Many studies have shown, and common sense dictates, that good looks greatly benefit those who have them. Prettier people tend to have more social relationships, and reap the psychological benefits as a result. What may not be so widely known, however, is that the relevance of physical appearance varies based on geography.
According to a study published in Personal Relationships, The importance of attractiveness depends on the social environment where we live. Attractiveness does matter in more socially mobile, urban areas (and from a woman's point of view actually indicates psychological well-being), but it is far less relevant in rural areas.
In urban areas individuals experience a high level of social choice, and associating with attractive people is one of those choices. In other words, in urban areas, a free market of relationships makes attractiveness more important for securing social connections and consequently for feeling good. In rural areas, relationships are less about choice and more about who is already living in the community. Therefore, attractiveness is less likely to be associated with making friends and feeling good.
Furthermore, urban women need not have below average looks in order to experience a diminished sense of well-being and social life. The research team studied women at mid-life in the U.S. based on data related to their well-being, social connectedness, and their body attractiveness (assessed with a calculation of their waist-to-hip ratio).
Lead author Victoria C. Plaut points out, "In the field of psychology, research results are generally seen as having a natural and universal applicability. This research suggests that this is far from being the case. Rather, the importance of attractiveness varies with certain sociocultural environments, and, if you think about it, urban environments are actually a relatively recent addition to human life."
Citation: Victoria C. Plaut, Glenn Adams, Stephanie L. Anderson, 'Does attractiveness buy happiness? "It depends on where you're from', Personal Relationships, December 2009, 16(4), 619 - 630; doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01242.x
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Order Patterned With Chaos - How Climate Is Predicted For Decades - With Exact Forecasts Only For Days
- The Five Stages Of A Dying Theory
- Should Pregnant Women Be Concerned About BPA?
- Is The X(5568) A True Resonance ?
- Neanderthals: Not So Dumb
- John Mayow - Climate Science Pioneer
- Something is wrong in the Arctic
- "the fact that there has been no REAL temperature increases in the last twenty yearsThat's not a..."
- "Another heat wave on the way. https://robertscribbler.com...."
- "Look Robert, I'm not going into a tit-for-tat argument with you. But there is no controversy that..."
- "Ok, that means Ms. Roth was wrong and also was telling that hoax right? Also, the link can´t let..."
- "Photodaddy, They found that 93% of the temperature increase lags the CO2 increase. Please, for..."
- Four New Superheavy Elements Have Official Names
- Dear UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Don't Drive 'Gene Drives' Into a Ditch
- No Surprise: Parents' Screen Times Worse Than Kids
- Genetically Engineered Yeast Is Resistant to Caffeine
- Credit NHL for Smart, Safe Concussion Strategy
- Don't Drive 'Gene Drives' Into a Ditch