What influences judgments of physical attractiveness? A comprehensive perspective with implications for mental health.

Judgments of physical attractiveness are based on appearance but are influenced by and influence more than just physical features of the face and body (e.g. clothing and personality traits). This is explored in a selective review of previous research, plus new analyses of data from three previously published studies: the Boston Couples Study, the Multiple Identities Questionnaire, and the Intimate Relationships Across Cultures Study, with implications for mental health. Self-ratings of attractiveness are inflated by self-esteem and confidence in self-halo effects. Partner-ratings are inflated by love and relationship satisfaction in partner-halo effects. Positive responses from others influence attractiveness-enhancing cycles, while negative responses influence attractiveness-deprecating cycles, with impacts on well-being. These influences are represented in a comprehensive Attractiveness Halo Model, which identifies Ten Components of Attractiveness that are inter-related, including physical, emotional, sexual, sensory, intellectual, behavioural, observer, situation, reciprocity, and time. Aspects of the model are supported by analyses of the three studies, generalising comprehensive attractiveness halo effects across time, identities, cultures, and relationship types.

People respond with different moral emotions to violations in different relational models: A cross-cultural comparison.

Consonant with a functional view of moral emotions, we argue that morality is best analyzed within relationships rather than in individuals, and use Fiske's (1992) theory of relational models (RMs: communal sharing [CS], authority ranking [AR], equality matching [EM], and market pricing [MP]) to predict that violations in different RMs will arouse different intensities of other-blaming emotions (anger, contempt and disgust) in both observers and victims, together with different intensities of self-blaming emotions (shame and guilt) in perpetrators, and to predict that these patterns of emotion will show similarity across both individuals and cultures. Three studies, using vignettes portraying moral violations in all RMs in different experimental designs, supported these expectations, while also producing some unexpected results. The intensity of shame and guilt varied markedly across RMs, but with little difference between the two emotions. The intensity of all 3 other-blaming emotions also varied across RMs. Anger was the most intense emotional response to violation in all RMs, whereas disgust and contempt were stronger in CS than in other RMs. Disgust and shame were linked more strongly in CS than in other RMs, and anger and guilt were more strongly linked than other emotion pairs in EM. Moral emotions in RMs involving hierarchy (AR and MP) differed widely depending on the perpetrator's dominant or subordinate status. Both Turkish (TR) and English-speaking (EN) samples showed similar patterns of all moral emotions across RMs. Understanding the functions of moral emotions in relationships using relational models can help to clarify multiple aspects of moral psychology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).