the role of objective physical attractiveness in the ... - Cairn

YOU'RE BETTER THAN I IF YOU'RE HOTTER THAN I: THE ROLE OFOBJECTIVE PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS IN THE PHYSICALATTRACTIVENESS STEREOTYPE

R. Matthew Montoya

Presses universitaires de Grenoble | « Revue internationale de psychologie sociale »

2014/2 Tome 27 | pages 109 à 122 ISSN 0992-986XISBN 9782706122354

Article disponible en ligne à l'adresse :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2014-2-page-109.htm--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour Presses universitaires de Grenoble.© Presses universitaires de Grenoble. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans leslimites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de lalicence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie,sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit del'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockagedans une base de données est également interdit.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P

resses universitaires de Grenoble | T

éléchargé le 25/08/2022 sur ww

w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)

www.cairn.info/publications-de-R. Matthew-Montoya--124376.htm?WT.tsrc=pdf

https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2014-2-page-109.htm

https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-psychologie-sociale-2014-2-page-109.htm

http://www.tcpdf.org

Revue InteRnatIonale de PSycholoGIe SocIale 2014 n° 2

109

you’re better than I if you’re hotter than I: the role of objective physical attractiveness in the

physical attractiveness stereotypeVous êtes mieux que moi si vous êtes plus sexy que moi : le rôle de l’attirance

physique objective dans le stéréotype d'attirance physique

R. Matthew Montoya*

RIPS / IRSP, 27 (2), 109-122 © 2014, Presses universitaires de Grenoble

Abstract

This research explored whether one’s objective physical attractive-ness affects the expression of the physical attractiveness stereotype. 113 participants rated photographs of individuals of various levels of physical attractiveness before their own photograph was rated by objective raters. Consistent with the physical attractiveness stereotype, targets that were rated as more physically attractive were also rated as more sociable and better adjusted. In addition, increases in participants’ objective physical attractiveness covaried with lowered evaluations of the target’s psychological attributes, with this effect mediated by the participant’s ratings of the target persons’ phys-ically attractiveness. Overall, these findings are consistent with implicit personality theory and point to the importance of assessing objective attributes to predicting evaluations of other persons.

Résumé

Cette recherche a examiné si l’atti-rance physique objective de quelqu’un modifie l’expression du stéréotype d’attirance physique. 113 participants ont évalué des photographies de personnes de différents niveaux d’attirance physique avant que leur propre photo soit évaluée par des évalua-teurs objectifs. En accord avec le stéréotype d’attirance physique, les cibles évaluées comme plus atti-rantes physiquement étaient égale-ment évaluées comme plus sociables et mieux ajustées. Lorsque le participant était plus attirant physiquement, son évaluation des attributs psychologiques des cibles était plus basse. Cet effet était médiatisé par les évaluations de l’attirance physique des cibles. Dans l’ensemble, ces résultats sont cohérents avec la théorie de la personnalité implicite et montrent l’importance d’évaluer les attributs objectifs pour pouvoir prédire les évaluations d’autres personnes.

Key-wordsPhysical attractiveness

stereotype, physical attractiveness, implicit

personality theory, self-esteem

Mots-clésStéréotype d’attirance

physique, attrait physique, théorie de la personnalité implicite,

estime de soi

* Department of Psychology, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, 45469. E-mail: [email protected]

RIPS_2_2014.indd 109 11/09/14 09:31

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P



w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)

ROLE OF OBJECTIVE PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS

110

The physical attractiveness stereotype –the finding that indi-viduals ascribe more positive evaluations to those who are

physically attractive than to those less attractive (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972)– is robust (average effect size, d = .49) and holds for multiple evaluative dimensions, including intellectual and social competence, integrity, potency, and adjustment (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991). From the perspective of the most prominent explanation for the effect, implicit personality theory (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1979; Ashmore, Del Boca, & Wohlers, 1986), the physical attractiveness stereotype develops from direct observation and from the cultural values via the crea-tion of schemas for “physically attractive” versus “physically unattractive” persons. Whereas the research is clear that the physical attractiveness stereotype is a robust effect, the question posed here is whether the process similarly applies when the raters themselves are physically attractive, such that physically attractive raters may not view their similarly-attractive compa-triots as possessing positive attributes. In the following sections, I begin by discussing the influence of the rater’s subjective and objective physical attractiveness on the physical attractiveness stereotype.

Influence of objective physical attractiveness

People’s objective characteristics (i.e., what one “actually” is rather than what one believes oneself to be) can affect how they view and evaluate other people. Research on reference points (Rosch, 1975) and social cognition (Zebrowitz, 1990), for example, indicates that perceivers’ objective attributes influence how they perceive the attributes that other people possess. Combs and Snygg’s (1959) assertion that “the self provides the frame of refer-ence from which all else is observed. People are not really fat unless they are fatter than we” (pp. 145) posits that raters’ evalu-ations of other people are dependent on their own objective attributes. Consistent with this notion, research has noted that one’s objective attributes affect evaluations of one’s mental simu-lations (Markman & McMullen, 2003), social comparisons (Festinger, 1957; Taylor, Morin, Parker, Cohn, & Wang, 2009), comparative appraisals (Jones & Gerard, 1967), and evaluations

RIPS_2_2014.indd 110 11/09/14 09:31

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P



w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)


111

of other people’s weight (Ball, Crawford, & Kenardy, 2004; Swami & Tovée, 2009).

Important for its proposed role in the physical attractiveness stereotype, perceivers’ objective physical attractiveness also affects their ratings of target people’s physical attractiveness. Specifically, Montoya (2008) found that as perceivers’ objective physical attractiveness increased, their ratings of the physical attractiveness of all of the targets decreased. Montoya found similar links between objective physical attractiveness and perceived satisfaction with, and expected rejection by, unat-tractive and attractive others. The influence of objective physical attractiveness held even after controlling for subjective physical attractiveness (i.e., how physically attractive individuals rated themselves to be) and self-esteem.

From the perspective of implicit personality theory, one’s evalua-tion of the attributes of physically attractive targets is determined by schemas applied to “physically attractive” persons. However, by taking into consideration the perceiver’s objective physical attractiveness, ratings of the target person’s psychological attri-butes would then be affected by perceptions of the target person’s physical attractiveness. More specifically, this perspec-tive posits that the perceiver’s objective physical attractiveness affects how physically attractive they perceived other people to be, which in turn influences their evaluations of the target person’s attributes. In short, the more attractive the rater, the less physically attractive s/he evaluates another to be, which then reduces the evaluation of the other person’s psychological attri-butes.

What about subjective self-evaluations?

Self-esteem and subjective physical attractiveness have also been linked to the strength of the physical attractiveness stereotype. Research has proposed that individuals with low self-esteem are likely to experience social threat from those who possess desir-able characteristics. The presence of desirable characteristics can lead to perceived social threat, which may lead persons with low self-esteem to derogate physically attractive people. Indeed,

RIPS_2_2014.indd 111 11/09/14 09:31

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P



w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)


112

research has revealed that the physical attractiveness stereotype is moderated by participants’ self-esteem (Graham & Perry, 1976) and self-perceived attractiveness (Horton, 2003), such that partic-ipants with less positive self-views rated physically attractive targets less favorably (e.g., less well adjusted, more dull) than participants with more positive self-views. Importantly, the authors reasoned that people with less favorable self-views lowered their evaluations, because they regarded –in the words of Graham and Perry– “attractive others as a threat to their own competence” (p. 271). In short, this research advances the prop-osition that subjective self-evaluations affect the physical attractiveness stereotype due to the evaluative threat that perceivers experience from the target person’s physical attrac-tiveness.

It is important to note that subjective physical attractiveness is only moderately correlated with objective physical attractiveness. Specifically, a meta-analysis of 18 studies found a small, but reli-able, relation between objective and subjective physical attractiveness (r = .25, Feingold, 1992). This lack of consistency may be attributable to the notion that self-evaluations of physical attractiveness are generated from, and usually inflated by, numerous sources, including past dating successes/failures (e.g., past dating relationships, past rejections at the discotheque), motivated social comparisons (Stapel & Koomen, 2000), and biased memories to maintain a high self-esteem (Tafarodi, Marshall, & Milne, 2003).

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this research was to test whether the physical attractiveness stereotype was affected by perceivers’ objective and subjective characteristics. Ratings of the target persons’ psychological attributes were hypothesized to fall as the perceiv-er’s objective physical attractiveness rose. Importantly, the perceiver’s assessments of the target’s physical attractiveness were hypothesized to mediate the link between the participant’s objective physical attractiveness and ratings of the target’s psychological attributes. I also tested whether subjective self-

RIPS_2_2014.indd 112 11/09/14 09:31

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P



w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)


113

evaluations (self-esteem and subjective physical attractiveness) affected the operation of the physical attractiveness stereotype.

To test these predictions, participants were asked to evaluate target photographs on various psychological dimensions. The dimensions on which the target photographs were evaluated were drawn from Eagly et al.’s (1991) meta-analysis of the phys-ical attractiveness stereotype. Eagly et al.’s meta-analysis found that attractive others were imbued with more positive assess-ments for the ability/competence assessment of a target person (social competence, adjustment, potency, intellectual compe-tence), but that the stereotype did not refer to assessments consistent with a morality/warmth assessment of a target person (integrity, concern for others). In this research, I selected three dimensions associated with reliable effect sizes for investigation: sociability (social skills), potency, and adjustment. To assess the roles of target and rater physical attractiveness, participants also rated the target person’s physical attractiveness and the partici-pant’s photograph was taken.

Method

Participants

One hundred thirteen undergraduate students (M = 19.11 years old, SD = 0.90; 47% women, 88% white) enrolled in an introduc-tory psychology course at a medium-sized university participated in the study as a partial fulfillment of a course requirement.

Procedure

Each participant was seated alone in a private room. Participants first assessed their own subjective physical attractiveness (“How physically attractive do you consider yourself to be, relative to other people your age?; 1 = not at all attractive, 9 = very attrac-tive) and completed the global self-esteem scale (a = .89; Fleming & Courtney, 1984). Next, participants viewed two photo-graphs of opposite-sex individuals for each of the seven levels of physical attractiveness (for a full description of the set of photo-graphs, see Montoya, 2008). Each photograph included the target person’s head and shoulders. Participants were instructed to rate

RIPS_2_2014.indd 113 11/09/14 09:31

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P



w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)


114

the target individual on each of the four dimensions: sociability (social skills; items: popular, extroversion, sociable; a = .62), adjustment (items: well-adjusted, mature, emotionally stable; a = .60), potency (items: dominant, assertive, strong; a = .65), and physical attractiveness (1 = very physically unattractive, 10 = very physically attractive). After completing their ratings of the photographs, the experimenter asked participants whether s/he could take their photograph with a digital camera (all consented). Participants were instructed to not smile and the photograph included the participants’ face and shoulders.

Results

Attractiveness of the participants

Five raters (two men, three women) evaluated all participant photographs (1 = very physically unattractive, 10 = very physi-cally attractive). Because research has demonstrated a strong relation between ratings of men and women by same- and oppo-site-sex raters (e.g., Langlois, Kalakanis, Rubenstein, Larson, Hallam, & Smoot, 2000; Montoya, 2008), raters rated both male and female participants. The reliability between raters was acceptable, ICC = .76.

Data analysis

A two-stage hierarchical linear model with restricted maximum likelihood computations was utilized to assess both within- and between-persons factors by representing ratings of target phys-ical attractiveness as nested within individuals. All analyses were conducted using the PROC MIXED procedure in SAS Software (SAS Institute, 1999).

The first stage (level-1 model) determined the proportion of vari-ability that resulted from changes in targets’ physical attractiveness. This model tested whether participants’ ratings (of physical attractiveness, potency, sociability, adjustment) changed within each participant across levels of target physical attractiveness. Objective physical attractiveness was then included as a level-2 predictor. The influence of exploratory demographic variables (e.g., relationship status, gender) was tested by repeating the

RIPS_2_2014.indd 114 11/09/14 09:31

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P



w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)


115

analyses with the moderator included in the model as a level-2 factor. No variable affected the results; as such, these additional analyses are not described.

Preliminary analyses

Descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table 1. Pearson correlations were conducted with variables aggregated at the individual level. As expected, objective physical attractiveness was significant negatively correlated with ratings of adjustment, sociability, targets’ physical attractiveness, but not potency. In contrast, self-esteem and subjective physical attractiveness were unrelated to assessments of the target’s psychological attributes.

Manipulation check

An initial analysis was conducted to determine whether partici-pants’ ratings of the target’s physical attractiveness increased across target attractiveness level. The mean intercept for targets’ physical attractiveness rating (grand mean centered) was 3.14, whereas the slope for targets’ physical attractiveness was .54 (t = 27.09, p < .05), indicating that a one unit increase in targets’ physical attractiveness was associated with a .54 increase in ratings of the target photographs. The large slope coefficient

table 1:Correlations between variables.

Variable M SD

Target physical attrac-

tiveness

Objec-tive

physical attrac-

tiveness

Subjec-tive

physical attrac-

tiveness

Self-esteem

PotencySocia-bility

Target physical attractiveness

3.39 0.72 –

Objective physical attractiveness

4.86 1.27 -.22* –

Subjective physical attractiveness

5.89 1.51 .00 .17 –

Self-esteem 6.50 1.38 -.05 .10 .45* –

Potency 4.09 0.39 .39* -.03 -.00 .00 –

Sociability 4.07 0.40 .44* -.23* -.06 .03 .40* –

Adjustment 4.37 0.54 .27* -.23* .18 .02 .11 .33*

Note. N = 113; * p < .05.

RIPS_2_2014.indd 115 11/09/14 09:31

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P



w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)


116

provides support for the manipulation of the target photographs by indicating the widely-spaced levels of target physical attractive-ness1.

Physical attractiveness stereotype analyses

Potency. To assess the influence of objective physical attractive-ness on ratings of potency, objective physical attractiveness was included as a level-2 predictor. The slope for objective physical attractiveness, -0.03, was not significant, t(111) = -0.59, p = .55.

Models that included subjective physical attractiveness or self-esteem as level-2 predictors failed to produce significant slopes (t[111] = 0.95, p = .34, and t[111] = -0.02, p = .98, for subjective physical attractiveness and self-esteem, respectively), meaningful changes in the amount of variance explained, or interactions with ratings of target physical attractiveness; suggesting that neither self-esteem nor subjective physical attractiveness accounted for changes in ratings of the targets’ potency ratings.

Sociability. The slope for objective physical attractiveness, -0.11, was significant, t(111) = -2.37, p < .05. Predicted means revealed that mean ratings of sociability fell as levels of objective physical attractiveness rose. In other words, participants at one standard deviation above the mean of objective physical attractiveness consistently rated all targets as less sociable; whereas participants at one standard deviation below the mean rated all targets as more sociable.

As with potency, models that included subjective physical attrac-tiveness or self-esteem as level-2 predictors failed to produce significant slopes (t[111] = -1.32, p = .18, and t[113] = -0.23, p = .82 for subjective physical attractiveness and self-esteem, respectively), meaningful changes in the amount of variance explained, or interactions with ratings of target physical attrac-tiveness.

1. Two photographs (designed to represent the 4th of the seven levels of target physical attractiveness) were excluded for statistical reasons, specifically, the ratings of the two photographs (a) violated homogeneity assumptions and (b) were rated as more physically attractive than the 7th level of target attractiveness.

RIPS_2_2014.indd 116 11/09/14 09:31

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P



w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)


117

Adjustment. As with sociability, the slope for objective physical attractiveness on adjustment ratings, -0.15, was significant, t(111) = -2.60, p < .05. In addition, as with sociability and potency, models that included subjective physical attractiveness or self-esteem as level-2 predictors failed to produce significant slopes (t[111] = 1.33, p = .18, and t[111] = -0.18, p = .85 for subjective physical attractiveness and self-esteem, respectively), meaningful changes in the amount of variance explained, or interactions with ratings of target physical attractiveness.

Mediational analyses

To test whether changes in ratings of adjustment or sociability resulted from changes in the target’s physically attractiveness ratings, multilevel mediation (Krull & MacKinnon, 2001) using hierarchical linear modeling was used to model the Level-2 vari-able (objective physical attractiveness), the Level-1 mediator (ratings of the target’s physical attractiveness), and the Level-1 outcome variable (ratings of adjustment or sociability).

According to MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West and Sheets (2002), mediation is established when (a) the independent vari-able influences the mediating variable; (b) when including the proposed mediator and the independent variable as predictors of the dependent variable, the influence of the proposed mediator is significant; and (c) the indirect effect of the mediating variable is significant. The first mediation condition was satisfied: Ratings of targets’ physical attractiveness were influenced by participants’ objective physical attractiveness, B = –0.17, SE = 0.08, p < .05.

For sociability, when including ratings of targets’ physical attrac-tiveness and participants’ objective physical attractiveness as predictors of sociability, ratings of the targets’ physical attractive-ness predicted sociability, B = 0.24, SE = 0.02, p < .05. Using MacKinnon et al.’s (2002) empirically derived critical values for the assessment of indirect effects (critical values for z ¢ of .05 are 0.97 and 1.10, respectively), the indirect effect of objective phys-ical attractiveness on sociability via ratings of targets’ physical attractiveness on sociability was significant, z ¢ = 2.05, p < .05, providing support for mediation.

RIPS_2_2014.indd 117 11/09/14 09:31

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P



w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)


118

With respect to adjustment, when including ratings of targets’ physical attractiveness and participants’ objective physical attrac-tiveness as predictors of adjustment, ratings of the targets’ physical attractiveness predicted adjustment, B = 0.14, SE = 0.02, p < .05. The indirect effect of objective physical attractiveness on adjustment via ratings of targets’ physical attractiveness was significant, z ¢ = 1.97, p < .05, providing support for mediation.

discussion

This research explored whether the physical attractiveness stere-otype is applied as a function of the participant’s objective physical attractiveness, such that objective physical attractive people will not view other physically attractive people as holding more favorable attributes. Consistent with expectations, physi-cally unattractive participants, compared to the more attractive participants, evaluated target persons as more sociable and better adjusted (but not more potent), with such evaluations mediated by the participant’s perception of the target person’s physical attractiveness. The finding that objective physical attractiveness, but not self-esteem or subjective physical attractiveness, regu-lated evaluations of target people provides additional support for assessing perceivers’ objective attributes.

More specifically, little support was identified for the proposition that subjective self-evaluations (e.g., self-esteem, subjective phys-ical attractiveness) affected the operation of the physical attractiveness stereotype, a finding inconsistent with past find-ings (e.g., Graham & Perry, 1976). The specific design employed in this study may have reduced the influence of subjective self-evaluations on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Whereas the present study asked participants to create anonymous ratings of an unknown target person, research has identified situations in which subjective self-evaluations are more likely to affect inter-personal ratings. Specifically, subjective self-evaluations may have played a larger role (a) when an intense interaction (versus no interaction) is expected (e.g., Agthe, Spörrle, & Maner, 2010; 2011) or (b) when morality/warmth traits are assessed (e.g., Eagly et al., 1991; Graham & Perry, 1976). Morality/warmth is more likely to be affected by the participant’s subjective self-evaluations

RIPS_2_2014.indd 118 11/09/14 09:31

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P



w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)


119

because it is predictive of whether another person will accept/like the person (i.e., people believe that friendly/warm people are more likely to accept them; Montoya & Horton, 2014). Alternatively, research has also observed that participants may be more prone to experience more social threat from same-sex persons than other-sex persons, as those are the people who may arouse negative social comparisons and may pose as competitors in the dating realm (e.g., Agthe et al., 2010). Future research may investigate the degree to which the contribution of objective physical attractiveness on the physical attractiveness stereotype applies more to same- versus other-sex target persons.

Finally, this research is consistent with Eagly et al.’s (1991) conclusion regarding the physical attractiveness stereotype as motivated by implicit personality theory. Specifically, Eagly et al. posited that evaluations of other persons were the result of an automatic process that was governed by perceptual processes associated with person perception. The present findings support the implicit personality theory’s approach by noting that different standards were used to define the target person as “physically attractive” and were thus critical to the application of the physical attractiveness stereotype. If that person meets that standard of physical attractiveness (which is affected by the perceiver’s own objective physical attractiveness), they are considered to be physically attractive, and the appropriate attributes applies to the members of the particular social category.

References

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, 1151-1154.

Agthe, M., Spörrle, M., & Maner, J. K. (2011). Does being attrac-tive always help? Positive and negative effects of attractiveness on social decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1042-1054.

RIPS_2_2014.indd 119 11/09/14 09:31

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P



w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)


120

Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1979). Sex stereotypes and implicit personality theory: Toward a cognitive-social psycholog-ical conceptualization. Sex Roles, 5, 219-248.

Ashmore, R. D., Del Boca, F. K., & Wohlers, A. J. (1986). Gender stereotypes. In R. D. Ashmore & F. K. Del Boca (Eds.), The social psychology of female-male relations: A critical analysis of central concepts (pp. 69-119). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Ball, K., Crawford, D., & Kenardy, J. (2004). Longitudinal relation-ships among overweight, life satisfaction, and aspirations in young women. Obesity Research, 12, 1019-1030.

Combs, A. W., & Snygg, D. (1959). Individual behavior: A percep-tual approach to behavior. (Rev. ed.). Oxford, England: Harpers.

Dion, K. K., Berscheid. E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.

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.

Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection prefer-ences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125-139.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Oxford, England: Row, Peterson.

Fleming, J. S., & Courtney, B. E. (1984). The dimensionality of self-esteem: II. Hierarchical facet model for revised measurement scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 404-421.

Graham, D., & Perry, R. P. (1976). Limitations in generalizability of the physical attractiveness stereotype: The self-esteem exception. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 8, 263-274.

Horton, R. S. (2003). Similarity and attractiveness in social perception: Differentiating between biases for the self and the beautiful. Self and Identity, 2, 137-152.

RIPS_2_2014.indd 120 11/09/14 09:31

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P



w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)


121

Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. Oxford, England: Wiley.

Krull, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of indi-vidual and group level mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249-277.

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, 390-423.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). Comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.

Markman, K. D., & McMullen, M. N. (2003). A reflection and evaluation model of comparative thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 244-267.

Montoya, R. M. (2008). I’m hot, so I’d say you’re not: The influ-ence of objective physical attractiveness on mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1315-1331.

Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2014). A two-dimensional model for the study of interpersonal attraction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 59-86.

Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532-547.

SAS Advanced Statistics Manual (1999). SAS Institute. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (2000). Distinctiveness of others, mutability of selves: Their impact on self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1068-1087.

Swami, V., & Tovée, M. (2009). Big beautiful women: The body size preferences of male fat admirers. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 89-96.

Tafarodi, R. W., Marshall, T. C., & Milne, A. B. (2003). Self-esteem and memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 29-44.

RIPS_2_2014.indd 121 11/09/14 09:31

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P



w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)


122

Taylor, P., Morin, R., Parker, K., Cohn, D., & Wang, W. (2009). Growing old in America: expectations vs. reality. Retrieved from http://pewsocialtrends.org/2009/06/29/growing-old-in-america-expectationsvs-reality/

Zebrowitz, L. A. (1990). Social perception. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing.

RIPS_2_2014.indd 122 11/09/14 09:31

© P

ress

es u

nive

rsita

ires

de G

reno

ble

| Tél

écha

rgé

le 2

5/08

/202

2 su

r w

ww

.cai

rn.in

fo (

IP: 6

5.21

.229

.84)

© P



w.cairn.info (IP

: 65.21.229.84)

Documents

the role of objective physical attractiveness in the ... - Cairn