Is what is beautiful good and still more accurately understood? A replication and extension of Lorenzo et al. (2010)

Abstract

Is what is beautiful good and more accurately understood? Lorenzo et al. (2010) explored this question and found that more attractive targets (as per consensus) were judged more positively and accurately. Perceivers’ specific (idiosyncratic) ratings of targets’ attractiveness were also related to more positive and accurate impressions, but the latter was only true for highly consensually attractive targets. With a larger sample (N = 547), employing a round-robin study design, we aimed to replicate and extend these findings by (1) using a more reliable accuracy criterion, (2) using a direct measure of positive personality impressions, and (3) exploring attention as a potential mechanism of these links. We found that targets’ consensual attractiveness was not significantly related to the positivity or the accuracy of impressions. Replicating the original findings, idiosyncratic attractiveness was related to more positive impressions. The association between idiosyncratic attractiveness and accuracy was again dependent on consensual attractiveness, but here, idiosyncratic attractiveness was associated with lower accuracy for less consensually attractive targets. Perceivers’ attention helped explain these associations. These results partially replicate the original findings while also providing new insight: What is beautiful to the beholder is good but is less accurately understood if the target is consensually less attractive.