Itai Ivtzan
Department of Psychology
UCL (University College London)
Hee Sun Moon
Department of Psychology
UCL (University College London)
Abstract
The current study examined the relationship between physical attractiveness and self-actualisation. It was hypothesized that higher levels of physical attractiveness lead to higher levels of self-actualisation, as physically attractive and self-actualised people share certain characteristics, such as inner-directiveness, sociability and self-acceptance. To investigate this hypothesis, 119 participants completed the Personal Orientation Inventory (POI) questionnaire as a measure of self-actualisation and six professional judges rated the participants’ level of physical attractiveness. The study revealed that participants in the high attractiveness group scored significantly higher on 7 of the 12 POI scales in comparison to the participants in the low attractiveness group: Inner-Directed, Self-Actualising Value, Feeling Reactivity, Spontaneity, Self-Regard, Self-Acceptance, and Capacity for Intimate Contact. The role of self-esteem and the self-fulfilling prophecy effect were discussed as possible explanations for the findings.
Introduction
Beauty stereotypes
Beauty and physical attractiveness are highly complex concepts, which have been the subject of much research and debate within the field of psychology (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijiani & Longo, 1991). Although several past investigations such as studies by Beck, Ward-Hull and McLear (1976) and Ford and Beach (1951) revealed that there are substantial individual differences in preference for beauty standards, more contemporary studies have revealed that people share common views of physical attractiveness regardless of race, age or nationality (Fink & Neave, 2005). A meta-analysis, conducted by Langlois et al (2000), confirmed that the rating participants strongly agree concerning the question of beauty, both within and between cultures.
As well as this more contemporary view of a universal perception of beauty and attractiveness, there is also a well-known and almost universally agreed hypothesis among social psychologists that a person’s looks affect a variety of dimensions (Marcus & Miller, 2003). Individuals that are considered physically attractive and beautiful are perceived more positively than those considered physically unattractive (Collins & Zebrowitz, 1995). For example, a “What is beautiful is good” halo effect (Dion, Berscheid & Walster, 1972) can be demonstrated, whereby individuals who are judged to be physically attractive are perceived to have better personalities, be more sociable, dominant, competent, confident, popular, and be considered to be better employees than are those who are less attractive (Eagly et al., 1991). Furthermore, they are also considered to be warmer, stronger, more poised, flexible in their thoughts, mentally healthy, intelligent, socially skilled and more successful in their careers than those considered physically unattractive (Feingold, 1992; Hosoda, Stone-Romero & Coats, 2003; Miller, 1970).
While perceptions of beauty or attractiveness may change, the positive stereotypes associated with attractiveness are not simply the consequence of modern Western society, as evidence of such stereotypes can be seen even during the Renaissance. For example, in the visual arts, saints, angels, the Virgin Mary and Jesus were consistently represented as beautiful or attractive, while devils and demons were represented as hideous (Zuckert, 2005). This robust existence of the halo-effect of attractiveness extends to occupational, economical and social contexts. For instance, photos of attractive counsellors and teachers are rated more positively on dimensions such as warmth, trust and communication ability than their unattractive peers (Cash, Begley, McCown, & Weise, 1975; Goebel & Cashen, 1979), and a study by Hamermesh and Biddle (1994) revealed that attractive people earn about 10% more than unattractive people while all participants hold equal demographic and labor-market characteristics. Similarly, Weitz (2001, p.668) described attractiveness as “a realistic route to power”, for women specifically, his study revealed that women who are deemed to be attractive are “more likely to marry men of higher socio-economic status, more often hired, more often promoted, and paid higher salaries”. Finally, even criminals have shown physical attractiveness to be a positive resource, in that it appears to be associated with lower levels of punishment (Downs, & Lyons, 1991).
The accuracy of beauty stereotypes
An interesting question arising from the discussion of such stereotypes is how accurate these stereotypes are? Stereotypes are based upon common components such as traits and physical appearance; such traits might be either accurate or inaccurate (Biernat & Thompson, 2002). Previous studies have shown that the stereotype linking physical attractiveness with better social skills is an accurate one. For example, Goldman & Lewis (1977) tested 120 undergraduate students to assess whether individuals considered to be physically attractive were more socially-skilled than those deemed unattractive. Telephone conversations were used to rate subjects social skills, and the results showed that there was a significant positive correlation between the observer’s physical attractiveness ratings and their social skills rating. Crucially, this experiment was designed to prevent participants seeing their telephone partners’ photographs before they rated their social skills; ensuring the finding was not simply a product of the stereotype being assessed. A similar study by Erwin & Calev (1984) supported these results. Their research showed that, in a group of individuals with varying levels of attractiveness, physical attractiveness could be distinguished on the basis of an individual’s social skills when dealing with their friends and partners. In relation to these social skills findings, further research has also found attractiveness to be associated with an absence of shyness and social anxiety (Lerner & Lerner, 1977).
Another important stereotype linked with beauty is higher intelligence. A large volume of studies demonstrate peoples’ expectation of the physically attractive to be more intelligent in comparison with the physically unattractive (Zebrowitz, Hall, Murphy, & Rhodes, 2002) while certain researchers also claim that this stereotype is accurate (e.g., Kanazawa & Kovar, 2004) and that attractive individuals are indeed more intelligent.
Furthermore, Webster and Driskell (1983) refer to physical attractiveness as a status characteristic which has a crucial effect on others’ perceptions of competence; this status characteristic also leads to the attractive individual being more popular and preferred among members of their social groups. For example, Krebs & Adinolfi (1975) revealed that participants who were highly accepted by their peers were more physically attractive than participants who were less accepted or were neglected, and Goldman & Lewis (1977) stated that more-physically-attractive participants were better liked than the more unattractive participants in their study. Furthermore, in a study of 416 middle school students by Felson & Bohrnstedt (1979), extremely high correlations were found between physical attractiveness and popularity among peers (.86 among the boys and .90 among the girls), which suggested that the children did not distinguish between physical attractiveness and general personal attractiveness.
Moreover, physically attractive individuals are often stereotyped as dominant, strong, behaviourally flexible, and stable (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986). It is therefore reasonable for one to claim that the stereotypes towards beauty are true to some extent, and that attractive people may, in fact, be more socially-skilled than unattractive individuals.
One possible explanation for the link between these stereotypes and the actual behaviour of attractive/unattractive individuals is the self-fulfilling prophecy effect (Berry, 1991; Borkenau & Liebler, 1993; Kenny et al., 1994; Levesque & Kenny, 1993; Moskowitz, 1990). Dion, Berscheid and Walster (1972) hypothesized that one’s self-concept develops from observing what others think about oneself. For example, if a physically attractive person is consistently treated as a sociable person, the behaviour of others may influence them to gradually internalize sociability as a part of their self-concept, even if they were not sociable in the first place; thus generating a self-fulfilling prophecy effect. This is because the attractive person behaves in accordance with his/her self-image, and thus ultimately becomes the kind of person predicted by the externally exerted stereotypes (Swann, 1984).
Physical attractiveness and Self Actualisation
The characteristics discussed above, which appear to be associated with physical attractiveness, also correspond to the concept of self-actualisation. The notion of self-actualisation was first introduced by Kurt Goldstein (1934) and was extended by Abraham Maslow in 1943. Maslow (1943, 1954) introduced the idea that as humans meet ‘basic needs’, they seek to satisfy successively ‘higher needs’ that occupy a set hierarchy. This ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ contains deficiency needs, such as physiological, safety, love/belonging and esteem needs at the lower levels, and once these needs are satisfied the higher growth need, which is the need for self-actualisation, comes into focus. Sitting at the top of Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’, self actualisation can be described as realising one’s potential, “fulfilling themselves” and “doing the best they are capable of doing” (Maslow, 1954, p.150). Self-actualisation signifies an important stage of advanced development in adulthood, which is rarely fully achieved (Pfaffenberger, 2005).
One of the most popular tools for the measurement of self-actualisation is the Personal Orientation Inventory (POI) questionnaire (Shostrom, 1962). The POI was created to measure 12 specific characteristics deemed to be most important for achieving higher levels of self-actualisation.
The 12 POI scales regard the Time Ratio and Support Ratio as the two major areas that contribute to one’s competence in development towards a self-actualising person (Knapp, 1990):
• The Time Ratio measures the degree to which one lives in the present, not the past or future. Self-actualised individuals are Time-competent (Tc) therefore they focus on their present experience without unnecessarily ruminating on past events or future fantasies. They are less burdened by guilt or regrets from the past, and their future is mainly tied to achieving present goals, therefore they live in the present with achievable goals and full awareness.
• The Support Ratio measures whether one is inner-directed or other-directed. If a person is Inner-directed (I), their own beliefs and self-motivations are the driving force for any decisions or actions that they make in life. Other-directed persons, however, are to a great extent guided by external circumstances or surrounding peer groups rather than their own internal states. This could lead to over-sensitization and fear of others’ opinions. Self-actualised individuals tend to be more inner-directed, meaning they are self-supportive and free from others’ judgments.
The POI measures, in addition, ten other subscales:
• Self Actualising Values (SAV) – measuring affirmation of primary values characterised by self actualising individuals (e.g., autonomy and independence, self sufficiency and self efficacy);
• Existentiality (Ex) – measures ability to react to each situation without rigid adherence to principles;
• Feeling Reactivity (FR) – measures sensitivity of responsiveness to one’s needs and feelings;
• Spontaneity (S) – measures freedom to act and be oneself;
• Self Regard (SR) – measures affirmation of self worth and strengths;
• Self Acceptance (SA) – measures acceptance of oneself in spite of weaknesses;
• Nature of Man (Na) – measures extent of constructive view of the nature of man;
• Synergy (Sy) – measures ability to resolve dichotomies;
• Acceptance of Aggression (A) – measures ability to accept one’s aggression as natural;
• Capacity for Intimate Contact (C) – measures ability to develop intimate relations with others, unencumbered by expectation and obligation.
Characteristics of self-actualised individuals can also be found by studying the correlations between the POI scales and the dimensions measured by the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Cattell, Cattell & Cattell, 1993) and the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey (Doyle, 1976). For example, in a study of 159 students Doyle (1976) found that self-actualising students could be described as more assertive, self-assured, active, sociable, emotionally stable and expedient than their less self-actualising peers.
These positive characteristics mirror those discussed previously in association with physically attractive people, thus the question arises whether physically attractive individuals will find it easier to achieve a higher level of self-actualisation? Does being attractive make it easier for them to become more self-fulfilled?
The potential relationship could be explored by comparing the characteristics of physically attractive and self-actualising individuals (as measured by the POI). For example, because the physically attractive are better liked and preferred than the unattractive (Krebs & Adinolfi, 1975), they are likely to develop a higher level of self-esteem (Patzer, 2006; Thornton & Ryckman, 1991). With higher self-esteem, they may be confident enough to express themselves freely to other people without fear of peer feedbacks. They will act in accordance with their self-motivations to achieve their goals rather than defer to external influences, thus being more likely to become inner-oriented than unattractive people with lower self-esteem. High measures of Inner-Directedness are regarded as one of most important values for self-actualisation (Shostrom, 1962), and therefore the inner-orientated characteristics of the physically attractive suggests an inclination for them to reach higher levels of self-actualisation than those less physically attractive.
As well as sharing a level of Inner-Directedness, the levels of Self-Regard and Self-Acceptance may also be similar for both physically attractive and self-actualising individuals. Recent studies by Frost & McKelvie (2004), Russel (2002) and Laliberte et al. (2007) concluded that self-esteem is positively correlated with self-satisfaction and body-satisfaction. As physically attractive people are more liked and preferred by both sexes, this leads to developing satisfaction of self, which in turn increases self-esteem. Because they are pursued and self-confident with high esteem, they would value themselves with higher self-worth and thus become more self-loving/regarding. Moreover, identification of their own weaknesses or deficiencies is likely to have less effect on these self-loving and confident attractive individuals compared to the physically unattractive individuals with lower self-regard and confidence in self. Therefore physical attractiveness is related with higher Self Regard and Self Acceptance, again matching the characteristics of self-actualising individuals.
Another possible connection might exist between physical attractiveness and the scales of Feeling Reactivity and Spontaneity. Muehlenkamp and Saris-Baglama (2002) proposed that physically unattractive individuals, with low self-esteem and low self-satisfaction, may become more self-objective and self-conscious, causing them to care about their external appearances excessively and identify less with their internal states. With less awareness of their internal states, one would not be able to identify or express his/her own feelings and needs. On the other hand, physically attractive, dominant and self-confident individuals would find it easier to express their own feelings and thoughts to others, as they are inner-oriented. Similarly, attractive individuals may be less concerned by external feedback and the reactions of their peers, thus making it possible for them to concentrate on their own internal states. Therefore it can be hypothesized, in light of Muehlenkamp & Saris-Baglama’s findings that more physically attractive people would score higher in Feeling Reactivity and Spontaneity than less attractive people.
Finally, With the self-fulfilling prophecy effect, when a physically attractive person is stereotyped and treated as mentally flexible by peer groups (Hatfield & Sprecher, 1986; Miller, 1970), s/he would eventually internalize flexibility as a part of his/her self-concept. Flexibility reflects high level of Existentiality, another key aspect of self-actualisation, which measures the extent to which one applies their values to life flexibly (Shostrom, 1962).
In summary, the suggested characteristics of physically attractive individuals appear to directly equate to the values required for achieving high levels of self-actualisation and the characteristics of typical self-actualising individuals. It is this potentially fascinating connection that is being explored in the current study. In order to do so, the physical attractiveness of the participants will be rated by judges, creating 2 groups, High and Low Attractiveness, and the level of self-actualisation will be measured using the POI questionnaire. Based on the possible relationship between the characteristics of physically attractive and self-actualising individuals described above, it is hypothesized that the High Attractiveness group will score significantly higher on the POI scales than the Low Attractiveness group.
Method
Design
A between subjects design was utilised to explore the potential link between physical attractiveness and self-actualisation. The pseudo independent variable in this quasi – experimental design was physical attractiveness rating, with two levels, high and low attractiveness. The dependent variables were the 12 self-actualisation scores as measured by the POI.
Participants
119 participants volunteered to take part in this study, of which 81 (68%) were undergraduate students, recruited from the psychology department at University College London, and 38 (32%) represent an opportunity sample of adults from the general population. There were 53 males (45%) and 66 females (55%), with an age range of 18-36 (mean = 21.2, SD = 4.565).
Materials
The Personal Orientation Inventory (POI) questionnaire was used to measure participants’ level of self-actualisation. The questionnaire consists of 150 items; each taking the form of two contrasting statements addressing the same issue, the subject must select the statement they believe applies to them best. These items are then used to calculate the score for each of the twelve POI scales. As explained earlier, the POI is designed to measure factors which are important for achieving self-actualisation, which are Time Ratio, Support Ratio, Self-Actualising Values, Existentiality, Feeling Reactivity, Spontaneity, Self-Regard, Self-Acceptance, Nature of Man, Synergy, Acceptance of Aggression, and Capacity for Intimate Contact (Shostrom, 1962). The POI has been regarded as the standardized inventory for measuring one’s self-actualisation since its publication. It is extensively used in a wide context and is highly validated on test-retest reliability (Klavetter & Morgan, 1967, reporting coefficients from 0.52 to 0.82), shown to be relatively stable over time (Knapp, 1990), and uninfluenced by social desirability (Shostrom, 1974; Warehime & Foulds, 1973) even cross-culturally (Knapp, Cardenas & Michael, 1978; Steilberg, 1976), validating it as a measure of actual beliefs.
For attractiveness ratings, each participant had a picture of the shoulder-up front profile taken. The photographs were 15.4cm x 16.0cm in size with a white background and of high resolution (599 dpi). The resulting professional quality, colour portraits were then shown as slides on a 28.7cm x 21.4cm Samsung SENS X06 laptop screen to 6 judges (3 male and 3 female) for attractiveness rating. A rating sheet was distributed to the judges beforehand which consisted of a diagram of an attractiveness continuum on the top of the page (ranging from 1- extremely unattractive on the far left to 7- extremely attractive on the far right of the continuum) and a table to be filled in with rating for each participant numbered from 1 to 119. The physical attractiveness rating for each participant was the mean of the judges’ ratings of that participant.
Procedure
Following recruitment participants were asked to complete the POI questionnaire and provide details of their age and gender. On completion of the questionnaire a photograph was taken and participants were debriefed. At this point all participants were assured their data would be treated anonymously and with confidentiality and that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time.
The photographs were rated by 3 male and 3 female judges, professional model recruiters in a model agency in central London. They were specifically chosen as judges in this experiment because, as it is their job to seek for and rate people’s beauty on a daily basis, they can be considered experts in rating physical attractiveness. The judges were told that the purpose of the study was to explore a possible relationship between physical attractiveness and self-actualisation, and that they were to rate participants’ facial attractiveness based on the photographs. The judges rated one photograph at a time, and each photograph was shown by slides for 10 seconds.
Mean attractiveness ratings and total scores of each of the POI scales were entered into the SPSS for statistical analysis. Using a median split the participants were divided into 2 groups according to their attractiveness ratings; high attractiveness (N= 62, mean attractiveness score = 4.976, SD= .80) and low attractiveness group (N= 57, mean attractiveness score = 2.462, SD= .72).
Results
As shown in table 1, the high attractiveness group scored higher on all 12 POI scales, with 7 of them reaching statistical significance at the p < 0.05 level (one – tailed): Inner directedness, Self Actualising Value, Feeling Reactivity, Spontaneity, Self Regard, Self Acceptance and Capacity for Intimate Contact. Even using a more conservative alpha level to control for multiple testing, a bonferroni corrected p < .004, four scales would remain significantly different across groups. Thus the results partially support the experimental hypothesis that physical attractiveness is associated with higher levels of self-actualisation.
Graphs 1 and 2 show that, although not all statistically significant, the high attractiveness group scored higher in all the POI scales in comparison to the low attractiveness group.
Figure 1. High and low attractiveness group means for Time Competence and Inner- Directedness.
Figure 2. High and low attractiveness group means on the 10 POI subscales.
SAV: Self Actualising Value. Ex: Existentiality. Fr: Feeling Reactivity. S: Spontaneity. Sr: Self Regard. Sa: Self Acceptance. Nc: Nature of Man. Sy: Synergy. A: Acceptance of Aggression. C: Capacity for Intimate Contact.
Table 1.The mean differences between high and low attractiveness groups on the POI self-actualisation scales.
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, one-tailed.
Discussion
The primary goal of this study was to examine the potential relationship between physical attractiveness and self-actualisation. The results partially supported the hypothesis that participants in the high attractiveness group would score higher on all POI scales, thus displaying consistently higher levels of self-actualisation, than those in the low attractiveness group. Specifically, participants in the high attractiveness group showed significantly higher scores on the scales of Inner-Directedness, Self-Actualising Value, Feeling Reactivity, Spontaneity, Self-Regard, Self-Acceptance, and Capacity for Intimate Contact. Such clear relationships between these scales and physical attractiveness could be explained by two main factors: self-esteem and the self fulfilling prophecy.
Self-esteem
The results strongly support the hypothesis that physical attractiveness leads to higher Self-Regard and Self-Acceptance. This could be explained by referring to the question of self-esteem. As stated in the introduction, the physically attractive are admired and pursued as a result of their beauty, and this would lead to developing self-satisfaction, which in turn attributes to develop high self-esteem (Downs, James & Cowan, 2006; Frost & McKelvie, 2004; Krebs & Adinofi, 1975). This self-confident and satisfied attractive individual would learn to value themselves with self-worth as they are pursued and looked up to by their peers, thereby scoring high in Self-Regard. Also, when the attractive individual identifies his own weaknesses, it is more likely that he would accept and work towards overcoming them rather than devaluing his self-worth due to the identified weaknesses. In contrast, as physically unattractive people are less likely to be highly self-satisfied, they would have lower self-esteem compared to physically attractive people. Low self-satisfaction and esteem lead to development of self-objectification, whereby one judges oneself solely on appearance (Downs, James & Cowan, 2006). As unattractive individuals become more self-objective and self-conscious, this may attribute to further dissatisfaction with their appearance and lower self-esteem. Due to this negative loop of self-dissatisfaction – low self-esteem, it is possible that unattractive individuals regard themselves with less self-worth than their attractive counterparts, as well as being less well equipped to accept their own weaknesses.
Furthermore, the results of this study revealed an important relationship between physical attractiveness and Inner-Directedness, with the high attractiveness group scoring significantly higher than the low group. As discussed in the introduction, it is likely that an individual’s level of self-esteem exerts a great impact on their inner-directedness. An attractive individual, who is likely to be self-confident, self-regarding and accepting, will be more confident in his/her thoughts or actions, and less fearful of making mistakes. Moreover, as the thoughts or negative consequences of their actions are less likely to affect an attractive individual’s self-regarding and self-loving personality, this may gradually lead to development of inner-directedness. With high levels of confidence, it is more likely that the physically attractive would follow their own decisions and act in accordance with motivations set by the self, rather than acting in accordance with external reactions or pressures. On the other hand, less attractive individuals, with lower self-esteem, self-regard and accepting personalities, would be less confident in their own beliefs and choose to act in favour of peer groups to protect themselves from any negative responses.
A similar explanation may also address the links found between attractiveness and Feeling Reactivity and Spontaneity. Again, in support of the hypothesis, participants in the high attractiveness group scored significantly higher on the measures of Feeling Reactivity and Spontaneity than those in the low attractiveness group. As mentioned earlier, own beliefs and self-motivations are the main determinants of behaviour for the inner-directed attractive people. This means that they would be more likely to focus on their internal states and beliefs and set achievable goals based on their own perspective, thus also increasing the likelihood of their being sensitive to their own feelings or needs and less afraid of expressing their feelings spontaneously. These results agree with Muehlenkamp and Saris-Baglama (2002), who stated that low self-esteem in unattractive people leads to the development of self-objectification, which in turn inflates the importance of external appearances and diminishes their awareness or expression of internal states.
Self-fulfilling prophecy effect
Another possible explanation for the relationship between physical attractiveness and self-actualisation is based on the self-fulfilling prophecy effect (Swann, 1984). With such an effect, when a person is perceived as dominant, for example, he may gradually develop dominance as his personality trait by responding to the surrounding pressure. This agrees with the results found in the study by Moskowitz (1990), where there was a high convergence of scores from self-reports of dominance and independent observers reports of perceived dominance. As described in the introduction, the physically attractive are stereotyped as being more sociable, confident, warm, strong, poised, absent of shyness and social anxiety, dominant, stable, and socially skilled. In the presence of the self-fulfilling prophecy effect, the attractive individuals who are stereotyped as such would respond to these perceptions of themselves by gradually internalising such traits and fulfilling the stereotype. Therefore, the strong link found, for example, between physical attractiveness and Capacity for Intimate Contact could be due to the stereotype of attractive individuals being more sociable, socially skilled and warm. This result supports similar ideas concerning high social skills of the physically attractive suggested by Patzer (2006) and the results of a study by Goldman & Lewis (1977), which found significant positive correlations between physical attractiveness and sociability.
Limitations
There are some limitations to this study that may have confounded the results to some extent. The photographs used for attractiveness ratings may have involved other influencing factors; while pose and distance from the camera were consistent, other details such as facial expression, the presence of glasses and clothing type were not considered. Different clothing (e.g., clothing from a popular brand), presence of pins, jewellery, glasses, etc., may inform the rating judges of their socioeconomic cues, which may have affected attractiveness ratings. Furthermore, as the judges recruited for the present study were professionals in model agencies, they may be more sensitive to fashion, thus attractiveness ratings might have been skewed towards the participants who were perceived as fashionable.
With regard to facial expression, it has been demonstrated that individuals with features that show more positive emotions, such as larger smiles, higher eyebrows, and larger pupils, are perceived as more attractive (Cunningham, 1986). As the decision to smile or not during the photography session was left up to the participants in the present study, the attractiveness ratings may have been biased toward those who chose to smile.
Furthermore, the age range of the participants may have been too restricted in the study. The age range was 18-36 and the mean was 21.2 yrs. This age range is due to the fact that most of the participants were University students. Aggression, motivation, interest in career and physical aspects of life decline with age, meaning that level of self-actualisation is likely to be affected with age alone (Reiss & Havercamp, 2005). Therefore a broader age range of participants would be required to be able to further conclude on the relationship between physical attractiveness and self-actualisation.
Conclusion
The main aim of the study was to investigate the potential relationship between physical attractiveness and level of self-actualisation. 119 participants were recruited, and the results confirmed that physical attractiveness leads to achieving higher level of self-actualisation. 7 out of the 12 measures of self actualisation were found to be significantly higher for the attractive individuals, supporting the fact that social and personal characteristics of the attractive individual’s life produce an environment which enhances self-actualisation. Factors such as self-esteem, confidence, and social skills, which were found to be more prevalent among the attractive individuals, lead the physically attractive to being more self-actualised than the less attractive. These results provide a broader understanding of the influence of physical attractiveness on our psychological and social aspects of life, as they point towards greater potential for self-fulfilment for the physically attractive individual.
References
Bassili, J. N. (1981). The attractiveness stereotype: Goodness or glamour? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2, 235-252.
Beck, S. P., Ward-Hull, C. I. & McLear, P. M. (1976). Variables related to women’s somatic preferences of the male and female body. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1200-1210.
Berry, D. S. (1991). Accuracy in social perception: Contributions of facial and vocal information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 298-307.
Biernat, M. & Thompson, E. R. (2002). Shifting standards and contextual variation in stereotyping. In W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone (Eds.) European Review of Social Psychology, Volume 12 (pp. 103-137). London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Borkenau, P. & Liebler, A. (1993). Convergence of stranger ratings of personality and intelligence with self-ratings, partner ratings, and measured intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(3), 546-553.
Casanova, E. M. (2004). “No ugly women”: Concepts of race and beauty among adolescent women in Ecuador. Gender & Society, 18, 287-308.
Cash, T. F., Begley, P. J., McCown, D. A. & Weise, B. C. (1975). When counsellors are heard but not seen: Initial impact of physical attractiveness. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 22, 272-279.
Cattell, R. B., Cattell, A. K. & Cattell, H. E. (1993). Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire, Fifth Edition. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Inc.
Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A. & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 557-570.
Collins, M. A., & Zebrowitz, A. P. (1995). The contributions of appearance to occupational outcomes in civilian and military settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 129-163.
Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi- experiments on the sociobiology of female beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925-935.
Darley, J. M. & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35(10), 867-881.
Dion, K. K. (1981). Physical attractiveness, sex roles and heterosexual attraction. In M. Cook (Ed.), The bases of human sexual attraction (pp. 3-22). London: Academic Press.
Dion, K. K. (1986). Stereotyping based on physical attarctiveness: Issues and conceptual perspectives. In C.P.Herman, M.P.Zanna, & E.T.Higgins (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma and social behaviour: The Ontario Symposium (Vol.3, pp.7-21). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290.
Downs, A. C., & Lyons, P. M. (1991). Natural observations of the links between attractiveness and initial legal judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 541-547.
Downs, D. M., James, S. & Cowan, G. (2006). Body objectification, self-esteem, and relationship satisfaction: A comparison of exotic dancers and college women. Sex Roles, 54, 745-752.
Doyle, J. A. (1976). Congruent self-concepts and psychological health of college students. Psychological Reports, 38, 1257-1258.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijiani, M. G. & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but… : A metanalytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.
Erwin, P. G., & Calev, A. (1984). Beauty: More than skin deep? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 359-61.
Felson, R. B. & Bohrnstedt, G. W. (1979). “Are the good beautiful or the beautiful good?” The relationship between children’s perceptions of ability and perceptions of physical attractiveness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42(4),386-392.
Fink, B. & Neave, N. (2005). The biology of facial beauty. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 27, 317-325.
Ford, C. S. & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behaviour. New York, Harper & Row.
Frost, J. & McKelvie, S. (2004). Self-esteem and body satisfaction in male and female elementary school, high school, and university students. Sex Roles, 51 (1/2), 45-54.
Goebel, B. L. & Cashen, V. M. (1979). Age, sex, and attractiveness as factors in student ratings of teachers: A developmental study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 646-653.
Goldman, W. & Lewis, P. (1977). Beautiful is good: Evidence that the physicallyattractive are more socially skillful. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 125-130.
Goldstein, K. (1934). The organism: A holistic approach to biology derived from pathological data in man. New York: Zone Books.
Hamermesh, D., & Biddle, J. (1994). Beauty and the labor market (Working Paper No.4518). National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Hatfield, E. & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, Mirror: The Importance of Looks in Everyday Life. New-York: State Univ of New York Press.
Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E. F. & Coats, G. (2003). “The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: a meta-analysis of experimental studies”. Personnel Psychology, 56, 431-62.
Kampe, K. K., Frith, C. D., Dolan, R. J. & Frith, U. (2001). Reward value of attractiveness and gaze. Nature, 413, 589.
Kanazawa, S. & Kovar, J. L. (2004). Why beautiful people are more intelligent. Intelligence, 32, 227-243.
Kenny, D. A., Albright, L., Malloy, T. E. & Kashy, D. A. (1994). Consensus in interpersonal perception: Acquaintance and the big five. Psychological Bulletin, 116 (2), 245-258.
Klavetter, R. & Mogar, R. (1967). Peak experiences: investigation of their relationship to psychedelic therapy and self-actualization. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 7, 171-177.
Knapp, R. R. (1990). Handbook for the personal orientation inventory, California 92107: Edits.
Korthase, K. M. & Trenholme, I. (1982). Perceived age and perceived physical attractiveness. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 54, 1251-1258.
Krebs, D. & Adinolfi, A. A. (1975). Physical attractiveness, social relations, and personality style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 245-253.
Laiberte, M., Newton, M., McCabe, R. & Mills, J. S. (2007). Controlling your weight versus controlling your lifestyle: How beliefs about weight control affect risk for disordered eating, body dissatisfaction and self-esteem. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 31, 853-869.
Lerner, R. & Lerner, J. (1977). Effects of age, sex and physical attractiveness on child-peer relations, academic performance, and elementary school adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 13, 585-590.
Lubbers, M. J., Van Der Werf, M. P. C., Kuyper, H. & Offringa, G. J. (2006). Predicting peer acceptance in Dutch youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 26(1), 4-35.
Levesque, M. J. & Kenny, D. A. (1993). Accuracy of behavioral predictions at zero acquaintance: A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (6), 1178-1187.
Marcus, D. K. & Miller, R. S. (2003). Sex differences in judgments of physical attractiveness: A social relations analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 325-335.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370- 396.
Masip, J. & Eugenio, G. (2001). Is there a kernel of truth in judgments of deceptiveness? Anales de Psycologia, 17, 101-120.
Miller, A. G. (1970). Role of physical attractiveness in impression formation. Psychonomic Science, 19, 241-243.
Moskowitz, D. S. (1990). Convergence of self-reports and independent observers: Dominance and friendliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1096-1106.
Muehenkamp, J. J., & Saris-Baglama, R. N. (2002). Self-objectification and its psychological outcomes for college women. Psychology of Women, 26, 371-379.
Parks, F. R. & Kennedy, J. H. (2007). The impact of race, physical attractiveness, and gender on education majors’ and teachers’ perceptions of student competence. Journal of Black Studies, 37(6), 936-943.
Patzer, G. L. (2006). The Power and Paradox of Physical Attractiveness. New-York: Universal Publishers.
Pfaffenberger, A. H (2005). Optimal adult development: An inquiry into the dynamics of growth. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 45, 279-301.
Reiss, S. & Havercamp, S. M. (2005). Motivation in developmental context: A new method for studying self-actualisation. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 45, 41-53.
Russel, W. D. (2002). Comparison of self-esteem, body satisfaction, and social physique anxiety cross males of different exercise frequency and racial background. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 74-90.
Seaver, W. B. (1973).Effects of naturally induced teacher expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 333-342.
Shostrom, E. L (1962). Manual of the Personal Orientation Inventory. California 92107:Edits.
Sutherland, A. & Godschmid, M. (1968). Negative teacher expectation and I.Q. change in children with superior intellectual potential. Child Development, 45, 852-856.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter of pragmatics. Psychological Review, 91, 457-477.
Thornton, B. & Ryckman, R. M. (1991). Physical attractiveness, physical effectiveness, and self-esteem in adolescence: A cross-sectional analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 14, 85-98.
Tiggemann, M. (2001). The impact of adolescent girls’ life concerns and leisure activities on body dissatisfaction disordered eating, and self-esteem. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162, 133-142.
Weitz, R. (2001). Women and their hair: Seeking power through resistance and accommodation. Gender & Society, 15, 667-686.
Zuckert, R. (2005). Boring beauty and universal morality: Kant on the ideal of beauty. Inquiry, 48(2), 107-130.
Biographical Note
Itai Ivtzan is a Psychology lecturer at UCL (University College London) and has been a member of the faculty since 2005. He has been teaching at some of the best Universities in the UK including City University, Birkbeck and the University of Oxford. He received his BSc (Hons) In Psychology from the Academic College of Tel Aviv and is currently at the final stages of writing his PhD at Goldsmiths College, University of London.
His research interests in Psychology are in the areas of social, humanistic, and positive psychology, evaluating concepts such as self-awareness and self-actualisation. His main task is to better understand the psychological factors which allow us to live life fully while experiencing our greatest potential.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:
Itai Ivtzan
Department of Psychology
UCL (University College London)
26 Bedford Way
London WC1H 0AP
Office 413