Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Investigating a visceral measure of perceived physical attractiveness

  • Molly A. Bowdring,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Current address: Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, United States of America

    Affiliation Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Michael A. Sayette,

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America

    ⨯
  • Kasey G. Creswell

    Roles Methodology, Writing – review & editing

    kasey@andrew.cmu.edu

    Affiliation Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America

    ⨯

Abstract

Perceptions of physical attractiveness are typically assessed using numeric rating scales. As with other visceral experiences, perceptions of physical attractiveness may benefit from multimodal measurement. Recently, we developed and validated a squeeze (dynamometer) method to evaluate two “visceral” states (hunger and cigarette craving). Here, we extend this approach to perceptions of physical attractiveness. Participants (n = 33) viewed a series of static facial images. Perceptions of physical attractiveness were assessed using the dynamometer, followed by a traditional rating scale ranging from 1 (very unattractive) to 10 (very attractive). Participants also reported desire to (a) interact with each individual they viewed in a future study and (b) become friends with each individual they viewed, using a Likert scale. Dynamometer-measured perceptions of physical attractiveness were significantly associated with traditional perceptions of physical attractiveness ratings and predicted both desire outcomes. Findings offer initial support for a visceral approach to perceptions of physical attractiveness that can complement traditional rating scales.

Citation: Bowdring MA, Sayette MA, Creswell KG (2024) Investigating a visceral measure of perceived physical attractiveness. PLoS ONE 19(11): e0311138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311138

Editor: Jayaprakash Narayana Kolla, Institute of Molecular Genetics of Czech Academy of Sciences: Ustav molekularni genetiky Akademie Ved Ceske Republiky, CZECHIA

Received: June 20, 2024; Accepted: September 15, 2024; Published: November 21, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Bowdring et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from: https://osf.io/gdwfu/?view_only=0296b93bd5904c74979c624ddde7d95b.

Funding: The Research Society on Alcoholism Graduate Student Small Grants Award to MAB, internal funds provided by the Department of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh to MAB, an National Heart Lung and Blood Institute funded postdoctoral fellowship to MAB (5T32HL161270-02), and the U.S. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Grant R01 AA015773) to MAS. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Physical attractiveness perceptions are affectively-charged visceral experiences, with attractiveness judgments made within a fraction of a second [1, 2]. Research on perceptions of physical attractiveness (PPA) has traditionally relied on verbal measures that require perceivers to translate their nonverbal perception experience into a numerical representation on a rating scale (e.g., 1: very unattractive to 10: very attractive) [3]. These ratings have led to a number of discoveries related to PPA, such as the tendency to ascribe favorable non-physical traits to attractive others and to treat attractive others more positively [3–5]. Nevertheless, exclusive reliance on verbal self-reports of PPA may be subject to some of the concerns associated with other affectively-charged “visceral” states, such as craving and sexual arousal [6, 7]. As we have noted, “these visceral states are thought to be inherently nonverbal, and participants may have difficulty translating these inner experiences into symbolic systems (such as numbers and language) required for traditional ‘verbal’ self-report rating scales” ([8], p. 598).

We recently introduced a complementary nonverbal measure (squeezing a dynamometer, used to assess grip strength) to examine visceral states [8, 9]. For example, we have observed that dynamometer-measurements of both hunger and cigarette craving correlate with their verbal-measurement counterparts and, even predict eating behavior better than does the verbal hunger measurement [8, 9]. More recently, other labs have used a dynamometer to assess moments of insight (predictive of accurate responses on insight problem solving) and emotionality (predictive of a physiological measure of emotionality) [10, 11]. We sought to extend the set of visceral states amenable to nonverbal measurement. To this end, we investigated whether (1) nonverbally-measured PPA (via dynamometer) relates to verbally-measured PPA and (2) this measure predicts desire to interact and become friends with the person being perceived (target).

Methods

Participants

Participants were male social drinkers aged 21–28, recruited from 8/2019-3/2020. [Though we are disinclined to preference male recruitment, the focus of the larger study was on alcohol-related social rewards, which are stronger for males [12]. We selected males to enhance power to detect effects. The alcohol component of the study is unrelated to this report.] Participants had to have a nonromantic same-sex friend who would also participate. Participants were excluded if they denied fluency in English or had uncorrected visual impairment.

Procedure

This report derives from a study approved by the University of Pittsburgh’s IRB. During this two-session study, participants provided written informed consent, completed questionnaires, consumed either alcohol or no-alcohol control beverages with their friend, and completed multiple tasks related to person perception. See [13, 14] for details. The focus here is on a PPA task completed by participants separately after the session-two drinking period.

Participants viewed 16 static facial images extracted from video from a previous study (participants consented to use of their images; [15]). The images included four male and four female targets, each presented once with a positive emotional expression [Duchenne smile–action units 6 (cheek raiser)+12 (lip corner puller)+25 (lips part)] and once with a neutral expression (no emotion-relevant action units), defined by FACS coding [16]. Images appeared for 5-secs each. Participants viewed the images in three rounds to complete the: nonverbal PPA measure; verbal PPA measure; and measure of desire to interact with and be friends with the targets.

Measures

Nonverbal PPA.

Participants indicated how attractive they perceived targets by squeezing a dynamometer using standard procedures [8, 9]. Participants used their dominant hand to squeeze as long and as forcefully as necessary to express their attraction. To account for force and time, area under the curve was used as the nonverbal PPA measure [8, 9].

Verbal PPA.

Participants self-reported their PPA using a scale of 1 (very unattractive) to 10 (very attractive) [17].

Desire to interact and be friends.

Participants reported their desire to (a) interact with each target in a future study and (b) become friends with each target, using a scale of 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much) (modified from [18]).

Analytic plan.

Mixed effects models included random intercepts for participants and targets. Likelihood ratio tests compared full models against models with nonverbal PPA removed. First, we tested the association between nonverbal PPA and verbal PPA. Next, we tested the association between nonverbal PPA and desire to interact (or be friends), then added verbal PPA. We controlled for target sex, target emotional expression, and drink condition in all analyses–with one exception reported in the final model, these covariates were not significant.

Results

Participants

Of the 36 participants, 33 had valid data on the PPA task. Ages ranged from 21–27. Participants were White (n = 18), Asian (n = 12), Black (n = 2), and Hispanic (n = 1). Thirty-one were heterosexual, 1 was gay, and 1 was bisexual.

Nonverbal PPA associations with verbal PPA, and desire to interact and be friends with target

See Table 1 for variable means and Table 2 for associations. Nonverbal PPA was associated with verbal PPA. Nonverbal PPA was also associated with both desire to interact and desire to be friends. Verbal PPA also was related to desire to interact and to be friends. After controlling for verbal PPA, nonverbal PPA no longer was significantly linked to desire to interact or to be friends. Target sex was a significant covariate (β = 0.19, 95%CI: 0.03, 0.34, p = .02)–participants had greater desire to be friends with male targets.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of verbal PPA and desire outcomes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311138.t001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Nonverbal PPA associations with verbal PPA, and desire to interact and be friends with the target.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311138.t002

Discussion

This study evaluated a novel tool for assessing PPA. Our nonverbal, dynamometer-based PPA assessment was strongly associated with verbal PPA. Moreover, the dynamometer assessment was associated with desire to interact and to be friends with targets, offering initial support for its use as a complementary measure of PPA to verbal ratings.

The dynamometer responses did not explain additional variance beyond what was captured by verbal PPA. This is perhaps unsurprising, however, as desire to interact and be friends were also assessed with verbal measures. Prior work using the dynamometer has demonstrated its predictive validity with a behavioral outcome of eating [9]. Future PPA studies may examine whether dynamometer-based PPA predicts nonverbal outcomes, including actual approach behaviors in live social interactions [19], as nonverbal PPA might be more likely to outperform verbal PPA in these instances. Indeed, PPA is influenced by what the target can offer (e.g., romantic love, friendship, entertainment) and the environment in which perception occurs [20]. Just as craving for substances is heightened when the substance is accessible [21–23], the visceral experience of perceiving someone else as attractive may be heightened when that person is available for live interaction.

The ability to capture visceral states in real-time remains an important yet elusive research objective. While verbal self-report remains the gold standard, translating visceral states into quantitative metrics required for rating scales can be challenging. In some cases, verbalizing a rating may even distort the otherwise difficult-to-articulate state (see [9]). The development of a nonverbal dynamometer measure to complement traditional self-report ratings holds promise for advancing knowledge of visceral states. Together with studies of hunger, craving, emotionality, and insight [8–11], this study extends the utility of a dynamometer-measure to complement verbal PPA ratings. Further, the validity of dynamometer-measured PPA suggests exciting directions for future work assessing preference in academic and marketing settings.

References

  1. 1. Alley TR. Social and applied aspects of face perception: An introduction. Soc Appl Asp Perceiving Faces. Published online 1988:3–4.
  2. 2. Calder A. Oxford Handbook of Face Perception. Oxford University Press, USA; 2011. Accessed November 18, 2023. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HunrfhMRx_8C&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=4.%09The+Oxford+Handbook+of+Face+Perception+&ots=OndhvF0Yz7&sig=dWoQd3cdJ2Q7_PMA5HHfE_I0beg
    • 3. Langlois JH, Kalakanis L, Rubenstein AJ, Larson A, Hallam M, Smoot M. Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol Bull. 2000;126(3):390. pmid:10825783
    • 4. Eagly AH, Ashmore RD, Makhijani MG, Longo LC. What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychol Bull. 1991;110(1):109.
    • 5. Little AC, Jones BC, DeBruine LM. Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2011;366(1571):1638–1659. pmid:21536551
    • 6. Loewenstein G. Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1996;65(3):272–292.
    • 7. Nordgren LF, Chou EY. The Push and Pull of Temptation: The Bidirectional Influence of Temptation on Self-Control. Psychol Sci. 2011;22(11):1386–1390. pmid:21980159
    • 8. Creswell KG, Sayette MA, Skrzynski CJ, Wright AGC, Schooler JW, Sehic E. Assessing Cigarette Craving With a Squeeze. Clin Psychol Sci. 2019;7(3):597–611.
    • 9. Creswell KG, Sayette MA, Schooler JW, Wright AGC, Pacilio LE. Visceral States Call for Visceral Measures: Verbal Overshadowing of Hunger Ratings Across Assessment Modalities. Assessment. 2018;25(2):173–182. pmid:27121082
    • 10. Laukkonen RE, Ingledew DJ, Grimmer HJ, Schooler JW, Tangen JM. Getting a grip on insight: real-time and embodied Aha experiences predict correct solutions. Cogn Emot. 2021;35(5):918–935. pmid:33829955
    • 11. Thoma D, Hüsam J, Wielscher K. Introducing grip force as a nonverbal measure of bilingual feelings. Biling Lang Cogn. 2023;26(1):125–137.
    • 12. Sayette MA. The effects of alcohol on emotion in social drinkers. Behav Res Ther. 2017;88:76–89. pmid:28110679
    • 13. Bowdring MA, Sayette MA. The effect of alcohol on mood among males drinking with a platonic friend. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2021;45(10):2160–2166. pmid:34342007
    • 14. Bowdring MA, Sayette MA. Beer googles or liquid courage? Alcohol, attractiveness perceptions, and partner selection among males. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. Published online 2023:jsad-22.
    • 15. Sayette MA, Creswell KG, Dimoff JD, Fairbairn CE, Cohn JF, Heckman BW et al. Alcohol and group formation: A multimodal investigation of the effects of alcohol on emotion and social bonding. Psychol Sci. 2012;23(8):869–878. pmid:22760882
    • 16. Ekman P, Friesen WV. Facial action coding system. Environ Psychol Nonverbal Behav. Published online 1978. Accessed November 13, 2023. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Ft27734-000.
    • 17. Bowdring MA, Sayette MA, Girard JM, Woods WC. In the eye of the beholder: A comprehensive analysis of stimulus type, perceiver, and target in physical attractiveness perceptions. J Nonverbal Behav. 2021;45(2):241–259.
    • 18. Agthe M, Spörrle M, Maner JK. Does Being Attractive Always Help? Positive and Negative Effects of Attractiveness on Social Decision Making. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2011;37(8):1042–1054. pmid:21636731
    • 19. Eastwick PW, Luchies LB, Finkel EJ, Hunt LL. The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: a review and meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2014;140(3):623. pmid:23586697
    • 20. Zebrowitz LA, Montepare JM. The ecological approach to person perception: Evolutionary roots and contemporary offshoots. Evol Soc Psychol. Published online 2006:81–113.
    • 21. Blechert J, Klackl J, Miedl SF, Wilhelm FH. To eat or not to eat: Effects of food availability on reward system activity during food picture viewing. Appetite. 2016;99:254–261. pmid:26796027
    • 22. Wertz JM, Sayette MA. A review of the effects of perceived drug use opportunity on self-reported urge. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2001;9(1):3.
    • 23. Wilson SJ, Sayette MA, Fiez JA. Quitting-Unmotivated and Quitting-Motivated Cigarette Smokers Exhibit Different Patterns of Cue-Elicited Brain Activation When Anticipating an Opportunity to Smoke. J Abnorm Psychol. 2012;121(1):198–211. pmid:21859165