Interpersonal Attraction
1. Physical Attributes
2. Confidence
3. Affect
4. Proximity
5. Similarity
6. Reciprocity
Reproductive vs Social Function
Traditionally study of “attraction” had and still has a very strong heterosexual bias
Physical Attraction
Binary definitions of sex and gender are not scientific
Variation in attraction (e.g. gay woman can be attracted to transgender
man or straight woman attracted to gay man)
Age
Heterosexual & homosexual men ranked younger sex partners
higher than older ones on “good looks”
Heterosexual, but not homosexual women ranked older men higher
Appearance
Waist-to-chest ratio: primary component of attractiveness for
heterosexual & gay men. But, gay men had a stronger preference for a
more developed upper-body build
Not all gay man look toward muscularity and athleticism as the primary
components of attractiveness
Same-sex and different-sex
relationships are more alike than
different
Same-sex couples: positive
coping skills and strategies to
deal with challenges of minority
stress and thrive
Sexual Identity Uncertainty: which
sexual identity label best captures
one’s attractions & behavior
Sexual identity uncertainty may result
from social pressure to fit into binary
categories
Individuals who are attracted to more
than one gender (nonmonosexual)
may be perceived as unsure whether
they are gay or heterosexual
Interpersonal Attraction
1. Physical Attributes
2. Confidence
3. Affect
4. Proximity
5. Similarity
6. Reciprocity
Physical Attractiveness
Physical Attractiveness
Most people deny that looks are
important
Looks are more important
during the initial meeting
early stages of relationship
for short-term, less involved relationships
As involvement increases the emphases
shifts to personality and status
Attractive companions increase our
status
In happy marriages, people see their
partners as more attractive than they
really are
Reasons we Prefer Attractive People
People are attracted to a smell of
attractive people
Beauty is Intoxicating
Evolutionary explanations: we are
hardwired to prefer some but not
others
Newborn infants prefer faces of
attractive people
Evolutionary preference for “beauty”
Natural SelectionSurvival / reproduction of organisms as a
function of their physical attributes
Sexual Selection
1. Females
Choose males based on elaborate
ornamentation or male behaviors
Handicap Principal: suggested in 1975 by biologist Amotz Zahavi
Handicap signals fitness
2. Males
Competition: for access to
females (e.g., horns)
Develop sensitivity to females'’
preferences
Females drive the course of
sexual selection
Cosmetics as a Feature of the Extended Human PhenotypeModulation of the Perception of Biologically Important Facial Signals Nancy L. Etcoff, Shannon
Stock, Lauren E. Haley, Sarah A. Vickery, David M. House
1. Likability
2. Competence
3. Attractiveness
4. Trustworthiness
women with makeup: rated more positively
Photos were shown quickly
ratings went up
• Competent
• Likable
• Attractive
• Trustworthy
Dramatic makeup:
• Likable
• Much more attractive
• Competent, but
• Less trustworthy
Cosmetics as a Feature of the Extended Human PhenotypeModulation of the Perception of Biologically Important Facial Signals Nancy L. Etcoff, Shannon Stock,
Lauren E. Haley, Sarah A. Vickery, David M. House
Heterosexual men tend to find the faces of women with larger pupils more
attractive even when they’re unaware of the reason for their preference.
"bella donna"
from Italian and
means "beautiful
woman"
What Attracts Us – Symmetry
What Attracts Us – Body Shape
What Attracts Us: Height
What Attracts Us: Hight
119,000 individuals aged between 40 and 70 in the UK Biobank
Men: shorter height is linked to lower levels of
▪ education
▪ job status
▪ income
Women: higher BMI is linked to lower
▪ income
▪ greater deprivation
Possible complex interactions with self esteem, stigma, positive
discrimination
What Attracts Us: Movement
Why We Prefer Attractive People
1. Evolutionary preference for “beauty”
2. Halo effect
Assumption that good-looking people
possess more desirable characteristics
Attractive people are assumed
to be exiting dates
be more sensitive & kind
sexually warm responsive
poised
sociable
outgoing and confident
have better characters
Attractive people have
More social & professional success
Little happier in general
More fulfilling lives
Halo Effect
Preferred as friends
More popular
More likely to be hired after a job interview
Receive higher pay
Make better impression & receive leniency when defendants in court
Attractive attorneys earn higher incomes & more likely to
become partners in their firms
Attractive people
Experiment: Self-Fulfilling Nature of Beauty
All male participants
Phone conversations
3 groups: photo attractive, not attractive & no photo
“Attractive” woman: rated as more poised,
humorous, and socially adept
Ratings of men who didn’t have a photo
more attractive
more confident
more animated
warmer than the woman who though to be unattractive
Halo Effect
Physical Appearance
“Frizzy wig” experiment▪ When woman was attractive: her positive and negative
evaluations of interaction mattered
▪ When she was not attractive: her comments didn’t matter
Gorgeous People
▪ Assumed to be more vain & promiscuous
▪ People lie to attractive people about their
▪ interests, personalities, income
▪ Gorgeous people may discount praise given
▪ by those who see them
▪ Unattractive people value praise more if people see them
Contrast effect: View self negatively when encounter gorgeous
people of the same sex
Cameron Russell: “I won a genetic lottery"
Primary & Secondary Dimensions of Diversity
Sexual
Orientation
Race
Gender
Physical
Qualities
Age
Ethnicity
Work
Background
IncomeGeographic
Location
Parental
StatusMarital
Status
EducationMilitary
Experience
Religious Beliefs
“Unattractive” People
Unattractive people are rated
more negatively
Unattractive men have less
interaction with women
Plain women spent a lot of
time interacting with men in
groups while attractive
women get more dates
Older women: considered
less attractive (Jane Elliott)
Awareness
Guilt/Frustration/Anxiety
Support
Accountability
Transformation can change be mandated?
