Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
University students blind to group status rated boys with gender identity disorder and clinical control boys regarding their physical attractiveness. Ratings were made of the face and upper torso from photographs taken at the time of clinical assessment (mean age, 8.1 years). On all five adjectives (attractive, beautiful, cute, handsome, and pretty), boys with gender identity disorder were judged to be more attractive than were the clinical control boys. Attractiveness correlated with extent of behavioral femininity in the clinical control group, but not in the group of boys with gender identity disorder. The extent to which the group differences in attractiveness were due to objective, structural differences in facial attractiveness vs. socially created, or subjective, processes is discussed.
University students blind to group status rated boys with gender identity disorder and clinical control boys regarding their physical attractiveness. Ratings were made of the face and upper torso from photographs taken at the time of clinical assessment (mean age, 8.1 years). On all five adjectives (attractive, beautiful, cute, handsome, and pretty), boys with gender identity disorder were judged to be more attractive than were the clinical control boys. Attractiveness correlated with extent of behavioral femininity in the clinical control group, but not in the group of boys with gender identity disorder. The extent to which the group differences in attractiveness were due to objective, structural differences in facial attractiveness vs. socially created, or subjective, processes is discussed.
Objective A commonly held belief about physical attractiveness is that attractive individuals are psychologically healthier than less attractive individuals (i.e., the “beauty is good” stereotype). To date, the data on this stereotype and its relationship with depression is limited, with a paucity of literature comparing subjective and objective appearance evaluations and depressive symptoms. Additionally, there is no known research on this relationship among sexual minorities (i.e., gay and bisexual individuals), a highly vulnerable population. The primary aims of the study were to assess the prediction of depression symptoms by subjective and objective appearance evaluation, and secondary aims were to assess the interaction of subjective and objective appearance with sexual orientation. Method Participants were 4,882 American emerging adults (M age =22 years; 2,253 males, 2,629 females) taken from a U.S. nationally representative dataset (Add Health). Results Increased negative subjective appearance evaluation was associated with elevated rates of depressive symptoms (B = −.27, p < .001), while objective appearance evaluation was not significantly related to depressive symptoms. Sexual orientation significantly moderated the relationship between subjective appearance and depression (B = .19, p = .009), with a stronger positive association between negative appearance evaluation and depressive symptoms noted among sexual minority vs. heterosexual participants. Limitations Limitations include cross-sectional design and self-report nature of questionnaires. Conclusions Findings suggest that the ‘beauty is good’ stereotype may not be valid in regard to depressive symptoms, and that subjective appearance evaluation is a robust predictor of depression, particularly for sexual minority individuals.
Meta-analysis was used to examine findings in 2 related areas: experimental research on the physical attractiveness stereotype and correlational studies of characteristics associated with physical attractiveness. The experimental literature found that physically attractive people were perceived as more sociable, dominant, sexually warm, mentally healthy, intelligent, and socially skilled than physically unattractive people. Yet, the correlational literature indicated generally trivial relationships between physical attractiveness and measures of personality and mental ability, although good-looking people were less lonely, less socially anxious, more popular, more socially skilled, and more sexually experienced than unattractive people. Self-ratings of physical attractiveness were positively correlated with a wider range of attributes than was actual physical attractiveness.Do good-looking people differ from unattractive people and, if so, why? Now consider self-perceptions of physical attractiveness. Do people who view themselves as physically appealing different from their counterparts who hold modest opinions of their own physical appearance and, if so, why? This article examines and integrates theories and empirical findings from the physical attractiveness literature to address these interesting questions. Conceptualization and Measurement of AttractivenessWhat is physical attractiveness? Social scientists, like laymen, believe that beauty is denned by social consensus (Berscheid & Walster, 1974;Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986). Accordingly, researchers measure physical attractiveness by use of judges, with each judge asked to provide an independent rating of the physical attractiveness of each subject, a procedure strikingly similar to the notorious 1 -to-10 attractiveness-rating scale often used in the "real world" when people first observe strangers of the opposite sex. These assessments are then averaged over judges by subject to yield physical attractiveness ratings (e.g., Walster, . Since the mid-1960s, scores of studies have correlated such pooled physical attractiveness judgments (sometimes called objective physical attractiveness) with other characteristics, including personality traits, cognitive ability, popularity, social skills, and sexual experience I want to thank Ronald Mazzella for assistance in the preparation of data for meta-analysis, two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on a draft of this article, and the following researchers for providing me with unpublished findings for this review:
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.