Discuss physical attractiveness as factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships. 16 marks
Physical attractiveness refers to the first features which we may notice about an individual before any
form of communication is how appealing is their face. Research by Little and jones shows people
with symmetrical faces are considered more attractive than non-symmetrical faces. This is because
universal preferences has an evolutionary advantage, more symmetrical = healthy individual= healthy
offspring. People are also attracted to face with neotenous features, big eyes, small noses. Physical
attractiveness is not only important for the initial stage of a relationship related to a higher level of
satisfaction. But also later on, McNulty et al, stated that initial attractiveness continued to be an
important feature of a relationship even after marriage.
The Halo affect refers to the preconceived idea about the personality trait being attractiveness
people must have. We believe all their attributes are positive. For example, Dion et al found that
physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong and sociable and successful than
unattractive individuals.
Walster et al proposed the matching hypothesis, which suggests why people become attracted to
their partners. It states that people are most likely to for relationships to those who are equally
attractive as they are. Evolutionary theories suggest that we should select the most attractive mate,
but we have to balance the potential for being rejected and we have to make a compromise by
matching attractiveness as the individual may be out your league.
There is research support evidence to support the matching hypothesis. For example Murstein 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. Thus this matters because it strengthens support for the matching hypothesis and it increases
the validity of the findings as the studies used actual partners.
Another strength of this explanation is that there is universal agreement on what is considered as
beautiful and so shows a consistency across all cultures. For example Cunningham asked men to rate
photographs of women and found that high rating of physical attractiveness were associated with
distinctive features such as high eyebrows, large eyes and small noses. These traits were recognised
as being attractive across different cultural groups. Thus this matters because it suggests that there
may be evolutionary explanation to why we value physical attractiveness in a relationship.
A weakness of this explanation is that it does not take individual differences into account. Not all
individuals attach importance to physical attractiveness. For example Towhey asked males and
females how much they would like a person based on a photo and biographical information. The ppts
also completed a MACHO scale ( designed to assess sexist attitudes, stereotypes and behaviour).
They found that those who scored high on the MACHO scale were more influenced by physical
attractiveness than those who scored low on the MACHO scale. Thus this matters because it shows
that physical attractiveness can be affected by other factors and so weakens the idea of how
influential physical attractiveness is informing relationships.
A limitation of the explanation is research indicates that attraction may be affected by biological
processes. A natural chemical messenger known as pheromones can affect sexual attraction. For
example McCoy and Pitino found that when women who wore perfumes that were enhanced by
pheromones received 50% increased sexual attention, more dates and physical affection from men
compared to women who were scented with a placebo. Thus this suggests that attraction can be
explained by other factors such as biology and that physical factors may not be the only explanation.
Physical attractiveness refers to the first features which we may notice about an individual before any
form of communication is how appealing is their face. Research by Little and jones shows people
with symmetrical faces are considered more attractive than non-symmetrical faces. This is because
universal preferences has an evolutionary advantage, more symmetrical = healthy individual= healthy
offspring. People are also attracted to face with neotenous features, big eyes, small noses. Physical
attractiveness is not only important for the initial stage of a relationship related to a higher level of
satisfaction. But also later on, McNulty et al, stated that initial attractiveness continued to be an
important feature of a relationship even after marriage.
The Halo affect refers to the preconceived idea about the personality trait being attractiveness
people must have. We believe all their attributes are positive. For example, Dion et al found that
physically attractive people are consistently rated as kind, strong and sociable and successful than
unattractive individuals.
Walster et al proposed the matching hypothesis, which suggests why people become attracted to
their partners. It states that people are most likely to for relationships to those who are equally
attractive as they are. Evolutionary theories suggest that we should select the most attractive mate,
but we have to balance the potential for being rejected and we have to make a compromise by
matching attractiveness as the individual may be out your league.
There is research support evidence to support the matching hypothesis. For example Murstein 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. Thus this matters because it strengthens support for the matching hypothesis and it increases
the validity of the findings as the studies used actual partners.
Another strength of this explanation is that there is universal agreement on what is considered as
beautiful and so shows a consistency across all cultures. For example Cunningham asked men to rate
photographs of women and found that high rating of physical attractiveness were associated with
distinctive features such as high eyebrows, large eyes and small noses. These traits were recognised
as being attractive across different cultural groups. Thus this matters because it suggests that there
may be evolutionary explanation to why we value physical attractiveness in a relationship.
A weakness of this explanation is that it does not take individual differences into account. Not all
individuals attach importance to physical attractiveness. For example Towhey asked males and
females how much they would like a person based on a photo and biographical information. The ppts
also completed a MACHO scale ( designed to assess sexist attitudes, stereotypes and behaviour).
They found that those who scored high on the MACHO scale were more influenced by physical
attractiveness than those who scored low on the MACHO scale. Thus this matters because it shows
that physical attractiveness can be affected by other factors and so weakens the idea of how
influential physical attractiveness is informing relationships.
A limitation of the explanation is research indicates that attraction may be affected by biological
processes. A natural chemical messenger known as pheromones can affect sexual attraction. For
example McCoy and Pitino found that when women who wore perfumes that were enhanced by
pheromones received 50% increased sexual attention, more dates and physical affection from men
compared to women who were scented with a placebo. Thus this suggests that attraction can be
explained by other factors such as biology and that physical factors may not be the only explanation.
