What is beautiful is good and more accurately understood: Physical attractiveness and accuracy in first impressions of personality

Psychological Science

Volumn 21, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1777-1782

  Lorenzo, Genevieve L ^a   Biesanz, Jeremy C ^a   Human, Lauren J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

accuracy; impression formation; personality; physical appearance; social perception

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; ESTHETICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PERCEPTION; PERSONALITY; PERSONALITY TEST; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

BEAUTY; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; PERSONALITY; PERSONALITY INVENTORY; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; STEREOTYPING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78650315642     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797610388048     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Bates, D., & Sarkar, D. (2007). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package Version 0.9975-12) [Computer software]. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html.
2. Biesanz, J.C. (in press). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research.
3. Biesanz, J.C., & Human, L.J. (2010). The cost of forming more accurate impressions: Accuracy-motivated perceivers see the personality of others more distinctively but less normatively than perceivers without an explicit goal. Psychological Science, 21, 589-594.
4. Borkenau, P., & Zaltauskas, K. (2009). Effects of self-enhancement on agreement on personality profiles. European Journal of Personality, 23, 107-123.
5. Cleveland, W.S. (1979). Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 829-836.
6. Colvin, C.R. (1993). Judgable people: Personality, behavior, and competing explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 861-873.
7. De L.a Ronde, C., & Swann, W.B., Jr. (1998). Partner verification: Restoring shattered images of our intimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 374-382.
8. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
9. 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, 109-128.
10. Edwards, A.L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York, NY: Dryden.
11. Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304-341.
12. Funder, D.C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652-670.
13. Funder, D.C., & Colvin, C. (1997). Congruence of others' and self-judgments of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 617-647). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14. Griffin, A.M., & Langlois, J.H. (2006). Stereotype directionality and attractiveness stereotyping: Is beauty good or is ugly bad? Social Cognition, 24, 212-246.
15. John, O.P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L.A. Pervin & O.P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
16. Kenny, D.A., & LaVoie, L. (1984). The social relations model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 142-182). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17. Kenny, D.A., & Winquist, L. (2001). The measurement of interpersonal sensitivity: Consideration of design, components, and unit of analysis. In J.A. Hall & F.J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 265-302). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Lackenbauer, S., Campbell, L., Rubin, H., Fletcher, G.J.O., & Troister, T. (in press). The unique and combined benefits of accuracy and positive bias in relationships. Personal Relationships.
19. Langlois, J.H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A.J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretic review. Psychological Bulletin, 26, 390-423.
20. Lemay, E.P., Clark, M.S., & Greenberg, A. (2010). What is beautiful is good because what is beautiful is desired: Physical attractiveness stereotyping as projection of interpersonal goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 339-353.
21. Luo, S., & Snider, A. (2009). Accuracy and biases in newlyweds' perceptions of each other: Not mutually exclusive but mutually beneficial. Psychological Science, 20, 1332-1339.
22. Maner, J.K., Kenrick, D.T., Becker, D.V., Deltion, A.W., Hofer, B., Wilbur, C.J., & Neuberg, S.L. (2003). Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1107-1120.
23. Swann, W.B., Jr., Pelham, B.W., & Krull, D.S. (1989). Agreeable fancy or disagreeable truth? How people reconcile their self-enhancement and self-verification needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 782-791.
24. Wood, D., Gosling, S.D., & Potter, J. (2007). Normality evaluations and their relation to personality traits and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 861-879.