Physical attractiveness

• Individuals are not always competent in judging their own level of physical attractiveness
• Generally people will agree on the physical attractiveness of another. Greater agreement occurs among men when it comes to the attractiveness of females. This may be because physical attractiveness of females is more important to males in partner selection.
• Buss 1989 found men place greater importance of physical attractiveness as it is an important cue to a woman's health, fertility and reproductive value. While women also rely on physical attractiveness in the short-term, research suggests physical attractiveness is less important when women describe a serious relationship.
• Shackelford and Larsen 1997 found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive
• People are also attracted to neotenous faces such as widely separated and large eyes, small chin and nose because they trigger a caring instinct.
• The Halo effect describes how physical attractiveness tends to have a disproportionate influence on our judgements of a person's other attributes. Individuals seen as physically attractive tend to create a favourable impression.
• Dion et al 1972 found physically attractive people are consistently rates as kind, strong, sociable and successful. The belief that attractive people have these characteristics makes them more attractive, so we behave positively towards them.
• Physically attractive people are more desired as dates or romantic partners than less physically attractive people.
• Walster et al 1996 matching hypothesis suggests individuals seek partners who are most like themselves in terms of physical attractiveness. This involves assessing their own level of attractiveness and then their potential partners for similar attractiveness. This happens as there is less chance of being rejected. Individuals will feel more secure in a relationship with someone of equal physical attractiveness.
• Matching hypothesis proposes people pair up with someone as socially desirable as themselves. Walster et al referred to these mating choices as realistic choices as each individual is influenced by the chances of having their affection reciprocated.
• Matching hypothesis theory suggests people have to settle for mating within their league, whether they want to or not.
• Sprecher and Hatfield 2009 explain why some relationships levels of attractiveness does not align. People come into relationships offering many desirable characteristics. For example, a person might make up for a lack of attractiveness with their charming personality and kindness. This is referred to as complex matching. This contradicts the matching hypothesis as it suggests people are able to attract more physically attractive partners by offering compensatory assets.
• Research support for the Halo effect. Gunnell and Ceci 2010 found that physically less attractive people are 22% more likely to be convicted in court. The halo effect suggests physically attractive people create a more favourable impression than less physically attractive people. This is positive as it proves attractive people are generally seen as more trustworthy than less physically attractive people.
• Matching hypothesis is not supported by real-world research into dating. Taylor 2011 studied the activity logs of an online dating site and found that online daters sought meetings with potential partners who were more physically attractive than them and there was no evidence decisions were driven by similarity between their own and potential partners physical attractiveness. This is problematic as it undermines the validity of matching hypotheses as it contradicts the theory about matching levels of attractiveness.
• Research support. Cunningham et al 1995 found female features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose and high eyebrows were rated as highly attractive by white, Hispanic and Asian males. It was concluded what is physically attractive is consistent across different societies. This is positive as the importance of physical attractiveness makes sense at an evolutionary level.