Please note: This particular diary entry is under continual revision. The middle section digresses from the topic at hand and, while relevant, may be of interest only to those who want more information on the specific nature of physical attractiveness.

Studies consistently demonstrate it: looks matter, and what is beautiful is good/better/smart/successful/important/valuable. It seems like a real drag, but it's the unfortunate reality. Consider the following:

• Physically attractive job candidates with the exact same qualifications as less physically attractive candidates (slightly below average in attractiveness) are more likely to be hired for a particular job (Marlowe, Schneider, and Nelson, 1986; Gilmore, Beehr, and Love, 1986; Marvelle and Green, 1980). This effect is particularly pronounced when the job application is average (if the application is exceptional, physical attractiveness plays less of a role in the selection process [Watkins and Johnston, 2000]). The preference for physical attractiveness is often independent of actual grooming; the hiring bias occurs even against physically unattractive people who are well-groomed.
• Even experienced personnel managers are not immune to the attractiveness bias. Despite believing that they are able to overlook physical appearance and that they do not consider it in their hiring decisions, experienced managers will often believe that a physically attractive person with a resume identical to that of a less attractive person is better qualified and/or will make a better employee (Cash, Gillen, and Burns, 1977). Although this effect is generally smaller with the most experienced personnel managers, physically unattractive women are at a consistent disadvantage when it comes to applying for jobs, regardless of the personnel manager's experience (Marlowe, Schneider, and Nelson, 1986).
• Physically attractive people tend to have better-paying jobs in higher-level positions than their less attractive counterparts (Diener, Wolsic, and Fujita, 1995; Umberson and Hughes, 1987).
• Physically attractive people seem also to be more more satisfied with their lives and consider themselves happier than do their less attractive counterparts (most likely because physical attractiveness gives them the kinds of benefits that lead to social and vocational success). On measures of affect and mood, physically attractive people score higher than less physically attractive people. See Umberson and Hughes, 1987.
• People routinely guess that physically attractive people are smarter, more successful, more sociable, more dominant, sexually warmer, have better mental health, and have higher self esteem than their physically unattractive counterparts (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, and Longo, 1991; Feingold, 1992; Jackson, Hunter, and Hodge, 1995; Cialdini, 1984). However, studies show that attractive people are neither more nor less intelligent than less attractive people (Sparacino and Hansell, 1979; Jackson, Hunter, and Hodge, 1995; see again Feingold, 1992). It should be noted, however, that the effect of this "beauty is good" effect is only moderate (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, and Longo, 1991)
• Physically attractive people are more relaxed and socially adept, and less socially anxious and lonely than less physically attractive people (eg,  Feingold, 1992; Goldman and Lewis, 1977).
• We prefer to interact with people of moderately high physical attractiveness (Galluci and Meyer, 1984)—and we prefer to interact with them more than we prefer to interact with people of average or extremely high physical attractiveness (because we attribute greater negative and egocentric traits to people who are extremely good-looking).
• In general, physically attractive people are better liked than less physically attractive people (Cialdini, 1984) and are also more popular (Feingold, 1992).
• Most of us like to be seen in the company of physically attractive people (because we believe others will view us more favourably as a result).
• We are more likely to engage in self disclosure with physically attractive people than with less physically attractive people (Brundage, Derlega, and Cash, 1977).
• We are more likely to help a physically attractive person than we are a physically unattractive person (Cialdini, 1984).
• If we are presented with a group of people and asked to use non-physical cues to identify who has psychopathology, we are more likely identify physically unattractive people as we are to identify more physically attractive people (eg, Jones, Hansson, and Phillips, 1978; Galluci and Meyer, 1984).
• Physically attractive people with psychological disturbance are judged to be more maladjusted and to have a poorer prognosis than less physically attractive people with the same psychological disturbance (Cash, Kehr, Polyson, and Freeman, 1977).
• A physically attractive person charged with the same crime as a less attractive person is more likely to be found not guilty of that crime (eg, Efran, 1974).
• In court cases in which the crime is sex-related, physically unattractive defendants  are considered to be more dangerous than better-looking offenders (eg, Esses and Webster, 1988). This effect is often independent of the actual grooming or attire of the defendant.
• Physically attractive individuals found guilty of a particular crime are more likely to receive more lenient sentences than less attractive defendants (eg, DeSantis and Kayson, 1997).
• On a passenger train service in the UK, people avoided sitting next to people with physical deformities (Houston and Bull, 1994).
• Physically attractive people are more likely to be successful in changing other people's attitudes and in getting what they want (eg, Cialdini, 1995).
• Friends and lovers of physically attractive people are often prepared to give them special personal "privileges" for the sole reason that they are physically attractive. Two people who have the exact same personal attributes will still receive differential "privilege" based on physical attractiveness. The privileges range from increased social support all the way to being allowed to sleep over in someone's bed (with or without sexual activity). This is particularly disturbing because the term "privilege" implies that a person has somehow "earned" or done something to deserve the privilege. The reality, however, is that physical attractiveness is something we are born with—not something that we somehow worked hard to achieve (despite what people with a penchant for plastic surgery will claim).
• We are often quicker to say that we have a particularly intimate or "deep" relationship with a physically attractive person than we have with a less attractive person—even if the good-looking person has the exact same personal qualities as the less attractive person.  Indeed, we are often quite eager to think that a physically attractive person is more "special" than other people of equal quality (and whether or not we like to admit it, we find that we need to spend much more time with a less physically attractive person before we consider him/her to be just as "special").
• It should be mentioned, however, that people who are unusually physically attractive are often at a disadvantage because they are resented by members of their own sex and because they experience unwanted sexual advances (eg, Hatfield and Sprecher, 1986). Attractive people are also unsure of whether others like them for their looks or for their inner qualities. They are also more likely to rely on their looks than on their other attributes. Furthermore, there is a negative correlation between physical attractiveness and honesty and concern for others (Feingold, 1992; Jackson, Hunter, and Hodge, 1995; Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, and Longo, 1991 [re-check reference for this]).

Research aside, I know all too well about the double standard on physical attractiveness. Consider the following examples from my own personal life:

• It's often the case that even though I possess the exact same personal attributes as another person, I am passed up for friendship, romance, etc. because I'm not as physically attractive as that other person.
• Those people who pass me up for friendship or romance actually say that the reason isn't because I'm not attractive, but, rather, because my personal qualities aren't what they prefer in a friend/partner. However, their more attractive friends and/or partners have the same personal qualities that I do.
• If I have a particularly negative personal trait (say, talkativeness) or behave in an unruly way, this is regularly seen as more negative than the presence of the same trait/behaviour in a more physically attractive person (see Dion, 1972; see also Cash and Trimer's 1984 study which showed that poor quality essays were rated more positively by subjects if the writers were physically attractive).
• Because I am not generally physically attractive*, other people exaggerate my negative qualities or focus excessively on them. The same negative qualities present in better-looking people are minimised, ignored, or even seen as positive (eg, "Of course he's talkative. It's part of his charm. It makes him even cuter."). *I must qualify this: I am average-looking to people in the general population, but not to people in the gay population (of which I am a part), where standards of physical beauty are significantly higher than average. For reasons that are too complex to be discussed in this diary entry, gay men are, in my experience and that of others, obsessively focussed on physical beauty and highly judgmental and rejecting (more so than straight men) of men who do not conform to impossibly perfectionistic ideals of physical attractiveness.
• In comparison to my more attractive counterparts, I am sometimes seen as an inferior (or even "bad") person. On some unconscious, primal level, we really do believe that attractive is good.
• If I were more physically attractive, my negative traits would be more frequently overlooked, my positive ones would be exaggerated—if not celebrated—and I would meet more people willing to be my friend (if not my sexual/romantic partner).

Why is physical attractiveness so important?

It seems much of this might be rooted in evolution. Even babies seem to prefer physically attractive faces over physically unattractive ones (Langlois et al., 1987). If one of the primary goals of human beings is to procreate and ensure the continuation of their offspring into the next generation, then it would make sense that we evolved specific, unconscious, deeply-ingrained preferences for physically attractive people. Good looks are a sign of strong genes, good health, and high life expectancy—precisely the kinds of qualities we want in our children, and, hence, in our mates. By this reasoning, those of our ancestors who consistently chose to mate with physically unattractive people were more likely to bear unhealthy offspring, and, therefore, less likely to ensure the continuation of their line. One particularly interesting piece of evidence suggesting that we have inborn, evolutionary-based preferences for physically attractive people is the finding that good-looking faces trigger the same kinds of brain networks that are triggered when people become addicted to cocaine and gambling. Furthermore, there appears to be a universal, cross-cultural undesirability for people with facial disfigurements and other flaws (for more on the evolutionary theory of beauty, see Ford and Beach, 1951).
 

Who and what is considered physically attractive?

The double standard on physical attractiveness underlies the fact that we do not assess people and situations in a fair and objective fashion. What complicates matters is that we often have specific criteria for what qualifies as "psychically attractive", yet we are often willing to throw those criteria out the window in specific situations. Let's spend the next part of this diary entry exploring what exactly is "physically attractive"? The list of features in the first list—physical qualities—are the foundation of "attractiveness" in general, and physical attractiveness specifically. Few of us would consider the qualities in this list to be unattractive. Most of us are drawn to these physical features—if only because they are the first thing we often see when we encounter someone for the first time—and we feel that they account for a great proportion of our physical attraction to people (especially if we value physical attractiveness and consider it an important ingredient in relationships). However, the factors in the second and third lists—situational and intra-individual factors—often cause us to evaluate the features in the first list in a whole new way (and in a way that makes it impossible to conclude that two people with the exact same features in the first list are even moderately similar in terms of their over all physical attractiveness).

Universally-preferred physical features

What is physically attractive? Again, whatever traits are seen—unconsciously—as being good indicators of physical (and, therefore, reproductive) health. While there is individual variation in what people find attractive (due to genetic, cultural, historical, psychodynamic, and behavioural forces), most people across cultures (Cunningham, Roberts, Barbee, Druen, and Wu, 1995) tend to agree that the following physical qualities make a person physically attractive:

1. In both sexes: clear skin and vibrant hair (a sign of youth, vigour, and good nutrition).
2. In both sexes: symmetrical face and body (indicative of good physical and psychological health and absence of genetic abnormalities; see Gangersted and Thornhill, 1997; Grammer and Thornhill, 1994; Shackelford and Larsen, 1997; Thornhill and Moeller, 1997).
3. In men: substantial height (Buss and Schmitt, 1993; Ellis, 1992); square jaw; wide brow; wide shoulders; strong arms; defined chest; muscular buttocks (indicative of sexual thrusting power); waist-to-hip ratio of about 1.0. Many of these features indicate not only that a man is healthy, but that he will be a good protector.
4. In women: full, red lips (which mimic the appearance of the vaginal area and which actually become redder when a woman is ovulating); large breasts—although not too large (breasts are an indication that a woman has enough body fat and milk to nurture to a baby); waist-to-hip ratio of about 0.7; voluptuous buttocks. Many of these features indicate that a woman is able to bear healthy children (Symons, 1979, 1995; Buss 1989).
5. In both sexes (although much more for men than women): features typically associated with a baby's face. There is, in other words, a preference for "cuteness",  including: large, closely spaced eyes, a small, slightly upturned (or "button") nose; and a soft, rounded chin. These baby-like features signal nurturance and non-dominance, traits which men appear to find very attractive. Women find these traits attractive too (because nurturance is a positive quality in a mate eg, Cunningham, 1986; Keating, 1985); however, they have a more significant preference for facial features which signal maturity, strength, and dominance (Sadalla et al., 1987).
6. In gay men and lesbians, there is a different trend: gay men prefer cute men with baby faces, while many lesbians do not find baby faces attractive (Cunningham, Roberts, Barbee, Druen, and Wu, 1995).
7. In both sexes: an "average" face and body (eg, Langlois and Roggman, 1990; Beck, Ward-Hull, and McLear, 1976). Few people like a nose, for instance, that is too large or too small. Average faces and bodies are composites that wash out extreme ends on the continuum of various features (or, in other words, they indicate the absence of potentially maladaptive genes).
8. In both sexes: Unattractive facial features are often offset by attractive physiques.
9. In both sexes: certain physical, but non-anatomical features. In fact, these features can either make up for anatomical flaws or—at least for some people—can by themselves be more physically attractive than the kinds of anatomical features mentioned above. Examples:
    
   • A person's physical style: posture, stature, gait, eye contact, smile (some people have a smile that is warm or bright enough to accentuate average physical features or even offset particularly unattractive physical features)
   • A person's actual comfort with their own bodies. Nothing can be more physically unattractive than a person who dislikes their appearances (whether or not they are considered generally physically attractive). In fact, a physically unattractive person's comfort with his/her own looks can sometimes make up for any physical flaws and actually become more physically attractive than a person who is already above-average looks (and especially a person above-average in looks who does not think that s/he is physically attractive).
   • A person's physicality: some people are quite physically attracted to those who are more "touchy-feely" (e.g., people who like to give pats on the back, brushes on the arm, hugs, massages, etc.).
   • A person's presentation: in some cases, exceptional grooming, hairstyles, and clothing can make average or not-so-attractive faces and bodies look quite physically attractive.
10. In both sexes: a person who is similar to us in physical attractiveness. The reasons for this may include the following:
     
    • we are comfortable (and feel safer) with people who are similar to us
    • we know ourselves well; if we consider ourselves to be physically healthy, then we will consider people of similar physical attractiveness to be healthy as well
    • we do not like to be around people who are more attractive than us because we fear they will steal the limelight from us
    • physically attractive people are able to attract other physically attractive people; exceptions aside, physically unattractive people are only able to attract other physically unattractive people
11. Gay men—for whatever reasons—are more fickle than heterosexual men or lesbians when it comes to preferences for physical attractiveness. It is not uncommon for a gay man to end perfectly solid and fulfilling relationship with a man who has outstanding non-physical features simply because he thinks that he is not the best-looking man he thinks he can find. It is hypothesised that this behaviour is not, at bottom, something related to homosexuality per se. Rather, is it something related to the nature of being male. Men are naturally predisposed to prefer physical features over non-physical features in their mates (given that their primary goal is to mate with partners who will produce attractive, healthy children; for their part, women are more interested in non-physical features which signal that a man will be able to raise the children that they sire). Because gay men do not usually procreate, their capriciousness in romantic relationships is left unchecked by the need to eventually settle down, marry the most attractive partner they are able to marry at that given point in their lives, and have a family. In other words, their desire for physical attractiveness is given "free reign"—the same kind of free reign that heterosexual men would have if they were not constrained by the biologically-based need and urge to procreate. A gay man has his entire lifetime to find the best-looking man he can. A heterosexual man does not, because like the women he will mate with, he too has a biological clock that is a'ticking.

Situational factors

The following situational factors are also influential in determining what a person considers physically attractive (though my opinion is that the qualities in the list above account for a larger share of the variance in preference). As you will see, these factors make it clear that physical attractiveness can often be quite fluid, making it impossible to conclude that two people with the exact same physical features in the list above are even moderately similar to each other in physical attractiveness. This is especially the case with women, whose physiological sexual arousal depends not simply on their genital response to a man's physical features but on the subjective assessment of the man based on his non-physical physical features (in keeping with evolutionary theory, it makes sense that women's arousal would depend on non-physical qualities which signal that a man could make for a committed romantic partner, a good provider, and a good parent; see, for example: Basson, 2002; Laan and Everaerd, 1995). Indeed, our preferences for looks often depend on more than just what's right in front of our eyes.

1. We find people who are familiar to us to be more physically attractive than those who are not familiar to us (Zajonc, 1970). Familiar people seem "safe" and we can't help but develop some degree of physical attraction towards such people (it is, in an evolutionary sense, highly adaptive to form relationships with people with whom we feel safe, as opposed to people with whom we feel anxious, apprehensive, or in danger).
2. People who are in close proximity to us are more physically attractive to us than those who are not in close proximity. Research shows that  merely being in the same general vicinity as another person can increase our over all liking for that person. The longer that two people are in close proximity, the greater the chance that they will end up liking each other. This is called the "mere exposure" effect (Zajonc, 1968, 1970). In some cases, the mere exposure effect may extend to physical attractiveness. The longer we are exposed to someone, the more likely we will come to find them physically attractive (this is especially the case if we really like the individual's personality traits or if we like the person as a friend).
3. Related to the above: people who are in our immediate focus of attention tend to be perceived as more physically attractive than those not in our immediate focus. Alcohol often helps focus this attention.
4. People who are similar to us in terms of personality characteristics and attitudes are seen as more physically attractive as people who are dissimilar to us (Beaman and Klentz, 1983; Klentz, Beaman, Mapelli, and Ullrich, 1987).
5. Our friends may come to be more physically attractive to us over time (Gross and Crofton, 1977). From an evolutionary perspective, this could be adaptive in that friends are strong and reliable, and, therefore, more likely than other people to be good providers for our children. The other part of the explanation here is cognitive: we interpret the fact that we spend so much time with a particular friend as a sign that we are actually physically attracted to them.
6. People with positive personal qualities are seen as more physically attractive than people with less positive personal qualities (Gross and Crofton, 1977). In fact, physical imperfections become less noticeable in people whose personal qualities we like. It would stand to reason that if we are exceptionally attracted to someone because of their personal, non-physical traits, then not only will we overlook their physical flaws (or even find their physical features meaningless), but we may even find them to be more physically attractive over time (exceptional personal qualities can actually accentuate "average" appearances and make someone look quite sexy over time). In some cases, personal features can be so exceptional that they make physical features unimportant. In fact, personal features can be so exceptional that they cultivate a physical attractiveness that can eventually lead to a romantic relationship. In my personal opinion (and this may change in time), this is generally rare (because few people have exceptional personal qualities) and one should probably avoid trying to "wait" for the moment when a friend become a lover; the wait can be extremely long and it may be fruitless because there is no guarantee that the friend's liking will develop physical components. (In fact, one might wonder why a person would invest so much energy in an uncertain romantic relationship when they could just as easily invest that same energy into partnering with people who already find them physically attractive. The answer, perhaps, lies in the fact that some people feel they will never really be able to find romantic partners with whom they can have a physical relationship).
7. Our preferences for physical features often shift after we develop a strong emotional relationship with a partner. It is not uncommon to hear people comment that they fell in love with someone who was not really their physical "type" and that, over time, they actually came to prefer that type and find it physically attractive.
8. We sometimes find what we look for. People can be beautiful simply because we think they are. If we look at someone and think to ourselves that they are physically attractive, then we will actually come to find them physically attractive. It is, in a way, akin to "developing a taste" for a particular food, and then coming to see the beauty in that food. This is a cognitive explanation for physical attraction.
9. Amazingly, a person who thinks s/he is a catch (because of either physical or non-physical features) can actually become physically attractive to others!
10. People with whom we have experienced something emotional or physically arousing often come to be seen as more physically attractive than they were before the such an experience. For instance, if you have just had a really deep "heart-to-heart" with someone, that person may seem more physically attractive to you than s/he was before the conversation. On a more dramatic level, imagine doing through a traumatic situation with someone (say, being held hostage together by burglars). As the hours go by, you start to find the other person increasingly physically attractive. This is due not only to the familiarity that results from being next to that person, but also the emotional energy that is created by the situation. More importantly, you come to interpret the physical arousal caused by the situation as a sign that you are actually physically (sexually) attracted to that person (ie, "My heart was racing when I was in the room with her. I guess that means I actually find her hot.") See Dutton and Aron's 1974 Vancouver suspension bridge experiment. The tendency to make such an interpretation may have arisen from evolution: If a particular situation is dangerous, it means that death might ensue, and that, therefore, it would be a good idea to have sexual relations and produce offspring before it is too late. There may, of course, also be other explanations for this attributional tendency.
11. Related to the two previous points: We often find people with whom we have had sexual intercourse to be more physically attractive than we found them both during and prior to the sexual encounter (in fact, this may occur even if we never found the person all that physically attractive in the first place!). The reason for this may be general physiological arousal that is interpreted in a situation-congruent manner (e.g., "I just had sex with this person. I guess that means I find him/her more physically attractive than I thought"). Another reason is that having sex lifts our mood, which helps us overlook people's physical flaws—or see them in a whole new light.
12. Sexual intercourse is not the only kind of physical contact that can cause shifts in physical attractiveness. We sometimes find that a person's physical attractiveness increases after they have touched us in a non-sexual way, such as through massage. The reason? Perhaps touch activates the same areas of the brain that are responsible for physical attraction. Perhaps touch helps people feel that they are safe and loved—two factors which are strongly related to physical attraction.
13. When we are sexual aroused and feel the need to have sex (i.e., when we are "horny"), we sometimes find everyone around us to be more physically attractive than we would normally find them to be.
14. Whoever is left over at the end of the night often becomes more physically attractive to us than they did earlier in the evening. Most of us are familiar with the "bar closing phenomenon": having been unable to find a sexual partner who is attractive to us, we suddenly become physically attracted to whichever people are left in the bar at the end of the evening—even if earlier in the evening we didn't find them to be particularly attractive at all (Gladue and Delaney, 1990). This phenomenon is rooted in evolution: physical attraction evolved to help us pair up and mate. If by the end of the evening a suitable partner hasn't been found, then we will re-evaluate what we consider physically attractive and go home with whomever is left in the bar. It's as if physical attraction is a "force" that drives us to mate as frequently as we can.
15. The contrast effect is also important. If we have recently seen a physically unattractive person, everyone we see afterwards seems more attractive (more so than they would've seemed had we seen the less attractive person beforehand). Similarly, if we have recently been exposed to a particularly attractive person (either in person or by viewing erotica), we will find that the people we used to consider physically attractive are no longer as attractive (eg, Kenrick, Neuberg, Zierk, and Krones, 1994; Kenrick, Gutierres, and Goldberg, 1989;Weaver, Masland, and Zillman, 1984). Note, however, that the contrast effect is temporary. Contrast effects also apply to self-evaluations of our own physical attractiveness (Brown, Novick, Lord, and Richards, 1992; Thornton and Moore, 1993).
16. After a break-up with a significant partner, we often find everyone around us to be more physically attractive than we would have both during and even prior to the relationship we just ended.
17. If others find a particular person to be physically attractive, then we may also come to find them attractive, even if we would not normally find that person physically attractive. In other words, we are physically attracted to those who are "in demand".
18. Sometimes, physical attraction develops in a sort of "Platonic" way. For instance, two individuals mutually engaged in a deep intellectual task sometimes develop a tremendous physical attraction to one another (hence professors and graduate students who sleep together). This is the "eroticism of knowledge".
19. "Love sees loveliness": The more in love we are with someone, the more physically attractive we find them (Price, Dabbs, Clower, and Resin, 1979).
20. The more in love we are with someone, the less physically attractive we find all other members of that person's sex (Johnson and Rusbult, 1989). Say Miller and Simpson (1990): "The grass may be greener on the other side, but happy gardeners are less likely to notice."

The bigger picture: Notes and caveats on the influence of situational factors

In many cases, it is clear that we find someone physically attractive over time; we "grow" into finding them attractive. By this line of reasoning, it might be argued that when we break up with someone because we don't feel that there is a physical attraction, it's not so much the lack of a physical spark that makes the relationship undesirable but, rather, the fact that the partner doesn't really have the kind of personal qualities that we really like. In such cases, the lack of physicality is merely an excuse to avoid discussing the more important (yet potentially ego threatening) reasons for the break-up. Furthermore, in light of the list above, it should be noted that it is quite short-sighted to say that we could never come to find a particular person in our lives (e.g., a friend) physically attractive.

However, it must be said that situational factors—especially the passage of time—can go only so far. Some people we will just never find physically attractive, no matter how much time we spend with them. Situational factors such as proximity, and personal factors like idiosyncratic variation in preferences (to be discussed below) can create only so much "wiggle room" in terms of seeing a person as more physically attractive than we originally perceived them to be. My personal bias is that quite a large portion of the variance in preference for physical attractiveness is determined by specific features which are universally considered "attractive". If you would like to express your disagreement with my ideas, I welcome you to e-mail me.

Intra-individual differences (which I think account for only a moderate portion of what is considered physically attractive)

• Genetically-based preferences. As an example: high-sensation seekers have a greater preference for physically attractive people than do low sensation-seekers (Pheterson and Horai, 1976).
• Psychodynamic influences. For some people, physical attraction may depend on events that happened to them earlier in their lives. For instance, some people find a person physically attractive because s/he is reminiscent of someone who was important to them earlier in their lives (e.g., the person was a good object). In addition, we often develop a physical attraction to people who somehow fulfill our psychological needs; see my diary entry of 12 August 2002 for more details on this. 
• Behavioural influences and conditioned responses. In some cases, people find a person physically attractive because s/he is reminiscent of a person with whom they had sexual contact at an early age. In such cases, the physical attraction is a classically conditioned (i.e., Pavlovian) response (e.g.: Lalumiere and Quinsey, 1998; Dekker and Everaerd, 1989).

As mentioned earlier, while these factors can certainly contribute to individual variation in preferences for physical attractiveness, they can go only so far. Some people we will just never find physically attractive because they lack the kind of physical features mentioned in the first list above. This is my personal bias and I welcome commentary on the topic.

Cultural and social influences

My personal bias is that cultural and social factors do not influence preferences for physical attractiveness as much as we would like to think. First of all, there are certain features which people in all cultures find physically attractive (e.g., Cunningham, Roberts, Barbee, Druen, and Wu, 1995). Second, what may look like a unique cultural/social taste for certain types of bodies and faces may be, at bottom, a universal preference that expresses in terms of particular geographic conditions. For instance, men appear to have a universal preference for women whose bodies signal reproductive health. One of the cues of reproductive health is relative body fat. In geographic regions where food is scarce, there is a preference for larger women because the accumulation of body fat means that a woman is of such good health that she will be able to sustain a pregnancy even under conditions of deprivation (Symons, 1979). In our Western culture, where food is abundant, the preference is for thinner women. Indeed, not only is too much body fat harmful for a mother (because it will not be necessary for the pregnancy), it is often perceived as a sign that someone has genetic abnormalities, biochemical disorders, or certain emotional issues which may lead to over-eating. In the evolutionary psychology literature, this differential, seemingly "cultural" preference for body weight is actually an example of what is called "evoked culture": the environment, rather than the society itself, "evokes" particular physical preferences (Tooby and Cosmides, 1989).

A few things that make people seem physically unattractive

The following factors can make a person appear significantly less physically attractive, even if the person would generally be considered physically attractive for any of the reasons mentioned in the lists above:

1. Excessive concern over physical appearance (examples: a really handsome man who constantly wonders what others think of how he looks; a woman who complains that nobody will like her because she—realistically—assesses that she is homely).
2. Lack of confidence over one's physical appearance. Even is a person actually is homely, confidence in one's appearance—a sign that someone is mature enough to have made peace with the body that they were given in this life—can make a person seem less homely or even more physically attractive. 
3. Self deprecation of one's physical appearance. This draws attention away from whatever non-physical qualities could have more than made up for one's homeliness (and even made a person more physically attractive than they would normally seem). So unappealing is this behaviour that it can make even a physically attractive person look ugly. If one's aim is to improve one's physical attractiveness, perhaps best to stop self-deprecating and actually focus on appreciating and accentuating one's non-physical attributes—which for many people can be quite sexy.
4. Certain personal qualities. Sometimes people find us physically unattractive because they don't like our personal qualities—qualities which may or may not be "bad" and which, therefore, we should not necessarily aim to change. For instance, if a really attractive person happens to be very insightful and you fear that s/he is able to divine your secrets and insecurities (and you erroneously think that these secrets will be let out to the world), then you will find that this person's physical attractiveness diminishes over time. Conversely, if a physically attractive person has personal traits which truly are abhorrent (e.g., a person is mean, rude, insensitive, belligerent), then they, too, will come to be seen as less physically attractive over time. Indeed, humans are like all animals in that they are very good at developing instinctual, learned aversions to stimuli which may in some way hurt them or put them at a disadvantage—and having a relationship with a mean, rude, insensitive, or belligerent person is certainly something that can bring hurt and disadvantage.
5. Self-deprecation of one's mental health or personal qualities (eg, "I'm so weird" or "I have a lot of issues").
6. Asking a person the following: "Why don't you like me?" or "Why do you like your friends better than me?"
7. Chastising someone's friendships and romantic relationships by directly pointing out the double standards in this document! (I think ideas like the ones in this diary entry are best left for people to read on their own :-)

Putting it all together

While there is no evidence to suggest the relative proportion that each group of features discussed in this diary plays in determining what is considered physically attractive, my personal bias (against which you are welcome to argue and which may change over time) is as follows:

1. Universal physical features account for about 60% of our physical attraction to other people
2. Situational factors (including cultural standards for what is "attractive") account for about 25% of our physical attraction to other people
3. Intra-individual preferences (based on genes, personal history, psychodynamics, and personality traits) account for about 15% of our physical attraction to other people
4. Cultural and social preferences account for a marginal degree of our physical attraction to people

Despite that perhaps 60% of what is generally considered physically attractive (in my assessment) is based on specific, universally-preferred features, it is still amazing to note that people find each other attractive for many different reasons. I always find it quite humourous when people miss opportunities to set up a friend with an eligible single because they don't think that the potential date is the friend's physical "type"; in so many cases, people are shocked when they find out that their friend would actually love to be set up with that potential date because that's exactly the kind of person they find physically attractive! All this said, few of us should think that we will be unable to partner with someone who not only finds us physically attractive, but whom we in turn find physically attractive. Indeed, not only is there a double standard in terms of how we treat physically attractive people, but there is also a differential interpretation of specific physical features based upon several non-physical criteria!

So what do we do in the face of the double standard?

What do we do in a world where physically unattractive people suffer the kinds of disadvantages that have been mentioned in this diary entry? I certainly don't wish to punish people for having a preference for good-looking people. The preference is, after all, rooted in nature and biology and it is adaptive. What is not adaptive, however, is minimising the value of people just because they are not physically attractive. We often miss out on good friendships—even highly valuable long-term romantic mates—by placing a premium on looks. The result is that we put ourselves in a position where we lack the kinds of friends who keep us safe and healthy, and the kinds of romantic partners who can provide us with exceptional non-physical resources that benefit the survival of our offspring. In other words, a partner who is only average in looks but exceptional in other ways can often be a much better partner than a person who is exceptionally good-looking but only average in other ways.

We should all:

1. Make an effort, every now and then, to actively consider how we might be misjudging people because of their looks (and even realise that we may be assessing their actual physical features using a double standard).
2. Keep in mind that if we want to make a true, unbiased assessment of someone (or of the depth of our relationship with them), we should take off our rose-coloured glasses. A convenient trick is to ask ourselves: "If this person were ugly, would I still feel the same way about them? Would I still like their personal qualities? Would I still be over-looking their negative traits?"
3. Not afford people special status just because of their looks. Beautiful is not more "good" and it certainly does not make a person "special". Furthermore, because beauty is something we are born with and not something we somehow earned or achieved, it should not be considered when awarding people special "privileges" in relationships.
4. Think more carefully about how our preferences for physical attractiveness—and the assumptions underlying these preferences—affect the angst some of us feel around: not finding the most physically attractive mate; not being able to be friends with people are physically unattractive; and so forth.
5. Not think that we are superior to others because of our looks.

References

Basson, R. (2002). A model of women's sexual arousal. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 28 (1), 1-10.

Beaman, A.L., and Klentz, B. (1983). The supposed physical attractiveness bias against supporters of the women’s movement: A meta-analysis. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 9 (4), 544-550.

Beck, S.B., Ward-Hull, C.I., & McLear, P.M. (1976). Variables related to women’s somatic preferences of the male and female body. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 34 (6), 1200-1210.

Brown, J.D., Novick, N.J., Lord, K.A., & Richards, J.M. (1992). When Gulliver travels: Social context, psychological closeness, and self-appraisals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 62 (5), 717-727.

Brundage, L.E., Derlega, V.J., & Cash, T.F. (1977). The effects of physical attractiveness and need for approval on self-disclosure. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 3 (1), 63-66.

Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12 (1), 1-49.

Buss, D.M., & Schmitt, D.P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100 (2), 204-232.

Cash, T.F., & Trimer, C.A. (1984). Sexism and beautyism in women's evaluations of peer performance. Sex Roles, 10 (1-2), 87-98.

Cash, T.F., Gillen, B., and Burns, S.D. (1977). Sexism and beautyism in personnel consultant decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (3), 301-310.

Cash, T.F., Kehr, J.A., Polyson, J., & Freeman, V. (1977). Role of physical attractiveness in peer attribution of psychological disturbance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45 (6), 987-993.

Cialdini, R.B. (1984). The psychology of persuasion. New York: Quill William Morrow.

Cialdini, R.B. (1995). Principles and techniques of social influence. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology, 257-281. New York: Mc-Graw Hill.

Cunningham, M.R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female and facial beauty. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50 (5), 925-935.

Cunningham, M.R., Roberts, A.R., Barbee, A.P., Druen, P.B., & Wu, C.H. (1995). "Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours": Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 68 (2), 261-279.

Dekker, J., & Everaerd, W. (1989). Psychological determinants of sexual arousal: A review. Behavior Research & Therapy, 27 (4), 353-364.

DeSantis, A., and Kayson, W.A. (1997). Defendants' characteristics of attractiveness, race, and sex and sentencing decisions. Psychological Reports, 81 (2), 679-683.

Diener, E., Wolsic, B., & Fujita, F. (1995). Physical attractiveness and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69 (1), 120-129.

Dion, K.K. (1973). Young children’s stereotyping of facial attractiveness. Developmental Psychology, 9 (2), 183-188.

Dutton, D.G., & Aron, A.P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30 (4), 510-517.

Eagly, A.H., Ashmore, R.D., Makhijani, M.G., and Longo, L.C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but. . .: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110 (1), 109-128.

Efran, M.G. (1974). The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 8 (1), 45-54.

Ellis, B.J. (1992).The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mechanisms in women. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind. New York: Oxford.

Esses, V.M., & Webster, C.D. (1988). Physical attractiveness, dangerousness, and the Canadian criminal code. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18 (12, part 2), 1017-1031.

Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1), 125-139.

Ford, C.S., and Beach, F.A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: Harper & Row.

Galluci, N.T., and Meyer, R.G. (1984). People can be too perfect: Effects of subjects' and targets' attractiveness on interpersonal attraction. Psychological Reports, 55 (2), 351-360.

Gangestead, S.W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). Human sexual selection ad developmental stability. In J.A. Simpson & D.T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gilmore, D.C., Beehr, T.A., & Love, K.G. (1986). Effects of applicant sex, applicant physical attractiveness, type of rater and type of job on interview decisions. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59 (2), 103-109.

Gladue, B.A., and Delaney, H.J. (1990). Gender differences in perception of attractiveness of men and women in bars. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 16 (2), 378-391.

Goldman, W., & Lewis, P. (1977). Beautiful is good: Evidence that the physically attractive are more socially skillful. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13 (2), 125-130.

Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108 (3), 233-242.

Gross, A.E., & Crofton, C. (1977). What is good is beautiful. Sociometry, 40 (1), 85-90.

Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, mirror…The importance of looks in everyday life. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Houston, V., & Bull, R. (1994). Do people avoid sitting next to someone who is facially disfigured? European Journal of Social Psychology, 24 (2), 279-284.

Jackson, L.A., Hunter, J. E., & Hodge, C. N. (1995). Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58 (2), 108-122.

Jackson, L.A., Hunter, J.E., and Hodge, C.N. (1995). Physical attractiveness and intellectual competence: A meta-analytic review. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58 (2), 108-122.

Johnson, D.J., & Rusbult, C.E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57 (6), 967-980.

Jones, W.H., Hansson, R.O., and Phillips, A.L. (1978). Physical attractiveness and judgments of psychopathology. Journal of Social Psychology, 105 (1), 79-84.

Keating, C.F. (1985). Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48 (1), 61-70.

Kenrick, D.T., Gutierres, S.E., & Goldberg, L.E. (1989). Influence of popular erotica on judgments of strangers and mates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25 (2), 159-167.

Kenrick, D.T., Neuberg, S.L., Zierk, K.L., and Krones, J.M. (1994). Evolution and social cognition: Contrast effects as a function of sex, dominance, and physical attractiveness. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 20 (2), 210-217.

Klentz, B., Beaman, A.L., Mapelli, S.D., & Ullrich, J.R. (1987). Perceived physical attractiveness of supporters and nonsupporters o the women’s movement: An attitude-similarity-mediated error (AS-ME). Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 13 (4), 513-523.

Laan, E., & Everaerd, W. (1995). Determinants of female sexual arousal: Psychophysiological theory and data. Annual Review of Sex Research, Vol VI, 32-76.

Lalumiere, M.L., & Quinsey, V.L. (1998). Pavlovian conditioning of sexual interests in human males. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27 (3), 241-252.

Langlois, J.H., & Roggman, L.A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1 (2), 115-121.

Langlois, J.H., Roggman, L.A., Casey, R.J., Ritter, J.M., et al. (1987) Infant preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereotype? Developmental Psychology, 23 (3), 363-369.

Marlowe, C.M., Schneider, S.L., & Nelson, C.E. (1986). Gender and attractiveness biases in hiring decisions: Are more experienced managers less biased? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (1), 11-21.

Marvelle, K., & Green, S. (1980). Physical attractiveness and sex bias in hiring decisions for two types of jobs. Journal of the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, 44 (1), 3-6.

Miller, R.S., & Simpson, J.A. (1990). Relationship satisfaction and attentiveness to alternatives. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association convention.

Pheterson, M., & Horai, J. (1976). The effects of sensation seeking, physical attractiveness of stimuli, and exposure frequency on liking. Social Behavior & Personality, 4 (2), 241-247.

Price, G.H., Dabbs, J.M., Clower, B., & Resin, R.P. (1979). At first glance—Or, is physical attractiveness more than skin deep? Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association convention, 1974. Cited by K.L. Dion & K.K. Dion. Personality and behavioral correlates of romantic love. In M. Cook & G. Wilson (Eds.), Love and attraction. Oxford: Pergamon.

Sadalla, E.K., Kenrick, D.T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52 (4), 730-738.

Shackelford, T.K., & Larsen, R.J. (1997). Facial symmetry as an indicator of psychological, emotional, and physiological distress. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 72 (2), 456-466.

Sparacino, J., & Hansell, S. (1979). Physical attractiveness and academic performance: Beauty is not always talent. Journal of Personality, 47 (3), 449-469.

Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford.

Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In P.R. Abramson & S.D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual nature, sexual culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Thornhill, R., & Moeller, A.P. (1997). Developmental stability, disease, and medicine. Biological Review, 72, 497-548.

Thornton, B., & Moore, S. (1993). Physical attractiveness contrast effect: Implications for self-esteem and evaluation of the social self. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 (4), 474-480.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture: Part I: Theoretical considerations. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 29-49.

Umberson, D., & Hughes, M. (1987). The impact of physical attractiveness and achievement and psychological well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50 (3), 227-236.

Weaver, J.B., Masland, J.L., and Zillman, D. (1984). Effect of erotica on young men's aesthetic perception of their female sexual partners. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 58 (3), 929-930.

Zajonc, R.B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 9 (2, part 2), 1-27.

Zajonc, R.B. (1970, February). Brainwash: Familiarity breeds comfort. Psychology Today, 32.