Sex Roles

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 123–133

Physical attractiveness and its relationship to sex-role stereotyping

  • Daniel Bar-Tal
  • Leonard Saxe
Articles

Abstract

On the basis of recent findings showing that physical attractiveness serves as an important evaluative cue in person perception, the present paper reviews evidence which indicates that physical attractiveness differentially affects the judgments of males and females. Recent research seems to indicate that the physical-attractiveness stereotype — which holds that attractive individuals are more positively evaluated across a wide range of dimensions than unattractive individuals — is more potent when applied to women than to men. The origins of this differential stereotyping are discussed in terms of the historically defined roles of men and women in our society. In addition, the paper discusses the implications of the physical-attractiveness stereotype for the general problem of sex-role stereotyping.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldous, J. Occupational characteristics and males role performance in the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1969, 31, 707–712.Google Scholar
  2. Anastasi, A. Psychological differences between men and women. In W. C. Bier (Ed.), Women in modern life. New York: Fordham University Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  3. Bar-Tal, D., & Saxe, L. Perceptions of similarly and dissimilarly attractive couples and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, in press.Google Scholar
  4. Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1971, 7, 173–189.Google Scholar
  5. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7). New York: Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  6. Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. Husbands and wives. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1960.Google Scholar
  7. Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P.S. Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28, 59–78.Google Scholar
  8. Byrne, D., London, O., & Reeves, K. The effects of physical attractiveness, sex, and attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality, 1968, 36, 259–271.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, H. T. Marriage analysis: Foundations for successful family life. New York: The Ronald Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  10. Clifford, M. M., & Walster, E. The effect of physical attractiveness on teacher expectations. Sociology of Education, 1973, 46, 248–258.Google Scholar
  11. Coombs, R. H., & Kenkel, W. F. Sex differences in dating aspirations and satisfaction with computer-selected partners. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1966, 28, 62–66.Google Scholar
  12. Cross, J. F., & Cross, J. Age, sex, race, and the perception of facial beauty. Developmental Psychology, 1971, 5, 433–439.Google Scholar
  13. Dion, K. K. Young children's stereotyping of facial attractiveness. Developmental Psychology, 1973, 9, 183–188.Google Scholar
  14. Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24, 285–290.Google Scholar
  15. Elder, G. Appearance and education in marriage mobility. American Sociological Review, 1969, 34, 519–533.Google Scholar
  16. Frieze, I. Changing self-images and sex-role stereotypes in college women. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, 1974.Google Scholar
  17. Gergen, K. J. Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 26, 309–320.Google Scholar
  18. Good, W. J. Family and mobility. In R. Bendix & S. M. Lipset (Eds.), Class, status, and power. New York: The Free Press, 1966.Google Scholar
  19. Harris, D. Sex differences in the life problems and interests of adolescents, 1935 and 1957. Child Development, 1959, 30, 453–459.Google Scholar
  20. Hewitt, L. E. Student perceptions of traits desired in themselves as dating and marriage partners. Marriage and Family Living, 1958, 20, 344–349.Google Scholar
  21. Hill, R. Campus values on mate selection. Journal of Home Economics, 1945, 37, 554–558.Google Scholar
  22. Hudson, J. W., & Henze, L. F. Campus values in mate selection: A replication. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1969, 31, 772–775.Google Scholar
  23. Komarovsky, M. Cultural contradiction and sex roles: The masculine case. American Journal of Sociology, 1973, 78, 873–884.Google Scholar
  24. Krebs, D., & Adinolfi, A. A. Physical attractiveness, Social relations, and personality style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 245–253.Google Scholar
  25. Landy, D., & Sigall, H. Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer's physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 299–304.Google Scholar
  26. Lerner, R. M., Karabenick, S. A., & Stuart, J. L. Relations among physical attractiveness, body attitudes, and self-concept in male and female college students. Journal of Psychology, 1973, 85, 119–121.Google Scholar
  27. McGinnis, R. Campus values in male selection: A repeat study. Social Forces, 1958, 36, 368–373.Google Scholar
  28. McKee, J. P., & Sherriffs, A. C. Men's and women's beliefs, ideals, and self concept. American Journal of Sociology, 1959, 64, 356–363.Google Scholar
  29. Mednick, M. S., & Tangri, S. S. (Eds.). New perspectives on women. Journal of Social Issues, 1972, 28, 1–246.Google Scholar
  30. Miller, A. G. Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 19, 241–243.Google Scholar
  31. Miller, H. L., & Rivenbark, W. H. Sexual differences in physical attractiveness as a determinant of heterosexual liking. Psychological Reports, 1970, 27, 701–702.Google Scholar
  32. O'Leary, V. E. Some attitudinal barriers to occupational aspirations in women. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 809–826.Google Scholar
  33. Prather, J. Why can't women be more like men. American Behavioral Scientist, 1971, 15, 172–181.Google Scholar
  34. Rossi, A. S. The roots of ambivalence in American women. In J. M. Bardwick (Ed.), Readings on the psychology of women. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.Google Scholar
  35. Saxe, L., Bar-Tal, D., & Wiener, S. Physical attractiveness as a determinant of attributions of causality for success and failure. Unpublished manuscript, Boston University, 1975.Google Scholar
  36. Seward, G. H. Sex and the social order. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1946.Google Scholar
  37. Stroebe, W., Insko, C. A., Thompson, V. D., & Layton, B. D. Effects of physical attractiveness, attitude similarity, and sex on various aspects of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 18, 79–91.Google Scholar
  38. Vail, J. P., & Staudt, V. M. Attitudes of college students toward marriage and related problems: I. Dating and mate selection. Journal of Psychology, 1950, 30, 171–182.Google Scholar
  39. Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottmann, L. Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 508–516.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Bar-Tal
    • 1
  • Leonard Saxe
    • 2
  1. 1.School of EducationTel-Aviv UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyBoston UniversityBoston

Personalised recommendations