What is beautiful is good, but . . .: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype.
Abstract
This review demonstrates that the physical attractiveness stereotype established by studies of person perception is not as strong or general as suggested by the often-used summary phrase what is beautiful is good. Although subjects in these studies ascribed more favorable personality traits and more successful life outcomes to attractive than unattractive targets, the average magnitude of this beauty-is-good effect was moderate, and the strength of the effect varied considerably from study to study Consistent with our implicit personality theory framework, a substantial portion of this variation was explained by the specific content of the inferences that subjects were asked to make: The differences in subjects* perception of attractive and unattractive targets were largest for indexes of social competence; intermediate for potency, adjustment, and intellectual competence; and near zero for integrity and concern for others. The strength of the physical attractiveness stereotype also varied as a function of other attributes of the studies, including the presence of individuating information.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The identified saturation effect provides a unifying explanation for several inconsistent findings reported in the literature regarding the existence and strength of the attractiveness halo effect.
“However, the identified saturation effect provides a unifying explanation for several inconsistent findings reported in the literature regarding the existence [38,39] and strength [11,41,80] of the attractiveness halo effect.”
From What is beautiful is still good: the attractiveness halo effect in the era of beauty filters (2024) · cites this paper as [11]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 148 · Cited by 1,875
- Authors
- Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C.
- Affiliations
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- ORCID
- Eagly, Alice H.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 1991-07
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 109-128
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2141470067
- Cited by
- 1,875
- References
- 148
- Citations by year
- 2026: 44 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 77 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 86 · 2019: 77 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 82 · 2016: 79 · 2015: 89 · 2014: 104 · 2013: 91 · 2012: 72
- FWCI
- 25.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Keywords
- person perception, implicit theories of personality, social competence, life outcomes, individuating information
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review