References
Barber, N. (1998). Secular changes in standards of bodily attractiveness in American women: Different masculine and feminine ideals. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 87-94.
Baron, R.A., Byrne, D., & Branscombe, N.R. (2006). Social Psychology (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Baumeister, R.F., & Bushman, B.J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Breckler, S.J., Olson, J.M., & Wiggins, E.C. (2006). Social Psychology Alive. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Byrne, D. (1997). An overview of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417-431.
Byrne, D., & Clore, G.L. (1970). A reinforcement-affect model of evaluative responses. Personality: An International Journal, 1, 103-128.
Cunningham, M.R., Barbee, A.P., & Pike, C.L. (1990). What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male and female facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 61-72.
Dittes, J.E., & Kelley, H.H. (1956). Effects of different conditions of acceptance upon conformity to group norms. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 100-107.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. New York: Harper.
Fraley, B., & Aron, A. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous experience on closeness in initial encounters. Personal Relationships, 11, 61-78.
Gangestad, S.W., & Scheyd, G. (2005). The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 523-548.
Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo Sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233-242.
Johnson, S. (2003). Laughter. Discover, 62-68.
Joiner, T.E. Jr. (1994). The interplay of similarity and self-verification in relationship formation. Social Behavior and Personality, 22, 195-200.
Kalick, S.M., & Hamilton III, T.E. (1986). The matching hypothesis reexamined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 673-682.
Klohnen, E.C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive- Self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity, or attachment security. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709-722.
Langlois, J.H., & Roggman, L.A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115-121.
Lehr, A.T., & Geher, G. (2006). Differential effects of reciprocity and attitude similarity across long versus short term mating contexts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 423-439.
Mealey, L., Bridgstock, R., & Townsend, G.C. (1999). Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: A monozygotic co-twin comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 151-158.
Michener, H.A., & DeLamater, J.D. (1999). Social Psychology (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Saegert, S., Swap, W., & Zajonc, R.B. (1973). Exposure, context and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 234-242.
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293-307.
South, S. J. (1991). Socio-demographic differentials in mate selection preferences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 928-940.
Swami, V., Caprario, C., Tovee, M.J., & Furnham, A. (2006). Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Japan: A cross cultural study. European Journal of Personality, 20, 69-81.
Swami, V., et al. (2007). Male physical attractiveness in Britain and Greece: A cross cultural study. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 15-26.
Vaughan, G.M., & Hogg, M.A. (2005). Introduction to Social Psychology (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottmann, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 508-516.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Hot or Not: A Social-Psychological Inquiry into Interpersonal Attraction and Attractiveness Perception.
Question- Why are some people attractive? Discuss in relation to social psychological theories and research
Abstract.
A multitude of variables influence the perception of attractiveness in romantic and sexual relationships. Propinquity, similarity, personality and affect, reciprocity, reinforcement and physical attractiveness have been discussed as influencing factors of interpersonal attraction. Further, this blog asserts that attraction is influenced by cultural and societal context, by history, time and generational influences and by innate evolutionary drives. An integrational model is proposed, whereby the author theorises that interpersonal attraction depends on many interacting models, theories and research reports. Concept maps, examples and numerous models complete the analysis.
Introduction.
Attractiveness and interpersonal attraction are defined as the allure, magnetism or liking between two or more people (Breckler, Olsen, & Wiggins, 2006). This blog will analyse why some people are considered attractive, specifically within a romantic and sexual context. It will discuss the concepts of propinquity, similarity and the interaction between personality/affect and attraction. Next, reciprocity, reinforcement and physical attractiveness will be assessed. Factors influencing the perception of attractiveness will be analysed including: cross cultural, trans-generational and evolutionary variables. Finally, this blog will propose an ‘Integrational Model’ of attractiveness, theorising that many interacting theories and research findings can provide a comprehensive explanation of why some people are considered attractive.
Propinquity.
Propinquity is a potent catalyst of attraction. It is defined the nearness or proximity in physical or psychological space which creates the opportunity to meet another person (Vaughan & Hogg, 2005). Propinquity facilitates initial relationships and attraction creating familiarity and repeated exposure (Breckler et al., 2006).
A multitude of variables influence the perception of attractiveness in romantic and sexual relationships. Propinquity, similarity, personality and affect, reciprocity, reinforcement and physical attractiveness have been discussed as influencing factors of interpersonal attraction. Further, this blog asserts that attraction is influenced by cultural and societal context, by history, time and generational influences and by innate evolutionary drives. An integrational model is proposed, whereby the author theorises that interpersonal attraction depends on many interacting models, theories and research reports. Concept maps, examples and numerous models complete the analysis.
Introduction.
Attractiveness and interpersonal attraction are defined as the allure, magnetism or liking between two or more people (Breckler, Olsen, & Wiggins, 2006). This blog will analyse why some people are considered attractive, specifically within a romantic and sexual context. It will discuss the concepts of propinquity, similarity and the interaction between personality/affect and attraction. Next, reciprocity, reinforcement and physical attractiveness will be assessed. Factors influencing the perception of attractiveness will be analysed including: cross cultural, trans-generational and evolutionary variables. Finally, this blog will propose an ‘Integrational Model’ of attractiveness, theorising that many interacting theories and research findings can provide a comprehensive explanation of why some people are considered attractive.
Propinquity.
Propinquity is a potent catalyst of attraction. It is defined the nearness or proximity in physical or psychological space which creates the opportunity to meet another person (Vaughan & Hogg, 2005). Propinquity facilitates initial relationships and attraction creating familiarity and repeated exposure (Breckler et al., 2006).
Proximity Theory.
Close proximity to another includes a small functional distance and opportunity for continued interaction, which can significantly increase the likelihood of attraction (Sprecher, 1998). Housing research by Festinger, Schacter and Back (1950) found that people rated attraction, magnetism and friendship highest with those living on the same residential floor; rather than those living on other floors or distant buildings (Appendix A); this research evidence the potent effects of proximity on interpersonal attraction.
The Mere Exposure Effect.
The mere exposure effect is a theory explaining the tendency for people to come to like things simply because they see or encounter them repeatedly (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Research highlights that repeated exposure to an individual increases attraction and favourabilty. One study by Saegert, Swap, and Zajonk (1973) determined that mere exposure in both positive and negative contexts increased interpersonal attraction. Saegert et al. found that an increased frequency of stimuli enhanced liking and interpersonal attraction. Repeated exposure to another increases the perception of attractiveness (Vaughan & Hogg, 2005).
Similarity.
Similarity of attitudes, values, personality or physical attractiveness is one of the most important determinants of attraction (Sprecher, 1998).
Attitude Similarity Effect.
The attitude-similarity effect is the idea that people find others more attractive and likable the more similar they are in attitudes, beliefs and preferences; including opinions and cognitions about current events, social and political issues, religion, morality, music, literature and similar personalities (Breckler et al., 2006). Research by Lehr and Geher (2006) found that participants presented with potential mates with similar attitudes, judged them as more likable and attractive than dissimilar mates (Lehr & Geher). The attitude similarity effect is prime example of similarity and attractiveness.
Matching Hypothesis.
People who are evenly matched in physical appearance, social background, personality, socioeconomic status, interests and leisure activities are significantly more likely to be considered attractive by their similar counterpart (Joiner, 1994). Matching hypothesis specifically elucidates that people are attracted to others who are similar in physical attractiveness (Kalick & Hamilton III, 1986) (Appendix-B).
Similarity is important in attraction because it produces cognitive consistency, reinforcement through positive outcomes, reinforcement through attitude validation and the high probability of reciprocity because of the perceived similarities (Michener & DeLamater, 1999). Correspondingly, personality and affect are also important determinants of attraction.
Personality & Affect.
Numerous theories and research studies suggest that personality and affect are the most important determinants attraction (Sprecher, 1998). As the attitude similarity effect suggests, similar or complementary personalities are most attractive (Klohnen & Lou, 2003). Research by Sprecher displayed that a desirable personality and friendly, warm and kind disposition were the most important determinants of attraction.
Affect, a person’s emotional state, is a further psychosocial variable of attractiveness perception. Related to personality, a positive affect and cheerful disposition have a direct effect on interpersonal attraction (Byrne, 1997). Byrne and Clore’s (1970) Affect-Attraction model highlights the relationship between positive and negative affect and interpersonal attraction (Appendix-C). Humor is a further powerful predictor of attraction, helping to strengthen social bonds and increase liking (Johnson, 2003). The Laughter-Attraction model highlights the relationship between humor and attractiveness (Fraley & Aron, 2004) (Appendix-D).
Reciprocity.
Reciprocity Theory.
The reciprocity principle is the tendency in people to become more attracted to those whom they believe are attracted to them (Lehr & Geher, 2006); we like those who like us and dislike those who dislike us (Vaughan & Hogg, 2005).
Reciprocation of liking has a powerful effect on attraction in romantic relationships and friendships; and is an important factor in finding a mate attractive (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).
A classic study by Dittes and Kelley (1956) researched student’s attraction levels when given written evaluations that were either positive or negative; results showed that students who believed they were liked were more attracted to the evaluator than those who believed they were disliked (Dittes & Kelley). Reciprocity is also influenced by the Gain-Loss Hypothesis (Appendix-E). Reciprocity is an important psychosocial factor in the perception of attractiveness. A further factor is reinforcement.
Reinforcement.
Reinforcement theory asserts that people tend to be attracted to those who reward or praise them; or are present when one receives rewards (Michener & DeLamater, 1999).
Reinforcement.
Reinforcement theory asserts that people tend to be attracted to those who reward or praise them; or are present when one receives rewards (Michener & DeLamater, 1999).
Reinforcement Affect Model.
Reinforcement affect model is a model of attraction which postulates that we like people who are around when we experience a positive feeling. Byrne and Clore’s (1970) reinforcement affect model (Appendix-F) draws on classical conditioning, with paired positive stimuli and responses increasing and reinforcing liking and attraction.
Social Exchange Theory.
An extension of the reinforcement model is the social exchange theory, which analyses the costs and benefits of interacting with another, especially within a sexual attraction realm (South, 1991). Research has highlighted that such reinforcement rewards include sex, money, attention, respect, praise, love and enjoyment (Sprecher, 1998). Reinforcement is a strong predictor of attraction as it is pleasing to receive praise, rewards and positive feedback (Sprecher).
Physical Attractiveness.
Physical attractiveness is the combination of tangible characteristics that are evaluated as beautiful or handsome (Baron, Byrne, & Branscombe, 2006). Good looks have been found to outweigh many other factors of attraction (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966). Physical attractiveness is a far more crucial attractiveness variable for women than men; as it denotes youth, fertility and health (Walster at al.). Physical attractiveness includes facial and bodily features.
Facial Features.
The structure of the face, facialmetrics, involves the measurement of a large number of facial features to determine the proportions and measurements of an attractive face. Research by Cunningham, Barbee, and Pike (1990) found that men prefer women with large eyes, a small nose and chin, prominent cheekbones, high eyebrows, large pupils and a large smile. Research has also shown that women with pout lips and an even skin tone are considered more attractive (Barber, 1998). Cunningham et al. found that females preferred men with prominent cheekbones, a large chin, a wide smile and eyes that did not deviate from the average (Appendix-G).
Averageness theory holds that people who look different from the norm are generally regarded as less attractive (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008) (Appendix-H). Langlois and Roggman (1990) assert that evolutionary pressures and natural selection generally favour average rather than extreme population features; and the influence of prototypes and cognitive schemas bias people toward average, prototypical faces. Facial averageness is influenced by biological, cognitive, and mere exposure psychosocial factors in the perception of attractiveness (Langlois & Roggman).
Facial symmetry is the equilibrium or mirrored proportion of the human face, which is a strong determinant of physical attractiveness (Mealey, Bridgstock, & Townsend, 1999). Facial symmetry has been found to be important in conveying information about gender, sexual maturity, immune quality and genotypic quality (Mealey et al.). Computer-generated symmetry research conducted by Grammer and Thornhill (1994) found significant positive effects for facial symmetry and attractiveness in both males and females. (Appendix-I).
Bodily Features.
Male and female body shape and weight are asserted as important in the judgement of why some people are considered attractive.
Body shape is an important component of physical attractiveness and sex appeal. Typically, men prefer the classic hourglass figure in a women (waist hip ratio of .70) as it signifies youthfulness, good health and fertility (Singh, 1993). The typically desired body shape for men is the ‘triangle’ consisting of a waist hip ratio of 1.0 and larger shoulders (Singh) (Appendix-J). The judgement of attractiveness and weight is, however, largely determined by cultural context, time period and innate factors.
Factors Influencing Attraction.
Attraction, specifically physical attraction, is significantly influenced by the context of culture, time period and innate evolutionary factors. Research on female physical attractiveness was conducted by Swami, Caprario, Tovee, and Furnham (2006), which found that Japanese men preferred images of women with significantly lower Body-Mass-Indexes and were significantly more reliant on body shape than British participants. Additionally, research on male physical attractiveness across British and Greek participants asserts that Greek women show a significantly greater preference for a low waist-to-chest ratio and a smaller overall body weight than did British women (Swami et al. 2007). Cross cultural variances in attraction are explained through historical, societal, gender-role and socioeconomic contexts. The perception of why people are attractive is a complex and uncertain concept that is influenced by culture and time (Carr, 2003).
Attractiveness perception of females has also evolved through generations (Barber, 1998). Appendix-K provides a trans-generational analysis of attractiveness. The perception of attractiveness is also influenced by innate biological and evolutionary drives. Men are attracted to women who have biological markers of fertility, health, youth, high estrogen levels and good child bearing ability. Women are attracted to men who show signs of power, virility, aggression and wealth to supply resources (Gangestad & Scheyd, 2005).
Integrational Model.
A multitude of factors determine why some people are considered attractive. This blog hypothesises an ‘integrational model’ illustrating propinquity, similarity, personality and affect, reciprocity, reinforcement and physical attractiveness are important psychosocial variables in the perception of attractiveness. Integrational model suggests that attraction relies on the combination and interaction of psychosocial variables and asserts that these variables are influenced by factors such as culture, time and innate evolutionary drives (Appendix-L).
Conclusion.
In conclusion, many psychosocial variables determine the perception of interpersonal attraction (Concept Map-A) yet due to space restrictions, I have included what I believe are the most formative and integral components in attraction including: propinquity, similarity, personality and affect, reciprocity, reinforcement, physical attractiveness and factors influencing attractiveness perception (Concept Map-B). This blog has highlighted and discussed these variables through analysis of theories, models and research evidence. Interpersonal attraction and the perception of attractiveness is a complex construct, with myriad psychosocial determinants.
1547 words excluding references, headings, citations and appendices.
For information on theory, research, written expression and online engagement please see: Self Assessment.
For Reference List : Please Visit Reference List
Self Assessment
Theory
* I have attempted to incorporate a breadth and depth of theories and models.
* I have analysed theories and models and included many of the models in the appendix. I have also formulated my own ‘Integrational Model’.
* I have included many theories and models of ‘attractiveness’ including Proximity theory, mere exposure effect, attitude similarity effect, matching hypothesis, reciprocity theory, reinforcement affect model, social exchange theory, and averageness theory.
Research
* I have attempted to incorporate a breadth and depth of research studies.
* I have integrated theory and research- detailing information about theories and evidencing them with appropriate research and references.
* I have an extensive reference list of 26 main references- evidencing a multitude of research reports and academic journals
* I researched the topic extensively- this can be seen with my clear evolution of thinking, extensive reference list and concept map A- showing a great understanding of the entire field of attractiveness.
Written Expression
* It is my belief that my blog has fluently expressed and analysed the ‘Attractiveness’ question.
* I believe that I have answered the question. Providing information on why some people are considered attractive and factual analysis of theories, models, and research studies.
* I have attempted to publish a smooth, easy to follow blog. I have an abstract, introduction which clearly highlights the direction of my blog, and headings throughout the blog. I have also given a definitive conclusion to my blog.
* Readability Analysis- I Received a Gunning Fog Index of: 17.21 I Received a Flesch Reading Ease of: 17.51
I understand that this is not as ‘desirable’ as hoped- yet I believe that my writing is academic yet simple and comprehensible. I have also formatted my blog to be highly readable.
Other Markers of Readability-
* I have included a meaningful, descriptive essay title
* I have included an abstract
* I have included subheadings
* I have included many figures to give a greater breadth of knowledge to my blog.
* I have included images and multimedia
* I have included appendices.
* Use of Examples- I have used copious amounts of examples- I have used pictures of well known celebrities that typify aspects of my blog. I have used models and diagrams to evidence and example many of the theories and research findings.
* I have included many Appendices to further explain, clarify or illustrate my findings.
* APA style- I have conformed to the APA standards throughout my blog- In text citations and referencing have been strictly adhered to.
Online Engagement
* It is my belief that I have had a high online engagement for blog 2.
* I chose my topic very early in the term, showing enthusiasm and preparedness.
* I have published many blogs throughout the term.
* I Have sought and gathered meaningful comments throughout the term. I have commented on the following peoples blogs:
-Beck’s Blog
-Bec’s Blog
-Bethany’s Blog
-Emma’s Blog
-Emily’s Blog
-Erin’s Blog
-Graham’s Blog
-Josie’s Blog
-Kim’s Blog
-Luke’s Blog
-Mike’s Blog
-Mrs Freud’s Blog
* In turn, I have received over 36 comments on my blog from other students and James. Which has assisted in the depth of my knowledge
* I have meaningfully replied to several of my comments- clarifying points, discussing ideas and assisting other students with blogging issues.
* I have published 16 bloggings- each time I have posted my essay have evolved and grown in depth and breadth. I have written meaningful insights, academic findings and published a draft introduction to get feedback on the progress and direction of my blog.
* I have read and noted many of my comments- and adapted my blog accordingly.
* I have certainly made effective use of multimedia- images, embedded video- I have posted a series of attractiveness videos, have posted the dove evolution of beauty campaign and have provided many photo’s to evidence the research that I have detailed.
* I Have received 3 * (Stars) on my blog which highlights that my blog has been active, regular and that I have had a clear evolution of thinking in weeks 8-15.
* I believe my online engagement to be extremely high. I have made MANY comments, suggested academic journals to other students, collaborated with students who are doing similar questions. I have made MANY blog postings and have effectively utilised the entire blog format- using video, pictures, polls etc.
I believe that I deserve at least a distinction + for my online engagement. I have been very active, enthusiastic and open throughout the semester.
Overall I believe that I have produced a meaningful, insightful and deep blog. I have detailed and discussed many theories, models and research studies. I have done a great deal of research on the topic and consider myself to be very knowledgeable on the entire ‘attractiveness’ topic. I am disappointed that I could not have written 3000 words, because I found so much valuable research and theory to include.
I have written a clear, concise, readable blog and have engaged, evolved and been enriched throughout the term. I believe that I deserve to do well, as I have put an enormous amount of effort into my blog.
* I have attempted to incorporate a breadth and depth of theories and models.
* I have analysed theories and models and included many of the models in the appendix. I have also formulated my own ‘Integrational Model’.
* I have included many theories and models of ‘attractiveness’ including Proximity theory, mere exposure effect, attitude similarity effect, matching hypothesis, reciprocity theory, reinforcement affect model, social exchange theory, and averageness theory.
Research
* I have attempted to incorporate a breadth and depth of research studies.
* I have integrated theory and research- detailing information about theories and evidencing them with appropriate research and references.
* I have an extensive reference list of 26 main references- evidencing a multitude of research reports and academic journals
* I researched the topic extensively- this can be seen with my clear evolution of thinking, extensive reference list and concept map A- showing a great understanding of the entire field of attractiveness.
Written Expression
* It is my belief that my blog has fluently expressed and analysed the ‘Attractiveness’ question.
* I believe that I have answered the question. Providing information on why some people are considered attractive and factual analysis of theories, models, and research studies.
* I have attempted to publish a smooth, easy to follow blog. I have an abstract, introduction which clearly highlights the direction of my blog, and headings throughout the blog. I have also given a definitive conclusion to my blog.
* Readability Analysis- I Received a Gunning Fog Index of: 17.21 I Received a Flesch Reading Ease of: 17.51
I understand that this is not as ‘desirable’ as hoped- yet I believe that my writing is academic yet simple and comprehensible. I have also formatted my blog to be highly readable.
Other Markers of Readability-
* I have included a meaningful, descriptive essay title
* I have included an abstract
* I have included subheadings
* I have included many figures to give a greater breadth of knowledge to my blog.
* I have included images and multimedia
* I have included appendices.
* Use of Examples- I have used copious amounts of examples- I have used pictures of well known celebrities that typify aspects of my blog. I have used models and diagrams to evidence and example many of the theories and research findings.
* I have included many Appendices to further explain, clarify or illustrate my findings.
* APA style- I have conformed to the APA standards throughout my blog- In text citations and referencing have been strictly adhered to.
Online Engagement
* It is my belief that I have had a high online engagement for blog 2.
* I chose my topic very early in the term, showing enthusiasm and preparedness.
* I have published many blogs throughout the term.
* I Have sought and gathered meaningful comments throughout the term. I have commented on the following peoples blogs:
-Beck’s Blog
-Bec’s Blog
-Bethany’s Blog
-Emma’s Blog
-Emily’s Blog
-Erin’s Blog
-Graham’s Blog
-Josie’s Blog
-Kim’s Blog
-Luke’s Blog
-Mike’s Blog
-Mrs Freud’s Blog
* In turn, I have received over 36 comments on my blog from other students and James. Which has assisted in the depth of my knowledge
* I have meaningfully replied to several of my comments- clarifying points, discussing ideas and assisting other students with blogging issues.
* I have published 16 bloggings- each time I have posted my essay have evolved and grown in depth and breadth. I have written meaningful insights, academic findings and published a draft introduction to get feedback on the progress and direction of my blog.
* I have read and noted many of my comments- and adapted my blog accordingly.
* I have certainly made effective use of multimedia- images, embedded video- I have posted a series of attractiveness videos, have posted the dove evolution of beauty campaign and have provided many photo’s to evidence the research that I have detailed.
* I Have received 3 * (Stars) on my blog which highlights that my blog has been active, regular and that I have had a clear evolution of thinking in weeks 8-15.
* I believe my online engagement to be extremely high. I have made MANY comments, suggested academic journals to other students, collaborated with students who are doing similar questions. I have made MANY blog postings and have effectively utilised the entire blog format- using video, pictures, polls etc.
I believe that I deserve at least a distinction + for my online engagement. I have been very active, enthusiastic and open throughout the semester.
Overall I believe that I have produced a meaningful, insightful and deep blog. I have detailed and discussed many theories, models and research studies. I have done a great deal of research on the topic and consider myself to be very knowledgeable on the entire ‘attractiveness’ topic. I am disappointed that I could not have written 3000 words, because I found so much valuable research and theory to include.
I have written a clear, concise, readable blog and have engaged, evolved and been enriched throughout the term. I believe that I deserve to do well, as I have put an enormous amount of effort into my blog.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Concept Map A
Concept Map A indentities all psychosocial variables related to attractiveness perception.
It is included to evidence a depth and breadth of research and insight into the attractiveness topic.
Appendix A: Propinquity
Some people are considered as attractive because they are easy to access, are exposed to the other frequently and have high probability of continued interaction.
Festinger, Schacter, & Back (1950) studied propinquity in apartments and determined that those closest were more likely to be attracted or liked.
Propinquity permits attraction because of familiarity, availability and expectation of continued interaction (Vaughan & Hogg, 2005).
The Festinger physical proximity experiment found those in apartments 1 and 6 interacted frequently; 5 and 10; and those next door to eachother.
Festinger, Schacter, & Back (1950) studied propinquity in apartments and determined that those closest were more likely to be attracted or liked.
Propinquity permits attraction because of familiarity, availability and expectation of continued interaction (Vaughan & Hogg, 2005).
The Festinger physical proximity experiment found those in apartments 1 and 6 interacted frequently; 5 and 10; and those next door to eachother.
References
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. New York: Harper.
Vaughan, G.M., & Hogg, M.A. (2005). Introduction to Social Psychology (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Appendix B: Matching Hypothesis
We tend to like those similar to ourselves: in physical appearance, social background, personality, socioeconomic status, interests and leisure activities.
Mismatched- Heidi Klum and Seal- Very different attractiveness levels (Heidi is a Victoria Secret Model), different race, 10 years age difference.
We are more likely to be attracted to, and stay attracted to, those who match us in many domains (Joiner, 1994).
An example of a matched couple and mismatched couple follow.
Matched Steffi Graf and Andre Agassi- Similar age, physical appearance, race, interests (tennis).
Mismatched- Heidi Klum and Seal- Very different attractiveness levels (Heidi is a Victoria Secret Model), different race, 10 years age difference.
Joiner, T.E. Jr. (1994). The interplay of similarity and self-verification in relationship formation. Social Behavior and Personality, 22, 195-200.
Appendix C: Attraction-Affect Model
Some people are considered attractive because they elicit a positive affect.
Byrne, D., & Clore, G.L. (1970). A reinforcement-affect model of evaluative responses. Personality: An International Journal, 1, 103-128.
When any stimulus arouses an individuals positive affect, the stimulus is liked- positive arousal increases attraction.
The Affect-Attraction Model depicts the stimulus, emotional response and attraction response to positive and negative emotions.
Byrne, D., & Clore, G.L. (1970). A reinforcement-affect model of evaluative responses. Personality: An International Journal, 1, 103-128.
Appendix D: Laughter-Attraction Model
Some people are considered attractive because they are humorous, make others feel at ease and make others happy.
Fraley, B., & Aron, A. (2004). The effect of a shared humorous experience on closeness in initial encounters. Personal Relationships, 11, 61-78.
Humor is not only pleasant but it also provides a nonthreatening way for people to interact. Laughter helps strengthen social bonds and serves as a social 'lubricant' that makes interpersonal behaviour function more smoothly (Baron, Bryne, & Branscombe, 2006).
The Laughter Attraction model by Frayley & Aron, 2004.
Appendix E: Reciprocity- The Gain Loss Hypothesis
Some people are attracted to others who initially dislike them but then come to like them: This is referred to as the Gain-Loss Hypothesis.
We like those who are at first cold, but then warm to us.
Aronson & Linder (1965) proposed two explanations
* Anxiety Reduction- When experiencing rejection anxiety rises- when rejection changes to acceptance the anxiety is reduced so we experience the pleasure of being liked.
* We may describe those who like us from the start as undiscriminating and not discerning- those who we have to fight for are more of an acheivement.
Please refer to Gain Loss Hypothesis Figure
Aronson, E., & Linder, D. (1965). Gain and loss of esteem as determinants of interpersonal attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 156-171.
Appendix F: Reinforcement Affect Model
Why are some people attractive-
Some people are attractive because they supply us with rewards, praise or benefits- which makes us associate them with pleasurable experiences (Michener & DeLameter, 1999).
A variation of reinforcement theory derived from learning is the reinforcement affect model (Byrne & Clore, 1970); drawn from Classical Conditioning, which asserts:
* People identify stimuli as rewarding or punishing and seek out the former while avoiding the latter.
* Positive feelings are associated with rewarding stimuli
* People can be liked or disliked depending on whether they are associated with positive or negative stimuli. (Vaughan & Hogg, 2005)
Some people are attractive because they supply us with rewards, praise or benefits- which makes us associate them with pleasurable experiences (Michener & DeLameter, 1999).
A variation of reinforcement theory derived from learning is the reinforcement affect model (Byrne & Clore, 1970); drawn from Classical Conditioning, which asserts:
* People identify stimuli as rewarding or punishing and seek out the former while avoiding the latter.
* Positive feelings are associated with rewarding stimuli
* People can be liked or disliked depending on whether they are associated with positive or negative stimuli. (Vaughan & Hogg, 2005)
Byrne, D., & Clore, G.L. (1970). A reinforcement-affect model of evaluative responses. Personality: An International Journal, 1, 103-128.
Michener, H.A., & DeLamater, J.D. (1999). Social Psychology (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Vaughan, G.M., & Hogg, M.A. (2005). Introduction to Social Psychology (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Appendix G: Facial Features/Facialmetrics
The structure and composition of the face is highly important for determining whether someone is attractive.
Facialmetrics is the mathematical and scientific calculation of an attractive face. The following images are examples of the way the face is divided into sections and assessed component by component.
Facial Features:
Women: Large Eyes, small nose and chin, prominent cheekbones, high eyebrows, large pupils, large smile, pout lips and even skin tone.
Celebrity Example: Carmen Electra typifies an attractive woman from the previous list.
Men: Prominent Cheekbones, large chin, wide smile, eyes that do not deviate from the average. Evolutionary theory also favours men who have bushy dark eyebrows and facial hair- as a sign of testosterone and verility.
Celebrity Example: Patrick Dempsey typifies each component of male facial attractiveness. 
References:
Barber, N. (1998). Secular changes in standards of bodily attractiveness in American women: Different masculine and feminine ideals. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 87-94.
Breckler, S.J., Olson, J.M., & Wiggins, E.C. (2006). Social Psychology Alive. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Cunningham, M.R., Barbee, A.P., & Pike, C.L. (1990). What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male and female facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 61-72.
Appendix H: Facial Averageness
Why are some people considered attractive?
People with average, typical faces are considered as highly attractive.
Many experiments have shown that composite faces are considered more attractive than real faces because they are average.
Consider the below example:
The images on the left are the Winner and Runner up of Miss Germany- The Right side is a composite of the top 10 place getters in Miss Germany 2005.
The Composite was considered to be significantly more attractive than any of the actual contestants. Because of her average, plain and typical features.
Facial averageness is influenced by biological, cognitive and learning factors.
Again, a composite of the Miss Universe 2005 contestants proved to be more attractive than the actual winner- survey's report.
References
Langlois, J.H., & Roggman, L.A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115-121.
Appendix I: Facial Symmetry
Why are Some People Attractive:
Those people with symmetrical faces are considered highly physically attractive: from a fashion and evolutionary viewpoint.
Baumeister, R.F., & Bushman, B.J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Those people with symmetrical faces are considered highly physically attractive: from a fashion and evolutionary viewpoint.
Left Not Symmetrical; Right Symmetrical
Baumeister, R.F., & Bushman, B.J. (2008). Social Psychology and Human Nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Mealey, L., Bridgstock, R., & Townsend, G.C. (1999). Symmetry and perceived facial attractiveness: A monozygotic co-twin comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 151-158.
Appendix J: Bodily Features
Why some people are considered as attractive is influenced by body shape and size- and the proportions of their body.
Women- Western women are considered attractive with a Small Waist, Large Hips and a Large Bust- A Waist Hip Ratio of approx .70. (Singh, 1993).
Left To Right: Ratio 0.70; 0.80; 0.90; 1.0.
Celebrity Jessica Alba has a .70 WHR- with measurements 34-24-34. She is considered an 'attractive ideal' in Western Society in 2007.
Men- are typically considered as attractive with a 'triangle' physique consisting of a waist hip ratio of 1.0 with large shoulders and chest.
Men: Ratio Left to Right: .70; .80; .90; 1.0.
1.0 is considered most attractive.
Celebrity Brad Pitt is considered to have an ideal male physique in Western Society in 2007.
Breckler, S.J., Olson, J.M., & Wiggins, E.C. (2006). Social Psychology Alive. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.
Appendix K- Trans-Generational Analysis.
What are some poeple Attractive?
Some people are attractive because their generation, society or time period dictates who and what is attractive. Advertising, media, magazines, art, sculpture, celebrity- all dictate why some people are attractive.
Why and how some people are considered attractive has evolved throughout the generations (Barber, 1998).
Throughout the 1920’s and 30’s the thin, flapper look was the ideal, with short dark hair and masculine qualities: dictated by the depression, war etc.
The idealized Venus of Willendorf from 24000-22000 BCE was the epitome of fertility with large breasts, exposed reproductive organs and a swollen stomach, and by today’s standards would be considered obese- acting as the ideal for women of her era.
Botticelli’s ‘the birth of Venus’ from 1486 stands as a statuesque woman of large proportions with creamy skin and a soft, plump body. For centuries she was considered to have the ideal female figure.
Renoir’s ‘The Bathers’ from 1887 continued the ideal of large breasts, hips and significant fat deposits around the stomach and thigh areas.
Throughout the 1920’s and 30’s the thin, flapper look was the ideal, with short dark hair and masculine qualities: dictated by the depression, war etc.
Marilyn Monroe from the 1950’s reinstated the ideal of voluptuous, curvaceous bodies with her size 14 physique, curly flowing hair, which was considered as ‘sexy’ and ‘feminine’ by many.
Twiggy is the epitome of the 1960’s female physique landscape, with a thin frame, long legs, geometric clothing and hair and sullen face.
Twiggy is the epitome of the 1960’s female physique landscape, with a thin frame, long legs, geometric clothing and hair and sullen face.
This thin is in ideal has carried throughout the 1970’s, 80’s, 90’s and today with models such as Kate Moss and Giselle Bundchen considered as attractive with very young faces, extremely thin physiques but still keeping the ‘hourglass’ shape.
References:
Information Sourced from:
Barber, N. (1998). Secular changes in standards of bodily attractiveness in American women: Different masculine and feminine ideals. The Journal of Psychology, 132, 87-94.
Appendix L: Integrational Model
Integrational Model is the authors hypothesis of why some people are considered attractive. It asserts that an intgration and interaction of some or all variables results in interpersonal attraction.
Reference: Powell, R.C. (2007). Integrational Model- Social Psychology.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Matching Hypothesis and Celebrity Couples
........................................................................................
........................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
Matching hypothesis asserts that people who are evenly matched in physical appearance, social background, personality, race, socioeconomic status, interests and leisure activities are significantly more likely to be considered attractive by their similar counterpart (Joiner, 1994;Sprecher, 1998). Matching hypothesis specifically elucidates that people are attracted to others who are similar in physical attractiveness.
I am going to include an appendix of some examples of matching hypothesis-
Let me know if there are any celebrities that you think are really matched or not matched at all.
Stefi Graf and Andre Agassi- Well matched- Similar looks, similar age, similar race (although different ethnicities), similar interests (tennis).
Seal and Heidi Klum- Not as well matched (on the surface at least)- A fairly large attractiveness discrepancy, 10 years age difference, different race.
Matching hypothesis is an interesting idea- Obviously seal and Heidi Klum have stayed together- perhaps it was reciprocity, reinforcement, or propinquity that initiated their attraction?
Let me know your thoughts.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Introduction- Attractiveness
This is hopefully my introduction- just to give an idea of where my blog will go.
Let me know if there is anything else that should be included.
Attractiveness and interpersonal attraction are defined as the allure, magnetism or liking between two or more people (Breckler, Olsen, & Wiggins, 2006). Interpersonal attraction utilises a multitude of social psychological theories and research. This blog will analyse why some people are considered attractive. It will discuss the concept of propinquity including proximity, the mere exposure effect and balance theory. Next this blog will analyse similarity and attraction including the attitude similarity effect and matching hypothesis. Reinforcement and attraction will also be highlighted, discussing the reinforcement-affect model, social exchange theory and equity theory. The concept of reciprocity will be addressed, analysing reciprocity theory and the gain loss hypothesis. Further, this blog will discuss the relationship between physical attractiveness and attraction including theories of facial features and bodily features. Attractiveness perception will be discussed in a cross cultural and trans-generational context. Finally, this blog will propose an ‘Integrational Model’ of attractiveness theorising that many interacting theories and research findings can provide a comprehensive explanation of why some people are considered attractive.
Let me know if there is anything else that should be included.
Attractiveness and interpersonal attraction are defined as the allure, magnetism or liking between two or more people (Breckler, Olsen, & Wiggins, 2006). Interpersonal attraction utilises a multitude of social psychological theories and research. This blog will analyse why some people are considered attractive. It will discuss the concept of propinquity including proximity, the mere exposure effect and balance theory. Next this blog will analyse similarity and attraction including the attitude similarity effect and matching hypothesis. Reinforcement and attraction will also be highlighted, discussing the reinforcement-affect model, social exchange theory and equity theory. The concept of reciprocity will be addressed, analysing reciprocity theory and the gain loss hypothesis. Further, this blog will discuss the relationship between physical attractiveness and attraction including theories of facial features and bodily features. Attractiveness perception will be discussed in a cross cultural and trans-generational context. Finally, this blog will propose an ‘Integrational Model’ of attractiveness theorising that many interacting theories and research findings can provide a comprehensive explanation of why some people are considered attractive.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Cross Cultural Perception of Attractiveness
One issue that I have found particularly interesting is the differences and similarities in the perception of attractiveness across cultures.
Different studies have highlighted that across cultures and ethnic groups- attractiveness ratings differs.
* Cunningham, Roberts, Wu, Barbee, & Druen (1995) found a correlation Hispanics and Whites perception of facial attractiveness, but found that Asians were less influenced by sexual maturity and expressive features. (Exposure to Western media did not influence attractiveness ratings). It was also found that facial attractiveness was highly correlated between Whites and Blacks--- but a major difference in the perception of attractive bodies. The 'Blacks' (as the study calls African American & African participants) found a larger woman more attractive than the 'whites' (Caucasian participants).
* Swami et al (2007)- Male physical attractiveness in Britain and Greece- found that Greek women showed a stronger preference for a lower Waist to Chest Ratio and a smaller overall body weight. It is argued that gender roles are different in each country and that an attractive body for Greek women is a man with a muscular frame and V shaped torso. This is reflected in many ancient Greek art works and Greek culture- that masculinity and an athletic V shaped body is ideal.
* Swami et al (2006) Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Japan- found many cross cultural differences occur between British and Japanese perception of an attractive female body. Results showed that Japanese participants prefered images of women with significantly lower Body Mass Indexes than Britons. Results also showed that Japanese participants were more reliant on body shape than Britons when judging physical attractiveness. This journal discusses that Japanese people endorse an extremely thin body Ideal- Sociocultural Theory. They also argue western society may have influenced japanese perception of attractiveness.
Again, this study asserts that gender roles may be important in the perception of attractiveness cross culturally- One example from another example is:
2 distinct cultures Denmark (rich, less sex role stereotyped) and Portugal (poorer, more sex role stereotyped)- Finding Portugese subjects display a much stronger preference for traditional thin and hourglass females and V shaped males- perhaps this could apply for the Japanese predominance for a thinner female- and the importance of attractiveness in Japanese Culture.
Attractiveness not only changes from culture to culture.... but has also changed over time.
* Barber- documented the female bodily attractiveness standard for Miss america and Playboy over time... and also juxtaposed the body types of Women in Playboy (mens attraction magazine) and Vogue (womens fashion magazine) and showed that women in Playboy were far more buxom and curvaceous- which men found significantly more appealing.
Just a few of the interesting things that I have found...
Attractiveness perception appears to be fluid in some respects and stagnant is others.
Physical Attractiveness especially appears to be very very fickle....
Different studies have highlighted that across cultures and ethnic groups- attractiveness ratings differs.
* Cunningham, Roberts, Wu, Barbee, & Druen (1995) found a correlation Hispanics and Whites perception of facial attractiveness, but found that Asians were less influenced by sexual maturity and expressive features. (Exposure to Western media did not influence attractiveness ratings). It was also found that facial attractiveness was highly correlated between Whites and Blacks--- but a major difference in the perception of attractive bodies. The 'Blacks' (as the study calls African American & African participants) found a larger woman more attractive than the 'whites' (Caucasian participants).
* Swami et al (2007)- Male physical attractiveness in Britain and Greece- found that Greek women showed a stronger preference for a lower Waist to Chest Ratio and a smaller overall body weight. It is argued that gender roles are different in each country and that an attractive body for Greek women is a man with a muscular frame and V shaped torso. This is reflected in many ancient Greek art works and Greek culture- that masculinity and an athletic V shaped body is ideal.
* Swami et al (2006) Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Japan- found many cross cultural differences occur between British and Japanese perception of an attractive female body. Results showed that Japanese participants prefered images of women with significantly lower Body Mass Indexes than Britons. Results also showed that Japanese participants were more reliant on body shape than Britons when judging physical attractiveness. This journal discusses that Japanese people endorse an extremely thin body Ideal- Sociocultural Theory. They also argue western society may have influenced japanese perception of attractiveness.
Again, this study asserts that gender roles may be important in the perception of attractiveness cross culturally- One example from another example is:
2 distinct cultures Denmark (rich, less sex role stereotyped) and Portugal (poorer, more sex role stereotyped)- Finding Portugese subjects display a much stronger preference for traditional thin and hourglass females and V shaped males- perhaps this could apply for the Japanese predominance for a thinner female- and the importance of attractiveness in Japanese Culture.
Attractiveness not only changes from culture to culture.... but has also changed over time.
* Barber- documented the female bodily attractiveness standard for Miss america and Playboy over time... and also juxtaposed the body types of Women in Playboy (mens attraction magazine) and Vogue (womens fashion magazine) and showed that women in Playboy were far more buxom and curvaceous- which men found significantly more appealing.
Just a few of the interesting things that I have found...
Attractiveness perception appears to be fluid in some respects and stagnant is others.
Physical Attractiveness especially appears to be very very fickle....
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Attractiveness- A rough draft. Why are some people attractive?
Ok.. I thought i might give myself some direction and port a rough draft of what I am thinking of writing for my blog 2--- and some issues that have arisen.
ISSUE 1) What sort of attraction am I talking about. Is it just 'sexual' attraction, 'interpersonal' attraction, 'relationship' attraction, 'friendship' attraction...
I am thinking of stating that it will be 'interpersonal' attraction with a predominance towards intimate relationship attraction (as that is what most of the research is about).
THE BLOG
Abstract
Introduction- Introduce what attractiveness is, give direction for the essay.
PROPINQUITY
* Nearness or proximity in physical or psychological space which creates the opportunity to meet another person'.
* The likelihood of meeting, spatial ecology and functional distance. 'Westgate and Westgate West experiment- where it was found that proximity and physical closeness somewhat predicted relationships and friendships.
* Familiarity/Mere Exposure- Proximity generally leards to increased exposure and greater familiarity.
* Availability- People who live close by are accessible- and interaction requires little effort and rewards of interacting are low cost.
* Expectation of continued interaction- (Balance Theory)- It would be an uncomfortable experience not to get along with neighbours- greater interaction is anticipated. Berscheid experiment (1976) where university students rated higher attraction to someone who they perceived as a greater accessibility and continued interaction.
SIMILARITY-
Attitude similarity effect- the idea that peope find others more attractive and likeable the more similar they are in attitudes, beliefs and preferences.
* Compatible attitudes
* Self disclosure
* Matching Hypothesis
* Birds of a feather flock together v opposites attract
* Similar beliefs, morals, SES, status, edication, intelligence, personality- (Research)
RECEPROCITY-
* Liking begets reciprocal liking.
* If someone likes you, it is hard to resist liking that person in return.
* Mimicking (Confederate research study Chartrant & Bargh, 1999)
* Unrequited love
REINFORCEMENT-
The are attracted to someone who brings about favourable rewards for us.
* Reinforcement-affect model
*Social Exchange Theory
* Exchange or rewards including: goods, information, love, money, services, status.
* Equity Theory
BEAUTY
* Facial Symmetry
* Facial Features (eyes, nose, cheekbones, jawline, facial fat)
* Bodily features (Waist hip ratio; Body mass index; height)
* Body Odour (Pheremones, perfumes, foul odour)
CROSS CULTURAL AND TRANS-GENERATIONAL ATTRACTIVENESS
* Hopefully I will be able to incorperate some cross cultural and 'over generations or centuries' theories and research to highlight that 'why some people are considered attractive; is a plastic concept- a malleable construct that is ever evolving and being influenced by a multitude of variables.
At present I have some Britain v Greece male attractiveness study and Britain v Japan female sttractiveness study. I will also try to touch on the attractiveness of various ethnicities.
I also hope to incoperate an evolutionary social psychology flavour- indicating that many of the 'attractiveness' facets are believed to have an evolutionary heritage.
Thats all for now... Let me know if there is anything else that anyone thinks or wants me to discuss, please let me know. xxxx
ISSUE 1) What sort of attraction am I talking about. Is it just 'sexual' attraction, 'interpersonal' attraction, 'relationship' attraction, 'friendship' attraction...
I am thinking of stating that it will be 'interpersonal' attraction with a predominance towards intimate relationship attraction (as that is what most of the research is about).
THE BLOG
Abstract
Introduction- Introduce what attractiveness is, give direction for the essay.
PROPINQUITY
* Nearness or proximity in physical or psychological space which creates the opportunity to meet another person'.
* The likelihood of meeting, spatial ecology and functional distance. 'Westgate and Westgate West experiment- where it was found that proximity and physical closeness somewhat predicted relationships and friendships.
* Familiarity/Mere Exposure- Proximity generally leards to increased exposure and greater familiarity.
* Availability- People who live close by are accessible- and interaction requires little effort and rewards of interacting are low cost.
* Expectation of continued interaction- (Balance Theory)- It would be an uncomfortable experience not to get along with neighbours- greater interaction is anticipated. Berscheid experiment (1976) where university students rated higher attraction to someone who they perceived as a greater accessibility and continued interaction.
SIMILARITY-
Attitude similarity effect- the idea that peope find others more attractive and likeable the more similar they are in attitudes, beliefs and preferences.
* Compatible attitudes
* Self disclosure
* Matching Hypothesis
* Birds of a feather flock together v opposites attract
* Similar beliefs, morals, SES, status, edication, intelligence, personality- (Research)
RECEPROCITY-
* Liking begets reciprocal liking.
* If someone likes you, it is hard to resist liking that person in return.
* Mimicking (Confederate research study Chartrant & Bargh, 1999)
* Unrequited love
REINFORCEMENT-
The are attracted to someone who brings about favourable rewards for us.
* Reinforcement-affect model
*Social Exchange Theory
* Exchange or rewards including: goods, information, love, money, services, status.
* Equity Theory
BEAUTY
* Facial Symmetry
* Facial Features (eyes, nose, cheekbones, jawline, facial fat)
* Bodily features (Waist hip ratio; Body mass index; height)
* Body Odour (Pheremones, perfumes, foul odour)
CROSS CULTURAL AND TRANS-GENERATIONAL ATTRACTIVENESS
* Hopefully I will be able to incorperate some cross cultural and 'over generations or centuries' theories and research to highlight that 'why some people are considered attractive; is a plastic concept- a malleable construct that is ever evolving and being influenced by a multitude of variables.
At present I have some Britain v Greece male attractiveness study and Britain v Japan female sttractiveness study. I will also try to touch on the attractiveness of various ethnicities.
I also hope to incoperate an evolutionary social psychology flavour- indicating that many of the 'attractiveness' facets are believed to have an evolutionary heritage.
Thats all for now... Let me know if there is anything else that anyone thinks or wants me to discuss, please let me know. xxxx
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Facial Symmetry- Piercings and Beauty Spots
As we have all learned in social psych and cognitive psychology- our brains prefer a symmetrical face. Whether we agree with it or not, there seems to be a wealth of literature stating that facial symmetry is a sign of beauty.
There are two issues that i am perplexed by...
BEAUTY SPOTS (MOLES)- If facial symmetry is so important, then why do some of the most beautisul women in the world have beauty spots.. these are clearly not adding to the symmetry of the face.
Many 'beautiful' celebrities have beauty spots-- sarah jessica parker, angelina jolie, cindy crawford etc etc...
See the pictures below and decide whether you think the beauty spot makes a difference-
PIERCINGS- This time, a voluntary way to make your face non-symmetrical- Think fergie, Pink, Kelly Clarkson- Do you think it adds to their facial attractiveness or detracts from it?
What do you think about symmetry?
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia about facial symmetry and evolutionary theory
Edler cited research supporting the claim that bilateral symmetry is an important indicator of freedom from disease, and worthiness for mating. Facial asymmetries and minor physical anomalies begin to appear early in embryonic development, mainly the first trimester of pregnancy, and can be a sign of instability during this growth. Fluctuating asymmetry (random differences between two sides, as opposed to the deliberate natural asymmetry in some animals) develop throughout the lifespan of the individual and is a sign of the phenotype being subjected to some levels of stress.
The ability to cope with these pressures is partly reflected in the levels of symmetry. A higher degree of symmetry indicates a better coping system for environmental factors. While the visible signs of this may not be particularly apparent, it is thought that they have at least a subconscious effect on people's perception of their beauty. Zaidel et al. in an empirical study upholds the claim that facial symmetry may be critical for the appearance of health. Their study disputes, however, the beauty or attractiveness claim.
Facial symmetry is neither the only trait nor is it necessarily the most important trait of what a culture considers attractive. The competing aesthetic theory of wabi sabi posits the existence of beauty through imperfection.
The ability to cope with these pressures is partly reflected in the levels of symmetry. A higher degree of symmetry indicates a better coping system for environmental factors. While the visible signs of this may not be particularly apparent, it is thought that they have at least a subconscious effect on people's perception of their beauty. Zaidel et al. in an empirical study upholds the claim that facial symmetry may be critical for the appearance of health. Their study disputes, however, the beauty or attractiveness claim.
Facial symmetry is neither the only trait nor is it necessarily the most important trait of what a culture considers attractive. The competing aesthetic theory of wabi sabi posits the existence of beauty through imperfection.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Why are some people attractive? I want your thoughts
Based on last weeks lecture, what does everyone think about attractiveness.
How do each of the following principles apply to someone who you have been attracted to?
Propinquity- Mere exposure, proximity- kinda like the song "Love the one your with"
Reciprocity- Liking someone who already likes you. Settling...
Similarity- Similar attitudes, values, interests, beliefs etc..
Beauty- Waist Hip ratio, facial features, symmetrical face, youthfulness, ethnicity etc..
Economic Benefits- 'Social Exchange Theory' maximising benefits by associating with someone of high status, power, looks etc...
I believe that all of this influences us..
In my case, I was initially attracted to my boyfriend (although I was 15 at the time) for several reasons
* Reciprocity- he liked me, showed interest in me and I was flattered
* Propinquity- Lived in my home town, mutual friends,
* Beauty- he had characteristics that I found attractive- and are typically attractive for men- darker skin, prominent lower jaw, large shoulders in comparison to waist and hips, etc
Obviously personality also.....
But I think the similarity may be what has sustained the relationship- I did not know a great deal about him upon first attraction- but liked him more as i began to know him more.
If anyone has any thoughts on attraction/attractiveness please drop me a line.... Thanks
BY THE WAY... JUST F.Y.I...... I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT REAL BEAUTY IS ON THE INSIDE
How do each of the following principles apply to someone who you have been attracted to?
Propinquity- Mere exposure, proximity- kinda like the song "Love the one your with"
Reciprocity- Liking someone who already likes you. Settling...
Similarity- Similar attitudes, values, interests, beliefs etc..
Beauty- Waist Hip ratio, facial features, symmetrical face, youthfulness, ethnicity etc..
Economic Benefits- 'Social Exchange Theory' maximising benefits by associating with someone of high status, power, looks etc...
I believe that all of this influences us..
In my case, I was initially attracted to my boyfriend (although I was 15 at the time) for several reasons
* Reciprocity- he liked me, showed interest in me and I was flattered
* Propinquity- Lived in my home town, mutual friends,
* Beauty- he had characteristics that I found attractive- and are typically attractive for men- darker skin, prominent lower jaw, large shoulders in comparison to waist and hips, etc
Obviously personality also.....
But I think the similarity may be what has sustained the relationship- I did not know a great deal about him upon first attraction- but liked him more as i began to know him more.
If anyone has any thoughts on attraction/attractiveness please drop me a line.... Thanks
BY THE WAY... JUST F.Y.I...... I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT REAL BEAUTY IS ON THE INSIDE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
