3.3: The factors affecting attraction - Physical attractiveness Flashcards
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks)
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
Why is this?
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry)
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, why?
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
First AO3 PEEL paragraph
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
Example
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
What did Towhey find?
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
What does this show?
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation.
Second AO3 PEEL paragraph
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the halo effect
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the halo effect.
Example
For example, Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more physically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the halo effect.
For example, Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more physically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
Example
For example, this has clear implications for the political process, because perhaps there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office, merely because there are considered physically attractive by enough voters
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the halo effect.
For example, Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more physically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
For example, this has clear implications for the political process, because perhaps there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office, merely because there are considered physically attractive by enough voters.
The existence of the halo effect has been found to apply in many other areas of everyday life, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the initial formation of relationships, romantic or otherwise
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the halo effect.
For example, Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more physically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
For example, this has clear implications for the political process, because perhaps there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office, merely because there are considered physically attractive by enough voters.
The existence of the halo effect has been found to apply in many other areas of everyday life, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the initial formation of relationships, romantic or otherwise.
Third AO3 PEEL paragraph
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the matching hypothesis
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the halo effect.
For example, Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more physically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
For example, this has clear implications for the political process, because perhaps there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office, merely because there are considered physically attractive by enough voters.
The existence of the halo effect has been found to apply in many other areas of everyday life, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the initial formation of relationships, romantic or otherwise.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the matching hypothesis.
Example
For example, Walster (1969) paired students up for an upcoming dance telling them they had been paired dependent on their ideal partner, when in truth it was assigned randomly.
Students met up before the dance and those who had been paired with partners of similar levels of attraction to themselves reported to like their partner more than those paired at dissimilar levels of physical attraction
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the halo effect.
For example, Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more physically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
For example, this has clear implications for the political process, because perhaps there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office, merely because there are considered physically attractive by enough voters.
The existence of the halo effect has been found to apply in many other areas of everyday life, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the initial formation of relationships, romantic or otherwise.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the matching hypothesis.
For example, Walster (1969) paired students up for an upcoming dance telling them they had been paired dependent on their ideal partner, when in truth it was assigned randomly.
Students met up before the dance and those who had been paired with partners of similar levels of attraction to themselves reported to like their partner more than those paired at dissimilar levels of physical attraction.
What does this do?
This supports the matching hypothesis and so suggests it is valid
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the halo effect.
For example, Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more physically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
For example, this has clear implications for the political process, because perhaps there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office, merely because there are considered physically attractive by enough voters.
The existence of the halo effect has been found to apply in many other areas of everyday life, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the initial formation of relationships, romantic or otherwise.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the matching hypothesis.
For example, Walster (1969) paired students up for an upcoming dance telling them they had been paired dependent on their ideal partner, when in truth it was assigned randomly.
Students met up before the dance and those who had been paired with partners of similar levels of attraction to themselves reported to like their partner more than those paired at dissimilar levels of physical attraction.
This supports the matching hypothesis and so suggests it is valid.
What is a weakness here however?
A weakness here however is the subjective nature of how attraction is rated in Walster’s study, as this is likely to be based on Western ideals of what someone attractive looks like
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the halo effect.
For example, Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more physically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
For example, this has clear implications for the political process, because perhaps there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office, merely because there are considered physically attractive by enough voters.
The existence of the halo effect has been found to apply in many other areas of everyday life, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the initial formation of relationships, romantic or otherwise.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the matching hypothesis.
For example, Walster (1969) paired students up for an upcoming dance telling them they had been paired dependent on their ideal partner, when in truth it was assigned randomly.
Students met up before the dance and those who had been paired with partners of similar levels of attraction to themselves reported to like their partner more than those paired at dissimilar levels of physical attraction.
This supports the matching hypothesis and so suggests it is valid.
A weakness here however is the subjective nature of how attraction is rated in Walster’s study, as this is likely to be based on Western ideals of what someone attractive looks like.
Therefore,
Therefore, this study could be argued to be culturally biased and the results invalid, because of the subjective nature of deciding which two people are ‘similar in attraction’
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the halo effect.
For example, Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more physically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
For example, this has clear implications for the political process, because perhaps there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office, merely because there are considered physically attractive by enough voters.
The existence of the halo effect has been found to apply in many other areas of everyday life, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the initial formation of relationships, romantic or otherwise.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the matching hypothesis.
For example, Walster (1969) paired students up for an upcoming dance telling them they had been paired dependent on their ideal partner, when in truth it was assigned randomly.
Students met up before the dance and those who had been paired with partners of similar levels of attraction to themselves reported to like their partner more than those paired at dissimilar levels of physical attraction.
This supports the matching hypothesis and so suggests it is valid.
A weakness here however is the subjective nature of how attraction is rated in Walster’s study, as this is likely to be based on Western ideals of what someone attractive looks like.
Therefore, this study could be argued to be culturally biased and the results invalid, because of the subjective nature of deciding which two people are ‘similar in attraction’.
Fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this,
there is research to suggest that what is considered physically attractive is consistent across other cultures
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the halo effect.
For example, Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more physically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
For example, this has clear implications for the political process, because perhaps there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office, merely because there are considered physically attractive by enough voters.
The existence of the halo effect has been found to apply in many other areas of everyday life, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the initial formation of relationships, romantic or otherwise.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the matching hypothesis.
For example, Walster (1969) paired students up for an upcoming dance telling them they had been paired dependent on their ideal partner, when in truth it was assigned randomly.
Students met up before the dance and those who had been paired with partners of similar levels of attraction to themselves reported to like their partner more than those paired at dissimilar levels of physical attraction.
This supports the matching hypothesis and so suggests it is valid.
A weakness here however is the subjective nature of how attraction is rated in Walster’s study, as this is likely to be based on Western ideals of what someone attractive looks like.
Therefore, this study could be argued to be culturally biased and the results invalid, because of the subjective nature of deciding which two people are ‘similar in attraction’.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this,
there is research to suggest that what is considered physically attractive is consistent across other cultures.
Example
For example, Cunningham et al. (1995) found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, a small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, hispanic and Asian males
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the halo effect.
For example, Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more physically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
For example, this has clear implications for the political process, because perhaps there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office, merely because there are considered physically attractive by enough voters.
The existence of the halo effect has been found to apply in many other areas of everyday life, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the initial formation of relationships, romantic or otherwise.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the matching hypothesis.
For example, Walster (1969) paired students up for an upcoming dance telling them they had been paired dependent on their ideal partner, when in truth it was assigned randomly.
Students met up before the dance and those who had been paired with partners of similar levels of attraction to themselves reported to like their partner more than those paired at dissimilar levels of physical attraction.
This supports the matching hypothesis and so suggests it is valid.
A weakness here however is the subjective nature of how attraction is rated in Walster’s study, as this is likely to be based on Western ideals of what someone attractive looks like.
Therefore, this study could be argued to be culturally biased and the results invalid, because of the subjective nature of deciding which two people are ‘similar in attraction’.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this,
there is research to suggest that what is considered physically attractive is consistent across other cultures.
For example, Cunningham et al. (1995) found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, a small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, hispanic and Asian males.
The physical attractiveness stereotype is also culturally pervasive, as Wheeler and Kim (1997) found that Korean and American students judged physically attractive people to be more trustworthy, concerned for others, mature and friendly
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the halo effect.
For example, Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more physically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
For example, this has clear implications for the political process, because perhaps there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office, merely because there are considered physically attractive by enough voters.
The existence of the halo effect has been found to apply in many other areas of everyday life, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the initial formation of relationships, romantic or otherwise.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the matching hypothesis.
For example, Walster (1969) paired students up for an upcoming dance telling them they had been paired dependent on their ideal partner, when in truth it was assigned randomly.
Students met up before the dance and those who had been paired with partners of similar levels of attraction to themselves reported to like their partner more than those paired at dissimilar levels of physical attraction.
This supports the matching hypothesis and so suggests it is valid.
A weakness here however is the subjective nature of how attraction is rated in Walster’s study, as this is likely to be based on Western ideals of what someone attractive looks like.
Therefore, this study could be argued to be culturally biased and the results invalid, because of the subjective nature of deciding which two people are ‘similar in attraction’.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this,
there is research to suggest that what is considered physically attractive is consistent across other cultures.
For example, Cunningham et al. (1995) found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, a small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, hispanic and Asian males.
The physical attractiveness stereotype is also culturally pervasive, as Wheeler and Kim (1997) found that Korean and American students judged physically attractive people to be more trustworthy, concerned for others, mature and friendly.
What does this show?
This shows that the stereotype is just as strong in collectivist cultures as it is in individualist cultures
Discuss physical attractiveness as a factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks).
Physical attractiveness refers to how appealing we find someone and one explanation for this is an evolutionary theory by Shackleford and Larsen (1997), which is that we find symmetrical faces more attractive.
This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose, because these trigger a protective or caring instinct, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.
The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe this, how one distinguishing feature (in this case physical attractiveness) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
The matching hypothesis is the belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner, but instead are attracted to people who approximately ‘match’ us in physical (facial) attractiveness.
We assess our own attractiveness and choose someone with similar levels to avoid rejection.
Walster et al. called this ‘realistic choices,’ because individuals are influenced by the chances of having their feelings reciprocated back.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there are individual differences, as some people do not attach much importance to physical attractiveness.
For example, Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they would like a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information.
The participants also completed a questionnaire, the MACHO scale, designed to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours.
Towhey found that the participants who were the most sexist were more influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target when making their judgement of likeability, whereas those who were less sexist were less sensitive to this influence.
This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors and so challenges the matching hypothesis, which claims that physical attractiveness is always a significant consideration in relationship formation.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the halo effect.
For example, Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more physically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people.
This halo effect was so powerful that it persisted even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
For example, this has clear implications for the political process, because perhaps there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office, merely because there are considered physically attractive by enough voters.
The existence of the halo effect has been found to apply in many other areas of everyday life, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the initial formation of relationships, romantic or otherwise.
The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the matching hypothesis.
For example, Walster (1969) paired students up for an upcoming dance telling them they had been paired dependent on their ideal partner, when in truth it was assigned randomly.
Students met up before the dance and those who had been paired with partners of similar levels of attraction to themselves reported to like their partner more than those paired at dissimilar levels of physical attraction.
This supports the matching hypothesis and so suggests it is valid.
A weakness here however is the subjective nature of how attraction is rated in Walster’s study, as this is likely to be based on Western ideals of what someone attractive looks like.
Therefore, this study could be argued to be culturally biased and the results invalid, because of the subjective nature of deciding which two people are ‘similar in attraction’.
The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this,
there is research to suggest that what is considered physically attractive is consistent across other cultures.
For example, Cunningham et al. (1995) found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, a small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, hispanic and Asian males.
The physical attractiveness stereotype is also culturally pervasive, as Wheeler and Kim (1997) found that Korean and American students judged physically attractive people to be more trustworthy, concerned for others, mature and friendly.
This shows that the stereotype is just as strong in collectivist cultures as it is in individualist cultures, suggesting what?
This shows that the stereotype is just as strong in collectivist cultures as it is in individualist cultures, suggesting it is universal and a valid element of relationship formation
