Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972), in their seminal article, labeled the attribution of positive characteristics to attractive people the "beauty-is-good" stereotype. The stereotyping literature since then provides extensive evidence for the differential judgment and treatment of attractive versus unattractive people, but does not indicate whether it is an advantage to be attractive or a disadvantage to be unattractive. Two studies investigated the direction of attractiveness stereotyping by comparing judgments of positive and negative attributes for medium vs. low and medium vs. high attractive faces. Taken together, results for adults (Experiment 1) and children (Experiment 2) suggest that most often, unattractiveness is a disadvantage, consistent with negativity bias (e.g., Rozin & Royzman, 2001) but contrary to the "beauty-is-good" aphorism.

Like adults, young infants prefer attractive to unattractive faces (e.g. Langlois, Roggman, Casey, Ritter, Rieser-Danner & Jenkins, 1987; Slater, von der Schulenburg, Brown, Badenoch, Butterworth, Parsons & Samuels, 1998). Older children and adults stereotype based on facial attractiveness (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani & Longo, 1991; Langlois, Kalakanis, Rubenstein, Larson, Hallam & Smooth, 2000). How do preferences for attractive faces develop into stereotypes? Several theories of stereotyping posit that categorization of groups is necessary before positive and negative traits can become linked to the groups (e.g. Taifel, Billig, Bundy & Flament, 1971; Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1982). We investigated whether or not 6-month-old infants can categorize faces as attractive or unattractive. In Experiment 1, we familiarized infants to unattractive female faces; in Experiment 2, we familiarized infants to attractive female faces and tested both groups of infants on novel faces from the familiar or novel attractiveness category. Results showed that 6-month-olds categorized attractive and unattractive female faces into two different groups of faces. Experiments 3 and 4 confirmed that infants could discriminate among the faces used in Experiments 1 and 2, and therefore categorized the faces based on their similarities in attractiveness rather than because they could not differentiate among the faces. These findings suggest that categorization of facial attractiveness may underlie the development of the 'beauty is good' stereotype.

We tested whether adults (experiment 1) and 4 - 5-year-old children (experiment 2) identify the sex of highly attractive faces faster and more accurately than not very attractive faces in a reaction-time task. We also assessed whether facial masculinity/femininity facilitated identification of sex. Results showed that attractiveness facilitated adults' sex classification of both female and male faces and children's sex classification of female, but not male, faces. Moreover, attractiveness affected the speed and accuracy of sex classification independently of masculinity/femininity. High masculinity in male faces, but not high femininity in female faces, also facilitated sex classification for both adults and children. These findings provide important new data on how the facial cues of attractiveness and masculinity/femininity contribute to the task of sex classification and provide evidence for developmental differences in how adults and children use these cues. Additionally, these findings provide support for Langlois and Roggman's (1990 Psychological Science 1 115 121) averageness theory of attractiveness.

Difficulty expressing emotional distress verbally is widely thought to underlie the presentation of physical symptoms which cannot be explained in medical terms. Children presenting with so called psychosomatic symptoms therefore bridge both the medical and psychological domains and create a conundrum for professionals from either field if working with them alone. A multidisciplinary rehabilitative approach has long been considered the treatment of choice for children exhibiting chronic physical problems. However, there has been little focus on the use of this approach with children diagnosed as suffering from nonorganic physical symptoms, or on the nuts and bolts of the psychological interventions which have been found beneficial. This article outlines a psychological model which has been integrated into a multidisciplinary team approach with good outcomes. The unique features of each case means that evidence for treatment is limited and relies upon such examples of good practice.

Adolescence is evolution’s solution to bringing the capacity of our large, complex brains to fruition. It is a critical period for brain development and the experiences of each adolescent during this time helps to shape their adult brain. Brain developments lead to both the hormonal changes and the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral characteristics of the teenage years. They drive a growth towards independence via more complex reasoning skills, increased importance of social affiliations outside the family, and an urge to experiment and explore boundaries. In the context of still incomplete inhibitory systems, a heightened sensitivity to rewards, including the need for social acceptance, can mean risk-taking or impulsive behaviour in some. The continued plasticity of the brain can also mean a creativity and openness to novel solutions. These normative steps of adolescence are especially relevant to young people with chronic health conditions. An understanding of brain development at this time can help us appreciate the perspective and priorities of adolescents with health conditions. It can also guide us towards better ways of collaborating with them.