Editorial: Tradition and Change The responsibility of editorship for the Journal of Dental Research (JDR) has been passed to me from Colin Dawes. Colin has built upon the tradition of high scholarly standards and has earned our gratitude. As a result, the JDR shows the highest scientific impact of any periodical in the field. It is clearly the venue of choice to publish discoveries of interest to our international community. The community, it is hoped, will continue to invest in the JDR by submitting reports of cutting-edge advances in research. As a leading scholarly journal, the JDR has another, less- appreciated, function. It represents the vitality that is dental research. Dental research is intermeshed with a rapidly changing scientific and political culture. To capture the vitality that accompanies change, the JDR intends to chart new territory in science scholarship. The JDR will seek to decryptify dental research and make it accessible to the larger community. To catalyze and challenge established scientists and students alike, it will attempt to identify the horizons of advancing scientific fronts and unravel the pro- cess of discovery. The future of basic and applied science will be increasingly influenced by changing public policy, glbbal politics, and the perspectives and activities of science spokes- persons. How will "realpolitik" affect the future of dental research and our ability to attract and train students for the next generation? While strong science scholarship will al- ways be the foundation of the JDR, the large adventures and challenges of dental research demand an expanded and responsible view of who, what, and where we are. Shape the future by sharing your views on issues in the pages of the JDR. To facilitate changes and maintain the traditions, the JDR is initiating a strategic planning process. Your input is needed now. Please write to me directly with your sugges- tions to make the JDR all you need it to be. Your suggestions will be incorporated into a draft strategic plan that is being written with the Publications Committee. It will be reviewed by the Joint Boards of AADR and IADR in January, 1994. Small changes will appear in the JDR during the next two years. In January, 1995, the new strategic plan will be implemented. The JDR will expand its mission, but build firmly on the scholarly traditions that we all value. The JDR is your forum to share your ideas and cutting- edge research findings. Enjoy it. -Mark C. Herzberg Editor Letter to the Editor To the Editor: We were delighted to see the issue of esthetics in dentistry addressed in the recent editorial by Dr. Ronald E. Goldstein (1993). However, we were concerned with Dr. Goldstein's selection and interpretation of psychological literature per- taining to the benefits of physical attractiveness. Specifi- cally, we feel that Dr. Goldstein overstated the benefits of physical attractiveness and failed to cite significant studies which suggest that physical attractiveness may not be uniformiy beneficial. While the "what is beautiful is good" stereotype has long been cited as one of the most robust findings in the psychological literature, recent data indicate that the effects of physical attractiveness may not be as generalized or as positive as once thought. A recent meta- analysis of the physical attractiveness literature (Eagly et al., 1991) noted major limitations in the general assumption that physical attractiveness is always beneficial. The results of their meta-analysis suggest that beauty serves as a strong cue for assumptions of social ease, but has little effect on perceptions of honesty, virtue, helpfulness, potency, or gen- eral emotional adjustment. In fact, Adams (1982) has noted instances in which beauty may be a handicap, especially in inferences about vanity and self-centeredness. Similarly, other authors in the psychological literature have cautioned against oversimplified interpretations of the "beauty is good" phenomenon. Such authors have noted that many factors contribute to impression formation, such as non-verbal ges- turing, social skills, vocal attractiveness, and social reference group (e.g., Zuckerman et al., 1991). Others have noted that the typical lab-based physical attractiveness research design is not representative of real-life interaction (Shaw et al., 1985). While some researchers have employed field research methods to study the effects of physical attractiveness, such studies are rare. WVhen Reis et al. (1980) studied physical attractiveness in a naturalistic setting, they found that moderately attractive college women had more dates and more same-sex socializing than did very attractive college women. Clearly, the effects of physical attractiveness are not as apparent as Dr. Goldstein suggests. We do not wish to imply that esthetic changes could not have a significant effect on psychological functioning or quality of life. However, we were concerned that readers unfamiliar with the literature were left with the impression that the major questions in this area have already been answered. While we wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Goldstein's recommendation that more research should focus on psycho- logical aspects of esthetics in dentistry, we wish to point out that the major issues in this research are far from resolved. M. Elizabeth Bennett, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Behavioral Science Robert J. Weyant, DMD, DrPH Assistant Professor Department of Public Health and Community Dentistry School of Dental Medicine University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 15261 REFERENCES Adams GR (1982). Physical attractiveness. In: Miller AG, editor. In the eye of the beholder: contemporary issues in stereotyping. New York: Praeger, 253-301. Eagly AH, Jakhijani MG, Ashmore RD, Longo LC (1991). What is beautiful is good, but... A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psycholog Bull 110:109-128. Goldstein RE (1993). Guest Editorial: Esthetic dentistry-a health service? J Dent Res 72:641-642. Reis H, NazlekJ, Wheeler L (1980). Physical attractiveness in social interaction. J Personality Soc Psychol 38:604-617. Shaw WC, Reese G, Dawe M, Charles CR (1985). The influence of dentofacial appearance on the social attractiveness of young adults. Am J Orthod 87:21-26. Zuckerman M, Miyake K, Hodgins H (1991). Cross-channel effects of vocal and physical attractiveness and their implications for interpersonal perception. J Personality Soc Psychol 60:1-10. 850 by guest on January 13, 2016 For personal use only. No other uses without permission. jdr.sagepub.com Downloaded from