Abstract
Research has documented a robust stereotype regarding personality attributes related to physical attractiveness (the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype). But do physically attractive women indeed possess particularly attractive inner attributes? Studying traits and values, we investigated two complementary questions: how perceived attractiveness relates to perceived personality, and how it relates to actual personality. First, 118 women reported their traits and values and were videotaped reading the weather forecast. Then, 118 judges rated the traits, values, and attractiveness of the women. As hypothesized, attractiveness correlated with attribution of desirable traits, but not with attribution of values. By contrast, attractiveness correlated with actual values, but not actual traits: Attractiveness correlated with tradition and conformity values (which were contrasted with self-direction values) and with self-enhancement values (which were contrasted with universalism values). Thus, despite the widely accepted “what is beautiful is good” stereotype, our findings suggest that the beautiful strive for conformity rather than independence and for self-promotion rather than tolerance.
People are warned not to “judge a book by its cover,” but they often do exactly that. It is widely believed that physiognomy conveys important information about inner attributes and character. Extensive research has documented a robust stereotype regarding the personality attributes associated with physical attractiveness (the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype; Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972). People think that attractive adults are more competent in the social and occupational domains, are more socially appealing, and are better adjusted than less attractive adults (see Langlois et al., 2000, for a meta-analysis). Is this stereotype true? Do physically attractive people indeed possess particularly attractive inner attributes? In the current research, we set out to investigate two complementary issues: how perceived attractiveness is related to perceived personality, and how it is related to actual personality.
Physical attractiveness has different meanings and implications for men and women. Women are subjected to social pressure to conform to extremely high standards of appearance (e.g., Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Wertheim, Paxton, Schultz, & Muir, 1997). Consequently, body image is more strongly related to self-esteem among women than among men (e.g., Polce-Lynch, Myers, Kilmartin, Forssmann-Falck, & Kliewer, 1998). Moreover, stereotypes regarding physical attractiveness are much stronger when applied to women (Byrne, London, & Reeves, 1968) and serve as a more important cue for judging women than for judging men (e.g., Andreoni & Petrie, 2008). Indeed, Haas and Gregory (2005) argued that women are more motivated than men to be attractive as a means of gaining influence and status. We therefore studied female targets, and we used judges (male and female) to evaluate the physical attractiveness and inner attributes of the targets.
Going beyond specific characteristics, we investigated two broad personal constructs—traits and values—and we theorized about how they are differentially related to physical attractiveness. We hypothesized that judges perceive attractive women to have different traits than less attractive women, but that the difference actually lies in their values.
Commonalities and Differences Between Traits and Values
Traits and values both refer to broadly defined individual differences, stable over time and across situations, that predict attitudes and behaviors (for traits, see reviews in Poropat, 2009, and Sibley & Duckitt, 2008; for values, see reviews in Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004, and Roccas & Sagiv, 2010). The development of traits and the development of values are closely intertwined, and traits and values are likely to affect each other (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002), but they are not synonymous. Traits are enduring dispositions, reflected in consistent patterns of cognition, emotion, and behavior (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Values are desirable, trans-situational goals that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992). Traits describe what people are like, whereas values refer to what people consider to be important (Roccas et al., 2002). We suggest that the differences between traits and values have implications for their relationship to physical attractiveness.
We drew on the five-factor model of traits (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and on Schwartz’s (1992) values theory to formulate our hypotheses. According to the FFM, there are five basic factors that describe most personality traits: agreeableness, openness to experience, extraversion, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. Schwartz’s theory identifies 10 motivationally distinct value types: tradition, conformity, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, and benevolence. Both theories have been validated in extensive cross-cultural research (e.g., McCrae & Terracciano, 2005, for traits; Schwartz, 1992, and Schwartz & Rubel, 2005, for values).
Traits and values are systematically related (e.g., Aluja & Garcia, 2004; De Raad & Van Oudenhoven, 2008; Roccas et al., 2002). Typically, agreeableness correlates positively with benevolence and tradition values and negatively with power values; openness to experience correlates positively with self-direction, universalism, and stimulation values and negatively with tradition, conformity, and security values; extraversion correlates positively with stimulation, achievement, and hedonism values and negatively with tradition values; and conscientiousness correlates positively with achievement, conformity, and security values. Neuroticism does not correlate with values.
The Stereotype Associated With Physical Attractiveness: Perceived Traits and Values
Past studies examined the stereotypes associated with physical attractiveness by focusing on specific attributes, such as social appeal, interpersonal competence, or psychological adjustment (for a review, see Langlois et al., 2000). By contrast, we studied broad personality traits, relying on the FFM. We suggest that the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype (Dion et al., 1972) amounts to perceiving attractive women as having socially desirable traits. Drawing on research on the social desirability of the FFM traits (e.g., Bäckström, Björklund, & Larsson, 2009; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999), we hypothesized that the more a woman is judged as physically attractive, the more she will be judged as agreeable, extraverted, conscientious, open to experiences, and emotionally stable. Thus, we expected a conceptual replication of past findings regarding the stereotypical view of attractive women. We expected a different pattern for values, however. Unlike traits, values are seen as desirable, and people tend to be very satisfied with their own personal values (Roccas, Sagiv, Oppenheim, Elster, & Gal, 2011). Thus, when people judge targets’ values, the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype is likely to “translate” differently for different judges, according to their personal values. We therefore expected no systematic relationships between perceived attractiveness and perceived values.
From Stereotypes to Actual Differences: Traits and Values of Attractive Women
Several studies have investigated physical attractiveness and actual inner qualities, yielding complex findings: Attractiveness correlated positively with social skills and physical health (Langlois et al., 2000) and negatively with loneliness and social anxiety (Feingold, 1992). It was unrelated to many other characteristics, such as dominance, sociability, and mental health (Feingold, 1992). Explaining these findings, Feingold (1992) suggested that attractiveness increases access to social encounters, which in turn improves social adjustment.
Feingold’s (1992) reasoning assumes that attractiveness affects inner attributes. We suggest that the opposite is also possible: Inner attributes may affect attractiveness. People have some control over the extent to which they are judged as attractive. One can control—at least to some extent—the sophistication of one’s dress and hairstyle, the cultivation of one’s voice, and the shape of one’s body. We reasoned that values are likely to affect the self-investment needed to increase attractiveness. As representations of basic motivations, values affect goal-directed action (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003). People plan and carry out behavior that enhances their chances to attain their important values (Maio, Pakizeh, Cheung, & Rees, 2009). When physical attractiveness leads to the attainment of important values, people are likely to invest in becoming more attractive.
Unlike values, traits express what people are like, not what goals they wish to attain. Thus, traits do not predict behavior that requires planning and cognitive control as well as values do (Roccas et al., 2002; Sagiv, Sverdlik, & Schwarz, 2011). We reasoned that investing in physical attractiveness requires motivation and planning. It is therefore likely to be driven by values, but not by traits.
Which values are likely to lead individuals to invest in their physical attractiveness? We suggest two main motivations. The first is the motivation to submit to social norms and conventions, expressed by the wish to obey social expectations (conformity values) and follow societal rituals and traditions (tradition values). Women who emphasize these values are likely to be especially attentive to social messages regarding what makes one physically attractive, and to act according to these messages. Thus, we hypothesized that emphasizing conformity and tradition values would correlate positively with being judged as attractive. We expected that emphasizing self-direction values, which focus on autonomy of thought and action, would have the opposite relationship with perceived attractiveness. Women who emphasize these values are likely to ignore social norms regarding what is attractive and what is not. Instead, they may develop their own style, and may hence be seen as less attractive.
A second motivation that may lead to investment in one’s physical attractiveness is self-enhancement. This motivation is expressed in the importance attributed to influence and prestige (power values), exhibiting success (achievement values), and self-indulgence (hedonism values). Attractiveness promotes the attainment of these values because it facilitates gaining privilege, status, wealth, and power (Anderson, Grunert, Katz, & Lovascio, 2010; Haas & Gregory, 2005). Thus, we hypothesized that emphasizing power, achievement, and hedonism values would correlate positively with attractiveness. We expected the opposite for universalism values, which encourage acceptance of people and ideas that are different and unfamiliar. Women who emphasize universalism values are likely to advocate tolerance toward various styles of appearance. They are less likely to invest in becoming attractive according to social standards, and may hence be seen as less attractive.
Method
Participants and procedure
Participants were university students who participated for course credit. They served either as targets (n = 118; 100% female; mean age = 28.99 years) or as judges (n = 118; 59% female, 41% male; mean age = 29.9 years). The students received credit toward a research participation requirement.
Targets
The targets completed values and traits questionnaires (in counterbalanced order, without time limit) upon arriving at the laboratory. They were then videotaped entering a room, walking around a table looking at the camera, reading a standard text (a weather forecast), and leaving the room. This took about 60 s. The targets were aware that they were being videotaped and gave permission for use of the videotapes in our research. This procedure followed the one developed by Borkenau and Liebler (1992), which is one of the dominant paradigms in research on impression formation. We preferred this method to using photographs because it allows the judges to be exposed to both visual and auditory information, thereby enriching the modality through which physical attractiveness is judged.
Judges
The judges’ data were collected separately, and the judges did not know the targets. Each judge saw the videotape of a different target, chosen randomly; evaluated the target’s values and traits (in counterbalanced order); and then evaluated her attractiveness, along with other physical attributes.
Measures
Values
Participants completed the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS; Schwartz, 1992). Targets rated the importance of each of 57 items, on a 9-point scale ranging from −1 (opposed to my values) through 0 (not important) to 7 (of supreme importance). Judges used the same scale to evaluate the values of the targets. Cronbach alphas ranged from .65 to .83, with the exception of the alpha for hedonism items completed by the judges (.49).
Personality traits
The FFM personality traits were measured with Saucier’s (1994) mini-markers. Targets rated the accuracy of each of 40 adjectives in describing themselves, using a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very well). Judges used the same scale to evaluate the traits of the targets. Cronbach alphas ranged from .65 to .76.
Physical attractiveness
Judges completed a physical-attributes questionnaire (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992). They rated the targets on 41 bipolar characteristics, using a 7-point scale ranging from −3 to 3. We averaged ratings for the 7 items that directly assessed physical attractiveness: attractive, pleasant voice, fluent and cursive speaking, easy to understand, refined appearance, fashionable dress, and proportionate body (α = .72).
Results and Discussion
The stereotype associated with physical attractiveness
Table 1 presents the correlations between judges’ ratings of the attractiveness of the targets and their ratings of the targets’ traits and values. Findings did not vary according to the gender of the judge or the order of the questionnaires. As hypothesized, perceiving a target as physically attractive was associated with perceiving her as agreeable, open to experience, extraverted, conscientious, and emotionally stable. We did not expect perceived values to be associated with perceived attractiveness, and indeed, only achievement values correlated significantly with attractiveness. When entered in a regression equation, the five traits explained 29% of the variance in attractiveness, F(5, 112) = 9.28, p < .001. The coefficients of all trait factors were in the expected direction, and extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness significantly predicted attractiveness, ts(112) = 2.47, 2.13, and 2.53, respectively, all ps < .05. The impact of emotional stability and agreeableness was insignificant, ts(112) = −1.61 and 1.06, respectively, n.s. When entered in the second step of the regression analysis, values did not add significantly to the explained variance, ΔF(10, 102) = 1.13, n.s.
Correlations of Perceived Physical Attractiveness With Values and Traits
Note: For values, the table reports partial correlations controlling for each respondent’s mean rating of values, to correct for individual differences in use of the rating scale, as recommended by Schwartz (1992).
p < .05. **p < .01.
In a second regression, we reversed the order in which the predictors were entered. Of the 10 value types entered in the first step, only achievement significantly predicted attractiveness, t(107) = 2.38, p < .05. When traits were added in the second step, they added significantly to the explained variance, ΔF(5, 102) = 5.14, p < .001. Thus, the findings support our hypotheses: Attractiveness is associated with perceived traits (but not with perceived values), and attractive women are perceived as having socially desirable traits.
Traits and values of attractive women
Table 1 presents the correlations between the targets’ perceived attractiveness and their self-reported traits and values. To minimize multicollinearity, we computed indices representing the two sets of values hypothesized to correlate with perceived attractiveness: one contrasting conformity and tradition with self-direction values and another contrasting power, achievement, and hedonism with universalism values. When entered in the first step of a regression analysis, the two values indices positively predicted attractiveness, explaining 13% of the variance, F(2, 114) = 8.20, p < .001. Both values indices significantly predicted attractiveness, ts(115) = 3.15 and 2.02, respectively, both ps < .05. When traits were entered in the second step, they did not add significantly to the explained variance, ΔF(5, 109) = 0.85, n.s. We reversed the order in which the predictors were entered in a second regression. As hypothesized, traits did not predict attractiveness, F(5, 111) = 1.23, n.s. When values were entered in the second step, they did add significantly to the explained variance, ΔF(2, 109) = 6.86, p < .005. Thus, results supported our hypothesis that targets’ values (but not their traits) predict their physical attractiveness.
Taken together, our findings indicate that individuals attribute socially desirable traits—but not values—to those they find attractive. Conversely, attractive and less attractive women differ in their reported values, but not in their reported traits. In deriving our hypotheses, we reasoned that values, as representations of motivational goals, affect women’s investment in their physical attractiveness. Future research could test this underlying mechanism.
Conclusions
We set out to investigate two complementary questions regarding the relationship between attractiveness and inner attributes. Our results were consistent with the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype: We found that people perceive attractive women as having socially desirable traits, such as extraversion, openness to experience, and conscientiousness. Investigating whether attractiveness is related to actual traits and values revealed that attractive and less attractive women differed in their values but not in their traits. Attractiveness correlated with values that express the motivation to conform and submit to social expectations and with values that express a focus on self-promotion rather than on concern for others. Thus, whereas people hold the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype, our findings suggest that the beautiful strive for conformity rather than independence and for self-promotion rather than tolerance.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
This manuscript was written in part during the third author’s residence as a visiting scholar at the University of Michigan.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
Funding
This research was supported by a grant from the Israel Science Foundation (No. 774/06) to Sonia Roccas and Lilach Sagiv and by a grant from the Recanati Fund of the Business School at the Hebrew University to Lilach Sagiv.