A03 - Physical Attractiveness

• Evaluation of Physical Attractiveness affecting attraction?

  + Research in support for the halo effect

  + Research in support for matching hypothesis

  - Real world research against matching hypothesis

  - Individual Differences

  -Cultural Influences & support for evolutionary processes
• Research against Matching Hypothesis - PART 1


  P = Researcher contradicting the matching hypothesis from Taylor et al (2011).

  E = Taylor studied activity logs of popular dating sites measuring actual dating choices (not fantasy preferences) (like tinder). Was a real-life test of matching hypothesis coz it measured actual date choice & not just preference. 

  E = In this test of hypothesis = found online daters wanted to date potential partners who MORE physically attractive than them.
• Research against Matching Hypothesis - PART 2


  L = Suggests participants did not consider own level of attractiveness when making decisions about who to date. Contradicting central prediction that real couples seek to match attractiveness. Thus weakening Matching Hypothesis.
• Research Support - PART 1


  P = The original research study that attempted to confirm the matching hypothesis failed to do so (Walster et al, 1966).

  E = However, this might be because the measurement of attractiveness was not reliable as the raters who had to judge the attractiveness of the participants who only had a few seconds to do so.

  E = However, Feingold (1988) carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies & found significant correlation in ratings of physical attractiveness between romantic partners.
• Research Support - PART 2


  L = This shows there is support for the matching hypothesis from real-world studies. This supports the matching hypothesis and arguably has a more valid methodology as the researchers looked at actual partners, which is a more realistic and valid approach, increasing the validity of the matching hypothesis.
• Cultural Influences & support for the evolutionary process - PART 1

  P = Research shows that what is considered physically attractive is consistent across cultures.

  E = Cunningham et al (1995) found that female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose & high eyebrows were rated as attractive by white, hispanic & Asian Males. The physical attractiveness stereotype is also culturally persuasive.
• Cultural influences & support for the evolutionary process - PART 2

  E = Wheeler & Kim (1997) found Korean & American students judged physically attractive people as more trustworthy, concerned for others, mature & friendly.  

  L = Seems stereotype just as strong in collectivist cultures as in individualist ones. Whats considered attractive consistent across cultures (attractive features - symmetry, sign of genetic fitness & thus perpetrated - sexual selection) - thus importance of physical attractiveness makes sense in evolutionary terms . 2 studies support the halo effect & face symmetry.
• Research Support - HALO EFFECT - PART 1

  P = There is empirical support for the halo effect.

  E = Palmer & Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable & 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. Persists even when participants knew that these ‘knowledgeable’ people had no particular expertise.
• Research Support - HALO EFFECT - PART 2


  E = This has clear implications for democracy/political process. Perhaps there are dangers merely because they are considered physically attractive by enough voters. This suggests dangers for democracy if politicians are elected just because they are considered physically attractive by enough voters.

  L = Examples of the halo effect can be found in many areas of everyday life, confirming that physical attractiveness is an important factor in the formation of relationships, romantic & platonic. 
• Individual Differences - PART 1


  P = There are individual differences in the importance people place on physical attractiveness. There is a lot of evidence indicating the important role of physical attractiveness in relationship formation (e.g. sexual selection), however some people are not affected by attractiveness.

  E = For example, Towhey (1979) asked male & female participants how much they liked an individual based on a photograph and some biographical information. Participants also completed the MACHO scale (which measures sexist attitudes & behaviours).
• Individual Differences - PART 2


  E = Towhey found the participants who scored highly on scale were more influenced by physical attractiveness of target when making their judgement of likeability. Low scores =less sensitive to this influence. Touhey (1979) = people with non-sexist attitudes = uninfluenced by physical attraction when judging the likeability of potential partners.

  L = This shows that the effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors, which challenges the notion that it is a significant consideration in relationship formation for all potential partners.
• Evaluation of Physical Attractiveness affecting attraction?


  + Research in support for the halo effect

  + Research in support for matching hypothesis

  -Real world research against matching hypothesis

  -Individual Differences

  -Cultural Influences & support for evolutionary processes
• Help for A03 - physical attractiveness


  Clearly - cultural influences

  I - individual differences

  Really - research in support for HALO EFFECT

  Rate - research in support for MATCHING HYPOTHESIS

  Rhinos - research against MATCHING HYPOTHESIS
• Psychologists in A03 - Physical Attractiveness


  Taylor et al -  research against matching hypothesis

  Feingold - research support Matching hypothesis

  Cunningham et al & Wheeler & Kim - cultural influences

  Palmer & Peterson - research support halo effect

  Towhey - individual differences