How Individuals Appraise Their Own Physical Attractiveness - Essay Example

HOW DO INDIVIDUALS APPRAISE THEIR OWN PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS? Background Perceptions of one’s appearance are influenced by self-referential comparative information. Using comparative judgments to assess self-perceptions of attractiveness is appropriate because social comparisons are frequent, spontaneous, and relatively automatic (see Buunk & Gibbons, in press; Gilbert, Giesler & Morris, 1995; Mussweiler, Ruter & Epstude, 2004). At the same time, they were also asked to evaluate their own current attractiveness in comparison to assessments of their past (Study 1) and future (Study 2) perceived attractiveness, to determine whether people perceive themselves, relative to others, as becoming ‘better looking each day.’ The results revealed that individuals’ retrospective evaluation of their past self was more negative than their original evaluation. Importantly, this derogation occurred in the absence of any actual change. Purpose This research transpired to comprehend and realize how people view their own attractiveness and how such self-appraisals may systematically vary as a function of the context of time. Hypothesis Applying this perspective to self-appraisals of physical attractiveness, it suggests that individuals should rate their current self as more physically attractive than their past self. This framework also implies that individuals should also perceive their future self to be more attractive than their current self. Subjects Study 1: Twenty female undergraduates (mean age¼20 years) from Cardiff University took part in this study in return for course credit. Study 2: Twenty-five female participants (mean age¼20.3 years) from Cardiff University took part in this study as part of a class exercise. Independent variables Study 1: In the “small” condition, female students arrived to the lab for a study about the self. They were first asked to indicate their current standing on the attribute of physical attractiveness. The item asked ‘To what extent are you, relative to same aged peers, physically attractive?’, and was answered on a 11-point scale (0=much less than most; 5=same as most; 10=much more than most). Study 2: In the “small” condition, female students were asked to indicate their current standing on the attribute of physical attractiveness. The item asked ‘To what extent are you, relative to same aged peers, physically attractive?’, and was answered on an 11-point scale (0=much less than most; 5=same as most; 10=much more than most). Dependent Variables Study 1: Female students rate on a scale from 1 to 9 (1=not at all important; 9=extremely important) in determining their sense of self, one of which was physical attractiveness and also in answering the question - ‘At the beginning of the academic year, to what extent were you, relative to same aged peers, physically attractive?’ Study 2: Female students were asked to think about what they would be like 5 years from now. A sample item from the scale is ‘I often compare myself with others with respect to what I have accomplished in life’ (1=not true of me; 7=very true of me). Results The current research was motivated by a desire to better understand how people make judgments about their own attractiveness and how such self-appraisals may systematically vary as a function of the context of time. In Study 1, individuals rated their past self as physically less attractive than their current self. This study is informative in demonstrating that judgments of self-perceived attractiveness vary as a function of temporal perspective. In Study 2, individuals rated their future self as more attractive than their current self. This study is informative in serving as an initial demonstration of how temporal biasing influences future self-appraisals of attractiveness. Furthermore, in both studies, temporal biasing of attractiveness was moderated by an individual difference variable–attribute importance (Study 1) and social comparison orientation (Study 2). The results of Study 1 are consistent with the view espoused by Mac Davis—participants perceived themselves as more attractive now than in the past. Moreover, this pattern was found among only those individuals for whom physical attractiveness was important to their self-concept. Thus, taken together, the results supported the hypotheses. With these results in hand, a second study investigated whether people perceive their future self to be more attractive than their current self. The overall results of Study 2 are consistent with predictions: Respondents rated their future self as more attractive than their current self. Moreover, this pattern was found among only those individuals who were high in social comparison orientation. Thus, the results supported the hypotheses (and are consistent with temporal self-appraisal theory). The results suggested that older individuals perceived themselves as having fewer serious concerns with their own perceptions of attractiveness. Unfortunately, this research was cross-sectional, prohibiting any assessment of within person change. Hypothesis Authors’ hypothesis for the study was supported. Conclusions Overall, the results of the current studies demonstrate that individuals’ appraisals of their own physical attractiveness are biased in a manner that allows them to reach a desired conclusion. Furthermore, these effects are especially prominent among individuals for whom this dimension is important and among individuals who frequently engage in social comparisons. The results extend current knowledge about both the processes underlying self-appraisals of physical attractiveness and temporal self-appraisal theory, and imply that almost 25 years after the idea was proposed, Mac Davis seems to have had it right all along. Critique This study must have more participants at least 20 percent of the population to further establish the accuracy of how people perceive their own attractiveness, whether govern by self judgment, social judgment or by time. Further research and investigation is needed to fully comprehend how individuals view themselves and make judgments according to self and social perspective. Graphs/Tables REFERENCES Brown, J. D., Novick, N. J., Lord, K. A., & Richards, J. M. (1992). When Gulliver travels: Social context, psychological closeness, and self-appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 717–727. Buunk, B. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (in press). Social comparison orientation: A new perspective on those who do and those who don’t compare with others. In S. Guimond (Ed.), Social comparison and social psychology: Understanding cognition, intergroup relations and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cash, T. F., Cash, D. W., & Butters, J. W. (1983). ‘Mirror, mirror, on the wall . . . ?’: Contrast effects and self evaluations of physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 351–358. Clarke, L. C. H. (2002). Beauty in later life: Older women’s perceptions of physical attractiveness. Canadian Journal on Aging, 21, 429–442. Crocker, J., Karpinski, A., Quinn, D. M., & Chase, S. K. (2003). When grades determine self-worth: Consequences of contingent self-worth for male and female engineering and psychology majors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 507–516. Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630. Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review, 108, 593–623. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. Gibbons, F. X., & Buunk, B. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social orientation measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 129–142. Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, R. B., & Morris, K. A. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 227–236. Gutierres, S. E., Kenrick, D. T., & Partch, J. J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game: Contrast effects in self-assessment reflect gender differences in mate selection. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1126–1134. Haddock, G. (2004). Changes in self-appraisals of attractiveness over four months. Unpublished raw data. Harwood, J., Giles, H., McCann, R. M., Cai, D., Somera, L. P., Ng, S. H., Gallios, C., & Noels, K. (2001). Older adults’ trait ratings of three age groups around the Pacific rim. Journal of Cross Cultural Gerontology, 16, 157–171. Heckhausen, J., & Brim, O. G. (1997). Perceived problems for self and others: Self-protection by social downgrading throughout adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 12, 610–619. Read More