Skip to content
Delete Learn

2.3 Physical Attraction

You see someone across the room. In milliseconds—before you know their name, their values, or anything about their personality—your brain has already made a judgment: attractive or not.

Physical attraction feels instantaneous and mysterious. But decades of research reveal clear patterns in what draws us to potential partners—and some of those patterns might surprise you.

The Speed of Attraction

Attraction judgments happen remarkably fast. Research shows people form reliable impressions of attractiveness from faces presented for as little as 13 milliseconds—faster than conscious awareness.[1]

These snap judgments aren’t random. A meta-analysis of 919 studies found substantial agreement across raters about who is and isn’t attractive, with correlations around 0.83 for same-culture ratings.[2] While there’s individual variation, people largely agree on attractiveness.

What this means: when you find someone attractive, you’re probably not alone. And they likely trigger similar responses in others.

What Makes Faces Attractive?

Decades of research have identified consistent features that predict facial attractiveness:[3]

Averageness

Counterintuitively, average faces are rated as more attractive than distinctive ones. Computer-generated “average” faces (morphed from many individual faces) consistently outperform individual faces in attractiveness ratings.[3]

Why? Evolutionary psychologists suggest averageness signals genetic health—extreme features may indicate developmental instability or harmful mutations.

Symmetry

Bilateral symmetry predicts attractiveness, though the effect is smaller than popularly believed. A meta-analysis found correlations between facial symmetry and attractiveness ranging from 0.10 to 0.30.[4]

Symmetry may signal developmental stability—the ability to maintain precise growth despite environmental stress. Fluctuating asymmetry (random deviations from symmetry) has been linked to various health indicators.

Sexual Dimorphism

Features that distinguish male from female faces affect attractiveness judgments:[3]

  • Feminine features in women (smaller jaw, fuller lips, larger eyes) are consistently rated as attractive
  • Masculine features in men show mixed results—sometimes attractive, sometimes not, depending on context

Women’s preferences for male facial masculinity vary with menstrual cycle, relationship status, and cultural context—suggesting these preferences aren’t fixed.

Skin Quality

Clear, even-toned skin is one of the strongest predictors of facial attractiveness across cultures.[5] Skin homogeneity correlates with health markers and signals youth.

This may explain why makeup and skincare industries exist: they optimize one of the most reliable attractiveness signals.

The Halo Effect

Physical attractiveness doesn’t just affect romantic judgments—it biases how we perceive people’s entire personalities.

Research consistently demonstrates the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype: attractive people are assumed to be more intelligent, socially competent, successful, and psychologically well-adjusted.[6]

A meta-analysis found attractive individuals are perceived as higher on nearly every positive trait measured. The correlation between attractiveness and perceived competence is approximately 0.35—a moderate but consistent effect.[6]

The troubling implication: in dating, attractive people get benefit of the doubt. Their ambiguous behaviors are interpreted positively. Less attractive people face the opposite—having to prove themselves against a negative baseline assumption.

Do Beautiful People Actually Have Better Lives?

Partly. Research shows physical attractiveness correlates with:[7]

  • Higher income (approximately 10-15% premium)
  • More dating and sexual partners
  • Higher self-esteem
  • Better social skills (possibly due to more positive social feedback)

However, the effects are smaller than most people assume. Attractiveness explains only about 2-5% of variance in life outcomes. Other factors—intelligence, personality, effort—matter far more.

And importantly: attractiveness doesn’t predict relationship satisfaction or stability. Once in a relationship, how you treat each other matters more than how you look.

The Matching Hypothesis

One of the most robust findings in attraction research: people tend to pair with partners of similar attractiveness levels.[8]

Early research suggested people desire the most attractive partners possible but settle for matches of similar attractiveness due to rejection risk. However, more recent work suggests the pattern is more nuanced.

A speed-dating study found:[9]

  • People generally want attractive partners
  • But less attractive individuals show stronger preference for personality over looks
  • And matching actually occurs—people end up with similar-attractiveness partners

The matching hypothesis has been confirmed across multiple methodologies:

  • Self-report studies
  • Observational studies of actual couples
  • Speed-dating experiments
  • Online dating behavioral data

Why does matching occur? Likely a combination of:

  • Market forces (attractive people can afford to be pickier)
  • Self-assessment (recognizing your “league”)
  • Social acceptance (similar-attractiveness couples face less scrutiny)

Cross-Cultural Consistency vs. Variation

The question of whether beauty standards are universal or culturally constructed has a nuanced answer: both.

Universal elements:

Research comparing cultures consistently finds:[2][10]

  • Agreement on facial averageness as attractive
  • Preference for clear skin
  • Preference for youth markers (especially in women)
  • Basic agreement on facial attractiveness across cultures (r ≈ 0.94 for ratings of same faces)

Culturally variable elements:

  • Ideal body weight (cultures with food scarcity prefer heavier bodies)[10]
  • Specific facial features beyond basic averageness/symmetry
  • Grooming standards and adornment
  • Status signals embedded in appearance

The pattern suggests: core attractiveness cues are evolutionary adaptations, while cultural variation adds layers of local preference on top.

Evolutionary Psychology of Attraction

Evolutionary approaches argue that attractiveness cues evolved because they signaled reproductive fitness:[11]

Female attractiveness cues:

  • Youth markers (clear skin, full lips, high voice)
  • Reproductive health signals (hip-to-waist ratio around 0.7)
  • Fertility indicators

Male attractiveness cues:

  • Physical strength and health
  • Status signals
  • Resource acquisition ability

A comprehensive review found evidence that female physical attractiveness does correlate with health and potentially fertility, though effect sizes are modest.[11]

Important caveat: Evolutionary explanations don’t justify preferences or make them morally right. They describe origins, not prescriptions.

The Role of Familiarity

We’re attracted to what we know. Research shows:[12]

  • Mere exposure effect: Repeated exposure to faces increases liking
  • Prototype matching: We find faces attractive that resemble faces we’ve seen frequently
  • Imprinting-like effects: Preferences shaped by early caregivers

This explains why “type” exists—your attraction template is shaped by your history of face exposure, including family members and early relationships.

Context Effects on Attraction

Attractiveness isn’t fixed—it’s influenced by context:

The contrast effect

Research shows that viewing highly attractive faces decreases ratings of subsequently viewed average faces.[13] In the age of Instagram and dating apps optimized for attractive profiles, this may raise baseline expectations unrealistically.

The contrast effect on partners

One study found that men who viewed attractive female models subsequently rated their own partners as less attractive and reported less love and commitment.[14] Media exposure may be literally making real partners seem less appealing.

Social proof

Seeing someone desired by others increases their attractiveness ratings. If others want them, they must be worth wanting.

Physical Attraction in Relationships

Here’s what matters long-term:[15]

Early stages:

  • Physical attraction is a strong predictor of initial interest
  • More attractive partners receive more approach behavior
  • Attractiveness correlates with relationship initiation

Established relationships:

  • Physical attractiveness becomes less predictive of satisfaction
  • How partners treat each other matters more
  • Perceived attractiveness (how attractive you find YOUR partner) matters more than objective attractiveness
  • Couples tend to maintain similar relative attractiveness over time

A longitudinal study found that initial physical attractiveness didn’t predict relationship satisfaction 13 years later—but positive behaviors and communication did.[15]

What This Means for Dating

Accept the reality

Physical attraction matters for initial interest. Pretending it doesn’t is naive. But it’s not the only thing that matters, and its importance decreases over time.

Optimize reasonably

Taking care of your appearance (grooming, fitness, dress) does affect outcomes. These are signals you can control.

Don’t overweight it

Research shows people overestimate how much attractiveness will satisfy them. Other factors—kindness, humor, shared values—predict long-term happiness better.

Beware comparison effects

Constant exposure to highly attractive people (social media, dating apps) may distort your perception of real potential partners. The people in your actual life aren’t competing with Instagram.

Physical attraction can grow

Initial attraction matters, but perceived attractiveness of partners increases as emotional connection deepens. The person you love becomes more beautiful to you.

The Bottom Line

Physical attraction is real, fast, and influential. Research shows consistent patterns in what people find attractive—averageness, symmetry, clear skin, and various sex-specific features.

But physical attraction is also:

  • Contextual: Influenced by exposure, comparison, and social factors
  • Malleable: Perceived attractiveness changes with emotional connection
  • Overrated: It predicts initial interest but not long-term relationship satisfaction

The couples who thrive aren’t necessarily the most physically attractive. They’re the ones who build something beyond initial attraction—connection, trust, shared meaning—that sustains when the novelty of appearance fades.

Don’t ignore physical attraction. But don’t mistake it for compatibility.

References

  1. Olson, I. R., & Marshuetz, C. (2005). Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion, 5(4), 498-502. PubMed

  2. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390-423. PubMed

  3. Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199-226. PubMed

  4. Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J. M., & Sumich, A. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(4), 659-669. Springer

  5. Jones, A. L., Kramer, R. S. S., & Ward, R. (2012). Signals of personality and health: The contributions of facial shape, skin texture, and viewing angle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(6), 1353-1361. PubMed

  6. Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & 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. APA

  7. Hamermesh, D. S. (2011). Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful. Princeton University Press. Princeton

  8. Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 226-235. APA

  9. Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245-264. PubMed

  10. Swami, V., & Tovée, M. J. (2005). Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Malaysia: A cross-cultural study. Body Image, 2(2), 115-128. PubMed

  11. Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 635-653. PubMed

  12. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt. 2), 1-27. APA

  13. Kenrick, D. T., & Gutierres, S. E. (1980). Contrast effects and judgments of physical attractiveness: When beauty becomes a social problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(1), 131-140. APA

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

  15. McNulty, J. K., Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2008). Beyond initial attraction: Physical attractiveness in newlywed marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 135-143. PubMed