Every day, people are surrounded by peers of varying races, genders, occupations, and social statuses. As humans, it is only natural that we are always on the lookout for potential mates, with perhaps the first, most instantaneous criteria a person looks for being attraction. But what exactly is attraction? Are there universal traits that are always seen as attractive or does each person have a completely unique set of preferences in a potential mate?
Attraction
Dr. Christopher Heffner (2001), who created the website AllPsych.com, combines many existing theories about attraction into five main points. The first aspect of attraction is proximity. Nahemow and Lawton (1975) conducted a study in New York City in which researchers interviewed tenants of a certain housing project about who their three closest friends were and where those friends lived. They found that 88% of respondents’ closest friends in the same building as their friends and almost half of the friends lived on the same floor. This effect was seen equally among ages, races (blacks, whites, and Puerto Ricans), and gender (Nahemow & Lawton, 1975). This shows that people we live or work with on a daily basis are likely to be perceived as more attractive.
Heffner’s second point of attraction is association. Closely related to both proximity and his third point, similarity, Heffner claims that “we tend to associate our opinions about other people with our current state” (Heffner, 2001). For example, if a person thoroughly enjoys their job, people they work with are likely to be viewed in a favorable light. Likewise, a person who strongly dislikes their job is more likely to have a less positive view of their coworkers because said person associates coworkers with an unpleasant situation.
On the other hand, similarity, Heffner’s third section of attraction, is seemingly more powerful than association. Although the originating study is not currently accessible without charge, Heffner sums up Neimeyer and Mitchell’s (1988) study by saying that “the agreement or similarity between the two [coworkers] would likely result in more attractiveness” (Heffner, 2001). As long as a person’s coworkers hold the same attitude about the workplace as the person does, the attractiveness increases despite the association with an unpleasant situation because the two people are similar.
The fourth integral piece of attraction is reciprocal liking. Generally, people like to be liked. This is an instinct that shows from very early in infancy. Connected with similarity, infants are much more interested in people and things that match their movements because it is similar to them. In inter-personal interactions, when a baby smiles and “talks,” they interact much more positively with familiar people who respond with smiles and cooing or talking than people who do not imitate their movements (Parker-Rees, 2007). Meltzoff (1990) conducted an experiment involving two adults and two 14-month-olds. One of the adults was instructed to imitate the movements of one child while the other adult was told they should respond to the child’s movements, but not with the same actions (Meltzoff, 1990). The 14-month-olds responded much more positively to the adult who imitated their movements compared to the adult who did not. This effect occurs throughout life, in a slightly different form as a person ages. As adults, people who match our stance, talking style, and movements seem much more likeable than people who adopt their own stance and style. We like others who are similar to us and so a person reciprocating our movements shows that like us, making them more attractive.
Finally, the last and most conscious aspect of attraction, as well as the aspect that this study will focus on, is physical attractiveness. We are much more likely to be friends with people who are physically attractive and who we perceive to be close to our level of physical attractiveness (Heffner, 2001). Heffner further divides this point, saying physical attractiveness is a sum of sub-categories such as sense of humor, education, wealth, and physical attractiveness.
Research
The first study relating to physical attractiveness was conducted by Sarah Casey, Marion Mernagh, and Fiona Newell (2009). They wanted to know if attractiveness of a face is determined more by features of sexual dimorphism or if attractiveness is based on a typical, “average” face (Casey, Mernagh, & Newell, 2009). They studied 30 undergraduate students, 24 females and 6 males who were asked to rate each computer-generated face for attractiveness. Forty original faces were generated and then manipulated to create their opposite-sex equivalent and an “antiface” which was the original face morphed through the “average” face for a total of 120 faces, half male, half female. Antifaces were generated to be the exact opposite of the original face. For example, if the original face had small eyes and a large nose, the antiface would have large eyes and a small nose. It was also generated to be closer to the “average” face due to technical reasons. Casey et.al (2009) found that participants consistently rated original faces and their opposite-sex derivatives equally attractive, while antifaces were consistently rated more attractive than either of the other two (Casey, Mernagh, & Newell, 2009). In fact, original and opposite-sex faces were rated significantly lower than the antifaces, leading Casey et.al to conclude that attractiveness depends more on the typicality of a face versus, not the sexual dimorphism of a face (Casey, Mernagh, & Newell, 2009). This supported previous research linking averageness of a face to attractiveness (Rhodes, 2006). This research shows that people are not necessarily more attracted to others who would be good potential mates based on sexual dimorphism; rather, faces that are similar to the average face for the particular culture is more attractive. This would seemingly be contradictory to the basic laws of evolution and Darwin’s survival of the fittest, suggesting human beings’ definition of physical attractiveness has changed greatly over time.
In a study of manipulated economic success, Michael J. Dunn and Robert Searle (2010) used a male and a female model and took pictures of each of them in a red Ford Fiesta ST and a silver Bentley Continental GT, signifying a low-status car and a high-status car, respectively. The pictures were then quasi-randomly presented to participants who were recruited from a shopping center with male participants receiving a picture with the female model and female participants receiving a picture with the male model. Participants were asked to rate the attractiveness of the model within one minute of being presented with the picture. There was also a space for participants to declare their sexual orientation with only heterosexual participants being included in the data. No mention of the car model was made to participants when they were asked to rate the model for attractiveness (Dunn & Searle, 2010). Their results found that, while males rated the female model equally attractive in either condition, females rated the male model significantly higher when he was portrayed in the high-status condition. It was also found that males rated the female model much higher in the neutral status than females rated the male model, but there was no significant difference when the models were seated in the high-status condition. These results show that females find males significantly more attractive when they are associated with high-status possessions whereas males are unaffected by high-status versus neutral-status possessions. Dunn and Searle suggest that, since no specific attention was drawn to which car the models were sitting in, females may process subtle cues about status unconsciously whereas males appear to either focus on physical attraction alone, or they discount other subtle cues that females pay attention to (Dunn & Searle, 2010). Even something as small as a suggestion of high status can cause women to perceive a man as much more attractive than she would normally think without that suggestion.
Elliot et.al (2010) examined the subtle use of red as status symbol in men, theorizing that women would be more attracted to men who are associated with the color red because it symbolizes a higher status. They used seven different experiments to analyze the effect of red. If, at any point, participants indicated they knew what was going on by mentioning color or the dependent measures, they would be asked to leave and their data would not be used. None of the participants guessed the purpose of the experiment correctly (Elliot, et al., 2010).
The first experiment presented participants with a black and white photo which was either mounted on a white background or a red background. Participants (all women) viewed the photo for five seconds, then were then asked to rate the attractiveness of the male in the picture on a scale of 1 to 9. Results from the first experiment showed that participants in the red background condition rated the man in the photo higher than the participants in the white background condition, suggesting that color can act as an unconscious influence on participants’ ratings (Elliot, et al., 2010).
The second experiment tested whether the effect exists only in women, or if men experience the same effect. A new set of fifty-seven participants was shown the same photo with the same background and asked to rate the attractiveness of the man. Results showed that women continued to rate the man on a red background higher than the man on a white background, but there was no effect among men. Men rated the picture approximately equally attractive regardless of the background color. Participants were again ignorant of the affect of color on their responses (Elliot, et al., 2010).
Experiment three studied the effect of red versus gray, and whether the red effect elicits a sexual attraction as well as general attractiveness. In this experiment, a new male model was used, switching from a moderately attractive Caucasian man to a moderately attractive Latino man. In addition, all participants were again women. The photo was placed on either a red or gray background and was presented to participants for five seconds. Participants then rated the man on his attractiveness, their sexual attraction to him, and his overall likability. Results showed that women continued to find the photo on a red background more attractive overall and sexually. Likability was not affected by color.
Experiments 4-7 examined different changes in color, examining green in place of red, testing perceived status based on the color of shirt a man was wearing, whether high or low status was more attractive, and the effect of red versus blue in shirt color on attractiveness. All seven experiments supported the hypothesis of a “red effect,” with women consistently finding men associated with the color red as having a higher status and being more attractive. The experiments were run in both the Eastern hemisphere and Western hemisphere with background and shirt color presentation, six different target models, and with overall attraction as well as sexual attraction (Elliot, et al., 2010). Only one participant guessed what the study was about and, even with that participant’s responses removed, the data remained the same. This extensive research shows strong support for the red effect; that women are especially in-tune with the color red, regardless of how it is presented (background versus clothing) and that it is viewed as not only a social status indicator, but also more attractive than other colors.
Discussion
Attraction among human beings is difficult to define as much of the actual process of attraction goes on unconsciously, with only a small part of the process occurring after we take conscious notice of a given person and actually rate them on the physical attractiveness aspect. Many things go into the processing of attraction, including our subconscious association of them with certain situations and, for women, the status and any colors associated with the male in question. This research is important for our everyday lives. It can also help people to understand their inter-personal relationships with the people around them. With the aid of these studies, people can better understand why they don’t feel particularly favorable toward the people they work with. It’s not because the people aren’t likeable or kind, it’s because that coworkers have been associated with an unpleasant situation. We can also be much more conscious of how people around us are trying to convey themselves when we are in social situations, especially situations with high levels of sexual tension such as bars or group dates. Finally, these studies serve as the basis for a great deal of future research into the brain and the biological processes behind attraction. Creating a large opening for researchers interested in social psychology, especially with respect to inter-personal relationships.
References
Casey, S. J., Mernagh, M., & Newell, F. N. (2009). Are attractive facial characteristics peculiar to the sex of a face? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 833-843.
Dunn, M. J., & Searle, R. (2010). Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership on both sex attractiveness ratings. British Journal of Psychology , 69-80.
Elliot, A. J., Geitemeyer, T., Gramzow, R. H., Kayser, D. N., Lichtenfeld, S., Maier, M. A., et al. (2010). Red, Rank, and Romance in Women Viewing Men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 399-417.
Heffner, C. L. (2001, April 1). Attribution and Attraction. Retrieved December 14, 2010, from AllPsych Online: The Virtual Psychology Classroom: http://allpsych.com/psychology101/index.html
Meltzoff, A. N. (1990). Foundations for developing a concept of self: the role of imitation in relating self to other and the value of social mirroring, social modeling, and self practice in infancy. The self in transition: infancy to childhood , 139-164.
Nahemow, L., & Lawton, M. P. (1975). Similarity and propinquity in friendship formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 205-213.
Parker-Rees, R. (2007). Liking to be liked: imitation, familiarity, and pedagogy in the first years of life. Early Years , 3-17.
Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology , 199-226.
No comments:
Post a Comment