Factors affecting attraction
Self-Disclosure, Physical Attractiveness, Filter Model
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
Facial Shackeford and Larsen (1997) found that people with symmetrical faces
Symmetry are rated as more attractive as it is thought that this signals genetic fitness
that cannot be faked. We have evolved a liking for attributes that signal high
quality.
Neotenous As well as this, neotenous features are thought to trigger protective and
features caring instincts, related to the formation of attachment in infancy. This is
also an evolutionary explanation as features that strengthen attachment
are adaptive.
Halo effect Attractiveness is important as it comes with preconceived ideas about the
attributes of attractive people and believe that their other attributes are
positive. This is known as the halo effect and describes how physical
attractiveness is generalised.
Matching According to Walster et al’s (1966) matching hypothesis we choose
Hypothesis partners that are of a similar level of attractiveness to ourselves.
Evolutionary theories suggest we should seek the most attractive potential
Walser et al partner, but this comes with a risk. We have to balance the potential for
&
Berscheid et al rejection if we choose someone out of our league. So we compromised by
‘matching’ attractiveness.
Despite Walster et al’s original research on randomly paired couples,
Berscheid et al’s replication on couples who self-selected their partners
were more likely to choose someone with similar physical attractiveness.
This suggests that we tend to seek and choose partners whose physical
attractiveness matches our own. Partner choice is a compromise - we
avoid rejection by the most physically attractive and settle for those in our
‘league’.
AO3 EVALUATION
RESEARCH SUPPORT HALO EFFECT -> PALMER & PETERSON -> PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE
RATED KNOWLEDGEABLE AND COMPETENT -> SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS -> SUGGESTS
POLITICIANS MAY BE ELECTED BECAUSE ATTRACTIVE -> SHOWS HALO EFFECT IN REAL
LIFE
One strength of physical attraction as a factor in formation of RS is that there is research
support for the halo effect. Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people
were rated more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. This has
social implications and suggests politicians might be elected merely because they are
considered physically attractive enough by voters. This is therefore a strength as it shows that
the halo effect can be observed in real-life situations.
, CULTURAL CONSISTENCY -> CUNNINGHAM ET AL -> LARGE EYES, SMALL NOSES,
CHEEKBONES IN FEMALES -> RATED ATTRACTIVE BY WHITE ASIAN HISPANIC MALES ->
WHEELER AND KIM -> KOREAN & US STUDENTS -> JUDGED PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE
PEOPLE TO BE MORE TRUSTWORTHY, MATURE, FRIENDLY -> SUGGESTS ATTRACTIVENESS
IS CULTURALLY INDEPENDENT -> EVOLUTIONARY ROOTS?
A further strength is that there is cultural consistency in what is considered attractive.
Cunningham et al (1995) found large eyes, small noses and prominent cheekbones in females
were rated as highly attractive by White, Asian and Hispanic males. Wheeler and Kim (1997)
found that Korean and US students judged physically attractive people to be more
trustworthy, mature, concerned for other people and friendly. This consistency suggests
physical attractiveness is culturally independent and may have evolutionary roots.
IGNORES INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES -> TOWLEY -> PEOPLE WITH LOW SEXIST ATTITUDES
WERE LESS INFLUENCED BY ATTRACTIVENESS -> EFFECTS OF PA CAN BE MODERATED BY
OTHER FACTORS > ONE'S OWN ATTITUDES -> EXPL DOESN'T CONSIDER INDIVIDUAL DIFS
A limitation however is that this explanation ignores individual differences, as not everyone
considers physical attractiveness important. Towley (1979) found that people with low sexist
attitudes were less influenced by attractiveness when judging likeability. This suggests that the
effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors, such as one's own
attitudes, and may not be as significant a consideration in relationship formation for all
partners, and thus shows that this explanation does not take into account individual
differences.
ONLINE DATING -> DOESN'T SUPPORT ASSUMPTIONS -> TAYLOR ET AL -> ONLINE DATERS
SOUGHT DATES WITH MORE ATTRACTIVE PARTNERS -> ACTUAL DATING CHOICES ->
DOESN'T SUPPORT MATCHING HYPOTHESIS -> MH NO LONGER EXPLAINS PREFERENCES
A further limitation is that online dating research has not supported its assumptions. 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. This research involved
actual dating choices 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.
SELF DISCLOSURE
Self Self disclosure is the process of communication where people reveal
Disclosure information about themselves to one another. It is important early in a
relationship as it reveals our likes, dislikes, hopes, fears and attitudes.
Social Social Penetration Theory suggests that there is a gradual process of
Penetration revealing your inner self to someone and self disclosure is limited at the
Theory beginning. Revealing personal information is a sign of trust.
As partners increasingly disclose more information they ‘penetrate’ more
Altman deeply into each other’s lives. Both breadth and depth of self-disclosure
&
are key according to social penetration theory. Breadth is narrow at the
Taylor
start of a relationship because if too much information is revealed this
may be off-putting and one partner may decide to quit the relationship. As
the relationship develops, more layers are gradually revealed, and depth
increases and we reveal more intimate information.
Self-disclosure only effective if appropriate to the stage in relationship – too much too
soon has the opposite effect
Self-Disclosure, Physical Attractiveness, Filter Model
PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
Facial Shackeford and Larsen (1997) found that people with symmetrical faces
Symmetry are rated as more attractive as it is thought that this signals genetic fitness
that cannot be faked. We have evolved a liking for attributes that signal high
quality.
Neotenous As well as this, neotenous features are thought to trigger protective and
features caring instincts, related to the formation of attachment in infancy. This is
also an evolutionary explanation as features that strengthen attachment
are adaptive.
Halo effect Attractiveness is important as it comes with preconceived ideas about the
attributes of attractive people and believe that their other attributes are
positive. This is known as the halo effect and describes how physical
attractiveness is generalised.
Matching According to Walster et al’s (1966) matching hypothesis we choose
Hypothesis partners that are of a similar level of attractiveness to ourselves.
Evolutionary theories suggest we should seek the most attractive potential
Walser et al partner, but this comes with a risk. We have to balance the potential for
&
Berscheid et al rejection if we choose someone out of our league. So we compromised by
‘matching’ attractiveness.
Despite Walster et al’s original research on randomly paired couples,
Berscheid et al’s replication on couples who self-selected their partners
were more likely to choose someone with similar physical attractiveness.
This suggests that we tend to seek and choose partners whose physical
attractiveness matches our own. Partner choice is a compromise - we
avoid rejection by the most physically attractive and settle for those in our
‘league’.
AO3 EVALUATION
RESEARCH SUPPORT HALO EFFECT -> PALMER & PETERSON -> PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE
RATED KNOWLEDGEABLE AND COMPETENT -> SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS -> SUGGESTS
POLITICIANS MAY BE ELECTED BECAUSE ATTRACTIVE -> SHOWS HALO EFFECT IN REAL
LIFE
One strength of physical attraction as a factor in formation of RS is that there is research
support for the halo effect. Palmer and Peterson (2012) found that physically attractive people
were rated more politically knowledgeable and competent than unattractive people. This has
social implications and suggests politicians might be elected merely because they are
considered physically attractive enough by voters. This is therefore a strength as it shows that
the halo effect can be observed in real-life situations.
, CULTURAL CONSISTENCY -> CUNNINGHAM ET AL -> LARGE EYES, SMALL NOSES,
CHEEKBONES IN FEMALES -> RATED ATTRACTIVE BY WHITE ASIAN HISPANIC MALES ->
WHEELER AND KIM -> KOREAN & US STUDENTS -> JUDGED PHYSICALLY ATTRACTIVE
PEOPLE TO BE MORE TRUSTWORTHY, MATURE, FRIENDLY -> SUGGESTS ATTRACTIVENESS
IS CULTURALLY INDEPENDENT -> EVOLUTIONARY ROOTS?
A further strength is that there is cultural consistency in what is considered attractive.
Cunningham et al (1995) found large eyes, small noses and prominent cheekbones in females
were rated as highly attractive by White, Asian and Hispanic males. Wheeler and Kim (1997)
found that Korean and US students judged physically attractive people to be more
trustworthy, mature, concerned for other people and friendly. This consistency suggests
physical attractiveness is culturally independent and may have evolutionary roots.
IGNORES INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES -> TOWLEY -> PEOPLE WITH LOW SEXIST ATTITUDES
WERE LESS INFLUENCED BY ATTRACTIVENESS -> EFFECTS OF PA CAN BE MODERATED BY
OTHER FACTORS > ONE'S OWN ATTITUDES -> EXPL DOESN'T CONSIDER INDIVIDUAL DIFS
A limitation however is that this explanation ignores individual differences, as not everyone
considers physical attractiveness important. Towley (1979) found that people with low sexist
attitudes were less influenced by attractiveness when judging likeability. This suggests that the
effects of physical attractiveness can be moderated by other factors, such as one's own
attitudes, and may not be as significant a consideration in relationship formation for all
partners, and thus shows that this explanation does not take into account individual
differences.
ONLINE DATING -> DOESN'T SUPPORT ASSUMPTIONS -> TAYLOR ET AL -> ONLINE DATERS
SOUGHT DATES WITH MORE ATTRACTIVE PARTNERS -> ACTUAL DATING CHOICES ->
DOESN'T SUPPORT MATCHING HYPOTHESIS -> MH NO LONGER EXPLAINS PREFERENCES
A further limitation is that online dating research has not supported its assumptions. 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. This research involved
actual dating choices 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.
SELF DISCLOSURE
Self Self disclosure is the process of communication where people reveal
Disclosure information about themselves to one another. It is important early in a
relationship as it reveals our likes, dislikes, hopes, fears and attitudes.
Social Social Penetration Theory suggests that there is a gradual process of
Penetration revealing your inner self to someone and self disclosure is limited at the
Theory beginning. Revealing personal information is a sign of trust.
As partners increasingly disclose more information they ‘penetrate’ more
Altman deeply into each other’s lives. Both breadth and depth of self-disclosure
&
are key according to social penetration theory. Breadth is narrow at the
Taylor
start of a relationship because if too much information is revealed this
may be off-putting and one partner may decide to quit the relationship. As
the relationship develops, more layers are gradually revealed, and depth
increases and we reveal more intimate information.
Self-disclosure only effective if appropriate to the stage in relationship – too much too
soon has the opposite effect
