Describe and evaluate the physical attraction factor affecting attraction in romantic relationships (16 marks)
One explanation of factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships is physical attractiveness.
Shackelford and Larsen (1977) found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive.
Physical attractiveness assumes that we seek to form relationships with the most attractive person available.
Another explanation is the halo effect which is the preconceived ideas about the personality traits that
attractive people must have, and they are almost universally positive. The third explanation is the matching
hypothesis which is the idea that people aim to get, and are attracted to, people who ‘match’ their own
attractiveness.
Supporting evidence for the matching hypothesis. Feingold (1988) carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies
and found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners. This is especially
supportive of the matching hypothesis because the studies looked at actual partners, which is a more realistic
approach. Therefore, this increases the credibility of the role of physical attractiveness in attraction.
Supporting evidence for the halo effect. Gunnell and Ceci (2010) found that less physically attractive people
are 22% more likely to be convicted in courts of law and to get prison sentences on average 22 months
longer than physically attractive people. This supports the halo effect, that physically attractive people are
generally seen as more trustworthy than lesser physically attractive people. Therefore, this increases the
credibility of physical attractiveness as a factor in attraction.
Physical attractiveness in attraction is a universal construct. Cunningham et al (1995) found that female
features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose, and high eyebrows were highly rated for white,
Hispanic and Asian males. Wheeler and Kim (1997) found that Korean and American students judged
physically attractive people to be more trustworthy, concerned for other people, mature, and friendly. It
seems that the stereotype is just as strong in collectivist cultures as it is in individualistic ones. Therefore, the
idea that physical attractiveness is an important feature of attraction is a nomothetic one.
There is supporting evidence for the different levels of importance placed on physical attractiveness by
males and females. Meltzer et al (2014) found that ratings of wives’ attractiveness positively correlated with
husband’s satisfaction in the first four years of marriage. In contrast, ratings of husband’s attractiveness did
not correlate with wives’ satisfaction in the early stages of marriage. This shows that physical appearance is
an important feature for men, and not for women. Therefore, this supports Buss’s (1989) finding that there
are gender differences in the role of physical attractiveness.
There is criticising evidence for the matching hypothesis. Taylor et al (2011) conducted a study about online
dating patterns. They found no evidence that daters’ decisions to request communication with another person
were driven by a similarity between their own and potential partners physical attractiveness. Instead, they
found an overall preference for attractive partners. This suggests that people do not take into account their
own levels of attractiveness when deciding who they are attracted to. Therefore, this criticises Walster et al’s
(1969) matching hypothesis theory.
There are individual differences. Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they
liked a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information. The participants also
completed a questionnaire (MACHO scale) to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours. Towhey (1979)
found that participants who scored highly on the MACHO scale (I.e. who were more sexist) were more
likely to give higher attractiveness ratings to more physically attractive people, and the inverse was true for
those judged to be least sexist. This shows that it is too simplistic to say that all people are affected by
physical attractiveness; some people are influenced more than others. Therefore, this challenges the idea that
physical attractiveness is a significant consideration in relationship formation for all potential partners.
One explanation of factors affecting attraction in romantic relationships is physical attractiveness.
Shackelford and Larsen (1977) found that people with symmetrical faces are rated as more attractive.
Physical attractiveness assumes that we seek to form relationships with the most attractive person available.
Another explanation is the halo effect which is the preconceived ideas about the personality traits that
attractive people must have, and they are almost universally positive. The third explanation is the matching
hypothesis which is the idea that people aim to get, and are attracted to, people who ‘match’ their own
attractiveness.
Supporting evidence for the matching hypothesis. Feingold (1988) carried out a meta-analysis of 17 studies
and found a significant correlation in ratings of attractiveness between romantic partners. This is especially
supportive of the matching hypothesis because the studies looked at actual partners, which is a more realistic
approach. Therefore, this increases the credibility of the role of physical attractiveness in attraction.
Supporting evidence for the halo effect. Gunnell and Ceci (2010) found that less physically attractive people
are 22% more likely to be convicted in courts of law and to get prison sentences on average 22 months
longer than physically attractive people. This supports the halo effect, that physically attractive people are
generally seen as more trustworthy than lesser physically attractive people. Therefore, this increases the
credibility of physical attractiveness as a factor in attraction.
Physical attractiveness in attraction is a universal construct. Cunningham et al (1995) found that female
features of large eyes, prominent cheekbones, small nose, and high eyebrows were highly rated for white,
Hispanic and Asian males. Wheeler and Kim (1997) found that Korean and American students judged
physically attractive people to be more trustworthy, concerned for other people, mature, and friendly. It
seems that the stereotype is just as strong in collectivist cultures as it is in individualistic ones. Therefore, the
idea that physical attractiveness is an important feature of attraction is a nomothetic one.
There is supporting evidence for the different levels of importance placed on physical attractiveness by
males and females. Meltzer et al (2014) found that ratings of wives’ attractiveness positively correlated with
husband’s satisfaction in the first four years of marriage. In contrast, ratings of husband’s attractiveness did
not correlate with wives’ satisfaction in the early stages of marriage. This shows that physical appearance is
an important feature for men, and not for women. Therefore, this supports Buss’s (1989) finding that there
are gender differences in the role of physical attractiveness.
There is criticising evidence for the matching hypothesis. Taylor et al (2011) conducted a study about online
dating patterns. They found no evidence that daters’ decisions to request communication with another person
were driven by a similarity between their own and potential partners physical attractiveness. Instead, they
found an overall preference for attractive partners. This suggests that people do not take into account their
own levels of attractiveness when deciding who they are attracted to. Therefore, this criticises Walster et al’s
(1969) matching hypothesis theory.
There are individual differences. Towhey (1979) asked male and female participants to rate how much they
liked a target individual based on their photograph and some biographical information. The participants also
completed a questionnaire (MACHO scale) to measure sexist attitudes and behaviours. Towhey (1979)
found that participants who scored highly on the MACHO scale (I.e. who were more sexist) were more
likely to give higher attractiveness ratings to more physically attractive people, and the inverse was true for
those judged to be least sexist. This shows that it is too simplistic to say that all people are affected by
physical attractiveness; some people are influenced more than others. Therefore, this challenges the idea that
physical attractiveness is a significant consideration in relationship formation for all potential partners.
