Skip to main content

Verified by Psychology Today

Mating

Why We Underestimate the Importance of Attractiveness

Attractiveness has a stronger impact on our romantic choices than we realize.

Key points

  • Attractiveness is a stronger driver of our romantic choices than other factors such as kindness and education.
  • Attractiveness is immediately processed by our brains and then guides our future choices.
  • Attractiveness may cause a primacy effect, influencing our subsequent interactions.
  • Attractive individuals may have other positive characteristics, such as good health and intelligence.
Callie Morgan/Unsplash
Source: Callie Morgan/Unsplash

Intelligence. Kindness. Honesty. Respectfulness. A good sense of humor. These traits are consistently rated as significantly more important than physical attractiveness when considering an ideal mate (Apostolou, 2015; Buss et al., 2001; Perilloux et al., 2011). However, despite our conscious preferences, physical attractiveness is a stronger driver of our mate choices than other factors, including intelligence, kindness, and education.

For example, Jonason et al. (2019) found that if targets weren’t at least moderately attractive, their intelligence levels did not impact participants’ mate preferences. Similarly, Fugère and colleagues (Fugère, Chabot, et al., 2017; Fugère et al., 2019) found that both daughters and their parents avoided less attractive men (when considering partners for daughters), even when those men possessed the most favorable personality characteristics and were “respectful, trustworthy, and honest.” Kurzban and Weeden (2005) found that speed-daters said that they valued kindness and education more than physical attractiveness but then chose to date individuals who were attractive rather than kind or educated.

We may underestimate the importance of attractiveness to our mate choices because of the unconscious neurological processes that influence our reactions to stimuli. For example, both men and women unconsciously associate physical attractiveness with ideal partners (Eastwick et al., 2011). The instant we see people, we immediately process whether they are attractive, and our brains quickly respond to our unconscious preference for attractiveness. Conversely, characteristics such as intelligence, kindness, and honesty can only be discerned over the long term.

Research using fMRI technology by Kim et al. (2007) shows that physically attractive faces automatically increase neurological activity in the nucleus accumbens (an area of the brain associated with reward). This area of the brain is instantly activated, even when we are asked to judge facial characteristics unrelated to physical attractiveness. Our brains transfer this preference information to the orbitofrontal cortex, which then guides our future choices.

The brain’s reaction to physical attractiveness may then cause a primacy effect, such that attractiveness information, which is immediately determined, influences the way we interpret the subsequent information that we encounter (Asch, 1946). This may lead to a halo effect (Dion et al., 1972), where attractive individuals are perceived more positively in subsequent interactions. Furthermore, attractive people may actually have more positive characteristics. Attractive individuals may have better genes, be more able to resist pathogens, and, as a result, may be healthier and more intelligent than their less attractive counterparts (Gangestad & Buss, 1993; Perilloux et al., 2010).

Interestingly, individuals don’t have to be exceptionally good-looking to attract us—those who are moderately attractive or more attractive are viewed similarly (Griffin and Langlois, 2006). There are good reasons that attractiveness is so important to our mating decisions, even if we are unaware of its importance.

References

Apostolou, M. (2015). Parent–offspring conflict over mating: Domains of agreement and disagreement. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1-12. doi:10.1177/1474704915604561

Asch S. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 41, 258–90.

Buss, D., Shackelford, T., Kirkpatrick, L., & Larsen, R. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 63(2), 491–503. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00491.x

Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285–290. doi:10.1037/h0033731

Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Finkel, E. J., & Johnson, S. E. (2011). Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: A double dissociation in predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 993–1011. doi:10.1037/a0024061

Fugère, M. A., Madden, S., & Cousins, A. J. (2019). The relative importance of physical attractiveness and personality characteristics to the mate choices of women and their fathers. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5, 394–404. doi: 10.1007/s40806-019-00195-z.

Fugère, M. A., Chabot, C., Doucette, K., & Cousins, A. J. (2017). The importance of physical attractiveness to the mate choices of women and their mothers. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3(3), 243-252.

Griffin, A. M., & Langlois, J. H. (2006). Stereotype directionality and attractiveness stereotyping: Is beauty good or is ugly bad? Social Cognition, 24(2), 187–206. doi:10.1521/soco.2006.24.2.187

Jonason, P. K., Marsh, K., Dib, O., Plush, D., Doszpot, M., Fung, E., ... & Di Pietro, K. (2019). Is smart sexy? Examining the role of relative intelligence in mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 53-59.

Kim, H., Adolphs, R., O'Doherty, J. P., & Shimojo, S. (2007). Temporal isolation of neural processes underlying face preference decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(46), 18253-18258.

Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 227–244. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.012

Perilloux, C., Fleischman, D. S., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Meet the parents: Parent-offspring convergence and divergence in mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 253-258. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.039

advertisement
More from Madeleine A. Fugère Ph.D.
More from Psychology Today