1/9
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
Evolutionary value – Buss
Buss found men place high value on physical attractiveness — seen as a cue to health and fertility in potential mates.
Symmetry – Shackelford & Larsen
People with symmetrical faces rated as more attractive — signals genetic fitness, which can’t be faked.
Baby-face features (neoteny)
Large eyes, small nose, delicate chin = seen as attractive — triggers caring instincts and desire to protect.
Halo effect – Dion
Attractive people judged as more kind, sociable, and successful — physical beauty creates a biased perception of personality.
Matching hypothesis – realistic choices
We assess our own attractiveness and look for partners at a similar level to avoid rejection.
Matching hypothesis – compromise
Balances desire for most attractive partner with risk of rejection — people often “match” with similar attractiveness level.
✅Research support – Palmer & Peterson
Found attractive people rated as more politically competent — supports halo effect and biased perception.
✅Feingold – matching support
Meta-analysis of real-life couples found significant correlations in physical attractiveness — supports matching hypothesis.
❌Individual differences
Not everyone values looks equally — Towhey found people low in MACHO scale were less influenced by physical appearance.
✅Cultural consistency
Standards of beauty (e.g. symmetry, neoteny) appear consistent across cultures — suggests evolutionary basis for attraction.