Factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness
- Created by: livnightingale
- Created on: 21-03-19 20:14
View mindmap
- Factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness
- Symmetry
- Shackelford & Larsen (1997) found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive
- It is thought that this is a signal of genetic fitness that cannot be faked (which makes it an 'honest' signal)
- The associated 'robust' genes are likely to be passed on and therefore symmetry is perpetuated
- Explanations based on physical attractivenesare evolutionary ones - we have evolved a liking for attributes that signal high quality.
- Baby face features seen as attractive
- Neotenous (baby face) features are thought to trigger protective and caring instincts, related to the formulation of attachment in infancy
- This is also an evolutionary explanation because features that strengthen attachment are adaptive
- Beyond the formation stage
- Attractivenes is important after the formation stage of a relationship
- For example, McNulty et al. (2008) found that initial attractivenes continued to be an important feature of the relationship after marriage
- Halo effect describes how physical attractivenes is generalised
- We hold preconceived ideas about the attributes of attractive people. We believe that all their other attributes are overwhelm-ingly positive
- For example, Dion et al. (1972) found that physically attractive people are constituently rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful compared with unattractive people.
- Palmer and Peterson (2010) found that physically attractive people were rated more politically knowledgeable and competent than attractive people
- This has implications and suggests politicians might be elected merely because they are considered physically attractive by enough voters
- This shows that the halo effect can be observed in real-life situations
- This has implications and suggests politicians might be elected merely because they are considered physically attractive by enough voters
- Matching hypothesis (Walster et al. 1966)
- We choose a partner whose attractivenes matches ours
- The hypothesis states that we choose partners that are of the same level of attractivenessto ourselves
- To do this we need to assess our own value to a potential partner
- For example, if we judge ourselves as 6/10 then we are likely to seek a mate of a similar level of attractiveness
- Choosing a partner is a compromise
- Choosing a partner is a compromise
- Evolutionary theories suggest we should seek the most attractive males
- However, we have to also balance the potential for being rejected because the partner we aim for is 'out of our league' in terms of attractiveness.
- So we compromise by 'matching' attractiveness
- Falster et al (1966) initial study failed to support the theory as they found students preferred partners who were more physically attractive than matching their level
- However, Ferngold's (1988) meta-analysis of studies of 'actual' partners found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between them
- These findings from more realistic studies support the hypothesis even though the original studies did not
- However, Ferngold's (1988) meta-analysis of studies of 'actual' partners found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between them
- We choose a partner whose attractivenes matches ours
- Taylor et al. (2011) found online daters sought dates with partners who were more attractive than themselves and did not consider their own level of attractiveness
- The research involved actual dating choices (meeting people online is becoming increasinglypopular) yet it does not support the matching hypothesis
- It may therefore be that the matching hypothesis no longer explains preferences regarding physical attractiveness in a useful way
- The research involved actual dating choices (meeting people online is becoming increasinglypopular) yet it does not support the matching hypothesis
- Symmetry
Comments
No comments have yet been made