W2L3
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.