CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorSocial and Intergroup PsychologyPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

On the Borders of Harmful and Helpful Beauty Biases: The Biasing Effects of Physical Attractiveness Depend on Sex and Ethnicity

Open access
Agthe, Maria, Strobel, Maria, Spörrle, Matthias, Pfundmair, Michaela, Maner, Jon K.·2016·Evolutionary Psychology
DOI 10.1177/1474704916653968PMC PMC10481058
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Research with European Caucasian samples demonstrates that attractiveness-based biases in social evaluation depend on the constellation of the sex of the evaluator and the sex of the target: Whereas people generally show positive biases toward attractive opposite-sex persons, they show less positive or even negative biases toward attractive same-sex persons. By examining these biases both within and between different ethnicities, the current studies provide new evidence for both the generalizability and the specificity of these attractiveness-based social perception biases. Examining within-ethnicity effects, Study 1 is the first to demonstrate that samples from diverse ethnic backgrounds parallel the finding of European Caucasian samples: The advantageous or adverse effects of attractiveness depend on the gender constellation of the evaluator and the evaluated person. Examining between-ethnicity effects, Study 2 found that these attractiveness-based biases emerge almost exclusively toward targets of the evaluator’s own ethnic background; these biases were reduced or eliminated for cross-ethnicity evaluations and interaction intentions. We discuss these findings in light of evolutionary principles and reflect on potential interactions between culture and evolved cognitive mechanisms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1474704916653968

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 79

  1. Adams G. Anderson S. L. Adonu J. K. (2004). The cultural grounding of closeness and intimacy. In Mashek D. J. Aron A. (Eds.), The handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 321– 339). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  2. Agthe M. Spörrle M. (2009). On the context sensitivity of the sexual attribution bias: A replication and extension to situations of failure. The Open Psychology Journal, 2, 19– 24.
  3. Agthe M. Spörrle M. Försterling F. (2008). Success attributions and more: Multidimensional extensions of the sexual attribution bias to failure attributions, social emotions, and the desire for social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1627– 1638. 19050336
  4. Agthe M. Spörrle M. Frey D. Maner J. (2014). Looking up versus looking down: Attractiveness-based organizational biases are moderated by social comparison direction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 40– 45.
  5. Agthe M. Spörrle M. Frey D. Walper S. Maner J. K. (2013). When romance and rivalry awaken: Attractiveness-based social judgment biases emerge at adolescence. Human Nature, 24, 182– 195. 23666544
  6. 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.
  7. Agthe M. Spörrle M. Maner J. K. (2011). Does being attractive always help? Positive and negative effects of attractiveness on social decision-making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1042– 1054. 21636731
  8. Anderson S. L. Adams G. Plaut V. C. (2008). The cultural grounding of personal relationship: The importance of attractiveness in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 352– 368. 18665707
  9. Asendorpf J. B. Penke L. Back M. D. (2011). From dating to mating and relating: Predictors of initial and long-term outcomes of speed-dating in a community sample. European Journal of Personality, 25, 16– 30.
  10. Burke D. Nolan C. Hayward W. G. Russell R. Sulikowski D. (2013). Is there an own-race preference in attractiveness? Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 855– 872. 23948346
  11. Buss D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616– 628. 3367282
  12. Buss D. M. (1992). Mate preference mechanisms: Consequences for partner choice and intrasexual competition. In Barkow J. H. Cosmides L. Tooby J. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 249– 266). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  13. Buss D. M. (1998). The psychology of human mate selection: Exploring the complexity of the strategic repertoire. In Crawford C. Krebs D. L. (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 405– 430). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  14. Buss D. M. Dedden L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 395– 422.
  15. Buunk A. P. Massar K. Djikstra P. (2007). A social cognitive evolutionary approach to jealousy: The automatic evaluation of one’s romantic rivals. In Forgas J. P. Haselton M. G. von Hippel W. (Eds.), Evolution and the social mind (pp. 213– 228). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  16. Chen N. Y. Shaffer D. R. Wu C. (1997). On physical attractiveness stereotyping in Taiwan: A revised sociocultural perspective. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 117– 124.
  17. Coetzee V. Greeff J. M. Stephen I. D. Perrett D. I. (2014). Cross-cultural agreement in facial attractiveness preferences: The role of ethnicity and gender. PLoS ONE, 9, 1– 8, e99629. PMC4079334 24988325
  18. Cosmides L. Tooby J. Kurzban R. (2003). Perceptions of race. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 173– 179. 12691766
  19. Cunningham M. R. Roberts A. R. Barbee A. P. Druen P. B. Wu C. (1995). “Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours”: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261– 279.
  20. Dunham Y. Baron A. S. Banaji M. R. (2006). From American city to Japanese village: A cross-cultural investigation of implicit race attitudes. Child Development, 77, 1268– 1281. 16999797
  21. Dijkstra P. Buunk B. P. (2002). Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking effect of rival characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 829– 852.
  22. Dion K. K. Pak A. W. Dion K. L. (1990). Stereotyping physical attractiveness: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 158– 179.
  23. Eastwick P. W. Richeson J. A. Son D. Finkel E. J. (2009). Is love colorblind? Political orientation and interracial romantic desire. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1258– 1268. 19571275
  24. Fisher M. L. (2004). Female intrasexual competition decreases female facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 283– 285. PMC1810076 15503995
  25. Försterling F. Preikschas S. Agthe M. (2007). Ability, luck, and looks: An evolutionary look at achievement ascriptions and the sexual attribution bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 775– 788. 17484604
  26. Gangestad S. W. Simpson J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573– 587. 11301543
  27. Gutierres S. Kenrick D. T. Partch J. J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1126– 1134.
  28. Henrich J. Heine S. J. Norenzayan A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61– 83. 20550733
  29. Herman M. R. Campbell M. E. (2012). I wouldn’t, but you can: Attitudes toward interracial relationships. Social Science Research, 41, 343– 358. 23017756
  30. Hirschfeld L. A. (1998). Natural assumptions: Race, essence and taxonomies of human kinds. Social Research. An International Quarterly of the Social Sciences, 65, 331– 349.
  31. Hitsch G. J. Hortaçsu A. Ariely D. (2010). Matching and sorting in online dating. The American Economic Review, 100, 130– 163.
  32. Jones A. M. Buckingham J. T. (2005). Self-esteem as a moderator of the effect of social comparison on women’s body image. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 1164– 1187.
  33. Kenrick D. T. Delton A. W. Robertson T. Becker D. V. Neuberg S. L. (2007). How the mind warps: A social evolutionary perspective on cognitive processing disjunctions. In Forgas J. P. Haselton M. G. von Hippel W. (Eds.), Evolution and the social mind (pp. 49– 68). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  34. Kenrick D. T. Neuberg S. L. Griskevicius V. Becker D. V. Schaller M. (2010). Goal-driven cognition and functional behavior the fundamental-motives framework. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 63– 67. 21874097 PMC3161125
  35. Klavina L. Buunk A. P. (2013). Intergroup intrasexual competition: Reactions towards outgroup members as romantic rivals. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 93– 120.
  36. Lee S. Y. Pitesa M. Thau S. Pillutla M. M. (2015). Discrimination in selection decisions: Integrating stereotype fit and interdependence theories. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 789– 812.
  37. Lemay E. P. Jr Clark M. S. Greenberg A. (2010). What is beautiful is good because what is beautiful is desired: Physical attractiveness stereotyping as projection of interpersonal goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 339– 353. 20179314
  38. Lewis K. (2013). The limits of racial prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 18814– 18819. 24191008 PMC3839718
  39. Li J. Zhou X. (2014). Sex, attractiveness, and third-party punishment in fairness consideration. PLoS ONE, 9, e94004. 24709987 PMC3977968
  40. Li N. P. Kenrick D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468– 489. 16594832
  41. Li W. Zhang Y. Li F. Li X. Li P. Jia X. … Ji H. (2015). Out of lust or jealousy: The effects of mate-related motives on study-time allocation to faces varying in attractiveness. PLoS ONE, 10, e0132207. 26121131 PMC4485464
  42. Lin K.-H. Lundquist J. (2013). Mate selection in cyberspace: The intersection of race, gender, and education. American Journal of Sociology, 119, 183– 215.
  43. Luo S. Zhang G. (2009). What leads to romantic attraction: Similarity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study. Journal of Personality, 77, 933– 964. 19558447
  44. Luxen M. F. van de Vijver F. J. R. (2006). Facial attractiveness, sexual selection, and personnel selection: When evolved preferences matter. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 241– 255.
  45. Lydon J. E. Fitzsimons G. M. Naidoo L. (2003). Devaluation versus enhancement of attractive alternatives: A critical test using the calibration paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 349– 359. 15273012
  46. Major B. Testa M. Bylsma W. H. (1991). Responses to upward and downward social comparisons: The impact of esteem-relevance and perceived control. In Suls J. Wills T. A. (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 237– 260). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  47. Maner J. K. Gailliot M. T. Rouby D. A. Miller S. L. (2007). Can’t take my eyes off you: Attentional adhesion to mates and rivals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 389– 401. 17723055
  48. Maner J. K. Kenrick D. T. Becker D. V. Delton A. W. Hofer B. Wilbur C. J. Neuberg S. L. (2003). Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1107– 1120. 14674817
  49. Maner J. K. Kenrick D. T. Becker D. V. Robertson T. E. Hofer B. Neuberg S. L. … Schaller M. (2005). Functional projection: How fundamental social motives can bias interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 63– 78. 15631575
  50. Maner J. K. Miller S. L. Moss J. H. Leo J. L. Plant E. A. (2012). Motivated social categorization: Fundamental motives enhance people’s sensitivity to basic social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 70– 83. 22545747
  51. Maner J. K. Miller S. L. Rouby D. A. Gailliot M. T. (2009). Intrasexual vigilance: The implicit cognition of romantic rivalry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 74– 87. 19586241
  52. Markus H. R. Mullally P. Kitayama S. (1997). Selfways: Diversity in modes of cultural participation. In Neisser U. Jopling D. (Eds.), The conceptual self in context: Culture, experience, self-understanding (pp. 13– 61). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  53. McClintock E. A. (2010). When does race matter? Race, sex, and dating at an elite university. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 72, 45– 72.
  54. Mills J. K. Daly J. Longmore A. Kilbride G. (1995). A note on family acceptance involving interracial friendships and romantic relationships. The Journal of Psychology, 129, 349– 351.
  55. Montoya R. M. Horton R. S. Kirchner J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889– 922.
  56. Neel R. Kenrick D. T. White A. E. Neuberg S. L. (2015). Individual differences in fundamental social motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. doi:10.1037/pspp0000068 26371400 · DOI
  57. Neuberg S. L. Kenrick D. T. Maner J. K. Schaller M. (2004). From evolved motives to everyday mentation: Evolution, goals, and cognition. In Forgas J. P. Williams K. D. Laham S. M. (Eds.), Social motivation: Conscious and unconscious processes (pp. 133– 152). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  58. Niesta Kayser D. Agthe M. Maner J. K. (2016). Strategic sexual signals: Women’s display versus avoidance of the color red depends on the attractiveness of an anticipated interaction partner. PLoS ONE, 11, e0148501. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0148501 26960135 PMC4784733 · DOI
  59. Olsson A. Ebert J. P. Banaji M. R. Phelps E. A. (2005). The role of social groups in the persistence of learned fear. Science, 309, 785– 787. 16051800
  60. Park L. Maner J. K. (2009). Does self-threat promote social connection? The role of self-esteem and contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 203– 217. 19210075
  61. Plant E. A. Goplen J. Kunstman J. W. (2011). Selective responses to threat: The roles of race and gender in decisions to shoot. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1274– 1281. 21566078
  62. Potârcă G. Mills M. (2015). Racial preferences in online dating across European countries. European Sociological Review, 31, 326– 341.
  63. Rhodes G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199– 226. 16318594
  64. Rhodes G. Lee K. Palermo R. Weiss M. Yoshikawa S. Clissa P. … Jeffery L. (2005). Attractiveness of own-race, other-race, and mixed-race faces. Perception, 34, 319– 340. 15895630
  65. Rhodes G. Yoshikawa S. Clark A. Lee K. McKay R. Akamatsu S. (2001). Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western cultures: In search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception, 30, 611– 625. 11430245
  66. Ruffle B. J. Shtudiner Z. (2014). Are good-looking people more employable? Management Science. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.1927 · DOI
  67. Schaller M. Park J. H. Mueller A. (2003). Fear of the dark: Interactive effects of beliefs about danger and ambient darkness on ethnic stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 637– 649. 15272996
  68. Schmitt D. P. Alcalay L. Allik J. Angleitner A. Ault L. Austers I. … Zupanèiè A. (2004). Patterns and universals of mate poaching across 53 nations: The effects of sex, culture, and personality on romantically attracting another person’s partner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 560– 584. 15053706
  69. Schmitt D. P. Buss D. M. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: Sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1185– 1204. 8667162
  70. Shaffer D. R. Crepaz N. Sun C. (2000). Physical attractiveness stereotyping in cross-cultural perspective: Similarities and differences between Americans and Taiwanese. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 557– 582.
  71. Simpson J. A. Gangestad S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31– 51.
  72. Swami V. Tovée M. J. (2007). Differences in attractiveness preferences between observers in low-and high-resource environments in Thailand. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 149– 160.
  73. Townsend J. M. Levy G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 149– 164. 2337380
  74. Trawalter S. Todd A. R. Baird A. A. Richeson J. A. (2008). Attending to threat: Race-based patterns of selective attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1322– 1327. 19727428 PMC2633407
  75. Unkelbach C. Forgas J. P. Denson T. F. (2008). The turban effect: The influence of Muslim headgear and induced affect on aggressive responses in the shooter bias paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1409– 1413.
  76. Vaillancourt T. (2013). Do human females use indirect aggression as an intrasexual competition strategy? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368, 20130080. doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0080 PMC3826209 24167310 · DOI
  77. Wheeler L. Kim Y. (1997). What is beautiful is culturally good: The physical attractiveness stereotype has different content in collectivistic cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 795– 800.
  78. Yu D. W. Shepard G. H. Jr. (1998). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Nature, 396, 321– 322. 9845067
  79. Zebrowitz L. A. Montepare J. M. Lee H. K. (1993). They don’t all look alike: Individual impressions of other racial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 85– 101. 8355144

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Agthe, M., Strobel, M., Spörrle, M., Pfundmair, M., & Maner, J. K.
Affiliations
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • Seeburg Castle University (AT)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Agthe, Maria
ORCID
Venue
Evolutionary Psychology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2016-06-01
Volume
14
Issue
2
ISSN
1474-7049 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/1474704916653968
PMC
PMC10481058
OpenAlex
W2429085643
Cited by
29
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Evolutionary Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
attractiveness bias, social evaluation, beauty bias, same-sex attraction, opposite-sex attraction, ethnic differences, evolution and culture

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