factors affecting attractiveness: physical attractiveness Flashcards
Importance of Physical Attractiveness
Physical attractiveness plays a crucial role in forming relationships.
Evolutionary Explanation: It may be tied to sexual selection, where physical features like facial symmetry are signals of genetic fitness (difficult to fake).
Todd Shackelford and Randy Larsen (1997) found that symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive.
People are also drawn to neotenous (baby-face) features (e.g., widely spaced and large eyes, small noses, delicate chins). These features trigger a protective or caring instinct.
The Halo Effect
Physical attractiveness influences how we perceive someone’s personality traits, often leading to positive assumptions.
This belief is encapsulated in the physical attractiveness stereotype: “What is beautiful is good,” as proposed by Karen Dion et al. (1972).
Physically attractive people are rated as kind, strong, sociable, and successful compared to unattractive people.
This belief can create a self-fulfilling prophecy, as we behave more positively towards attractive individuals.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe how one distinct feature (physical attractiveness) disproportionately impacts our judgments of a person’s other qualities, such as personality.
The Matching Hypothesis (Concept)
Proposed by Walster and Walster (1969), the hypothesis suggests that people are likely to seek romantic partners similar to themselves in physical attractiveness and other traits (e.g., intelligence, personality).
Instead of pursuing the most attractive partner, people tend to match with someone whose level of attractiveness mirrors their own.
This theory helps to explain why people often end up in relationships where partners are equally physically appealing.
The Matching Hypothesis (Research: Computer Dance Study)
Procedure:
Male and female students were invited to a dance and rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers. Participants also completed a questionnaire on traits like self-esteem and personality. They were told their pairing was based on this data (though it was actually random).
Findings:
The hypothesis was not supported. The most liked partners were those who were the most physically attractive, regardless of the participant’s own attractiveness level.
Conclusion:
People prioritize physical attractiveness when selecting a partner, challenging the matching hypothesis.
Replication and Final Conclusions on the Matching Hypothesis
Ellen Berscheid et al. (1971) replicated the Computer Dance study but allowed participants to choose their partners from people of varying degrees of attractiveness.
Findings: Participants chose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness, supporting the matching hypothesis.
Final Conclusion:
People seek partners with similar attractiveness to their own to avoid rejection from highly attractive individuals.
Partner choice is often a compromise to align with who is “in our league” physically.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR THE HALO EFFECT
Carl Palmer and Rolfe Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically 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.
* Implication: Highlights potential dangers for democracy, as voters may judge politicians as suitable for office based on physical attractiveness rather than competence.
EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATIONS
Michael Cunningham et al. (1995) found that women with features such as large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small noses, and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic, and Asian men.
* Key Point: These features were remarkably consistent across different societies.
* Explanation: Attractive features (e.g., symmetry) are signs of genetic fitness and are therefore perpetuated similarly in all cultures through sexual selection.
* Conclusion: Physical attractiveness makes sense as a factor at the evolutionary level.
RESEARCH CHALLENGING THE MATCHING HYPOTHESIS
Lindsay Taylor et al. (2011) studied activity logs of a popular online dating site. This study was a real-world test of the matching hypothesis, measuring actual date choices rather than preferences.
* Findings: Online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than themselves.
* Conclusion: This undermines the validity of the matching hypothesis, as it contradicts the prediction that people pair with partners of similar attractiveness.
Counterpoint:
Alan Feingold (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners.
* Key Insight: Choosing online dating partners may be different from selecting a partner for a romantic relationship, as daters often approach more attractive individuals without guarantee of success.
* Conclusion: Laboratory research supports the matching hypothesis for real-world romantic relationships.
