Physical attractiveness

• Physical attractiveness is an important determinant of partner preference in all cultures- even if what is deemed attractive may vary, we all agree that attractiveness is necessary.
• • Buss' research on partner preferences in different cultures demonstrated that men in particular place great importance on physical attractiveness when choosing a mate; physical appearance is an important cue to a woman's health & hence her fertility & reproductive value.
• • Recent research (Eastwick et al 2011) suggests that physical attractiveness may be just as important to women as it is to men when choosing a romantic partner.
  • Women relied more on physical attractiveness for 'short-term relationships' (one night stands) & men were more likely than women to rely on physical attractiveness in long-term relationships.
• The 'Matching Hypothesis':

  • The Matching Hypothesis- Walster & Walster 1966- claims that when initiating romantic relationships, individuals seek out partners whose physical attractiveness approximately equals their own.
  • According to this view, when choosing a partner, individuals must first assess their own value in the eyes of a potential partner & then select the best available candidates who would most likely be attracted to them.
• The 'Matching Hypothesis':

  • By opting for a partner in 'our league', we maximise the chances of a successful outcome. Therefore, we would expect to find that people tend to pair up with those who are similar in terms of physical attractiveness.
  • Walster et al (1966) referred to this as our 'realistic choices', which is a combination of our ideal choice, the likelihood of our advances being rebuffed & whether there are other desirable alternatives.
• Walster et al 1966 study into physical attractiveness: 1

  • Aim of the study: to test the matching hypothesis.
  • Gathered a volunteer sample through advertising a 'computer dance' for new students at the Uni of Minnesota.
  • Large number of students purchased tickets- were randomly selected to take part in the study- 177 males & 170 females.
  • When students came to pick up their tickets, 4 student accomplices secretly rated each of them for physical attractiveness.
• Walster et al 1966 study into physical attractiveness: 2

  • PPs then asked to complete a questionnaire to assess personality, intelligence etc & were told that data gathered from these questionnaires would be used to allocate their ideal partner for the evening of the dance. Partners were actually paired randomly.
  • When dance ended, PPs asked to complete a questionnaire about their dates, with a follow-up questionnaire distributed 6 months after the dance.
• Walster et al 1966 study into physical attractiveness: findings:

  • Findings did not support the matching hypothesis- once PPs met their dates, they responded more positively to physically attractive dates & were more likely to subsequently try to arrange second dates with them if they were physically attractive.
  • Other factors such as personality & intelligence didn't affect liking the dates or any subsequent attempts to date them.
• Evaluation for physical attractiveness- strength:

  • The Feingold 1988 study indicates research support for the matching hypothesis. Feingold 1988 found supportive evidence for the matching hypothesis by carrying out a meta-analysis of 17 studies using real-life couples.
  • He established a strong correlation between the partners' ratings of attractiveness, just as predicted by the matching hypothesis- indicates that the link between physical attractiveness & attraction exists.
• Evaluation for physical attractiveness- weakness:

  • Research support often contradictory with some showing no correlation in couples attractiveness ratings. Sprecher & Hatfield (2009) give reasons why research often fails to find evidence of matching in terms of physical attractiveness.
  • Person may compensate for lack of physical attractiveness with other desirable characteristics like personality, kindness, status, money etc. This way, people able to attract partners far more p attractive than themselves by offering compensatory assets, indicates partner pref isn't just about p attractiveness
• Evaluation for physical attractiveness- strength:

  • If physical attractiveness in long-term partners is more important for males, then research should show that males with physically attractive partners are more satisfied with their relationship.
  • Metlzer et al (2014) provided support for the claim; they found that objective ratings of wives' attractiveness were positively related to level of husbands' satisfaction at the beginning of the marriage & remained that way over at least the first 4 years of marriage.
  • Supports that there are sex differences in the importance of physical attractivenes
• Evaluation for physical attractiveness- weakness:

  • The claim that men place a greater emphasis on physical attraction is not always evident in real partner choice.
  • In a study on speed-dating, Eastwick & Finkel (2008) found no gender difference related to perceived physical attractiveness & the romantic interest in individuals.
  • However, how much they thought the individual was attracted to them did influence romantic interest.
  • Indicates that it is probably overly simplistic to assume that partner preference is based on physical attractiveness.