Factors affecting attraction: Physical Attractiveness Flashcards
Physical Attractiveness
Physical attractiveness is one of the primary contributors in influencing romantic relationships, particularly initial attraction and partner selection. Conventionally, physical attractiveness has been made to appear only superficial, denoted by the term ‘don’t judge a book by its cover’, however psychological and evolutionary theories accentuate the importance of physical attractiveness not only in romantic relationships but also in friendships. It is the foremost aspect of a person we notice upon meeting them. Additionally, physical attractiveness is often the determining factor in whether two individuals will form a romantic relationship, however research suggests physical attractiveness continues to be an important feature of a romantic relationship after marriage for at least several years, conveying its ongoing significance in maintaining emotional and physical connection.
In addition/alternative to the evolutionary theory, physical attractiveness is important for several reasons:
- We get direct pleasure from the appearance of attractive people.
- We gain prestige by being seen with attractive people.
- We have positive stereotypes of physically attractive people - the halo effect.
The Halo Effect
- The Halo Effect is a cognitive bias where the perception of a positive trait, in this case physical attractiveness, influences how other unrelated traits are perceived.
- This psychological phenomenon suggests that a person may have positive and desirable personality traits due to the fact that they have a pleasing outward appearance.
- The belief that physically attractive people probably have these admirable qualities makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them - this is also an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Matching Hypothesis
- Proposed by Walster et al. The Matching Hypothesis suggests that people are more likely to form romantic relationships with individuals who are similar to themselves in physical attractiveness rather than seeking out the most attractive partner.
- This reduces the risk of rejection and ensures relationship stability by balancing desirability and attainability.
- This theory establishes that if a person always pursued someone ‘out of their league’ in terms of physical attractiveness, they may never find a person, which would compromise their evolutionary success.
Strength
Point: There is research evidence supporting the concept of the Halo Effect, demonstrating that physical attractiveness influences perceptions of other extraneous traits.
Evidence: Palmer and Peterson conducted a study in which participants were asked to assess the political competence and knowledge of individuals they considered attractive and unattractive. The results displayed a clear bias, with attractive people consistently rated as possessing higher levels of political competence and knowledge compared to their unattractive counterparts.
Justification: These findings strengthen the validity of the Halo Effect, as it suggests that physical appearance plays a significant role in moulding our judgements about an individual’s intrinsic abilities, even in areas where physical attractiveness would usually be inapplicable. This supports the idea that our perceptions are unconsciously influenced by superficial features, rather than objective qualities.
Implication: Furthermore, such findings have wider real-world consequences, particularly in politics, where voters may favour attractive candidates under the flawed assumption that they are more competent. This raises concerns about the potential for bias in democratic elections, as decisions may be driven by appearance rather than merit, ultimately affecting political outcomes and henceforth people’s lives.
Weakness
Point: As for the Matching Hypothesis, there is contradictory evidence, suggesting that individuals do not necessarily seek romantic partners of similar physical attractiveness.
Evidence: Walster et al. conducted a study in which 752 first-year students at the University of Minnesota were invited to a dance party. Before the event, they completed a questionnaire assessing intelligence, personality, and other attributes, under the belief that this information would be used to assign them an ideal partner. However, unbeknownst to them, partners were randomly allocated. Additionally, an independent panel secretly rated participants’ physical attractiveness. During the dance and again 6 months later, participants were asked whether they found their partner attractive and whether they wished to meet them again. Contrary to the Matching Hypothesis, findings showed that participants were more attracted to physically attractive partners, regardless of their own level of attractiveness.
Justification: These results challenge the credibility of the Matching Hypothesis, as they indicate that physical attractiveness is the primary factor in romantic preferences, rather than similarity in attractiveness. This suggests that individuals are more drawn to highly attractive partners rather than selecting those who match their own attractiveness level, contradicting the idea that people prioritise attainability when choosing a mate.
Implication: If physical attractiveness is the overarching factor in partner selection, this could mean that relationship formation is more superficial than previously thought, which contradicts what the Matching Hypothesis proposes. Additionally, it suggests that modern dating trends, such as online dating apps, may reinforce this preference for physical appearance over deeper compatibility, influencing how relationships develop in contemporary society.
Counterargument: However, Walster et al. study lacks mundane realism, meaning it may not accurately reflect how romantic relationships develop in real-life settings.
Evidence: The Matching Hypothesis argues that individuals select partners who are a ‘good match’ due to fear of rejection from someone beyond their perceived level of attractiveness or social desirability. However, in this study, participants were randomly assigned a partner before any rejection could occur, eliminating a crucial aspect of real-world relationship formation. Since participants did not have the option to consider rejection, they may have focused solely on attractiveness, rather than making realistic partner choices based on attainability.
Justification: This reduces the ecological validity of the study, as it fails to acknowledge that in real-life romantic interactions, the fear of rejection plays a significant role in partner selection. In natural settings, individuals may adjust their preferences based on perceived attainability, supporting the Matching Hypothesis.
Implication: As a result, whilst Walster et al.’s findings challenge the theory, they do not necessarily disprove it, as the study eliminates realistic social consequences that influence relationship formation. Since real-life romantic choices involve the possibility of rejection, the Matching Hypothesis may still hold practical relevance. This could explain why people tend to date those of similar attractiveness in long-term relationships, as choosing an unrealistic partner may increase the likelihood of relationship instability and dissatisfaction.
Counterargument: Although Walster et al.’s study has been criticised for lacking mundane realism - as participants were randomly paired and did not experience the possibility of rejection - real-world evidence suggests that people do, in fact, pursue partners who are more attractive than themselves, despite the risk of rejection.
Evidence: A study conducted by Taylor et al. analysed the activity logs of a popular online dating website and found that users were more likely to pursue potential partners who were more physically attractive than themselves, rather than seeking out individuals of a similar level of attractiveness. This directly contradicts the Matching Hypothesis, which assumes that people select partners who are a ‘good match’ due to a fear of rejection.
Justification: This illustrates that the prospect of getting rejected may not be as significant a factor in partner selection as initially thought. If individuals consistently aim higher in terms of physical attractiveness, even when rejection is a real possibility, then the Matching Hypothesis may be limited in its explanation.
Implication: These findings imply that human mate selection may be more ambitious and strategic than this theory claims. Rather than simply ‘matching’ based on attractiveness to minimise rejection, this theory fails to weigh the other factors involved, e.g., personality or status, to enhance overall desirability, henceforth suppressing its usefulness.
Weakness
Point: Furthermore, the Matching Hypothesis has been criticised for failing to consider compensatory factors, which can influence relationship formation beyond physical attractiveness.
Evidence: While physical attractiveness is easily assessed at first glance, other essential qualities, such as personality, intelligence, and shared values take longer to discern. Walster et al’s study restricted participants’ ability to evaluate these deeper qualities as partner’s were randomly assigned before any interaction, preventing natural selection based on compatibility and the dance itself was noisy and crowded, limiting meaningful conversations. In the absence of additional information, it is unsurprising that participants relied predominantly on physical appearance when forming their judgements.
Justification: This suggests that the Matching Hypothesis is reductionist, as it oversimplifies relationship formation by focusing solely on physical attractiveness, ignoring other crucial factors. This also reduces the explanatory power of the theory, as it fails to explain real-life relationships where one partner is significantly more attractive than the other. Alternative theories, such as evolutionary explanations for partner preferences, may provide a more comprehensive account of relationship formation. For example, younger, attractive women frequently pair with older, less conventionally attractive men, as they offer stability and financial security - factors that the Matching Hypothesis does not consider.
Implication: Since real-world relationships often involve a complex interplay of attractiveness, personality and resources, the Matching Hypothesis cannot fully explain romantic attraction. This has wider implications for relationship psychology, as it highlights the need for multidimensional models that account for multiple factors in mate selection, beyond simply outward appearance. Understanding these dynamics could improve dating strategies and online matchmaking algorithms, which often rely too heavily on physical appearance.
Weakness
Point: The importance of physical attractiveness in relationship formation may vary depending on individual differences.
Evidence: Research by Towhey highlights these individual differences. In the study, participants were presented with photographs of strangers along with biological information and were asked to rate their level of liking for the individuals. Towhey found that physical attractiveness was a significantly more prioritised factor for participants who held sexist attitudes, as measured by a specifically designed questionnaire. Conversely, those who scored lower on sexist attitudes placed less emphasis on physical attractiveness when rating the individuals.
Justification: This finding suggests that physical attractiveness is not a universally determining factor in romantic attraction, as some individuals may prioritise other qualities such as personality, intelligence or shared values. The fact that sexist attitudes influenced participants’ judgements indicates that sociocultural factors and personal beliefs may moderate the impact of physical appearance, making theories that focus primarily on attractiveness overly simplistic.
Implication: The presence of these individual differences lowers the generalisability of theories that place excessive weight on physical appearance in relationship formation. This suggests that a more holistic approach to attraction is necessary - one that considers both social and psychological influences.
