Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Experimental Social Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp The effect of unrelated social exchanges on facial attractiveness judgments ☆ Natalie T. Faust a,b,c,h , Anjan Chatterjee d,e,f,g , George I. Christopoulos a,b,c, ⁎ a Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, 639798, Singapore b Decision, Environmental and Organizational Neuroscience (DEON) Lab, Culture Science Institute, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, 639798, Singapore c Institute on Asian Consumer Insight, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, 639798, Singapore d Penn Center for Neuroaesthetics, University of Pennsylvania, United States of America e Center for Neuroscience and Society, the University of Pennsylvania, United States of America f Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, United States of America g Department of Neurology, Pennsylvania Hospital, United States of America h Nova School of Business and Economics, Campus de Carcavelos, Rua da Holanda, n.1, 2775-405 Carcavelos, Portugal ARTICLE INFO Handling editor: Ursula Hess Keywords: Attractiveness Cooperation Competition Own-gender face perception Prisoner's dilemma Self-affirmation ABSTRACT Whereas the influence of facial attractiveness (FA) on social judgments has been well documented, much less is known about the converse influence of social exchanges on FA judgments. Previous research has shown that social dimensions inherently related to the face judged, such as status, can affect such judgments. However, we found that facial attractiveness ratings were affected by social exchanges unrelated to the face judged. In three experiments, we examined how competitive and cooperative financial exchanges influence subsequent facial aesthetic judgments. Compared to cooperation, competition decreased women's (but not men's) ratings of men's facial attractiveness; this pattern of effects also occurred for ratings of buildings, suggesting that competition suppressed aesthetic appreciation. However, women's responses to women's faces followed an inverse pattern, as competition (rather than cooperation) elevated women faces' attractiveness ratings. Introducing self-affirmation, a psychological mechanism that alleviates the effects of social competition, restored attractiveness ratings. This finding suggests that women's own-gender judgments in a competitive environment are affected by a perception of threat induced by social comparison. Overall, this study suggests that aesthetic judgments are not immune to social conditions. Such moderating effects contribute to our understanding of how sociocultural environments dynamically regulate aesthetic preferences. The evaluation of faces is a key factor in social life. Indeed, the face is one of the most important visual objects in our environment (Leder & Carbon, 2004). It is an important channel of communication (Liang, Zebrowitz, & Zhang, 2010) and a rich source of information (Engell, Haxby, & Todorov, 2007) that informs humans' social judgments (Franklin & Adams, 2009). Among other factors, facial attractiveness powerfully affects these social judgments (O'Doherty et al., 2003; Tsukiura & Cabeza, 2011). Similar to money or status, attractiveness underlies not only mating behavior (Luxen & Van De Vijver, 2006) but also other social functions, such as professional success and leadership (Hamermesh & Biddle, 1994; Langlois et al., 2000). 1. The effect of facial attractiveness on social judgments Facial attractiveness has an impact on social decisions, such as mating and friendship choices (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999), percep- tions of goodness (Tsukiura & Cabeza, 2011), trustworthiness (Wilson & Eckel, 2006), intelligence (Zebrowitz, Hall, Murphy, & Rhodes, 2002), self-confidence (Langlois et al., 2000), age stereotypes (Palumbo, Adams, Hess, Kleck, & Zebrowitz, 2017), and even social hierarchy (Belmi & Neale, 2014). Previous research suggests that physically at- tractive people receive more favorable treatment compared to less at- tractive people (Langlois et al., 2000). Attractive people are also per- ceived to be more socially skilled (Langlois et al., 2000), are favored in hiring (Luxen & Van De Vijver, 2006), earn more money (Hamermesh & Biddle, 1994), and receive lesser punishments for misbehavior (Gunnell & Ceci, 2010). The concepts of a “beauty premium” (Hamermesh & Biddle, 1994) and “beautiful is good” (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972) highlight the privilege and social advantage of being beautiful. Facial beauty is of particular interest, as it is a major determinant of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.010 Received 19 February 2018; Received in revised form 10 August 2018; Accepted 15 August 2018 ☆ This work was supported by a grant from Institute on Asian Consumer Insight (Grant number: M4081641.C90) to the Corresponding Author. ⁎ Corresponding author at: Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, 639798, Singapore. E-mail address: georchris7@gmail.com (G.I. Christopoulos). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 79 (2018) 290–300 0022-1031/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. T