Physical Attractiveness

Abstract

This experiment was designed to test the idea that physically attractive (PA) persons are perceived as having two types of goodness-sex-relevant and sexirrelevant. Three hypotheses were tested to determine the validity of this notion. It was predicted that perceived masculinity increases with PA for males but not for females, that perceived femininity increases with PA for females but not for males, and that perceived social desirability increases with PA for both males and females. Subjects were asked to fill in the Bem Sex Role Inventory for males and females representing low, moderate, and high levels of PA. The obtained results supported all three experimental hypotheses.

Women’s Preferences for Men’s Facial Masculinity: Trade-Off Accounts Revisited

“…clearly above zero. This is in line with findings from previous studies that have reported a general preference for masculinity/masculine traits (Cunningham et al 1990;Gillen 1981;Grammer and Thornhill 1994;Koehler et al 2004;Neave et al 2003;Rhodes et al 2003Rhodes et al , 2007Saxton et al 2009;Scheib et al 1999), but in contrast to other studies which reported that overall, women prefer a close to average or slightly feminine male face shape (Little et al 2001;Penton-Voak et al 2004, 2003Perrett et al 1998;Rhodes et al 2000;Scott et al 2010). Our results might differ from these latter findings because we used an asymmetric range of masculinity (−100% to +200%).…”

Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful: Acknowledging appearance mitigates the “beauty is beastly” effect

“…Applicants for masculine sex-typed jobs are evaluated based on whether they possess the masculine traits that are perceived as necessary to fulfill the job requirements. For women, attractiveness results in automatic inferences that the applicant is feminine (Cash et al, 1977;Gillen, 1981)-which is inconsistent with the job requirements for a masculine sex-typed job. As Heilman (2001, p. 660) suggests, ''the greater the degree of stereotyping or the more masculine in sex-type the job, the worse the perceived fit and the more negative the expectations are apt to be.…”

“…Specifically, salient features such as physical attractiveness and sex trigger stereotype inferences that attractive women lack the traits necessary to succeed in a masculine job (Cash, Gillen, & Burns, 1977;Gillen, 1981;Heilman, 1983). Conversely, if a woman demonstrates that she has the requisite skills and experience needed for a masculine job, she violates her gender role and is, therefore, seen as lacking communal traits (Eagly, 1987).…”

“…Due to the lack of fit expectations and social role violation, attractive women are viewed negatively when applying for masculine sex-typed jobs (Cash et al, 1977;Gillen, 1981;Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979;Heilman & Stopeck, 1985;Jackson, 1983;Johnson, Podratz, Dipboye, & Gibbons, 2010). Role violations may be seen as particularly egregious among attractive women because of their perceived femininity, which is incompatible with the traits necessary to succeed in the position at hand (Heilman, 2001).…”

Differences in expressivity based on attractiveness: Target or perceiver effects?

“…A potential reason why attractiveness did not significantly impact high attractive males’ expressivity valence ratings is that adults perceive high attractive males as possessing more masculine traits than medium or low attractive males (Gillen, 1981). Moreover, facial masculinity positively correlates with facial attractiveness (Rennels, Bronstad, & Langlois, 2008; Rhodes, 2006), and this association should contribute to perceptions of masculine traits among high attractive males.…”