Factors affecting attraction-physical attraction Flashcards
(6 cards)
explaining the importance of physical attractiveness
Psychologists have wondered why physical attractiveness seems to be quite so important in forming relationships. One promising explanation draws upon evolutionary theory related to sexual selection (see page 118). Todd Shackelford and Randy Larsen (1997) found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive. This is because it may be an honest signal of genetic fitness (it’s difficult to fake facial symmetry).
People are also attracted to faces with neotenous (baby-face) features such as widely separated and large eyes, a delicate chin and a small nose - because these trigger a protective or caring instinct.
halo effect
Physical attractiveness may also matter because we have preconceived ideas about the personality traits attractive people must have, and they are almost universally positive. This is the physical attractiveness stereotype, a widely-accepted view of attractive people neatly summed up in a phrase coined by Karen Dion and her colleagues 1972): What is beautiful is good. For example, Dion et al. found that physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared to unattractive people. The belief that good-looking people probably have these characteristics makes them even more attractive to us, so we behave positively towards them - a good example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Psychologists use the term halo effect to describe how one distinguishing feature (physical attractiveness, in this case) tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person’s other attributes, for example, their personality.
research on matching hypothesis
The matching hypothesis (Walster and Walster 1969) suggests that we look for partners who are similar to ourselves in terms of physical attractiveness (and also similar in terms of personality, intelligence etc) instead of choosing the most appealing people. Elaine Walster et al. (1966) designed a study to test this called The computer dance.
Procedure Male and female students were invited to a dance. They were rated for physical attractiveness by objective observers at the start and also completed a questionnaire about themselves. They were told the data about themselves (personality, self-esteem etc) and that this information would be used by a computer to decide their partner for the evening (in fact they were paired up randomly).
Findings The hypothesis was not supported. The most liked partners were also the most physically attractive rather than taking their own level of attractiveness into account.
However, Ellen Berscheid et al. (1971) replicated the study but this time each participant was able to select their partner from people of varying degrees of attractiveness. This time participants tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness.
Conclusions We tend to seek and choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own. For example, if we judge ourselves as a ‘6 out of 10’ then we are likely to seek a mate of a similar level of attractiveness. Therefore choice of partner is a compromise - we risk rejection in selecting the most attractive people available so we settle on those who are in our league’ physically.
Strength-research support for the halo effect
One strength is evidence that physical attractiveness is associated with a 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.
This finding has implications for the political process - it suggests there are dangers for democracy if politicians are judged as suitable for office just because they are considered physically attractive by enough voters.
strength-evolutionary explanation
Another strength is that the role of physical attractiveness is research support for evolutionary processes.
Michael Cunningham et al. (1995) found that 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. The researchers concluded that what is considered physically attractive is remarkably consistent across different societies. Attractive features (symmetry) are a sign of genetic fitness and therefore perpetuated similarly in all cultures (sexual selection).
Therefore the importance of physical attractiveness makes sense at an evolutionary level.
limitation-research challenging the matching hypothesis
One limitation is the matching hypothesis is not supported by real-world research into dating.
Lindsay Taylor et al. (2011) studied the activity logs of a popular online dating site. This was a real-world test of the matching hypothesis because it measured actual date choices and not merely preferences. This is in keeping with the original hypothesis which concerned realistic as opposed Appl Meti
A psych recruit partici had a
One o the ot partic on a
Table the a
to fantasy choices. The researchers found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them.
This undermines the validity of the matching hypothesis because it
contradicts the central prediction about matching attractiveness.
Counterpoint However, choosing individuals for dating could be considered a different situation from selecting a partner for a romantic relationship. In fact, Alan Feingold (1988) carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies and found a significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners. Also, just because online daters seek more attractive potential partners does not mean that they get them! So dating selection may be just as ‘fantasy’ as it is in laboratory research.
Therefore there is support for the matching hypothesis from studies of real-world established romantic partners.
