More attractive males
and females reported being in long-term (more than 3-month long) romantic relationships (as
opposed to being single or in short-term relationships) when compared to less attractive individuals.
There are potentially many nonmutually exclusive explanations for this finding. It is possible that
more attractive individuals are more desirable partners for long-term relationships due to their
attractiveness in itself, or other characteristics associated with it. It is also possible that attractive
individualshave psychological or behavioralcharacteristics that make it easier to maintain a
relationship (i.e., make it more stable), independent of their desirability as partners. Or it is possible
that attractive individuals are more likely to want and choose to be in long-term relationships. While
all of these (and other) explanations are plausible, there is more evidence in favor of the high
desirability explanation than for the others (e.g., Maestripieri et al., 2017). Regardless of the
explanation, since being in stable long-term romantic relationships has been associated with
psychological well-being and other health-related benefits (e.g., Loving & Slatcher, 2013), our
results suggest that more attractive individuals are more likely to enjoy the benefits of stable
relationships than less attractive individuals.
Facial attractiveness, both self-rated and otherrated, was positively associated with self-esteem,
and negatively associated with trait anxiety and with past negative time perspective. The finding that
more attractive individuals have higher selfesteem and are less anxious (in some cases, also less
neurotic) has been reported in previous metaanalyses of the literature (Feingold, 1992; Langlois et
al., 2000). Taken together, these associations suggest that attractive individuals are generally well-
 FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS 13

adjusted and less likely to exhibit a lack of self-confidence, or anxiety and depression. An association
between attractiveness and eudaimonic well-being (i.e., positive psychological functioning centered
on self-realization) has also been reported (Ryan & Deci, 2001).
Attractiveness had a significant association with past time perspective, but not with present and
future perspective. A past-negative perspective reflects an aversive attitude toward the past while a
past-positive perspective reflects a warm, sentimental, and nostalgic attitude toward the past
(Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). The negative association between attractiveness and pastnegative time
perspective could simply reflect the fact that attractive individuals are less likely to have negative
experiences in their lives. For example, attractive individuals are treated better byothers and receive
social and financial benefits from others throughout their lives (Langlois et al., 2000; Maestripieri et
al., 2017). It is also possible that attractive individuals have a greater positive bias in their memories
so that negative events in their lives are more easily forgotten or weakened for their aversive effects.
Psychological functioning, particularly in terms of positive well-being, was predicted not only by
self- and other-rated attractiveness, but also by the discrepancy between these measures. The more
participants expressed subjective and enhanced perceptions of their own facial attractiveness (and
thus deviated from the more objective ratings made by other individuals) the more they reported
high social status and self-esteem, and low neuroticism and trait anxiety. As mentioned in the first
paragraph, we believe that the associations between attractiveness and psychological functioning
result from the consistent preferential treatment and repeated positive experiences that shape the
psychological/personality traits of attractive individuals in a positive way.
Our prediction that the association between facial attractiveness and certain psychological
characteristics would be stronger in women than in men was not supported by our results.
We did, however, find some significant sex differences in psychological variables, which are
mostly consistent with the findings of previous research, namely that both conscientiousness
and past-positive time perspective were higher in females than in males (see Keiser et al., 2016;
Kling et al., 2013; Mac Giolla &Kajonius, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2005; Vianello et al., 2013).
Overall, our interpretation of the results is consistent with the notion that facial attractiveness is
largely biologically and genetically determined (e.g., Little et al., 2011), while personality traits can
be calibrated to the environment and to one’s own condition, via feedback from others and their
behavior (Lukaszewski & Roney, 2011; Tooby & Cosmides, 2015). Specifically, physical
attractiveness is a marker of high embodied capital and therefore expected to be associated with the
development of psychological traits and beliefs that anticipate safety and success in life such as good
self-regulation, mental health, optimism, and openness to the environment (see Lukaszewski &
14 COSTA AND MAESTRIPIERI

Roney, 2011). Therefore, attractive people may be equipped with a range of physical, physiological,
and psychological characteristics that guarantee not only an enhanced probability of survival, but
especially enhanced social and reproductive success, including high desirabilityas mating partners
and high fertility.
We hypothesized that attractiveness would be associated with a greater internal locus of control,
but this hypothesis was not supported by our data. Our results, however, suggest that investigating
attractive people’s cognitive biases and positive illusions about the self and the world may be a
profitable and productive avenue for future research, which will likely further enhance our
understanding of how evolution by natural and sexual selection has shaped our mind-body
connections in adaptive ways.

Limitations of This Study

The lack of experimental measures of psychological and other variables is one important
limitation of this study. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, no study participant could be tested in the
laboratory and all data had to be collected online. Related to this, all data analyses were correlational
and therefore cause-effect relationships between variables could not be demonstrated. Therefore, the
conclusions of the studyare necessarily tentative. The smaller sample size for the male faces and the
low heterogeneity in the attractiveness ratings of these faces are among the limitations of this study.
Finally, the use of college students both for the face stimuli and as raters for the stimuli may limit
the generalizability of our findings to nonstudent populations.

References

Adams, G. R. (1977). Physical attractiveness research: Toward a developmental social psychology of beauty.
Human Development, 20(4), 217–239.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000271558
Adler, N., & Steward, J. (2007). The MacArthur Scale of subjective social status. The MacArthur Research
Network on Socioeconomic Status and Health.
Agthe, M., Spörrle, M., & Maner, J. K. (2010). Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful: Anti-attractiveness bias in
organizational evaluation and decision making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1151–
1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp .2010.05.007
Agthe, M., Spörrle, M., & Maner, J. K. (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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014616721141 0355
 FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS 15

Anderson, R. (1978). Physical attractiveness and locus of control. The Journal of Social Psychology,
105(2), 213–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1978.9924117
Andreoni, J., & Petrie, R. (2008). Beauty, gender and stereotypes: Evidence from laboratory experiments.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(1), 73–93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2007.07.008
Bale, C., & Archer, J. (2013). Self-perceived attractiveness, romantic desirability and self-esteem: A mating
sociometer perspective. Evolutionary Psychology, 11(1), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/147
470491301100107
Barelds, D. P. H., Dijkstra, P., Koudenburg, N., & Swami, V. (2011). An assessment of positive illusions of the
physical attractiveness of romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(5), 706–719.
https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0265407510385492
Barkhoff, H., & Heiby, E. M. (2010). The relations between self-efficacy, competition success, delight, self-
esteem, and body-care among elite artistic roller skaters. Journal of Behavioral Health and Medicine, 1(1),
43–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100540
Beigel, H. G. (1954). Body height in mate selection. The Journal of Social Psychology, 39(2), 257–268.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1954.9919122
Bobadilla, L., Metze, A. V., & Taylor, J. (2013). Physical attractiveness and its relation to unprovoked and
reactive aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp
.2012.09.004
Bourdage, J. S., Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Perry, A. (2007). Big Five and HEXACO model personality
correlates of sexuality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1506–1516. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.paid.2007.04.008
Cai, J., Zheng, Y., Li, P., Ye, B., Liu, H., & Ge, L. (2018). The effect of romantic relationships on the evaluation
of the attractiveness of one’s own face. i-Perception, 9(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2041669518765542
Dermer, M., & Thiel, D. L. (1975). When beauty may fail. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(6),
1168–1176. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077085
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 24(3), 285–290. https://doi.org/10 .1037/h0033731
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0033-2909.110.1.109
Eckel, C. C. (2007). People playing games: The human face of experimental economics. Southern Economic
Journal, 73(4), 840–857. https://doi.org/10 .1002/j.2325-8012.2007.tb00807.x
Farina, A., Wheeler, D. S., & Mehta, S. (1991). The impact of an unpleasant and demeaning social interaction.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1991 .10.4.351
16 COSTA AND MAESTRIPIERI

Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 304–341.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.2 .304
Gabriel, M. T., Critelli, J. W., & Ee, J. S. (1994). Narcissistic illusions in self-evaluations of intelligence and
attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994. tb00798.x
Gillen, B. (1981). Physical attractiveness: A determinant of two types of goodness. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 7(2), 277–281. https:// doi.org/10.1177/014616728172015
Gillis, J. S., & Avis, W. E. (1980). The male-taller norm in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 6(3), 396–401. https:// doi.org/10.1177/014616728063010
Graziano, W., Brothen, T., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Height and attraction: Do men and women see eye-to-eye?
Journal of Personality, 46(1), 128–145.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1978.tb00606.x
Hamermesch, D. S. (2011). Beauty pays: Why attractive people are more successful. Princeton University
Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7sjgz
Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Coats, G. (2003). The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related
outcomes: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 431–462. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00157.x
Jackson, L. A., Hunter, J. E., & Hodge, C. N. (1995). Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A
meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(2), 108–122. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787 149
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory: Versions 4a and 54. Universityof
California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
Jokela, M. (2009). Physical attractiveness and reproductive success in humans: Evidence from the late 20
century United States. Evolution and Human Behavior: Official Journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution
Society, 30(5), 342–350. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.006
Kanazawa, S. (2011). Intelligence and physical attractiveness. Intelligence, 39(1), 7–14. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.003
Kanazawa, S., & Kovar, J. L. (2004). Why beautiful people are more intelligent. Intelligence, 32(3), 227–243.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2004.03 .003
Keiser, H. N., Sackett, P. R., Kuncel, N. R., & Brothen, T.(2016).Whywomenperformbetterincollegethan
admission scores would predict: Exploring the roles of conscientiousness and course-taking patterns. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(4), 569– 581. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000069
Kling, K. C., Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2013). Why do standardized tests underpredict women’s academic
performance? The role of conscientiousness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(5), 600–606.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612
469038
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or
myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390–423.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390
 FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS 17

Lewis, K. E., & Bierly, M. (1990). Toward a profile of the female voter: Sex differences in perceived physical
attractiveness and competence of political candidates. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 22(1–2), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288150 Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Facial
attractiveness: Evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, 366(1571), 1638–1659.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0404
Loving, T. J., & Slatcher, R. B. (2013). Romantic relationships and health. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 617–637). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/978019539 8694.001.0001
Lukaszewski, A. W., & Roney, J. R. (2011). The origins of extraversion: Joint effects of facultative calibration
and genetic polymorphism. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 409–421. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167210397209
Mac Giolla, E., & Kajonius, P. J. (2019). Sex differences in personality are larger in gender equal countries:
Replicating and extending a surprising finding. International Journal of Psychology: Journal International de
Psychologie, 54(6), 705–711. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12529
Maestripieri, D., Henry, A., & Nickels, N. (2017). Explaining financial and prosocial biases in favor of attractive
people: Interdisciplinary perspectives from economics, social psychology, and evolutionary psychology. The
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e19. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0140525X16000340
Maestripieri, D., Klimczuk, A. C. E., Traficonte, D. M., & Wilson, M. C. (2014). A greater decline in female
facial attractiveness during middle age reflects women’s loss of reproductive value. Frontiers in Psychology,
5, Article 179. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00179
Mathes, E. W., & Kahn, A. (1975). Physical attractiveness, happiness, neuroticism, and self-esteem. The Journal
of Psychology, 90(1), 27–30. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9923921
Mulford, M., Orbell, J., Shatto, C., & Stockard, J. (1998). Physical attractiveness, opportunity, and success in
everyday exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 103(6), 1565–1592. https://doi.org/ 10.1086/231401
Muñoz-Reyes, J. A., Iglesias-Julios, M., Pita, M., & Turiegano, E. (2015). Facial features: What women
perceive as attractive and what men consider attractive. PLoS ONE, 10(7), Article e0132979.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132979
Nguyen, N. T., Allen, L. C., & Fraccastoro, K. (2005). Personality predicts academic performance: Exploring
the moderating role of gender. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(1), 105–117.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800500046313
Pawlowski, B., Boothroyd, L. G., Perrett, D. I., & Kluska, S. (2008). Is female attractiveness related to final
reproductive success? Collegium Anthropologicum, 32(2), 457–460.
Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 199–
226. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.
102904.190208
18 COSTA AND MAESTRIPIERI

Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness
enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 186–201. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.014
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent selfimage. Princeton University Press.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.psych.52.1.141
Sabatelli, R. M., & Rubin, M. (1986). Nonverbal expressiveness and physical attractiveness as mediators of
interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 10(2), 120–133. https://doi.org/
10.1007/BF01000008
Sanchez-Pages, S., & Turiegano, E. (2010). Testosterone, facial symmetry and cooperation in the prisoners’
dilemma. Physiology & Behavior, 99(3), 355– 361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.11.013
Segal-Caspi, L., Roccas, S., & Sagiv, L. (2012). Don’t judge a book by its cover, revisited: Perceived and
reported traits and values of attractive women. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1112–1116. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0956797612446349
Shepperd, J. A., & Strathman, A. J. (1989). Attractiveness and height: The role of stature in dating preference,
frequency of dating, and perceptions of attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(4),
617–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167289154014
Shinada,M.,&Yamagishi,T.(2014).Physicalattractiveness and cooperation in a prisoner’s dilemma game.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(6), 451–455.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.06.003
Snyder, C. R. (1989). Reality negotiation: From excuses to hope and beyond. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 8(2), 130–157. https:// doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1989.8.2.130
Solnick, S. J., & Schweitzer, M. E. (1999). The influence of physical attractiveness and gender on ultimatum
game decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3), 199–215.
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2843
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the statetrait
anxiety inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Takahashi, C., Yamagishi, T., Tanida, S., Kiyonari, T., & Kanazawa, S. (2006). Attractiveness and cooperation
in social exchange. Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490
600400127
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and wellbeing: A social psychological perspective on mental
health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.193
 FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS 19

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2015). The theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.),
Handbook of evolutionary psychology, second edition. Volume I: Foundations (pp. 3–87). John Wiley &
Sons.
Tovée, M. J., & Cornelissen, P. L. (2001). Female and male perceptions of female physical attractiveness in
front-view and profile. British Journal of Psychology, 92(2), 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1348/
000712601162257
Vianello, M., Schnabel, K., Sriram, N., & Nosek, B. (2013).Genderdifferencesinimplicitandexplicitpersonality
traits. Personalityand Individual Differences, 55(8), 994–999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013
.08.008
Webster, M., & Driskell, J. E. (1983). Beauty as status. American Journal of Sociology, 89(1), 140–165.
https://doi.org/10.1086/227836
Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: A review. Psychological
Bulletin, 131(5), 635–653. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.635
Wolfe, R. N., & Grosch, J. W. (1990). Personality correlates of confidence in one’s decisions. Journal of
Personality, 58(3), 515–534. https://doi.org/10 .1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00241.x
Zaatari, D., & Trivers, R. (2007). Fluctuating asymmetry and behavior in the ultimatum game in Jamaica.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(4), 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav .2007.02.002
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences
metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1271–1288. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-
3514.77.6.1271

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dario Maestripieri, Department of Comparative Human
Development, The University of Chicago, 940 E. 57th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, United States. Email: [email protected]

View publication stats