Attraction and close relationships

Determinants of facial attractiveness

• Preference in common, (Cunningham, 1986, Jones et al 2001)

• High uniformity in facial configurations (symmetry) of attractive faces

• Cultural differences, (Ford and Beach, 1981)

• No physical characteristic was considered attractive in all cultures

Premises of facial attractiveness

• Attractive individuals are judged more positively across a whole range of factors (Langlois et al, 2000)

• They are more likely to have dates

• Babies gaze longer at attractive (female) faces (slater et al, 1998)

• Attractive people are more adjusted

• They are perceived to be happier and more successful

Facial attractiveness (Cunningham, 1986)

• Men find two types of women attractive

• Childlike features, large eyes, small nose

• Mature features, big smile, prominent cheekbones

• Both men and women prefer women with feminine facial features

• In 21st century western culture psychologists reported that men found attractive women with childlike faces and mature features

Determinants of men facial attractiveness (Cunningham, Barbee and pike, 1990)

• Large eyes set wide apart

• Small nose

• Prominent cheek bones

• Large chin

• Angular jaw

• More women preferred feminine featured male faces than masculine male faces

How do women associate different personality traits with different face shapes

• Masculine faced men, perceived as cold, dominant, untrustworthy and seeking of a quick fling

• Feminine faced men, perceived as warm, kind and honest as well as more likely to be committed in a long term relationship

what is the evolutionary psychology approach

• Sociobiologists research on human behaviour came from evolutionary biology eg animal behaviour

• Argued that humans are animals and that our mind is a product of biological activity

• Evolutionary psychology was developed by researchers with backgrounds in psychology and social science

Approaches to sexual mate selection choice

• When selecting romantic partners preferences are not random or culturally determined

• Biological approach, explores aspect of human sexual behaviour and physiology eg ovulation

• Evolutionary psychology approach, tested through social scientific methods to predict human mate preferences and choices

Types of sexual/mate selection

• Early evolution theorists, mate choice/selection is based on our desire for certain traits in our selected mate

• Typically females choose males according to the desire for certain traits they want in a male

• Modern evolution theorists, mate choice involves female as well as males choice of traits.

• Female choice is more intense than male choice

Mate selection and parental investment

• Parental investment, refers to the amount of time, energy and resources parents invest in producing and residing offspring

• The more parents invest in their offspring the more likely the offspring is going to survive and reproduce

Evolutionary approach to attractiveness and mating (Gangestad and Simpson, 2000)

• Men/women evolve conditional mating strategies guided by cues and signals

• Women prefer men with features that signal genetic benefits to offspring

• Some men might find success in short term mating

• These circumstances and cues underpin the variations in short and long term mating strategies between the sexes

Critique of evolutionary psychology of attraction and mating

• EP studies tend to provide support for the evolutionary hypothesis rather than being directly a test of theory

• Results are consistent with alternative explanations

• This approach is too narrow and doesn’t consider alternative explanations

Cognitive evolutionary approach to physical attractiveness (Gangestad and Simpson, 2000)

• Waist to hip ratio (WHR)

• Evolutionary processes, favour women with a WHR of 0.70

• Large hips probably because it signifies fertility

• Cognitive processes, affected by cultural and ecological factors

• Foraging societies, thin women suggested ill and weak (preferred a larger WHR)

• Western societies TODAY, heavy women suggests being Ill, prefer a smaller WHR

Cognitive evolutionary approach to facial attractiveness (Gangestad and Simpson, 2000)

• Evolutionary processes, favour attributes close to the population average

• Cognitive processes, favour typical/average faces

Facial symmetry and perceived health study (Rhodes et al, 2001)

• This study was to determine whether facial average evs and symmetry signal good health

• 24 adults rated the health of a set of 292 young adults where averages and symmetry was manipulated

• Healthiness rating from 1-7, 1 signified not healthy whereas 7 is very healthy

• Distinctiveness, ease in which a face could be picked out of a crowd, 1 not distinctive and 7 distinctive

• Perfect symmetric (manipulated) faces were rated as healthy

• Perceived health negatively correlates with distinctiveness

• Perfect symmetric faces signify good health and distinctive faces signal unhealthy

Cultural factors contributing to attractiveness

Play a major role in perception of attractiveness and humans mate selection

Facial attraction and culture (little et al, 2007)

• Examined preferences for symmetry in European Uk population and in the Hadza tribe (hunter gatherer society in Tanzania)

• 78 white participants, 42 hadza participants

• Showed 5 images of faces, (5 M, 5 F)

• Each race was shown images of their own race

Results of little et al 2907

• Symmetric faces were more attractive than asymmetric across both cultures, more so in Hadza

• Hadza men (good hunters) placed a greater value on facial symmetry in female faces, therefore discriminating in their choice of females

• Hadza women had increased preference for symmetry in men’s face when they were pregnant or nursing

• Could be due to increased discrimination and sensitivity to foods and disease harmful to a foetus or nursing infant

How does proximity affect attraction

• Working, living nearby to others facilitates attraction through greater exposure

• Chatting with people nearby is an important form of social interaction and increases mutual liking, promoted willingness for co operation

Proximity and interpersonal liking (Ji-eun et al, 2018)

• Experiments studies in Korea on proximity and men’s judgements of women

• Showed that men liked women who were nearby because they were more accessible

• Physical distance between people shapes their attraction and relationship experience

How does familiarity affect attraction

• The more exposure we have the more at ease we feel with someone

• Increases liking/attraction

How does reciprocity liking affect attraction

• Reciprocity principle, a major determinant in attraction (Sprecher 1998)

• Tendency to like people who like us, dislike people who dislike us

How does similarity affect attraction (law of attraction)

• Attitude similarity (Newcomb, 1961)

• Students completed attitude questions before arriving at uni

• Measured attraction between students and attitude change over one semester

• Found that proximity and having similiar attitude and things in common were important factors in determining ratings of attraction

Similarity study (Sprecher, 1998)

• Conducted 3 studies

• Male and female students randomly assigned to either same sex or opposite sex friendships or a romantic relationships

• Asked to think of someone who they had a close friendship relationship

• Asked them to select a person they were in the development stage of a close romantic relationship

• Findings showed that they picked people they had similiar interests and leisure activities with