As we go through life, we meet many people who are fun and pleasant to be around. But as we discussed in Chapter 1, there’s something unique and thrilling about wanting to pursue an intimate relationship with someone. What’s the difference between “I like you” and “I really like you”? What are the elements that make us want to go from just friends to more than friends? This is the mystery of romantic attraction, which we define as the experience of finding someone desirable as a potential intimate partner, with or without a sexual element.
As an initial step toward understanding the origins of romantic attraction, researchers have simply asked college students what they pay attention to when evaluating someone’s romantic appeal. At the top of every list is physical appearance (Regan & Berscheid, 1997). It makes sense: Physical appearance is one of the first and easiest things we can know about another person. We can’t walk into a room and tell immediately whether a stranger is smart or honest or a good parent, but we can certainly tell whether we like how that person looks. If an erotic element distinguishes potential intimate partners from close friends, it makes sense that our reaction to a person’s physical appearance plays a unique role in romantic attraction.
I am in love—and, my God, it is the greatest thing that can happen to a man. I tell you, find a woman you can fall in love with. Do it. Let yourself fall in love. If you have not done so already, you are wasting your life.”
—D. H. Lawrence, English novelist, Letters (1885–1930, p. 42)
But just how important is that role? In a classic study that addressed this question, social psychologist Elaine Hatfield and her colleagues asked 752 freshmen to participate in what the students thought was a test of a new computer dating service (Hatfield, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottmann, 1966). To enroll in the service, students completed questionnaires about their personality, their background, and their self-esteem. The researchers also had access to high school grades and SAT scores. Finally, based on photographs, the researchers rated the physical appearance of each participant on a scale from “extremely attractive” to “extremely unattractive.” When submitting these materials, the students thought the information would be used to match them up with appropriate dates for a Freshman Week mixer. In fact, the researchers assigned partners randomly. During the mixer, they asked each person whether he or she would want to go out with his or her assigned partner again.
Which variable predicted whether a pair would have a second date? If you guessed physical appearance, you’d be right. Students who were assigned to better-looking dates were a lot more likely to want to ask them out again. But which of the other variables helped predict attraction in this situation? None of them. Whether the two people shared interests, came from similar backgrounds, or had good social skills—none of these variables seemed to matter. The only thing that predicted the desire for a second date was physical appearance.
Much of the early research on the effects of physical appearance on romantic attraction was conducted on samples of men, perhaps because researchers expected that good looks in a partner would be more important to men than to women. Lots of evidence from self-reported data suggests they were right. For example, evolutionary psychologists David Buss and Michael Barnes (1986) asked college students and married couples to name the attributes they found appealing in a potential partner. Although most attributes were rated similarly by women and men, men valued physical appearance more highly than women did. Since then, this gender difference has been recognized in many different cultures (Buss, 1989) and across age and ethnic groups (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield, 1994).
Does this mean men are more influenced by appearance than women? Not necessarily. Although women consistently say they find looks to be less important than men, studies that directly examine who men and women are attracted to tell a different story (Feingold, 1988). For example, social psychologist Susan Sprecher (1989) presented male and female undergraduates with different kinds of information about possible romantic partners (e.g., physical appeal, personality, earning potential) and then had them indicate how attracted they were to each person. Participants were also asked to estimate how much each type of information affected their attraction ratings. Just as an evolutionary psychologist would have predicted, the men in the study believed appearance played an important role for them, whereas the women believed they were more affected by the person’s earning potential and emotional expressiveness. Despite these explanations, by far the largest predictor of attraction was good looks, for women and men alike. In a meta-analysis of nearly 100 studies, psychologist Paul Eastwick and his colleagues confirmed that perceiving a partner to be physically attractive predicts greater romantic attraction equally for both genders (Eastwick, Luchies, Finkel, & Hunt, 2014).
Gender differences do exist, however, in behavior—especially in online dating. Most dating websites are fiercely protective of their data, but one exception is OkCupid, which regularly posts detailed analyses of how their users behave. Similar to what the Hatfield team did 50 years ago, the OkCupid team have examined how the appeal of a person’s profile photo affects the number of messages he or she gets (Rudder, 2009). The results are clear, powerful, and unsurprising: The best-looking people on the site get much more attention than the least attractive ones. However, because the site records not only preferences but also behaviors (such as initiating a message to someone), the researchers could see a significant gender difference as well. Men interested in women are relatively even-handed when rating women’s appearance, judging equal numbers of women to be more or less attractive; but then they show an overwhelming tendency to send messages to the women they rate as the best looking. In contrast, women interested in men are relatively harsh when rating men’s appearance, judging very few men to be at the top of the scale; but then they are far more willing to send messages to men they don’t think are that good looking. To be clear, the most attractive men still get 11 times more messages than the least attractive men, but the most attractive women get an astonishing 25 times more messages than the least attractive women. The graphs that appeared in the OkCupid blog are reproduced in Figure 7.2.
FIGURE 7.2 Different standards for men and women. Analyses of data from the online dating site OkCupid suggest that men’s ratings of women’s attractiveness are more even-handed than women’s ratings of men. At the same time, men are dramatically more likely to send messages to women they rate as extremely attractive, while women are more willing to send messages to men they rate as less attractive. (Source: OkCupid.com.)
Despite the consistent evidence of the power of physical appearance across decades of research, it’s hard to believe that romantic attraction could be that simple. If everyone is drawn to the best-looking people around, then how do the rest of us ever find partners? A casual glance at the couples we pass every day suggests that people of widely varying appearances do get asked out once in a while. People talk about partners being “out of my league,” suggesting they are aware of their own appearance and seek partners who are not too far above or below their own level (White, 1980). In fact, research confirms that people who are dating or about to get married tend to be rated as similar to each other in physical appearance (Feingold, 1988). This tendency is known as the matching phenomenon (Rosenfeld, 1964).
The matching phenomenon suggests that we don’t always pursue the most physically perfect specimens we can find. In light of the OkCupid analyses, that’s probably a good strategy, as competition for the most attractive partners is likely to be intense. So when do we go for the most visually appealing person we can see and when do we compromise? Early research explored one possible answer: Our own looks might affect the kinds of people we seek out as partners (Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971). Good-looking people who are accustomed to being admired might feel comfortable approaching other people with good looks. People who are more on the plain side might reasonably be concerned about rejection, and therefore would probably approach potential partners who are also less than gorgeous.
To test this idea, marketing professor Leonard Lee and his colleagues teamed up with the people who run the website HOTorNOT.com (Lee, Loewenstein, Ariely, Hone, & Young, 2008). When it was originally developed in 2000, HOTorNOT.com served as a place for people to post photographs of themselves and to rate, on a scale of 1 to 10, the “hotness” (physical attractiveness) of others who posted photos there (Figure 7.3). As a source of information on what features people find physically attractive, this is a goldmine, because the site has recorded billions of ratings since it began.
FIGURE 7.3 Are you hot or not? On the popular website HOTorNOT.com, people post their photos and invite visitors to rate their physical attractiveness. Millions of people have accepted this invitation, providing researchers with a treasure trove of data.
With the rise of online dating, HOTorNOT.com added a function allowing members to communicate and ask each other out. The Lee team recognized that, along with the attractiveness ratings, the data on who was eager to meet whom enabled them to address two questions about the role of physical appearance in romantic attraction. First, does one’s own appearance influence the kinds of people one is willing to pursue? Based on over 2 million dating decisions made by over 16,000 people, the answer is yes (Lee et al., 2008). Similar to OkCupid.com, at HOTorNOT.com, the best-looking people got way more attention from everyone, especially men. At the same time, the appearance of the person sending the message did make a difference. As you might expect, people were sensitive to negative differences between themselves and potential partners, not wanting to ask out those who were less attractive than they were. When looking for a real date, people were also less likely to send messages to people far more attractive than they were—those who might be out of their league.
The second question: If less attractive people are less selective about the appearance of the people they ask out, are they also less aware of physical appeal? In other words, does one’s own appearance affect the attractiveness ratings of others? Based on nearly 450,000 observations, the answer is no (Lee et al., 2008). Less attractive individuals on HOTorNOT.com (as rated by the other members) had no illusions about the looks of the people they asked out. Although willing to date people rated as less attractive by members of the site, their ratings of those potential partners indicated that their selections were, in fact, less attractive.
These research findings demonstrate the matching phenomenon in real couples. It’s not that some people are less interested in attractiveness than others. On the contrary, in the context of finding a partner for an intimate relationship, physical appearance exerts a powerful pull. However, other opposing forces, such as the desire to avoid rejection and the desire to make a connection, can be equally strong. In the real world of dating, this is why the matching phenomenon is common among those who are dating and seeking relationships.
Whether we like it or not, physical appearance plays a large role in the initial experience of romantic attraction. When we know very little about someone, his or her looks seem to overwhelm all other aspects, including the details in an online profile. Why? Because we tend to assume that people who are physically appealing have other positive qualities as well. In an early study exploring this idea, researchers had participants make judgments about strangers based only on a photograph (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972). When the face in the photo was more attractive, people generally assumed the person was also more interesting, more kind, more sensitive, and more likely to be successful than when the face was less attractive. As Box 7.1 describes, the stereotype of beauty varies somewhat across cultures (Wheeler & Kim, 1997). People everywhere seem to agree, however, that good-looking people enjoy certain advantages.
|
Box 7.1 |
Spotlight on . . . |
Features of Appealing Faces
Do people from different cultures agree about the characteristics that make someone physically attractive? Or is beauty, as they say, in the eye of the beholder? In general, if you ask any two people to rate the physical appeal of faces in a wide range of photos, agreement will be low (Diener, Wolsic, & Fujita, 1995). This accounts for our sense that individuals do differ in the kinds of features they find attractive. But if many people rate photos in the same way, there’s generally overall agreement about the components of physical attractiveness.
When men and women from a variety of different cultures rated the faces of photos of women, they tended to agree that women with large eyes, a small nose, and high cheekbones are especially attractive (Cunningham, Roberts, Barbee, Fruend, & Wu, 1995). Although there is less cross-cultural consistency in opinions about men’s faces (Jones, 1995), a wide smile and a broad jaw seem to be reliably attractive (Cunningham, Barbee, & Pike, 1990). Even infants seem to prefer gazing at faces that are characterized by these features (Langlois, Ritter, Roggman, & Vaughn, 1991). They can distinguish between faces rated as attractive and those rated as unattractive (Ramsey, Langlois, Hoss, Ruberstein, & Griffin, 2004).
Why is there such agreement about these particular combinations? The question inspires controversy even among researchers. Developmental psychologist Judith Langlois and her colleagues suggest that the features people find appealing are characteristic of average faces. In support of this idea, they found that people rate computer-generated composites of many different photos to be more attractive than any of the individual photos that made up the composites (e.g., Langlois, Roggman, & Musseman, 1994). See for yourself in Figure 7.4.
FIGURE 7.4 Wow, you sure are average! Research indicates that faces with average features are perceived as more attractive than faces with distinct features. These composites of 2, 8, and 32 faces were created with photography software. What do you think? (Source: Langlois, Roggman, & Musselman, 1994.)
Others suggest that what people find appealing is symmetry—the extent to which paired features on both sides of the face are aligned (Grammer & Thornhill, 1994). Still others report that, although average and symmetrical faces are attractive, faces rated as extremely attractive are not necessarily average or symmetrical (Perrett, May, & Yoshikawa, 1994).
Although the question is far from settled, the striking degree of consensus about the features of appealing faces lends support to the perspective of evolutionary psychology. This view suggests that our preferences for romantic partners—and mates—may reflect evolved tendencies, rather than culturally specific standards (see Chapter 2).
Do beautiful people actually have it made? In many ways, they do. Certainly within the realm of social interactions, people with good looks have several concrete advantages (Langlois et al., 2000). People tend to smile more and feel more positive when interacting with attractive people (Garcia, Stinson, Ickes, & Bissonnette, 1991). Handsome men, in particular, have more conversations with women than less attractive men, and good-looking women get more dates and have more sex than less attractive women (Perilloux, Cloud, & Buss, 2013; Reis, Nezlek, & Wheeler, 1980).
All this favorable attention may lead to a connection between physical appearance and sociability. To explore this idea, social psychologist Mark Snyder and his colleagues recorded telephone conversations between unacquainted men and women (Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977). The men had viewed a photograph of either an attractive or an unattractive woman and were told this was the woman with whom they were going to be interacting. It’s not surprising that observers who listened to only the men’s side of the conversation found that men were more animated and friendly when they believed they were talking to a pretty woman. The interesting part is that observers who listened to only the women’s side of the conversation found that women who were believed to be attractive also behaved in a more sociable and friendly manner. In other words, the assumption that attractive people are more sociable leads men to engage in interactions that encourage their partners to fulfill that expectation. When women are talking on the phone to allegedly attractive or unattractive men, the effects are the same (Andersen & Bem, 1981). This suggests that physical appearance can have a powerful influence on social interactions for both genders.
One can imagine that a lifetime of such experiences might have effects that extend beyond the realm of personal relationships. Good-looking people have, in fact, a greater chance to be hired after job interviews (Hamermesh & Biddle, 1994), and they tend to have a higher salary in their first jobs (Frieze, Olson, & Russell, 1991). Attractive people are less likely to be convicted of crimes, and when they are convicted, they receive shorter sentences (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994).
But there are also negative consequences of being attractive. For example, good looks are often associated with vanity and even promiscuity (Dermer & Thiel, 1975). People tend to lie about themselves when they are talking to better-looking people (Rowatt, Cunningham, & Druen, 1999). Perhaps as a result, very attractive people sometimes find it hard to trust the positive feedback they get from others (Major, Carrington, & Carnevale, 1984).
Do the drawbacks outweigh the benefits of being physically attractive? Probably not. Despite any additional challenges they may face, a number of studies conclude that people with naturally good looks are slightly but significantly happier than less attractive people (Burns & Farina, 1992; Diener, Wolsic, & Fujita, 1995).
Evolutionary psychologists have argued that humans might have developed a preference for physical appeal because, in our ancestral past, the features we now find attractive were markers of good health in a potential mate. It is ironic, then, that, in modern times, health is one area in which nice-looking people are no different from anyone else. Psychologist Michael Kalick and his colleagues followed the health status of men and women from late adolescence into older adulthood (Kalick, Zebrowitz, Langlois, & Johnson, 1998). Looking at photos of them as teenagers, observers rated their facial attractiveness. The researchers predicted that the more attractive youngsters would grow up to be healthier adults, but they were wrong. Being handsome or pretty no longer provides a cue to the physical health of a potential mate, but our preference for physical attractiveness persists.