Attraction

Attraction

1. Should we study attraction?

   • sceptics
     • more knowledge/analysis brings less enjoyment
     • enjoying the mystery
   • non-sceptics
     • understanding enriches our experience + deepens our appreciation for it

2. Factors that influence attraction

   • Propinquity
     • physical proximity
     • the foundation. you can't come to like someone you've never encountered, direct or mediated
     • Festinger, Schachter + Back
       • Looked at apartment complexes
       • residents in rooms nearby more likely to be friends than from rooms further away. stairwell residents had twice as many upstairs friends
     • Ebbesen et al
       • probability of being chosen as a friend increased as distance between people decreased
       • positive linear relship between frequency of contact + strength of bond
       • X but more disliked than liked indivs lived close to subjects - but strength of disliking unrelated to contact
     • why might propinquity matter?
       • availability
         • proximity makes an encounter more likely
         • X but doesn't guarantee liking - Ebbesen
       • anticipating interaction
         • merely anticipating interaction with someone can alter your perception of them. generally interactions are positive
   • familiarity/exposure
     • Mere exposure - Zajonc
       • we come to like people/objects we're familiar with / have frequent contact with
       • showed Turkish words to Americans at various amounts of times - 0-25 times
       • does word refer to something good or bad?
         • repeated exposures increased favourable ratings. also for men's faces + chinese characters
           • X mere exposure or context? Rather than repeated exposures, perhaps it's simply being in pleasant environment with stimuli
             • Zajonc - changed context. Given nice/nasty drink. How pleasant was other indiv in experiment?
               • Mere exposure increased interpersonal liking in both contexts
   • Also social factors, traits, sex imprinting, like vs lust, arousal + misattribution, universal factors
   • Social influence
     • Little et al
       • partner qualities can influence perception's of target's attractiveness, simply by association
         • Female faces paired with masc male faces rated more attractive than females paired with fem males. Males paired with fem females more attractive than males with masc females
     • Parental influences on mate choice
       • Overt influences
       • implicit influences - sexual imprinting - preference for trait in partner present in caregiver. daughters selected partners who shared facial features in common with themselves + stepparents

3. factors that are attractive (universal dimensions)

   • Sara women with lip plates, Chad
   • Facial attractiveness
     • average propotions, symmetrical, smooth unblemished skin
     • is symmetry attractive?
       • noone is perfectly symmetrical. 76% use right side of mouth more than left. lateralisation of brain. some asymmetry is natural
       • Perrett et al
         • people preferred symmetrical face (but quite close) - but some did like asymmetrical
         • people preferred smooth skin + symmetry (72.6% majority)
         • unconscious influence - ppts unaware of role symmetry played in judgement
         • X facial composites are both more symmetrical + more average
     • averageness
       • average faces are attractive
       • Averageness might also be indicator of health/devel stability
       • average faces easier to process
       • if averageness reliable cue to genetic quality, we shouldn't find average biases for non-face objects eg cars. but found averaged fish + cars more attracitve
       • Mackie et al
         • 62 models. made composites of low attractive models, average (all) + high
         • low judged least attractive, then average, then high
           • average faces are attractive but not the most
       • DeBruine et al
         • things get better up to a point
         • super-exaggerated attractive features rated lower than more average
         • Mackie et al - composite of highly attractive faces removed the unusually attractive features?
     • does facial attractiveness signal health? Mixed evidence
       • Shackelford + Larsen
         • X students, mean age 20
         • used self reports, observer ratings, daily diary reports, psychophysio measures
         • asymmetric faces may signal psych, emotional + physio distress
           • also another study: correlated health variables with facial attractiveness. limited empirical evidence that more facially attractive people may be physically heatlhier
       • Kalick et al
         • Longitudinal study. health ratings at 3 devel periods - 11-18, 30-36, 58-66. photos at 16-18 judged for attractiveness
           • adole facial attractiveness unrelated to adole heatlh, not predictive of health at later times. relatively attractive people mistakenly rated as healthier than peers
             • correlation between perceived health + actual health increased when attractiveness stat controlled. implies attractiveness suppressed accurate recognition of health
       • Good-genes hyp - Andersson et al
         • developmental pathogens disrupt symmetry. attractive facial features eg symmetry may be honest signal of good genes
       • Perrett
         • diets rich in fruit + veg increases yellowness in skin. tanning mimics this effect
     • does facial symmetry have reproductive benefits?
       • Symmetrical indivs start having sex earlier
       • Do symmetrical men have better quality sperm? Mixed evidence
         • Peters et al
           • Previous study shown facial attractiveness of Spanish men +vely associated with semen quality
           • Examined large sample of Australian men. looked at masculinity, averageness + symmetry
             • no sig correlations between semen quality + attractiveness
   • femininity + attraction
     • femininity = beauty. not entirely clear why
     • what features are feminine?
       • at puberty, male faces change but female faces retain neotenous (babylike) features. eg large eyes, round face/forehead, small nose + chin
         • 'cute' = evoke nurturing response in adults
         • neotony = low levels of testosterone
         • men find these features attractive in women, perhaps sign of youth + fertility?
     • WHR (waist-to-hip ratio)
       • Singh
         • men transgenerationally (universally?) prefer women around .70 WHR because it's reliable indicator of health + fertility
         • men rated cartoon women who had WHR 0.7-1.0
         • X less than 0.7 not an option
         • X confounded with weight - body weight less universal
         • X front facing - ignores width of buttocks which affects BMI
           • Marlowe et al
             • Hadza men preferred larger bottom women compared to American men. Different cultures = different ideas of health + attractiveness? Hadza often suffer hunger + disease
   • Testosterone + Masculinity
     • Costly signalling theory
       • circulating testosterone = effort on immune system
       • only men with good immune systems can 'afford' high levels of testosterone
         • high levels of testosterone = honest signal of genetic quality (thornhill + gangestad)
           • some evidence = masc features in adole = moderately predictive of actual health
     • Masculinity + stereotypes
       • masc features associated with dominance + aggression
         • masc men tend to have higher testosterone levels = more aggressive
         • parental investment theory: in 90% of species, males compete more heavily for mate access while females have selective choice
       • Perrett et al - masc features are universally recognised - 'who looks more aggressive?'
     • Preferred male physique?
       • Dixon et al
         • women ppts rated male physiques. highest for masc, then average then lower for fat, then skinny
       • Don't forget about the perceiver!
         • Moderators of masc preference: perceiver's hormonal fluctuations, sociosexuality/mating goals, socio-cultural environment, own attractiveness
         • Little et al - women's preference for masc traits shift across menstrual cycle
           • preference for masc features during late phase (few days before ovulation). highest risk of conception in this time. Sperm live up to 6 days inside women
     • Women find higher male voices less attractive
       • found cross-culturally. dutch women. japanese women
       • male voice pitch dependent on circulating testosterone - full octave lower than women's
       • Puts - women tend to prefer lower pitch male voices as short term mating partners during late phase of cycle
     • When is masculinity sexy?
       • when environment is dangerous
         • DeBruine - association between masc preference, mortality rates + income level
         • not clear whether this is support for costly signalling theory or masc-aggression stereotype theory