Beauty Goes Down to the Core: Attractiveness Biases Moral Character Attributions

Physical Attractiveness Biases Judgments Pertaining to the Moral Domain of Purity

Research on the Beauty-is-Good stereotype shows that unattractive people are perceived to have worse moral character than attractive individuals. Yet research has not explored what kinds of moral character judgments are particularly biased by attractiveness. In this work, we tested whether attractiveness particularly biases moral character judgments pertaining to the moral domain of purity, beyond a more general halo effect. Across four preregistered studies (N = 1,778), we found that unattractive (vs. attractive) individuals were judged to be more likely to engage in purity violations compared with harm violations and that this was not due to differences in perceived moral wrongness, weirdness, or sociality between purity and harm violations. The findings shed light on how physical attractiveness influences moral character attributions, suggesting that physical attractiveness particularly biases character judgments pertaining to the moral domain of purity.

Towards a better understanding of the social stigma of facial difference

Facial difference (FD) is not only an individual experience; it is inherently social, reflecting interactions between social norms and individual attitudes. Often FD is stigmatized. In this paper, we employ a widely used stigma framework, namely the social stigma framework put forth by Pryor and Reeder (2011), to unpack the stigma of FD. This framework posits that there are four forms of stigma: public stigma, self-stigma, stigma by association, and structural stigma. We first discuss the social and psychological literature on FD as it pertains to these various forms of stigma. We then describe coping approaches for FD stigma. Lastly, we delineate evidence-based methods for addressing the various forms of FD stigma, such that future efforts can more effectively tackle the stigma of facial difference.

Evidence against the "anomalous-is-bad" stereotype in Hadza hunter gatherers

People have an "anomalous-is-bad" stereotype whereby they make negative inferences about the moral character of people with craniofacial anomalies like scars. This stereotype is hypothesized to be a byproduct of adaptations for avoiding pathogens. However, evidence for the anomalous-is-bad stereotype comes from studies of European and North American populations; the byproduct hypothesis would predict universality of the stereotype. We presented 123 Hadza across ten camps pairs of morphed Hadza faces-each with one face altered to include a scar-and asked who they expected to be more moral and a better forager. Hadza with minimal exposure to other cultures chose at chance for both questions. Hadza with greater exposure to other cultures, however, expected the scarred face to be less moral and a better forager. These results suggest the anomalous-is-bad stereotype may be culturally shared or learned erroneously through associations with population-level differences, providing evidence against a universal pathogen avoidance byproduct hypothesis.