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?
- Researchers Created A Laser Bullet To See What It Would Look Like - And Here It Is
- What Americans Fear Most Isn't Ebola Or Terrorism, It's...
- Great Earthquakes Doubled In The Most Recent 10 Year Period - What That Means
- ECFA Workshop: Planning For The High Luminosity LHC
- Why Climate 'Uncertainty' Is No Excuse For Doing Nothing
- Dams Are Not The Smart Way To Secure Water For Agriculture
- Slavery In America: Back In The Headlines
- "You enjoy taking down comments you do not like, don't you king of strawman arguments? ..."
- "I'm sorry the definition was 'one who believes there is no diety' Though my point remains valid..."
- "Wasn't the Webster definition 'someone who believes there is no god' Wouldn't this only be applicable..."
- "Without scientific certainty not just a consensus that it could be the end of days from Human CO2..."
- "The answer to that is answered in this article, which you either dismissed, or didn't really pay..."
- National Wildlife Refuge System bans on GMOs and neonics lack transparency, scientific rationale
- Want better sperm? Eat more pesticides
- Beyond universal donors, some people are programed with no blood type at all
- Anti-conventional ag movement spurs Big Ag to look to organic pesticides
- Can people really inherit memories?
- An end to fat shaming? The 50 year DNA mystery of metabolic dysfunction may soon be solved