beauty by loosening appearance related norms in their society or in organizations. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. First, we review the literature on beauty, culture and self-construal, and the role of norms. Building on this literature, we present our theorization and develop a set of hypotheses about the influence of self-construal on the pursuit of beauty and the underlying mechanism. Further, we delve into the role of tightness-looseness CULTURE & BEAUTY 7 as a moderator for the effect. We report results from three studies, involving consumers from five countries, to provide evidence for our hypotheses. Following this, we present the theoretical, managerial, and policy related implications of this research. We then discuss limitations and outline several possibilities for future research. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT The Pursuit of Beauty The notion that beautiful-is-good is ingrained in people very early in life (Rubenstein, Kalakanis and Langlois 1999). Childhood stories all over the world almost always depict a beautiful princess, a handsome prince, and an ugly villain. While the villain rots in hell, the prince and the princess live happily ever after. With beautiful people getting better grades (Clifford and Walster 1973), earning more (Dion, Berscheid, and Walster 1972; Rhode 2010), and being luckier in love (Udry and Eckland 1984), , the allure of beauty is not just strong, but compelling. Indeed, multiple research programs dedicated to understanding this beautiful-is-good belief (also referred to as “physical attractiveness stereotyping”) have found that beautiful people are perceived to be more intelligent (Dion, Berscheid, and Walster 1972; Kanazawa and Kovar 2004) and more decisive and logical (Dipboye, Fromkin, and Wiback 1975). There is a beauty premium even in the labor market, with attractive candidates being more likely to be hired, be considered more talented, having better leadership skills, commanding higher salaries, eliciting greater co-operation, and being rewarded more often (Hamermesh 2011). While being beautiful is coveted highly the world over, what is considered ‘beautiful’ varies by culture (Cunningham et al. 1995). Anthropologists and ethnographers have long CULTURE & BEAUTY 8 contended that beauty is culturally driven and subjective (Englis, Solomon, and Ashmore 1994). In other words, there is no absolute definition of beauty and the standards of beauty are defined normatively based on socialization processes and media influences (Banner 1983; Englis, Solomon, and Ashmore 1994). Growing from common experiences, societal norms define who (or what) is considered beautiful (Banner 1983; Hamermesh 2011). For example, Asians, compared to Europeans, are less likely to prefer features indicating sexual maturity and expressiveness (Cunningham et al. 1995). As norms of beauty are defined by the society, anyone who wishes to be perceived as beautiful needs to and strives to adhere to these norms (Davis, Sbrocco, Odoms-Young, and Smith 2010; Kim, Young, and Keun 2014). However, the motivation to adhere to societal norms may also depend on the salient cultural values of an individual (Savani et al. 2015). Culture and Self-construal Cultures are most often compared along the dimension of individualism-collectivism (Hofstede 1991). The key premise of the distinction between individualism and collectivism is the extent to which members of a society view themselves as singular entities or belonging to a network involving others (Hui 1988; Hui, Ho, and Wan 2011). Individualistic societies espouse a worldview where personal autonomy is emphasized (Hofstede 1980; Markus and Kitayama 1991). On the other hand, collectivistic societies adopt a philosophy that the individual and the group are indistinguishable. Common goals, values, and fate are assumed to bind the individuals of these societies together (Markus and Kitayama 1991; Triandis 1995). Members of industrialized Western countries demonstrate greater individualism whereas those belonging to traditional Eastern societies tend to be more collectivistic (Inglehart 1997; Sampson 2001). The impact of national culture on consumer behaviour has been studied extensively in international marketing research (e.g. Kirkman, Lowe, and CULTURE & BEAUTY 9 Gibson 2006; Laroche, Kalamas, and Cleveland 2005; Park and Jun 2003; see Steenkamp 2001 for a discussion). Individualism-collectivism encompass multiple different values, for example, the dominance of individual rights (in individualism) and duties and obligations (in collectivism). Focusing specifically on how these societal differences affect the way individuals define themselves in relation to others, Markus and Kitayama (1991) developed the concepts of independent and interdependent self-construals. Self-construal refers to the degree of