Psych 204: Lecture Notes on Physical Attractiveness, Attraction, and Related Factors

Course context and reading guidance

• Welcome back, emphasis on in-person attendance to enhance learning.
• Reading guidance varies by lecturer; in this section, the instructor explains Talus-recommended readings:
  • Readings on the Talus list reinforce content from lecture and are typically aligned with topics covered in class.
  • If a reading is listed as related to a topic covered in class, it likely signals importance and potential assessment relevance.
  • Not every Talus-listed reading will appear on a midterm/quiz, but many are considered important by the instructor.
• Reading timing:
  • It is recommended to read after class to reinforce understanding and prepare for the midterm.
  • Reading before class can still help, but the instructor emphasizes post-class review for deeper comprehension.
• Question about the Talus Reading List: clarifications provided, no further questions on the list at the moment.
• Today’s plan: finish discussing physical attractiveness and move toward broader attraction, with the goal of finishing that unit in the next two lectures.
• Administrative note: tomorrow (Thursday) will cover intimacy; Thursday marks the last topic lecture in the course.

Mere exposure effect: recap and scope

• Mere exposure effect explains attraction primarily at the initial stages of relationships.
• Important caveat discussed: simply knowing someone for a long time or having conflicts does not mean mere exposure always increases liking.
• The lecturer emphasizes that the mere exposure effect concerns initial-stage attraction, not long-term relationship dynamics.
• Takeaway: attraction processes discussed in class are focused on early relationship formation, not on later relationship development.

Big question: why are people attracted to physically attractive individuals?

• Core question is whether attraction to physical attractiveness is due to:
  • Evolutionary arguments (reproductive fitness, health of offspring, signals of reproductive viability).
  • Socialization and cultural norms (attractiveness as a valued trait reinforced by media, peers, and institutions).
• The discussion highlights that both genders value physical attractiveness, but perceptions of its importance can differ from actual behavior.
• The instructor notes a plan to revisit the “matching phenomenon” later in more detail (explicitly skipping this slide today to return to it with more depth).

Evolutionary argument for attractiveness

• Claim: physical attractiveness signals reproductive fitness and health, influencing mate choice as an indicator of potential offspring well-being.
• For men: attractiveness signals a good partner for reproduction.
• For women: attractiveness matters too, but resources are especially salient because they contribute to offspring welfare.
• The instructor remains cautious about fully endorsing this argument, acknowledging it is a perspective within evolutionary theory but not the sole explanation.

Socialization and cultural norms as alternative explanations

• Socialization argument: attractiveness is a stereotype that society teaches us to associate with positive traits.
• Core idea: “What is beautiful is good.”
• Sources of socialization include media, peers, family, education, and cultural institutions.
• The critique: evolutionary theory often has heteronormative implications; socialization theories provide critique by highlighting gender role biases and broader cultural conditioning.
• The instructor acknowledges the critique and notes that some evolutionary sub-pieces may allow for non-heteronormative viewpoints, but the mainstream lecture focuses on socialization as a powerful force shaping attractiveness perceptions.

Key studies and findings discussed

• Clifford & Walster (1973): socialization and attractiveness stereotype in educational settings
  • Method: teachers were given identical information about a boy or girl; the only difference was a photograph showing an attractive or unattractive child.
  • Outcome: attractive children were rated as more intelligent, more likely to succeed, and overall more positively, despite identical academic information.
  • Conclusion: supports the physical attractiveness stereotype; attractiveness influences expectations even when all other data are identical.
• Disney and Cultivation Theory: media’s role in shaping attractiveness norms
  • Cultivation Theory: frequent media consumption shapes beliefs and values embedded in media.
  • Bazin et al. analyzed 21 animated Disney films and found that good/protagonist characters are almost always physically attractive and kind, while negative characters are often depicted as less physically appealing.
  • Implication: media can socialize audiences to equate beauty with goodness and success, especially since Disney films are often consumed by children.
• Socialization of norms overall (Alice Eagley and colleagues, among others)
  • Western cultural norms tend to associate attractiveness with happier, more sexually active, more outgoing, and more intelligent outcomes.
  • Caveat: attractive appearance does not universally predict honesty or altruism; stereotypes have limits and do not apply to every trait or outcome.
• Media exposure and the contrast effect
  • Exposure to highly attractive media can alter ratings of real people and self-perception through a contrast effect.
  • Example: participants who watched media with attractive stars rated a target woman as less attractive than those who did not view the media.
  • Mechanism: ongoing exposure to idealized beauty raises comparison standards; this can influence dating behavior and self-image in ways that may be disadvantageous or unrealistic.
• Perception of attractiveness and social skill (self-fulfilling prophecy)
  • Studies where physically attractive individuals were perceived as more socially skilled, likable, and outgoing in phone calls (where appearance could not be seen).
  • Interpretation: confidence and expectation biases (implicit egotism) may lead attractive people to act more socially adept; attractiveness can confer social advantages that reinforce these perceptions.
  • Important caveat: capability is not determined by appearance; these effects reflect socialization and context, not determinism.
• Need fulfillment and beauty perception (Legat et al., 2013)
  • Confederates and participant closeness influence perceived beauty.
  • If a participant feels close to the confederate, they rate the confederate as more beautiful.
  • Conclusion: interpersonal closeness can enhance perceived attractiveness, linking social connection to beauty judgments.
• Assortative mating: matching on attractiveness
  • Concept: people tend to pair with others who have similar levels of attractiveness.
  • Hunt et al. critique: assortative mating is strongest when couples do not know each other beforehand and decide based on appearance; if couples are friends before dating, attractiveness is less predictive of partner similarity.
  • Data: 167 couples analyzed; correlation between partners’ attractiveness (r) is lower when couples were friends before dating, indicating friendship reduces the primacy of appearance in initial pairing.
  • Interpretation: when people know each other before dating, other factors (shared interests, values, etc.) may play a larger role than appearance; otherwise, appearance similarity drives initial pairing.
• Summary takeaway on attractiveness studies
  • Attractiveness interacts with target factors, situational factors, and perceiver factors in shaping attraction.
  • Perceived similarity, similarity in traits, values, and interests tends to increase attraction (Birds of a feather).
  • There is a potential for complementarity or self-expansion in some contexts, but similarity remains a robust predictor.

Perceiver factors in attraction

• Similarity vs. complementary dynamics
  • Traditional view: similarity in traits, values, and interests predicts attraction.
  • Evidence also supports some degree of complementarity (self-expansion) in certain contexts, but overall similarity is a stronger and more consistent predictor.
• Implicit egoism
  • The tendency to prefer people who resemble ourselves (names, values, etc.) and to assume shared attributes.
  • This mechanism can bias initial attraction toward those who resemble us, even if not consciously noted.
• Liking and attraction
  • General principle: liking for us increases attraction to others; reciprocal liking enhances perceived attractiveness and closeness.

Target factors, situational factors, and perceiver factors (recap)

• Target factors: features of the person being evaluated (e.g., physical attractiveness, warmth, competence cues).
• Situational factors: context in which evaluation occurs (e.g., presence of media, social setting).
• Perceiver factors: individual differences in the observer (e.g., prior experiences, cultural background, implicit biases).
• Overall: attraction is a product of interaction among these three factors, making it complex and context-dependent.

Practical implications and ethical/philosophical considerations

• Media socialization effects can contribute to privilege for physically attractive individuals, influencing opportunities and social judgments.
• The “what is beautiful is good” stereotype is not universal; while common, it has limits and can be challenged by awareness of bias and context.
• Evolutionary explanations offer one lens but may overlook socialization, culture, and power dynamics (including gender norms, heteronormativity concerns).
• The contrast effect and media exposure highlight the pervasive influence of contemporary media ecosystems on dating standards and self-perception.
• Assortative mating findings suggest that friendships before dating can buffer the emphasis on appearance, pointing to the role of shared experience and compatibility beyond looks.
• Ethical questions arise about how to navigate attraction in a media-saturated environment and how to mitigate bias in educational and social settings.

Equations, formulas, and numerical references (LaTeX)

• Correlation between partners’ attractiveness (assortative mating):
  r = ext{Corr}(A1, A2)
  where $A1$ and $A2$ are the attractiveness ratings of each partner.
• Initial vs. post-exposure attractiveness (contrast effect):
  Let $A{ ext{pre}}$ be the initial rating and $A{ ext{post}}$ the rating after exposure to attractive media. Then the change is:
  riangle A = A{ ext{post}} - A{ ext{pre}}
  typically $ riangle A < 0$ in contrast effect scenarios, indicating a lower post-exposure rating.
• Need fulfillment and perceived beauty (conceptual relationship):
  If we denote perceived beauty as $B$ and closeness as $C$, a simplified relation could be:
  B = eta0 + eta1 C + ext{noise}
  with $eta_1 > 0$, based on Legat et al. (2013) findings that increased closeness enhances perceived beauty.
• Fitness signaling (evolutionary argument):
  Attractiveness as a cue of reproductive fitness $F$ can be conceptualized as a positive association, though not expressed with a single universal equation in the lecture. The discussion notes that attractiveness correlates with perceived health and offspring viability in some evolutionary perspectives.

Summary of key takeaways

• Attractiveness influences initial attraction through multiple pathways, including socialization, media exposure, and perceived social benefits.
• The mere exposure effect is most relevant to initial attraction; it does not guarantee long-term relationship satisfaction or attraction.
• Evolutionary explanations offer one lens (reproductive fitness), but socialization and media influence provide robust, empirically supported mechanisms for how attractiveness is perceived and valued in society.
• The physical attractiveness stereotype is pervasive but not universal; its applicability varies across traits and contexts.
• Media exposure can shift both how we view others and how we view ourselves (contrast effect); the modern media landscape intensifies these effects due to constant exposure to highly attractive figures.
• Assortative mating shows that appearance-based pairing is stronger when dating decisions occur without prior knowledge of the other person; knowing someone beforehand attenuates the reliance on attractiveness.
• Perceiver factors like similarity, implicit egotism, and perceived liking contribute to attraction; long-term dynamics can shift attraction as relationships mature (e.g., from passionate to companionate love).
• The next class will cover intimacy, with a note that the last two lectures will complete the attraction/intimacy unit.

Connections to prior content and real-world relevance

• Links to foundational psychology concepts: stereotypes, social cognition, and biases in judgment.
• Real-world relevance: media literacy and critical assessment of beauty standards; understanding dating dynamics in the age of social media; recognizing privilege associated with attractiveness.
• Ethical considerations: acknowledging how stereotypes can affect opportunities in education and social life; discussing heteronormative biases in evolutionary theories and promoting inclusive perspectives.

Questions and takeaways for exam preparation

• Be able to describe the physical attractiveness stereotype and its limitations.
• Explain the difference between evolutionary arguments and socialization arguments for attractiveness.
• Identify and summarize key findings from Clifford & Walster (1973) and the Disney/Cultivation Theory line of work.
• Define the contrast effect and provide an example from media exposure research.
• Explain assortative mating and how friendship before dating changes the strength of attractiveness-based pairing.
• Describe Legat et al. (2013) findings on need fulfillment and perceived beauty.
• Distinguish target, situational, and perceiver factors in attraction, and discuss implicit egoism and similarity concepts.
• Prepare to discuss the role of intimacy in the final lectures and how attraction evolves over time in relationships.

Next class topics

• Finish discussion of attraction and begin intimacy research.
• Explore how attraction transitions from initial liking to deeper relational closeness, including the shift from passionate to companionate love.
• Revisit the mere exposure effect in the context of ongoing relationships and conflicts.