3+4 Attraction Flashcards
Walter et al study
Computer dating paradigm.
Measured personality, interest, physical attractiveness.
Randomly paired couples.
Found that the only factor that predicted whether people asked them out or not was physical attractiveness, not anything else.
Halo effect
Attractiveness is associated with a huge halo effect. Attractive ppl have a greater overall liking, more desirable traits eg warm, more friends, higher income, better mental health, more social influence. Stereotype that beautiful= good.
Similarly in attractiveness
People were more likely to want to see partner again if they were of similar attractiveness. Self esteem? Social exchange theory?
Long relationships are more successful if couple are equally as attractive.
Attractiveness in culture
-Could argue beauty is objective: eg babies prefer attractive faces, theres a high level of agreement across cultures for beauty (Langlois)
-However, could argue beauty is subjective: diff cultures enhance ther beauty in diff ways. Also diff body types are preferred in diff areas; more weight in Africa, less weight in Britain. Anderson et al 1992.
Standards also vary across time.
- eg Tovee found that Zulu migrants preference went from higher weight to lower weight of women, matching UK views. Found similar results for those who had access to TV or not. (boothroyd)
Cognitive approach to attraction:
We form a facial prototype, and are thus attracted to ‘averageness’ . It’s easier to look at, no need to code new things.
Eg Zhao et al photographed 682 students, and found that the Moore average faces were seen as most attractive
Also seen in Saxton’s study. He found that males in single sex school were attracted to more masculine girl faces, and vice versa. Because they visually adapted and got used to masculinity.
However, Rhodes showed that babies prefer distinctive faces over average faces
Evolutionary approach to attraction
Sexual selection = differential mating.
Inter-sexual selection is when the opposite sex prefers some traits more than, thus increasing the French of those genes in next generation.
Eg, averageness is associated with health, bc those w average faces have more genetic diversity, so less likely to get ill. So we want healthy partner and offspring. Rhodes.
Human mating patterns
Humans are mainly monogamous, little bit polygyny.
Anisogamy= female gamete is much bigger than male gamete.
Females have a much bigger parental investment, higher obligate contribution to offspring.
Females obligate parental investment= gamete, mating gestation, parturition, lactation, care. Males= gamete and mating.
Thus females have most to lose, can only have one kid at a time, will be more monogamous than men naturally.
Buss and Schmitt found that women consistently ask for more acceptable criteria for partner, especially for LT.
What ppl want in partners
Males wants proceptivtiy and fertility for ST, youth and faithfulness and fertility for LT
Women want good genes ST, resources and generosity for LT.
Men desire a high waist to hip ratio, as that signifies youth add high levels of oestrogen, so more fertile. Ideal waist-hip ratio is 0.7 - Singh.
Everyone wants good genes:
-Handicap principle- attractive ppl can afford to have features that handicap them, eg peacock has big tail just to attract girls, so it shows they are strong bc they can still survive,even when handicapped with big tail.
-Parasite infestation- parasites should impact sexual traits so women can choose healthy men. -Hamilton and Zuk.
What’s universally attractive?
Avaregeness, feminisnity in women, symmetry and health
Symmetry= Jones et al found that those with more symmetrical faces and healthier skin were viewed as more attractive. Because shows health, so avoid infection.
(However, Kleisner did study on 1550 ppnts, and found averageness was much stronger factor than symmetry)
Market value
This is what someone has to offer of themselves for someone else( a mate).
Eg Sticklebacks who have more red are considered to be more healthy, so they mate with the fatter females (more eggs).
Also seen in humans; Thornhill found that mean who were more attractive had more choice of partners so put less effort in. Also, older women make fewer requests in adverts for partner, bc they know they don’t have much value.
Ornamentation
People ornament and augment their appearance in different ways, eg heels accentuate the hips swaying, scarification emphasises muscle mass and facial structure.
Parents influence on mate preferences
‘Sexual imprinting’- parents influence mate preferences because we use parents as a model for potential partners
‘Assortative mating’- when partners are genetically similar, so keeps good gene complexes together
Perrett et al found that women who had younger parents preferred younger faces and vice versa.
