Cross-Cultural Differences in Perception of Physical ...

[Pages:4]MARIA Y. KHERSONSKAYA RANDOLPH A. SMITH*

Ouachita Baptist University

Cross-Cultural Differences in Perception of Physical Attractiveness

This study investigated cross-cultural differences in perception of physical attractiveness. Twenty-two international students (11 women and 11 men) and 22 White American students (11 women and 11 men) participated in the experiment. The participants rated physical attractiveness of portrait models (18 black-and-iuhite college yearbook photographs of White American students; 9 men and 9 women) on a 5-point Likert scale. American participants perceived photographs of American students as more attractive than did European participants (p < .001). Sex of the participants did not affect the ratings. The results of the study support the existence of cultural influences on perception of physical attractiveness.

I NVESTIGATION OF CROSS-CULTURAL VARIABILITY in ratings of physical attractiveness incorporates both evolutionary and social psychological views on perception of beauty and interpersonal attraction. Evolutionary psychologists believe physical attractiveness is an essential criterion of sexual selection and plays an important role in human evolution. Physical features that provide evidence of greater adaptability and survival skills appear m o r e attractive (Jones, 1995). Feinman and Gill (1978) also maintain that standards for physical attractiveness assure genetic selection for desired traits. On the other hand, social psychology provides evidence for the influence of physical attractiveness on interpersonal relations. Research suggests the existence of a stereotype by which physically attractive individuals seem to possess a variety of positive personal qualities such as social competence, integrity, concern for others, and so on (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991).

Evidence of the importance of physical attractiveness in human interaction exists in many cultures (Cunningham, Roberts, Barbee, Druen, &Wu, 1995). However, do people of different national origins perceive beauty in a similar way? Several studies suggest so. One of the most heavily researched areas in attractiveness is the study of n e o n a t e features. Neo-

nate features are those evident in newborn infants (and some adults) such as large eyes, smooth skin, and a small nose. White adults responded positively to neonate features when judging both men (Cunningham, Barbee, & Pike, 1990) and women (Cunningham, 1986). Further research showed that adult faces with neonate features received higher attractiveness ratings from participants of 13 nationalities (Cunningham et al., 1995). Aesthetic judgments of face shape are also similar across different cultural backgrounds (Perrett, May, & Yoshikawa, 1994). Another finding (Langlois, Ritter, Roggman, & Vaughn, 1991) suggests there are cross-cultural similarities in perception of beauty by infants. Their results unambiguously show that 6-month-old infants can discriminate attractive from unattractive faces and that they prefer attractive faces differing in race, sex, a n d age. These findings suggest there is a certain ideal image of beauty that is consistent and stable across cultures.

Author note. Portions of this paper were presented at the Arkansas Symposium for Psychology Students, Conway, AR, April 1997.

We are grateful to Dmitry Maslovsky for his help with this project.

Address correspondence to Randolph A. Smith, Department of Psychology, Ouachita Baptist University, Arkadelphia, AR 71998. Electronic mail may be sent to smithr@alpha.obu.edu.

Psi C H I JOURNAL O F UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Spring 1998

39

Copyright 1998 by Psi Chi, T h e National H o n o r Society in Psychology (Vol. 3, No. 1, 3 9 - 4 2 / ISSN 1089-4136). 'Faculty Supervisor

CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES Khenonskaya and Smith

There is, however, evidence to the contrary. For example, one cannot deny the existence of racial stereotypes in judgment of beauty. Research shows people consistently rate representatives of their own race as more physically attractive than representatives of other races (Zebrowitz, Montepare, & Lee, 1993). Cunningham (1986) found that aesthetic standards for facial beauty include not only neonate features but rather a delicate combination of neonate, mature, and expressive features. According to Cunningham, only neoteny caused cross-culturally consistent ratings, whereas attractiveness of sexually mature features and signs of emotional expressiveness were subject to social and cultural influence.

Another factor suggesting the existence of crosscultural variability in perception of physical attractiveness derives from evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychologists believe that an attractive appearance is one with the most typical characteristics. "Average" means "free from abnormality" and is, therefore, more desirable in the human evolutionary process (Jones, 1995). According to Symons (1987), "for some physical characteristics, the population mean, or other measure of central tendency, may be the most attractive" (p. 107). Because average or typical features in one culture differ from typical features in other cultures, it is reasonable to suggest that standards for physical attractiveness will also differ across cultures. In addition, even if the overall judgment of physical attractiveness was consistently similar in various cultures, the value assigned to certain psychological traits as manifested in corresponding facial features would differ (Thakerar & Iwawaki, 1979). One can expect different cultures to place different subjective values on various behavioral traits, so that those physical features linked to the desirable psychological qualities should appear attractive. Therefore, we can expect to find variability in perception of physical attractiveness based on cultural preferences for certain psychological traits. For example, if a certain culture values submissiveness in women, faces with neonate features should receive higher ratings. If, on the other hand, determination and individualism are valued, faces with sexually mature features (high cheekbones, thin cheeks) might be judged as more attractive (Cunningham et al., 1995). These observations suggest the perception of physical attractiveness may not be free from the influences of culture and society.

The purpose of the present experiment was to investigate cross-cultural perception of physical attractiveness by obtaining ratings of American students by American and European participants. In light of previous research findings ( C u n n i n g h a m , 1986;

Cunningham et al., 1990; Cunningham et al., 1995; Langloisetal., 1991; Perret et al., 1994), the authors hypothesized that people across various cultures have similar images of physical attractiveness. In other words, different cultures have a similar ideal for physical beauty. However, also consistent with prior research (Cunningham, 1986; Cunningham etal., 1995; Thakerar & Iwawaki, 1979), certain differences exist across cultures when rating attractiveness with regard to this ideal image. The authors hypothesized that cultures differ in their standards in evaluating physical attractiveness. If this is the case, one would expect the ratings by American participants to be significantly different from the ratings by European participants. The authors also hypothesized that "the other race" effect exists in intercultural perception of attractiveness as well. Therefore, people would rate representatives of their own culture as more physically attractive than representatives of other cultures. Consistent with this hypothesis, we predicted the ratings by American participants to be significantly higher than those by European participants.

Method

Participants

Participants were selected on a volunteer basis among the students of a small, private, liberal arts university in the Southwest. Twenty-two participants (11 women and 11 men) were international students from Russia, Cermany, Bosnia, and Sweden. Twentytwo participants (11 women and 11 men) were American students. The international participants ranged in age from 18 to 24 and were sophomores, juniors, and seniors. The estimated average length of time the European students had been living in the United States at the time of the study was 3 years. The American participants ranged in age from 18 to 21 and were freshmen, sophomores, and juniors. All participants were White. The experiment did not include other races in order to control for interracial variability in perception of attractiveness.

Apparatus

The stimuli included 18 black-and-white photographs (2.8 x 3.8 cm) from a college yearbook, taken at close range and showing only the head and shoulders. The portraits depicted White American students who were college seniors in the year 1995. The estimated average age of the models was 22. The portraits depicted 9 men and 9 women. Each group included 3 attractive, 3 unattractive, and 3 average attractiveness models as rated by the first experimenter and an assistant (both European students well acquainted with American culture). The study included

40

Psi CHI JOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH Spring 1998

CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES Khersonskaya and Smith

only the portraits on which the experimenter and the assistant exhibited perfect agreement.

Procedure The participants rated physical attractiveness of

the portrait models according to a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all attractive, 5 = very attractive). Each of the participants made the evaluations individually in various convenient locations on campus. Participants completed the ratings in approximately 5 min.

Results A mean of all 18 ratings was computed for each participant. The obtained means were then subjected to a two-way analysis of variance for independent samples. The participants' nationality and sex were between-subjects factors. The results indicated that American participants (M= 3.21, SD = 0.38) rated photographs of American students significantly higher on physical attractiveness than did European participants (M = 2.68, SD = 0.51 ),F( 1,40) = 14.72, p6S, 239-242.

male facial beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Sigall, H., & Ostrove, N. (1975). Beautiful but dangerous: Effects

50, 925-935.

of offender attractiveness and nature of the crime on juridic

Cunningham, M. R,, Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do

judgment. Journal of Personality mid Social Psychology, 31, 410-

women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in

414.

the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journalof Symons, D. (1987). An evolutionary approach: Can Darwin's view

Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 61-72.

of life shed light on human sexuality? In J. H. Geer & W. T.

Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., &

O'Donahue (Eds.), Theories of human sexuality (pp. 91-126).

Wu, C. H. (1995). "Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole,

New York: Plenum.

the same as ours": Consistency and variability in the cross- Thakerar, J. N., & Iwawaki, S. (1979). Cross-cultural comparisons

cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal

in interpersonal attraction of females toward males. The

ofPersonality and Social Psychology. 6fi, 261-279.

fournal of Social Psychology, 108, 121-122.

Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful Udry.J. R., & Eckland. B. K, (1984). Benefits of being attractive:

is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290. Differential payoffs for men and women. Psychological Reports,

Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, 1.. C.

54, 47-56.

(1991). What is beautiful is good, but . . . : A meta-analytic Zebrowitz, I.. A., Montepare.J. M., & Lee, H. R. (1993). They

review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype.

don't all look alike: Individual impressions of other racial

Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.

groups. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 6 5, 85-101.

42

PSI CHlJOURNAL OF UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH S p r i n g 1998

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download