Physical attractiveness and subjective well-being.

Three studies were conducted to determine whether physical attractiveness (PAT) is related to subjective well-being (SWB). In the first study (N - 221), unselected students were photographed and videotaped. In the second study (N = 131), participants were selected on the basis of extremes in PAT, and in the third study (TV = 155), participants were preselected for extreme scores on SWB. Correlations between SWB and PAT varied from .03 to .33. In Study 1 the mean correlation between PAT and SWB was .13. When appearance enhancers (hair, clothing, and jewelry) were covered or removed in Studies 2 and 3, the correlation between PAT and SWB dropped, suggesting that part of the SWB-PAT relation might be due to happier doing to enhance their beauty. The impact of PAT on SWB may be mitigated by the fact that others agree on a target's PAT at only modest levels. It was found that self-perceptions of PAT were correlated with both one's objective PAT and one's SWB. Is physical attractiveness (PAT) a cause of subjective well-being (SWB)? Our values suggest that it should not be. We hope that our inner qualities, and not simply our outward appearance, cause life satisfaction. Physical attractiveness, however, appears to be a powerful resource in western society. Because resources help obtain rewards, PAT may cause SWB. Early studies demonstrated that PAT is an important resource. Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972) found that attractive persons were perceived to be warmer, stronger, and poised, and were considered to be exciting dates than those who were less attractive. In a meta-analysis of the literature, Feingold (1992) concluded that attractive are perceived to be more sociable, dominant, sexually warm, mentally healthy, intelligent, and socially skilled than unattractive people (p. 304). Several studies have shown that the biases toward attractive begin in childhood. For example, Clifford and Walster (1973) asked grade school teachers to examine academic records of children. Even though the performance information was identical in all of the files, teachers rated the attractive children as intelligent and popular. These biases persevere into adulthood (e.g., Dipboye, Arvey, Curran & Lip