physical attractiveness Flashcards
physical attractiveness
this plays a major role in the formation of romantic relationships. mcnulty et al (2008) says is also remains an important factor in relationships for years
what is the matching hypothesis?
-people will select a prospective partner who matches their own perceived level of physical attractiveness
-despite the desire to have the most attractive partner, people settle for someone less attractive to avoid rejection
-this helps couples fell more secure and have less jealousy
what is the halo effect?
the idea that physically attractive people have other positive characteristics, e.g. intelligence and sociability
palmer and peterson (2012) - the halo effect
asked participants to rate attractive and unattractive people based on how politically competent and knowledgeable they believed them to be. they found attractive people were rated higher on these characteristics.
dion et al (1972)
found attractive people were consistently rated as more successful, kind and sociable than those rated as unattractive. meaning we believe people who are physically attractive have other desirable characteristics too.
walster et al (1996) - aim
to examine the matching hypothesis
walster et al (1996) - method
held a ‘computer dance’ for freshers at uni of minnesota, the 376 men and 376 women were let in for $1. 4 judges rated them on their attractiveness. they had to do a questionnaire to find them a partner for the dance but these were randomly allocated 2 days before. during the dance and 4-6 months later they were asked if they found their partner attractive and if they’d go on a date with them.
walster et al (1996) - results and conclusion
people responded better to those who had been rated as attractive, irrespective of their own attractiveness. pattern echoed in willingness to ask out their partner on date. contradicts the matching hypothesis.
give a limitation of the matching hypothesis
other research aside from walster et al fail to support the matching hypothesis. taylor et al (2011) looked into dating site activity log and found users were more likely to try to meet with someone more attractive than them. this contradicts the matching hypothesis as people didn’t try seek dates with someone who is a similar level of attractiveness to them
give a limitation of the matching hypothesis
individual differences in the importance of physical attraction. towhey (1979) gave people photos of strangers and some info about them, asking them to rate the strangers on how much they liked them. they found physical attraction was more important for those with sexist attitudes. suggests physical appearance may or may not be a significant factor in attraction
give a limitation of the matching hypothesis
mainly applies to short term relationships. when choosing for long term relationships people focus more on values than appearance. questions the matching hypothesis’s validity as it only describes a few relationships. it also doesn’t explain how people can compensate for lack of attraction with other qualities, e.g. older less attractive men matching with younger more attractive women that the matching hypothesis doesn’t account for
evaluate the matching hypothesis
physical attraction is important cross culturally. cunningham et al (1995) found white, asian and hispanic men all rated women with prominent cheekbones, small notes and large eyes as highly attractive. this universality suggests using attraction for partner choice may be a genetically produced mechanism to aid sexual selection. supporting the nature side of nature nurture
evaluate the matching hypothesis
may suffer from a beta bias, by assuming men and women are similar in the importance of physical attraction. but research suggests this may not actually be the case. meltzer et al(2014) found men rate relationships better if their partner is attractive, while for women their partners attraction doesn’t impact their satisfaction. showing there’s significant gender differences in the importance of appearance of attraction
