Looks Very Good As a Preliminary Plan

Kayla Muennich

[Looks very good as a preliminary plan.]

[Not clear what your overall main point is; be sure to clarify that early, so it can guide the way you state & develop your sub-sections (I, II, III, IV, V)]

Topic: Self-Perception of Attractiveness on Mate Selection

I. Intro:

A. Judgments of attractiveness: Attractiveness, sexiness, healthiness, fertility, pregnancy

B. Attractiveness being measure by what?

1. Facial features

a. Men

I. Eye-Mouth-Eye (EME) angle: Males with smaller EME angles were perceived by women as more attractive- a signal of underlying biological fitness. (Danel, D., Pawlowski, B., 2007).

b. Women

I. Facial attractiveness more important with overall attractiveness, sexiness, healthiness and fertility. (Furnham, A., Lavanchy, M., McClelland, A., 2006).

c. Both

I. Image resolution was altered. The images viewed with poor resolution as attractive remained attractive with higher resolution. (Bachmann, T., 2007).

3. Waist-to-hip ratio (WHR)

a. Only important when looking at attractiveness level: pregnancy (Furnham, A., Lavanchy, M., McClelland, A., 2006).

II. Who defines attractiveness?

A. Media (add more here)

B. Universal preferences (Little, A., Perret, D., 2002)

1. Socially organized: There is a significantly greater agreement of facial attractiveness between pairs of affiliated friends, siblings, and spouses than between pairs of strangers drawn from the same race/culture. (Bronstad, M.P., Russell, R., 2007).

2. Cross-Culturally: Averageness is generally preferred across faces and cultures (Northern Tanzania- Hadza). No preference for averageness in European faces by Hadza judgnes due to limited experience with Europeans. (Apicella, C.L., Little, A.C., Marlowe, F.W., 2007).

C. Ourselves

1. Self objectification (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997)

a. Model where women are socialized to view their own bodies as objects to be evaluated and consumed for others’ pleasure.

b. Women as people > Women as objects

I. Media portrayal (e.g. Wolf, 1991)

II. Everyday body related comments (e.g. Swim, Hyers, Cohen & Ferguson, 2001).

III. Male gaze (e.g. Calogero, 2004)

c. Amount of shame mediates lingering self objectification thoughts (Quinn, D., Kallen, R., Cathey, C., 2006).

III. Being attractive boosts:

A. Employment opportunities (add more here)

B. Life satisfaction (add more here)

IV. Theoretical Context

A. Evolutionary theories of attractiveness (Darwin)

B. Social Exchange Theory (Festinger)- Men place higher value on physical attractiveness, women on financial stability. (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, 2005)

C. Stimulus-value-role theory (of marital choice) – people choose partners of comparable physical attractiveness to themselves ( Murstein, B., 1972)

D. Sociometer hypothesis – self-esteem is a function of multiple indexes of how a person stands in relation to those around him/her (Brase, G.L., Guy, E.C.; 2003)

E. Old-matching hypothesis (Walster, et al., 1966)

V. Mate Selection Research

A. Three main sets of criteria ( Fletcher, G.J., Tither, J.M., O’Loughlin, C., 2004)

1. Warmth/trustworthiness

2. Attractiveness/vitality

3. Status/resources

B. Gender Differences

1. Men – men place more importance on attractiveness

2. Women

C. Length of relationship

1. Short term

a. Men high in facial masculinity are preferred more as short-term partners (STP). (Luevano, V.X., Zebrowitz, L.A., 2007)

2. Long term

a. Men high in warm (mediated by facial expression) preferred more as long-term partners (LTP). (Luevano, V.X., Zebrowitz, L.A., 2007)

D. Assessment

1. Own mate value (add more here)

2. Desired mate value (add more here)

VI. Conclusion

VII. Hypothesis