factors affecting attraction: physical attractiveness Flashcards
why is physical attractiveness important? (shackelford and larsen 1997)
- people with symmetrical faces were rated as more attractive
- may be an honest signal of genetic fitness
why are people attracted to faces with neotenous features?
- eg. widely separated and large eyes, delicate chin, small nose
- trigger a protective or caring instinct
what is the physical attractiveness stereotype?
preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive people must have, which are almost universally positive
halo effect: dion et al. (1972)
physically attractive people are consistently rates as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people
how is the halo effect an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
if we believe that good-looking people have good characteristics, they seem more attractive to us so we behave positively towards them so they behave positively towards us
what is the halo effect?
how one distinguishing feature (physical attractiveness) can have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes (personality)
what is the matching hypothesis? (walster and walster 1969)
suggests that we look for partners who are similar to ourselves in terms of physical attractiveness, personality, and intelligence, instead of choosing the most appealing people
computer dance study: procedure (walster et al. 1996)
- male and female students were invited to a dance
- rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers at the start
- completed a questionnaire about themselves
- told that the data about themselves (personality, self-esteem etc.) and their physical attractiveness would be used by a computer to decide their partner for the evening
- pairings were random
computer dance study: findings (walster et al. 1966)
- matching hypothesis not supported
- most liked partners were also most physically attractive without taking their own level of attractiveness into account
matching hypothesis: berscheid et al. (1971)
- replicated computer dance study but each p was able to select their partner from people of varying degrees of attractiveness
- ps tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness
conclusions based on research on the matching hypothesis
- we tend to seek and choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own
- choice of partner is a compromise to not risk rejection by selecting the most attractive people
evaluation: research support for halo effect (palmer and peterson 2012)
- physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people, even when ps knew that the ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise
- implications for political process - politicians may be judged as suitable for office if they are considered physically attractive enough by voters
evaluation: research support for evolutionary processes (cunningham et al. 1995)
- women who had features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, hispanic, and asian men
- what is considered physically attraction is consistent across different societies
- attractive features (symmetry) are a sign of genetic fitness and therefore perpetuated similarly in all cultures (sexual selection)
evaluation: matching hypothesis not supported by real-world research into dating (taylor et al. 2011)
- studied activity logs of a popular online dating site
- measured actual date choices, not just preferences
- online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them
- undermines validity of matching hypothesis as it contradicts central prediction about matching attractiveness
evaluation: limitations of taylor et al.’s research
- choosing individuals for dating could be considered different to selecting a partner for a romantic relationship
- online daters seeking more attractive potential partners doesn’t mean they actually get them
- dating selection may be fantasy, just as it is in lab research
evaluation: support for matching hypothesis (feingold 1988)
- meta-analysis of 17 studies
- found a significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners
evaluation: some people don’t find attractiveness important (touhey 1979)
- measured sexist attitudes of men and women using MACHO scale
- low scorers were relatively unaffected by physical attractiveness when judging the likeability of potential partners
