Relationships Flashcards
Define physical attractiveness
How appealing we find somebody (usually the face).
Cunningham (1986) - physical attractiveness
Studied the type of faces men found attractive. Varied the size of facial features (eyes, mouth, nose).
Most men attracted to women with young children (neotenous).
Attracted to some mature features (prominent cheekbones, narrow cheeks, dilated pupils).
Waynforth (2005) - physical attractiveness
Women were more attracted to masculine facial features - square jaw, small eyes, symmetrical face. Especially in short term partners.
Bruce and Young (1998) - symmetry
Scientists believe symmetry is equated with strong immune system and healthy genes. They used computer generated models and found that women and men have preferences for symmetrical faces.
Singh (1993) - physical attractive body shapes
Cross cultural preferences for 0.7 WHR in women (hour glass figure).
V shape for men 0.85-0.9 WHR, (wide shoulders, narrow hips) - Gross, 2001.
Pawlowski (2008) - physically attractive body shapes.
Both sexes prefer 5% longer than average legs.
Evaluation strength - Langlois et al. (2000)
919 studies = found there was an agreement between cultures as to what was and wasn’t attractive.
Evaluation limitation - culture
Consensus that what is deemed attractive is the same from culture to culture. Peru = elongated necks, western culture = thinner.
What is deemed attractive is subjective.
Halo effect - Dion et al. (2012)
According to attractiveness stereotypes, we perceive attractive people as also having more attractive personalities.
Physically attractive people are strong, kind, sociable, successful etc. having these characteristics makes them more attractive - self fulfilling prophecy.
Halo effect - Clifford and Walster (1973)
Teachers judge attractive students as more intelligent than unattractive students.
Halo effect - Dion et al. (1974)
Adults and nurses punish unattractive children more harshly than attractive ones.
Halo effect - Hammermesh and Biddle (1994)
Attractive people make more money.
Halo effect - Hosoda et al. (2003)
Attractive people get better job ratings from bosses.
Computer Dance Study - Walster (1966) procedure
Looked into the importance of physical attractiveness was on a first date.
During freshers week at an American uni - 376 male and 376 female volunteers, payed $1 each.
4 judges secretly assessed student’s physical attractiveness and pp’s given a questionnaire to fill in.
Allocation done randomly but no man was assigned a taller woman.
Dance held two days later and pp’s filled in an end questionnaire about how much they enjoyed the date.
Computer Dance Study - Walster (1966) results
Physical attractiveness was the most significant factor in how much the date was enjoyed for both men and women.
Strengths of the Computer Dance Study
- pp’s didn’t know they were part of an experiment = genuine reactions, no bias or demand characteristics.
- Field study, based on ‘real’ events.
- Other research has similar findings:
Walster (1969) - student chose a date and all chose a date with someone of similar physical attractiveness to themselves.
Murstein (1972) - supports matching hypothesis with respect to longer term relationships (engaged couples rated as similar in physical attractiveness).
Weaknesses of the Computer Dance Study
- Artificial research - Students were new to the university and therefore not representative of students generally nor general population.
- Criticised about the concept/idea of attractiveness. Do the older researchers have different views on attractiveness to young students.
- Ethical issues - no informed consent, deception, failure to protect participants from harm.
Matching Hypothesis - Murstein (1972) Assumptions
Argues that individuals attraction towards each other in the formative stages of a relationship depends on the available cues that indicate social desirability.
Physical attractiveness a major factor in determining courtship desirability.
Matching Hypothesis - Murstein (1972) procedure
Used 99 couples in a relationship compare to randomly assigned couples.
Used photographs of couples recently engaged cut apart and got pp’s to rate individuals in terms of attractiveness.
The real couples were ranked more alike in terms of attractiveness.
Research support for the matching hypothesis
Palmer and Peterson (2012)
Physically attracted people were ranked more politically knowledgeable and competent.
Halo effect = results persisted even when people knew the attractive people didn’t have any expertise.
Implications -> dangerous for democracy if politicians judged as suitable for office based off attractiveness.
Research challenging the matching hypothesis
Taylor et al. (2011)
Activity logs of popular online dating site. Kept original hypothesis and found that people sought dates with people more attractive than them.
Undermines the validity of matching hypothesis - contradicts central prediction about matching attractiveness.
Counter point for research challenging the matching hypothesis
Feingold (1988)
Meat analysis of 17 studies.
Significant correlation in rankings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners.
Just because online daters seek more attractive potential partners doesn’t mean they get them. Dating selection may be just as ‘fantasy’ as in lab research.
Weakness of the matching hypothesis - Individual differences
Evidence that some people do not attach as much importance to attractiveness.
Touhey (1979) - measured sexist attitudes of men and women (MACHO scale) and found lower scores relatively unaffected by physical attractiveness when judging the likability of potential partners.
Filter theory definition
The number of available males and females we can potentially form relationships with are lessened by a number of factors.
Filter theory factors
- Proximity
- Physical attractiveness
- Similarity
- Complement of needs
- Competence
Filter theory levels
- Social demography
- Similarity in attitudes
- Complementarity
(1) Filter theory - Social demography
The first level.
Factors influence the chance of potential partners meeting (proximity, social class, level of education, ethnic group, religion).
More likely to form a relationship with someone socially or culturally similar (homogamy).
(2) Filter theory - Similarity in attitudes
Important in relationships less than 18 months. Early stages agree over basic values encouraging greater and deeper communication, promotes self-disclosure.
Byrne (1997) - law of attraction, if similarity doesn’t exist, the relationship will fizzle out.
(3) Filter theory - Complementarity
Ability to meet each others needs by having traits that others lack. More important in relationships longer than 18 months.
Later stages = opposites attract, together forming a whole.
Filter Theory study - Kerchkoff and Davis (1962)
94 student relationships both less than and greater than 18 months long.
Given self report questionnaires.
Less than 18 months long = similarity most important.
Greater than 18 months long = complementarity most important.
Weakness of the filter theory - homosexuality
Markey and Markey (2013)
Only examines heter
Lesbian couples of equal dominance were the most satisfied.
