Factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness

Elaine Walster et al, 1966 - 'The computer dance' - Conclusions

We tend to seek and choose partners whose attractiveness matches our own. - 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.

Walster et al, 1966

1. The more socially desirable a person is (e.g. in terms of physical attractiveness, social standing, intelligence) the more desirable they would expect a dating or marriage partner to be.2. An individual would most often choose to date a partner of approximately their own attractiveness + - They argue that individuals looking for a partner will be influenced by the notion of realistic choices. - The desirability of the potential match (what they want). - The probability of the person saying 'yes' (what they think they can get).

Research support for matching hypothesis: The Computer Dance Study

752 students bought welcome week tickets for a computer dance. - When they bought the ticket they were told that information they gave about themselves would be fed into a computer and this would provide an 'ideal match' date. → In fact they were randomly assigned any partner. - When students were giving their data (when they booked their ticket) an unseen observer marked them on attractiveness. - After spending 2 hours with their dates, students were asked how much they liked their partner. - The computer dance experiment did not find support for the matching hypothesis. - Physical attractiveness proved to be the most important factor in liking, rather than similarity. - It was also the best predictor of the likelihood that they would see each other again.

Explaining the importance of physical attractiveness

One explanation of why physical attractiveness seems to be important in forming relationships draws upon the evolutionary theory related to sexual selection. - 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 (difficult to fake 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, a valuable resource for females wanting to reproduce.

The 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'. - 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 - 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 support for matching hypothesis: Contradictory Research

Taylor, 2011, studied online dating site date choices. - Online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were physically more attractive than them.

Matching hypothesis definition

The belief that we do not select the most attractive person as a prospective partner but, instead, are attracted to a person who approximately 'matches' us in physical (i.e. facial) attractiveness. This implies that we take into account our own attractiveness 'value' to others when seeking a romantic partner.

Physical attractiveness definition

An important factor in the formation of romantic relationships. The term usually applies specifically to how appealing we find a person's face. There is general agreement within and across cultures about what is considered physically attractive, and an assumption that we seek to form relationships with the most attractive person available.

Factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness - Evaluation: Evolutionary explanation

Another strength is that the role of physical attractiveness is research support for evolutionary processes. Michae; Cunningham et al, 1995, found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian males. 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.

Factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness - Evaluation: Research challenging the matching hypothesis (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 lab research. Therefore there is support for the matching hypothesis from studies of real-world established romantic partners.

Matching hypothesis

Hypothesis 1: Attractive people expect an attractive partner. - Hypothesis 2: Couples who are equally matched are happier. - Murstein, 1972, asked dating couples to rate themselves in terms of physical attractiveness, and asked independent judges to rate them. He found that real pairs were more similar in terms of physical attraction than random pairs.

Elaine Walster et al, 1966 - 'The computer dance' - Findings

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 ppts tended to choose partners who matched them in physical attractiveness.

Elaine Walster et al, 1966 - '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).

Factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness - Evaluation: Individual differences

Most of the evidence highlights the important role of physical attractiveness in the initial formation of romantic relationships (such as sexual selection). But there is also evidence that some people do not attach much importance to attractiveness. John Touhey, 1979, measured sexist attitudes of men and women (using the MACHO scale) and found that low scorers were relatively unaffected by physical attractiveness when judging the likeability of potential partners.

Factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness - Evaluation: 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 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.

Factors affecting attraction: Physical attractiveness - Evaluation: 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 ppts 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.

Research on the 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'.