Physical Attractiveness

10 Key excerpts on "Physical Attractiveness"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  All in the Mind

  Psychology for the Curious

  • Adrian Furnham, Dimitrios Tsivrikos(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Wiley-Blackwell

    (Publisher)

  beautiful is good bias. Research repeatedly demonstrates a positive correlation between Physical Attractiveness and treatment from others, leading physically attractive individuals to have better jobs, higher incomes, and more friends than others. Such studies leave us in no doubt that physical beauty can have a profound impact on an individual’s daily life. What such studies do not answer, however, is how we should define attractiveness. This is an important question, not least because it colors the way we examine the social impact of attractiveness, as well as questions concerning body image and body esteem.

  8.2 Defining Attractiveness

  So how to define attractiveness? It used to be said of attractiveness, as a judge once said of pornography, that it is difficult to explain but easy to recognize. It comes as no surprise, therefore, to learn that human beings have been trying to do just that – explain beauty – for centuries. The ancient Greeks, for example, believed that beauty was a matter of having the right mathematical proportions. Indeed, mathematical functions of beauty, such as Plato’s golden section, also featured prominently in the notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci and other artists of the Renaissance.

  The idea that beauty is in the eye of the beholder – that different people have different ideas about beauty and therefore do not agree about who is, and who is not, beautiful – was for a long while the dominant view in much of philosophy and art.

  In contrast to the subjective view of beauty, however, psychologists have argued that there may be objectively defined criteria of attractiveness. Socialization theorists, for example, emphasize the effects on judgments of beauty of social and cultural norms, and stress the idea that social stereotypes such as the “attractiveness is good” bias create their own reality. A different idea that is currently very popular in both lay and scientific circles is that beauty is a reliable index of health and fertility. This is the evolutionary psychological

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Emerald Handbook of Appearance in the Workplace

  • Adelina Broadbridge(Author)
  • 2023(Publication Date)
  • Emerald Publishing Limited

    (Publisher)

  Confounds of attractiveness (race/ethnicity, sex and/or gender, age, changing beauty standards, etc.) are sometimes considered. Various perspectives are taken as well – most recently evolutionary arguments are common (e.g. Lee et al., 2015; Rhodes, 2006; Sugiyama, 2015). The evolutionary psychology perspective on attractiveness posits that attractiveness is used by others as an indicator of health and genetic compatibility. In this chapter, however, we frame the effects of attractiveness as power and status dynamics shaped by the context of the workplace. Attractiveness serves as a social status that mostly provides benefits in the workplace, although the results are not uniformly positive. We first explain attractiveness as a status characteristic and how it operates in general social interactions. We then examine these effects across three typical yet significant career development milestones in a worker's life: (1) the selection and hiring process of employment, (2) day-to-day interactions with colleagues and co-workers and (3) in leadership roles and positions. Attractiveness as a Status Characteristic Attractiveness plays an important role in day-to-day social interaction. We think that a useful way to envision this social dynamic is by thinking of Physical Attractiveness as a status characteristic. As such, attractiveness can be seen as carrying expectation states, as originally defined by Berger et al. in 1977 (Webster & Driskell, 1983). In their definition, a status characteristic is ‘any characteristic of actors around which evaluations of and beliefs about them come to be organised’, such as gender, race, age, attractiveness and education (Berger et al., 1980, p. 479). Ridgeway (1997) subsequently identified the concept of status beliefs, a set of ideas about competence that become associated with certain states of various characteristics, in this case, attractiveness

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Love and Attraction

  An International Conference

  • Mark Cook, Glenn Wilson, Mark Cook, Glenn Wilson(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Pergamon

    (Publisher)

  W . H . Freeman, San Francisco (1967). Iliffe, A . H. A study of preferences in feminine beauty. British Journal of Psychology, 51,267-73 (1960). Murstein, Β . I. Physical Attractiveness and marital choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 22, 8-12(1972). This page intentionally left blank THE INTEGRATION OF PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL INFORMATION IN SOCIAL PERCEPTION G E R A L D C. CUPCHIK, JONATHAN C. Y O U N G E R AND DANIEL K L E I N University of Toronto It need hardly be stated that the physical features of others determine, in part, the form and substance of our interactions (Berscheid & Walster, 1974; Kleck eta/., 1966). More surprising, perhaps, is the extent to which physical cues colour our feelings and impressions. Physical Attractiveness information is a particularly interesting case in point. A halo effect (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977) in its positive form appears to bias our evaluation of the attractive person, and, in its negative form, the unattractive person. A substantial empirical literature has documented, at least for Western cultures, the prevalence of the stereotype attendant on Physical Attractiveness (Berscheid & Walster, 1974). This literature has tended to be descriptive, focussing on the bounds and effects of such stereotypic beliefs. However, with few exceptions, it has not considered the implications for psychological process. This paper will attempt to define and present data pertinent to testing some aspects of a process-oriented theoretical framework for understanding the effects of attractiveness information on social perception. In normal conversation, an individual might be described as having large ears, another as endowed with harmonious facial features. The same persons might also be depicted as very generous or quite the opposite. From a formal theoretical view, these information forms constitute distinctly different systems, each with a separate set of basic elements, and principles of organization (Koffka, 1935).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Human Differences

  • Lewis R. Aiken(Author)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  Appearance and behavior are easily obtainable types of information for evaluating people, at least superficially. With patience and perceptiveness, a better indication of the character and personality of the inner man or inner woman can be obtained, but most social encounters are fairly brief ones and provide little opportunity to figure out what a person is really like under his or her public persona. Nevertheless, first impressions are important in determining a person’s acceptability and attractiveness to other people—his or her social stimulus value. Because of its significance as a social variable and its relationship to success in many different arenas, a great deal of attention has been devoted by social psychologists and other behavioral scientists to the study of physical and behavioral attractiveness.

  Physical Attractiveness plays an important role in determining the self-concept —how a person feels about him or herself. According to Cooley’s (1922) looking-glass theory of the self, a person’s self-concept is the result of reflected appraisals. This implies that people come to see themselves according to their perceptions of how they are seen by other people. Consequently, most people do everything they can, within reason, to make positive impressions on others so they will be favorably evaluated and thereby feel good about themselves. They realize that in most interpersonal contexts—familial, educational, employment, recreational, and romantic—physical appearance is at least as important as ability and personality in determining acceptability and approval (e.g., Collins & Zebrowitz, 1995).

  Gender Similarities and Differences

  Appearance is quite important to most White females, but they are not the only ones who pay attention to their looks. Men, as well as women of other racial or ethnic groups, spend a substantial amount of time inspecting themselves in mirrors, grooming, and doing other things to make themselves more socially attractive. As seen in their preoccupation with their hair, skin, and other body parts, and with being taller and heavier, many more men than might be expected have body-image problems.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Social and Applied Aspects of Perceiving Faces

  • Thomas R. Alley(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  The greater psychosocial impact of Physical Attractiveness for females is probably responsible for sex differences in the correlations between Physical Attractiveness and psychological self-reports. For instance, Mathes and Kahn (1975) found significant correlations between independently rated Physical Attractiveness and self-rated happiness (r =.37), self-esteem (r =.24), and psychological health (neuroticism) (r = –.22) for female university students, but no significant correlations for males. Likewise, the greater importance of attractiveness for females may be reflected in psychophysiological measures. Among young adults, unattractive females have significantly higher average blood pressure than attractive females, even when controlling for obesity, whereas attractiveness and blood pressure are generally unrelated in males (Hansell, Sparacino, & Ronchi, 1982). Facial attractiveness can enhance or exaggerate perceptions of men’s masculinity and women’s femininity (Cash, 1981; Heilman & Saruwatari, 1979). Likewise, the favorable impact of facial attractiveness on performance evaluations of women can be modulated by task sex-typing, with attractiveness being less beneficial for “masculine” tasks (Cash & Trimer, 1984). Nonetheless, our culture and many others view Physical Attractiveness as a necessity for being fully feminine, but a man need not be handsome to be seen as masculine (cf. Adams & Crossman, 1978). “Good looks are prerequisite for femininity but incidental to masculinity” (Freedman, 1986, p. 2). In a survey of 28,000 readers of Psychology Today (who are typically better educated and more liberal than the average American), almost twice as many men as women viewed Physical Attractiveness as a “very important” or “essential” trait of an ideal member of the opposite sex (Tavris, 1977). In our society even the pursuit of beauty is considered an aspect of femininity

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Family, Culture, and Self in the Development of Eating Disorders

  • Susan Haworth-Hoeppner(Author)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  1 The Cultural Milieu of Physical Attractiveness DOI: 10.4324/9781315639475-2

  For the past several decades social science research has been interested in the relationship between standards of attractiveness and body image. This is particularly true in research concerned with feminine standards of beauty and eating disorders. In our society there is considerable consensus about what it means to be attractive, and perhaps the most powerful aspect of Physical Attractiveness involves having a “fit” body which, for women, means a well-toned and slender shape and, for men, a strong and muscular one. Females strive for thinness, which they pursue through dieting and/or exercise, in hopes of becoming smaller.1 Males, on the other hand, consistently indicate that their main concern with their appearance does not lie in weight loss as much as it does in gaining muscle and building upper body strength.2 The difference: females in general3 desire to become thinner, to reduce their body size, whereas males aspire to become more muscular, and larger. While these bodily ideals indicate noteworthy distinctions, they share a common element, a focus on body size. But this emphasis, part of contemporary Western standards of attractiveness, is not a cultural universal, neither geographically nor historically.

  Cultural Variations in Attractiveness

  What people have found aesthetically or erotically pleasing within various cultural contexts does not represent a universal standard. Ideals of beauty, handsomeness, or sexual attractiveness vary widely between one historical period and another; one culture and another; one nation and others.4 For instance, “The Venus of Willendorf,” a Paleolithic stone figurine that dates from before 25,000 b.c.e., represents a feminine form with pendulant breasts, a large abdomen and thighs, and ample hips. This statuette has been interpreted by scholars in a myriad of ways: as a symbol of fertility, an erotic fetish, or a pre-historical illustration of what moderns would call obesity.5 But the body has been more than variously represented and “read”: it has been manipulated as well, in order to suit notions of attractiveness that involve considerable alteration. More than 30 years ago, Susan Brownmiller described numerous, extreme beauty regimes practiced by or on females, citing the elongated necks of the Myanmar (progressively stacked neck rings achieve this extension); a three-inch foot for the Chinese (produced by foot binding); and small waist lines in the West (accomplished in the past by corseting and, contemporarily, by cosmetic surgery).6 Shaping of the head has been practiced in many cultures: pre-Neolithic Jericho, ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Today, among the Mangbetu in Central Africa, infants’ heads are bound, using cloth and boards, to create elongated skulls.7 Bodily cicatrizing of adolescent and adult Kau, Nuba, and Dinka females in Sudan, head shaving and face painting of “brides to be” among the Maasai in Kenya—humanity has long practiced alteration and adornment to celebrate rites of passage or to effect beauty.8

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Individuals as Producers of Their Development

  A Life-Span Perspective

  • Richard M Lerner, Nancy A. Busch-Rossnagel, Richard M Lerner, Nancy A. Busch-Rossnagel(Authors)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Academic Press

    (Publisher)

  This does not imply that any one research project would necessarily be characterized by all of these attri- butes, although the attributes are hierarchically arranged. That is, in our 14. THE ROLE OF Physical Attractiveness 401 Physical Appearance Revisited: Directions for Research Fundamental to an understanding of the functioning of physical ap- pearance variables as contributors to individual development is the elab- oration of appearance stereotypes. In other words, it is essential to es- tablish what personality, behavioral, and sodal attributes are assumed to be typical of persons differing in bodily and facial characteristics. Fur- thermore, an elaboration of similarities and differences in the stereotypes held by individuals during particular developmental periods—adolescence or middle age, for example—^toward peers and toward individuals in other view, ail studies should be theory-based. To as great an extent as possible, research should be progranunatically derived. Any work involving a mul- tivariate approach should be conceptually and operationally comparable to extant literature. Finally, to meet a criterion of maximal usefulness for the study of change, longitudinal projects should be characterized by the three previously mentioned attributes. Such a body of hierarchically ex- panding work would be amenable to comparative interpretation on the basis of its unifying theoretical orientation and programmatic execution. Methodologically, this is not the case in the existing physical appearance literature. Instead, as noted, most studies are essentially atheoretical. Diverse methodologies, ranging from experimental manipulations to paper and pencil self-reports to observational techniques have been employed; and in m a n y instances, the operationalization of variables is problematic.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Love, Romance, Sexual Interaction

  Research Perspectives from "Current Psychology"

  • Nathaniel Pallone(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  1Physical Appearance, Attractiveness, and the Mediating Role of Emotions Albert Mehrabian and Jeffrey S. Blum

  The present study was designed to investigate effects of most physical features previously shown to be determinants of physical at tractiveness. Findings from studies conducted primarily with college students in the United States helped delineate the physical features to be explored.

  Physical correlates of attractiveness have been categorized as static (or stable) and fluctuating (or changeable) features (Brown, Cash, & Noles, 1986). “Static” features included relatively enduring physical characteristics such as height or eye color. “Fluctuating” or changeable features referred to characteristics that varied over time, such as hair style or facial pleasantness.

  Body shape has been found to be an important stable determinant of attractiveness. Shapeliness of physique related to ratings of attractiveness in men and women. Women preferred men exhibiting V-shaped bodies (Lavrakas, 1975). Also, upper body strength enhanced ratings of male attractiveness (Franzoi & Herzog, 1987). In comparison, men favored women with hourglass figures (Gitter et al., 1983).

  Obesity has been found to decrease attractiveness (Clayson & Klassen, 1989). More specifically, Gitter, Lomranz, and Saxe (1982) used drawings of male figures varying in abdomen, shoulders, neck, head, and body shapes. A protruding abdomen was the strongest indicator of unattractiveness. In another study, the negative effect of obesity on attractiveness was more pronounced for female than for male targets (Furham & Radley, 1989).

  Height also has been shown to be a determinant of attractiveness. Men found shorter women more attractive and more desirable as dates, whereas women preferred to date taller men, but did not rate them as more attractive than shorter men (Shepperd & Strathman, 1989).

  Many stable physical properties of the face have been studied also. Overall facial attractiveness was found to correlate positively with attractiveness of its component parts, with the mouth region having the greatest influence, followed by the eyes, hair, nose, and facial structure (Terry & Davis, 1976).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Physical Appearance, Stigma, and Social Behavior

  The Ontario Symposium Volume 3

  • C. Peter Herman, Mark P. Zanna, E. Tory Higgins(Authors)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  I FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS Passage contains an image

  1 Stereotyping based on Physical Attractiveness: Issues and Conceptual Perspectives

  Karen K. Dion University of Toronto

  Does an individual’s Physical Attractiveness affect others’ impressions of him or her? This question has received considerable attention in the research literature during the past decade and continuing into the present one. Several issues pertaining to stereotyping based on Physical Attractiveness are covered here. In the context of the present discussion, Brigham’s (1971 ) definition of the term stereotype is relevant, even though he proposed this definition with reference to ethnic stereotypes. Specifically, Brigham suggested that what makes this concept distinctive is that it is not simply “a generalization . . . about a group” (p. 30), but “a generalization . . . which is considered to be unjustified by an observer” (p. 31, italics omitted).

  This discussion of Physical Attractiveness stereotyping begins by considering two early studies. It should be noted that this chapter focuses on the facial component of Physical Attractiveness.

  Research on Physical Attractiveness Stereotyping

  To investigate whether stereotyping based on an individual’s Physical Attractiveness occurred, Dion, Berscheid, and Walster (1972) asked male and female university students to judge stimulus persons (also young adults) who differed in Physical Attractiveness, on a variety of dimensions. Respondents were told that the study concerned “accuracy in person perception,” specifically, a comparison of college students’ accuracy with that of two other groups (graduate students in clinical psychology and clinical psychologists). The stimulus persons were ostensibly taking part in a study of personality development that would investigate their development into adulthood, thus presumably providing the opportunity to ascertain the accuracy of respondents’ judgments.

  The findings indicated support for the existence of Physical Attractiveness stereotyping. Specifically, physically attractive individuals of both sexes were believed to have more socially desirable personalities and more favorable experiences in several domains. One domain showed no differences as a function of the stimulus person’s attractiveness: viz. expected parental competence. Overall, the general pattern of results indicated a positivity effect, with attractive individuals receiving more favorable evaluations from peers, a pattern summarized by the phrase: “What is beautiful is good.”

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Aesthetics and the Arts

  • Pablo P. L. Tinio, Jeffrey K. Smith(Authors)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  Additionally, attractiveness of the self (Little et al., 2001), level of similarity to others (DeBruine et al., 2008) and similarity to one’ s kin (Zietsch et al., 2011) are other factors influencing attractiveness evaluations, and this list could go on. We have, nevertheless, made some important points regarding facial attractive- ness. First, we reviewed factors influencing attractiveness. We have shown that stable and dynamic facial features and contextual aspects influence attractiveness. Thus, attractiveness is not a simple one-dimensional construct, but is influenced by many different factors (Cunningham et al., 2002). Second, we discussed that this heterogeneity in factors influencing attractiveness is also reflected in how our brains process facial attractiveness. There is not a single “attractiveness module” in the brain. Rather, facial attractiveness is represented in several different areas ranging from low-level perceptual to higher-level cognitive and emotional areas. Activation in these areas due to attractiveness is influenced by the aforemen- tioned factors. Attractiveness is also processed quickly and efficiently. Third, we have shown that attractiveness changes how we feel and behave. Attractiveness has distinct effects on attention, memory and behavior. It also elicits positive emotions. And, last but not least, attractiveness in the world is an important source of reward. Factors and effects of facial attractiveness 437 References Aharon, I., Etcoff, N., Ariely, D., Chabris, C. F., O’Connor, E., and Breiter, H. C. (2001). Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioural evidence. Neuron, 32, 537–51. Augustin, M. D., Wagemans, J., and Carbon, C. C. (2012). All is beautiful? Generality vs. specificity of word usage in visual aesthetics. Acta Psychologica, 139, 187–201. Baker, M. J., and Churchill, G. A. (1977). Impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book