Study: 'Weight-ism' More Widespread Than Racism

Yeah . . . you know, it's amazing to me the extent to which people become so fond of their pet notions that they are willing to ignore the evidence all around them, and the evidence of history. Queen Anne, the other daughter (legitimate) of James II, married Prince George of Denmark. They were both healthy, and both came from families which had produced quivers full of children, with enough healthy children that many in both families reached adulthood. They failed 14 times to produce a child and heir.

That's how King George I got the job, and the Kings and Queens of England have gotten more and more German ever since. I guess them Germans is good at pooting out healthy offspring.

Which part? That symmetry is the most universal criteria for beauty is not bullshit and isn't even seriously questioned.

That it correlates to health may be more questionable but the preference is innate and there are still correlations of some sort with health.



Whether or not it can be helped is one thing. But it is innate and studies have shown that newborn babies show a preference for faces that are conventionally considered beautiful.

Here is a quote from Dr Alan Slater, who did the most famous such study at Exeter University.

"To my complete surprise there was a strong effect of attractive and unattractive photos on infants." he said. "I didn't for one moment believe we'd get these kinds of results from newborns. I was convinced it was a learned process. Our research shows that perception of beauty is something genetic rather than socially constructed."

Robert,

I've just googled Alan Slater and found a number of works in print. Can you direct me to the study you referenced?

This is a perfect example of being (deliberately?) misunderstood/misconstrued...

Irrationality of humans is not in question. It was his statement that attractiveness (deriving from symmetry!) equals healthy offspring. What'shisname made it a STATEMENT.

The question is not WHY we choose someone. As Set said, each culture and generation have their own criteria. What'shisname made a STATEMENT that symmetry correlates to HEALTHIER offspring. It does NOT necessarily do so.

The Development of Face Processing in Infancy and Early Childhood: Current Perspectives by Olivier Pascalis and Alan Slater

ISBN-10: 1590337751

I'd like to add to what I said earlier about symmetry and include human averages. Babies are born with a preference for more "average" sized noses, eyes etc.

Found it, thanks. I'll check it out.

DOES LEVEL OF ATTRACTIVENESS SHAPE PERCEIVED PERSONALIT?
DOES OUR LEVEL OF ATTRACTIVENESS SHAPE OUR PERCEIVED PERSONALITY?
TIA A. MEREDITH
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
-NONE-
Sponsored by BRIAN CRONK([email protected])

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine whether others perceive our personality according to our level of attractiveness. It is hypothesized that physically attractive people are more often associated with positive personality traits than non-attractive people. The difference between how men and women view attractiveness is also examined. In the study, 42 college students in a chemistry class were given a survey. The survey pictured three males with varying levels of attractiveness and 6 descriptions of positive, negative and neutral personality traits. The students then matched the personality trait they thought best described each of the three pictures. Male college students viewed both the unattractive and attractive male photos more negatively than the women. A significant difference appeared when the men viewed the neutral male photo more positively than the women. This significant finding may be due to same sex leniency. The men in the study may view themselves as average looking and therefore be more accepting and more positive when it comes to rating the attractiveness of other average looking men.

INTRODUCTION

Are certain personality traits associated with certain people? This is a question that research has been trying to answer for over 30 years. The association being tested is that physically attractive people are also more likely to have certain personality traits. These personality traits are considered to be more desirable (or positive) than those of non-attractive people. But is this idea really true? Researchers have attempted to prove this idea by focusing on level of attractiveness and how it relates to personality traits.

A study conducted by Reed (2000) used pictures of women that were both attractive and unattractive and had them rated by men on six facets of personality. These personality facets included likableness, perceived social competence, perceived vanity, perceived integrity, perceived prosocial behavior, and perceived academic potential. It was found that whether women were unattractive or attractive, there was no specific pattern of what personality traits were associated with them. The pictures were found to impact how men rated the women's attractiveness, but not how they categorized their personality traits. The personality traits had no definite pattern in relation to how attractive the women were.

Another study conducted also examined the relationship of personality traits to physical attractiveness. Feingold (1992), using a meta-analysis of 200 studies, found that physically attractive people were perceived as more sociable, dominant, sexually warm, mentally healthy, intelligent, and socially skilled than physically non-attractive people. The author also suggested that good-looking people were less lonely, less socially anxious, more popular, more socially skilled, and more sexually experienced than unattractive people. Although a positive correlation was found, the author emphasized that the relationship occurring between individual's physical attractiveness and measures of personality and mental ability, was a trivial one.

Another study challenges the trivial associations found in previous research between attractiveness and personality. Eagly and Makhijani (1991) examined the principle of "what is beautiful is good" stereotype. Using a meta-analysis, the authors discovered good looks induced strong inferences about social competence. Attractive individuals were found to be associated with more favorable personality traits. Contrary to those findings, they also discovered a weaker inference in relation to potency, adjustment and intellectual competence. The weaker association relates to other research showing that some personality traits vary across all levels of attractiveness. Overall, it was concluded that what was beautiful was good because attractive individuals within the study were found to be ascribed by others to have more positive personality traits than unattractive individuals.

Further research conducted is suggesting that personality traits are not only assigned to individuals based on their attractiveness, but that physical appearance has a direct affect on personality. One study by Popkins (1998) proposes that physical appearance is a major factor in the development of personality. In this study the author examined environment and its impact on an individual's perceived personality. It was suggested that attractive individuals are associated with positive personality traits because it is what is expected of them. The conclusion drawn was that people tend to fulfill the expectations they believe others have for them regarding their personality; therefore, attractive individuals who are treated as having positive personality traits are more likely to possess those qualities. An example being, if an attractive person is thought they should be outgoing, they will become outgoing.

Though nature may play a role in personality development, other researchers focus more on individual preferences to personality over their physical attractiveness. In one study, a photo was used of an unattractive individual with positive personality traits and compared it to a photo of an individual who was highly attractive with no mention of personality traits (Buchanan, 2000). Upon comparing these different scenarios, people rating these photos were more attracted to the individual with positive personality traits than the highly attractive individual. These results suggest that personality traits play a role in how a person perceives an individual's level of attractiveness. The data presented also showed the variation of personality association to an individual's attractiveness.

Using previous research the relationship between attractiveness and personality will be examined. Attractive individuals and unattractive individuals will be assessed along with positive and negative personality traits. This study is constructed to find a positive relationship between an individual's the level of attractiveness and personality traits associated with that person. More directly, the purpose of this study is to show that physically attractive people will be more likely to be associated with positive personality traits.

Details of the study:
http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/287.asp

The subject title of this thread relates to "weightism." I assume it means a bias against those that are obese. I also assume it refers to today's society, since the thread title includes "racism." So, I believe any references to historical contra-indications to the basic question (are people in today's society biased against obesity?) are non-sequitors, I believe.

Now, let me make a parsing of my belief. In some parts of the U.S. there is a tremendous local societal emphasis on looking physically fit (including the west coast, some big urban centers, and let's include Manhattan residents as some tending towards an obsession for somewhere between thinness and looking physically fit). Assuming that is true, there are parts of this country where that emphasis doesn't show itself as much. People may eat to enjoy, not to maintain weight.

By the way, I believe there are sociological studies that show a positive correlation between low incomes and obesity (and higher rates of diabetes).

So, all told, thinness is the standard model of beauty as seen on tv., movies, magazines, and the sidewalks of upscale neighborhoods. Has anyone seen any great number of rich women that are not thin?

Societal mores change; we're only talking about today, for this thread. History is interesting, but that's not this thread.

Also, as a sub-set of weightism is heightism, I believe. I've even seen a book relating to this premise that there is a great positive bias towards tallness. Many people do tend to defer to tall people, I believe. Corporate America knows that; notice all the tall top executives. What's interesting about heightism is that one's height has no correlation to intelligence, good-looks, or anything (perhaps just the length of one's lower leg), yet I've observed how taller people are treated as though they have great intelligence, better than average looks, etc., etc.

In my opinion heightism, trumps weightism and racism for being a greater bias today.

You're the clown who attempted to suggest that there was some evolutionary factor involved, and operative in the process of mate selection. So you got lambasted on that basis. And you deserved it, too.

If a non-sequitu[/u]r is involved, you introduced it.

Foofie
Foofie, you are correct about "heightism." I've known a number of men who felt they were unattractive because they were short.

I always thought President Clinton's Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, was a gutsy man, whose brain and personality overcame his short height. For example: "The auditorium at 100 Federal Street in downtown Boston was already full Wednesday morning when Robert Reich arrived to give the keynote address to a workplace development conference. After settling behind the podium, he made a self-deprecating joke. "I was 6-foot-1 before I went to Washington," he said in reference to his 4-foot-11 stature. "It wore me down." And then he began circling his favorite topic: the economy."

BBB

I'm not arguing with anyone yet. I'm interested in the babies-pick-pictures study, for example, and would like to see how studies like that would transfer. For example, my mother had a non-average nose. I'm sure I would have picked her picture. And what if I had only seen big nosed people in my young life? But I'll buy, for now, that the babies in the study picked for symmetry, and plan to read the details.

I thank Set for yet another discourse that makes complete sense to me.

I'll speak to my own nuance, in that a) I've a terrific bias for symmetry in architecture, but b) slip it aside many times for the more complicated concept, balance, which can be more interesting. Which is my point. Many people of conventional model prettiness, model of whatever culture, with symmejavascript:emoticon('')trically classic features, can be boring bots, even just to look at. To the adult me, I want more than pretty or handsome faces. A scar, an imperfection, a wrinkle, adds character to the structure; I'm more interested in character, be it in a face or in a personality, and then character that moves, has presence by virtue of voice via words or tone, but especially content. Hmm, there's also voice-ism.

So what - even for lust I'm more taken by the complex than vapid symmetry. Presumably this is learned, and, who knows, as a baby, I too might have picked symmetrical faces on photos. But... elements of attraction can progress, with different elements dominating, including fecundancy, which I agree was historically primary.

ps, I did understand you, Mame.




edit, having thought some more...
My attraction to my husband was his voice and his brains, as generators of lust and then love. He wasn't pug ugly, though I can like that too, but those were the triggers.

Yes, I'm sure a few of you did, osso... a bit of an unfortunate choice of wording in the title, though, hmmm?

Pardon me for that strange javascript thing in my post. I've had difficulty typing this afternoon, had dilating drops in my eyes this morning. I touch type, but have a back up, usually, of seeing the keyboard. So, for a bit, typo city.

I really, really hate sociobiological arguments for why we do stuff and why some people are just better than others, etc.... It's got such a long, ugly history of trying to justify prejudices (with crap science). "Hey, look at this, I've got scientific evidence that men are smarter than women, 'cause their heads are bigger--no, cause their brains are heavier!--no, here's why whites are smarter than blacks!--immigrants are dumber than us--it's just science, don't blame me!" Now it's always, "oh, gee, biologically we just can't help but like skinny blondes with giant boobs!"

Here, this is a good example of the incredibly thick bullshit that sociobiologists come up with: Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature--Psychology Today

Fecundancy, I'm really losing it. Fecundity.

It is also the means through which those prejudices are debunked. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Science is sometimes about getting it wrong and figuring that out later.

If you had already seen her that's quite likely, and the study itself touches on that in that it examines how early infants are able to recognize their mothers, despite their limited eyesight.



The study involved about a hundred newborns (average age was 2 days).



In this particular study the symmetry was a minor player if anything (this was 4 or 5 years ago so I'm not sure I remember that correctly) and this was really just focusing on whether or not they showed a preference based on preference more than exactly what that preference was about.

I think the symmetry one was a different study though this one is sure to have touched on it, as that has been commonly accepted since a little before the study was conducted.

Ultimately, it was showing that there was a nature element to the concept of human beauty and that it was not entirely nurture (and this shouldn't be this surprising, as "both" is nearly always the best one-word answer to a good nature/nurture question).

I will read it, but not tonight.

I'm also interested in the "golden mean" as cultural or inborn, but I suppose that has been figured out, as it might be obviously cultural.

osso, the study BBB linked is very limited in additional information. When I read a study write-up I always look for sample sizes, assumptions in the analysis model, bias in the study design, and conclusions drawn not warranted by the assumptions and the model. In this case the following disclaimer is included due to the fact that the study group was selected from 42 college students in a single chemistry class:



The study Robert referenced this morning is not available online but published in one of many books by the investigator. My specialty is not behavioral sciences but my interest in this discussion is such that I will get a copy of the write-up and return with my thoughts later. I don't question the integrity of Dr Slater's work, but would like to evaluate the study design, purpose, assumptions, and conclusions on my own.

Regardless of innate preferences (real or not), I believe that inter-personal interactions and relationships are nurtured, not nature. We don't have to put people down to make ourselves feel better. Just as tribal societies were challenged by ethical systems of behavior to become rational societies, rational societies can be challenged to look at their inter-personal interactions to become super-rational societies that are based on empathy and compassion rather that a position of superiority.

You have my attention.


The whole question of finding what is inborn is interesting...

was the obstetrician cute?


But I take it Robert's point is that neonates are selective... very early. Which is, very interesting.