Physical Attractiveness and The Matching Hypothesis

Question 1

Initial attraction:

Answer 1

• Not all about personality in romantic relationships. Physical attractiveness important factor in deciding who to choose as romantic partner. Features we notice as soon as we meet them, before any meaningful interaction.
• Basis of online dating agencies – first encounter you have with potential date is image of their face.
• More so for males than females, reflects male strategy of intra-sexual selection.

Question 2

Common factors of physical attractiveness including:

Answer 2

• Signs of genetic fitness (muscular)
• Facial symmetry
• Signs of health (lustrous hair)
• Indicators of youth (slimness, baby face)
• Signs of maturity

Question 3

Shackleford and Larson (1997): Facial symmetry:

Answer 3

• Found people with symmetrical faces rated as more attractive. Signal of genetic fitness that can’t be faked.
• Associated genes likely to be passed on, means symmetry is perpetuated. Explanations on physical attractiveness evolutionary – we have evolved liking for attributes that signal high quality.

Question 4

Neotenous features:

Answer 4

• People attracted to ‘baby’ facial features: widely separated and large eyes, delicate chin, small nose, big lips, rounder face shape.
• Features trigger caring and protective instinct, valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.
• Number of studies support neotenous facial proportions contributing to female attractiveness.

Question 5

Dion et al (1972): the halo-effect:

Answer 5

• Have preconceived ideas about personality traits attractive people must have – universally positive.
• Found physically attractive people are rated as strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people.

Question 6

Walster et al (1966): Matching hypothesis:

Answer 6

• People choose romantic partners who are of similar physical attractiveness to each other. To do this, we have to make realistic judgement about our own ‘value’ to a partner.
• Means there’s difference between what we would like in ideal partner and what we are prepared to settle for.

Question 7

Strength: cultural consistency in what is considered attractive.

Answer 7

P: Cultural consistency in what is considered attractive.
E: Cunningham et al (1995) found female features of neotenous features were rated highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian males. People judged physically attractive people to be more trustworthy, mature and friendly.
C: Consistency suggests physical attractiveness isn’t culturally independent and may have evolutionary roots.

Question 8

Limitation: online dating research not supporting matching hypothesis assumptions.

Answer 8

P: Online dating research not supporting matching hypothesis assumptions.
E: Tayler et al (2011) found online dates sought dates with partners who were more attractive than themselves and didn’t consider their own attractiveness level. Research involved actual dating choices.
C: Suggests the matching hypothesis doesn’t consider different social influences.

Question 9

Limitation: not everyone considers physical attractiveness important.

Answer 9

P: Not everyone considers physical attractiveness important.
E: Those who scored highly on MACHO scale (sexist attitudes) were more influence by physical attractiveness when judging likeability from photograph and basic biographical data. Low scorers less sensitive to this, therefore, would be there are individual differences.
C: Shows effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors.