Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:16:32.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Moving forward with interdisciplinary research on attractiveness-related biases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2017

Dario Maestripieri
Affiliation:
Institute for Mind and Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637. [email protected]@[email protected]://primate.uchicago.edu/dario-maestripieri.htmlhttp://primate.uchicago.eduhttp://primate.uchicago.edu
Andrea Henry
Affiliation:
Institute for Mind and Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637. [email protected]@[email protected]://primate.uchicago.edu/dario-maestripieri.htmlhttp://primate.uchicago.eduhttp://primate.uchicago.edu
Nora Nickels
Affiliation:
Institute for Mind and Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637. [email protected]@[email protected]://primate.uchicago.edu/dario-maestripieri.htmlhttp://primate.uchicago.eduhttp://primate.uchicago.edu

Abstract

In our response, we review and address the comments on our target article made in the 25 commentaries. First, we review and discuss the commentaries that recognized the value of our approach, accepted the main premises and conclusions of our target article, and suggested further avenues for research on attractiveness-related biases. We then respond to commentators who either misinterpreted some parts of our target article or made statements with which we disagree. These commentaries provided us with an opportunity to clarify some aspects of our target article, for example, the fact that we address both the functional significance of attractiveness-related biases and their underlying mechanisms. We provide a rebuttal to two commentaries, in which we are accused of poor scholarship. We conclude our response by addressing two commentaries that discussed the societal implications of the occurrence of attractiveness-related biases in the labor market by briefly discussing the relationship between scientific research and social policy.

Type
Authors' Response
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Eagly, H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G. & Longo, L. C. (1991) What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin 110:109–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feingold, A. (1992a) Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin 111:304–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamermesh, D. S. (2011) Beauty pays: Why attractive people are more successful. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, L. A., Hunter, J. & Hodge, C. (1995) Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly 58:108–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M. & Smoot, M. (2000) Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin 126(3):390423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lemay, E. P., 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(3):339–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazzella, R. & Feingold, A. (1994) The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24:1315–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar