2.1.1 Aims of Study 1
Chapter 1 reviewed a number of studies which have investigated the relationships between self-esteem and attractiveness. Although these generally suggest that there is a positive correlation between these variables, there is some disagreement over the strength of the relationship, and also whether or not it is present in both sexes. Thus the aim of Study 1 was to replicate and extend these findings by investigating the relationships between self-perceived facial and bodily attractiveness and self-esteem in an undergraduate sample.
2.1.2 Limitations of Previous Research
The studies described in Chapter 1 generally support sociometer theory by establishing a link between physical attractiveness and self-esteem. However, each of them has a number of important limitations and there are also some methodological issues which run through the literature in general.
Perhaps most importantly, the way in which all of the reviewed studies attempt to measure self-perceived attractiveness can be criticised on methodological grounds. Most previous studies have measured self-perceived attractiveness using just one or two simple statements to which participants indicate their level of agreement. For example, Brase & Guy (2004) used a single item to measure their participants’ self-perceived market value, which drew their attention to specific traits contributing to this and then asked “Overall,
35
extremely desirable to 9 = extremely undesirable)”. Similarly Wade and Cooper
(1999) and Wade (2000) simply asked participants to rate their level of attractiveness on a single seven-point scale. Such single-item approaches are likely to suffer from a number of methodological problems. Internal consistency, for example, which is often considered the standard metric of reliability (e.g. Schmitt, 1996), cannot be assessed for such single item measures. Moreover, such measures are likely to be heavily influenced by temporally inconsistent factors such as mood, recent relevant life experiences, and testing context, and so it is generally recommended that researchers use multiple-item measures where possible (Rust & Golombok, 2009).
There is an additional, more specific problem with several previous approaches to measuring self-perceived attractiveness. As discussed in Chapter 1, many interpersonal approaches to self-esteem, including sociometer theory, stress the importance of social comparison processes in the development and maintenance of self-esteem (Barkow, 1989; Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Maslow, 1937; Mead, 1934/1967). Similarly, there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that these same processes influence people’s perceptions of their own levels of attractiveness. For example, Richins
(1991) found that exposing women to idealized images of physical attractiveness (i.e. pictures of extremely attractive women) temporarily lowered their levels of self-perceived attractiveness. This result has been supported by several subsequent studies demonstrating that exposing women to “thin-ideal”
images leads to subsequent decreases in their level of body satisfaction (see Want, 2009 for a recent meta-analytic review). However, none of the studies linking attractiveness to self-esteem adequately take these social comparison effects into account. Most simply ask “how attractive do you consider yourself to
36
be?” to which participants could conceivably answer “in comparison to whom?”
Clearly, if some participants are comparing themselves to close peers, whilst others are considering themselves relative to professional models, then researchers might obtain quite different responses from participants who, in reality, would actually consider themselves to be equally attractive.
In an attempt to overcome these limitations, the present study employed a newly developed comparison measure of self-perceived facial attractiveness devised by the present author (Bale, 2004). This method of measuring self- perceived facial attractiveness involves asking participants to rate their attractiveness in comparison to a number of pictures of same-sex and opposite- sex faces which have been previously rated for attractiveness. This method has been shown to benefit from a high degree of internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = .89) and scores on this correlate significantly with a widely-used single- item measure of self-perceived facial attractiveness (r = .67). Furthermore, this method accounts for the social comparison aspect of self-perceived attractiveness by explicitly requiring participants to compare themselves to other individuals.
Another important limitation of many of the studies discussed in Chapter 1 is that, with the exception of Shackelford’s (2001) study on self-esteem in
married couples, they typically use a unidimensional measure of self-esteem; often the Rosenberg (1965) SES. However, most modern theories of self- esteem posit that it is a multidimensional construct consisting of both a global sense of self-worth together with a number of sub-domains (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991). For example, Fleming and Courtney’s (1984) analysis of
various scales led them to argue that self-esteem has a hierarchical structure, with various specific facets contributing to the individual’s overall self-
37
evaluation. Similarly, Bracken, Bunch, Keith and Keith (2000) conducted a factor analysis on five different popular measures of self-esteem, and found evidence of the following six domains underlying a super-ordinate construct of global self-esteem in children and adolescents; social, physical, affect, competence, family, and academic self-concept.
Sharing this theoretical outlook, a number of more recently-developed measures of self-esteem incorporate sub-scales measuring various facets of this construct. For example the Self-Description Questionnaire, developed by Marsh, Smith and Barnes (1983) to measure self-esteem in children, consists of sub-scales measuring domains of physical abilities, appearance, relationship with peers, relationship with parents, reading, mathematics and other school subjects. Similarly, Fleming and Courtney (1984) revised Janis and Field’s (1959 cited in Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991) Feelings of Inadequacy scale to incorporate sub-scales of social confidence, school abilities, self-regard, physical appearance and physical ability. These multidimensional approaches to the measurement of self-esteem are also reflected in the work on relational domains of self-esteem conducted by Harter et al. (1998) described in Chapter 1, above.
The fact that most of the studies which investigate the relationship between physical attractiveness and self-esteem detailed above use a unidimensional measure of the latter construct represents an important limitation of past research. It seems likely that not all domains of self-esteem will be equally related to physical attractiveness. Instead, as the results of Shackelford (2001) suggest, it may well be the case that specific domains, such as attractiveness and romantic self-esteem will show a stronger relationship with self-perceived physical attractiveness, than, for example, academic self-esteem. The present
38
research addresses this limitation by examining how aspects of physical attractiveness relate to a multidimensional measure of self-esteem, namely the Personal Evaluation Inventory or PEI (Shrauger & Schohn, 1995), which incorporates sub-scales of academic performance, athletics, physical appearance, romantic relationships, social interactions, and speaking with people.
In addition, the present study measured global self-esteem using the 10- item Rosenberg (1965) self-esteem scale (SES). This instrument is the most widely used measure of self-esteem in the literature and was used in many of the studies on attractiveness and self-esteem described above (Brase & Guy, 2004; Franzoi & Shields, 1984; Franzoi & Herzog, 1986; Mathes & Kahn, 1975; Nell & Ashton, 1996; Wade & Cooper, 1999; Wade, 2000). Including this measure in the present study allowed direct comparisons to be made between the results of the current and previous studies. The final instrument included in the present study was the Body Esteem Scale (BES: Franzoi & Shields, 1984) which measures participants’ attitudes towards various parts of their bodies as
well as more general attributes relating to physical condition.
2.1.3 Predicted Relationships Between Attractiveness and Self-Esteem.
On the basis of previous research and sociometer theory, it was predicted that there would be a moderate significant positive correlation between self- rated facial attractiveness, as measured by the face comparison method (Bale, 2004) and both the SES (Rosenberg, 1965) and the global measure in the PEI (Shrauger & Schohn 1995). Given that female market value is especially
39
dependent on physical attractiveness (Buss, 1989), and based on previous research (Feingold, 1992), it was predicted that this correlation would be stronger in women than in men. It was also predicted that there would be a significant positive correlation between the BES (Franzoi & Shields, 1984) and both the SES (Rosenberg, 1965) and the global measure of the PEI (Shrauger & Schohn, 1995).
Based on theoretical perspectives of the domain specificity of self-esteem (Kirkpatrick & Ellis, 2004), it was predicted that self-rated facial attractiveness should correlate more highly with the appearance and romance than with the other (academic, athletic, social interaction and speaking with people) subscales of the PEI. This is based on the likelihood that attractiveness is an especially important factor contributing to self-esteem in the former domains. It was also predicted that the correlations between self-rated facial attractiveness and appearance and romantic self-esteem should be higher in women than in men, reflecting the fact that facial attractiveness may form an especially important component of overall attractiveness and therefore romantic appeal in women (Buss, 1989).
2.1.4 Predicted Relationships Between Global and Specific Aspects of Self- Esteem
Sociometer theory predicts that self-esteem should be particularly dependent on individuals’ perceptions of their competencies in domains
relevant to success in various types of social relationships (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). As discussed above, evolutionary theory predicts that establishing and
40
maintaining sexual relationships presents one of the most important adaptive social challenges for the individual. Thus global self-esteem should be especially sensitive to individuals’ assessments of their competencies in
domains which have a direct bearing on their ability to attract and retain mates. On this basis, it was predicted that the correlations between participants’ scores
on global self-esteem, as measured by the SES, should be significantly higher with the appearance and romance sub-scales of the PEI than with the other (academic, athletic, social interaction and speaking with people) sub-scales.
Both the evolutionary theory of market value and the general literature on self-esteem suggest that the present study should uncover other sex differences in the relationships between specific aspects of this trait, in the form of PEI sub-scales, and the global Rosenberg (1965) measure. In general, it has been found that women’s self-esteem is more dependent on feelings of
worthiness, or broadly, social acceptance, whereas men tend to focus more on their competencies, or degree of success in various domains (see Mruk, 2006 for a review). Similarly, Josephs, Markus and Tarafodi (1992) suggested that male self-esteem is often based on feeling independent of, and superior to others, whereas female self-esteem is more dependent on feeling sensitive and connected to others. From the multiple sociometer perspective of Kirkpatrick and Ellis (2004), men may place a greater emphasis on their status in competitive interactions whereas women seem to be more concerned with their performance in co-operative social contexts. Evidence for this contention comes from a study by Crocker et al (2003) who found that female college students reported basing their self-esteem on the approval of others and on family support to a greater extent than did male students.
41
Traditionally, such differences have been explained in terms of the influence of cultural expectations regarding gender roles on people’s self-
esteem, but there may also be a more biological, evolutionary explanation. In many species, including humans, it is primarily males who compete for access to females, either directly by fighting, or by displaying their genetic quality or social status and access to resources as evidence of potential parental investment (Trivers, 1972). In contrast, at least in many species of primates, and also possibly humans, females place a great emphasis on maintaining social bonds, in order to secure mutual protection and non-parental care for their offspring (Hrdy, 2000; see also Geary, Byrd-Craven, Hoard, Vigil & Numtee, 2003).
These theoretical considerations lead to the following hypotheses with respect to the present study. First, it is expected that there should be a stronger correlation between the athletic sub-scale of the PEI (which measures self- perceived sporting competence) and global self-esteem in men than in women. It has been suggested that many sports represent an arena in which men, in particular, compete to display their physical prowess, in order to impress and gain access to women (Farrelly & Nettle, 2007; Schulte-Hostedde, Eys & Johnson, 2008). Support for this contention comes from a study by Faurie, Pontier and Raymond (2004) who found that, whilst both men and women who engaged in sports reported having more sexual partners than their non-sporting peers, the effect was significantly more pronounced in men. Thus, if self-esteem is indeed dependent on market value, it might be expected that it would be more related to athletic prowess in men than in women.
The academic sub-scale of the PEI measures people’s perceptions of their
42
to which they consider themselves to be intelligent. Miller (2000) has argued that human intelligence largely evolved as a means of displaying genetic quality, which, as discussed above, is an important factor in mate choice. He suggests that men evolved high intelligence in order to display their genetic quality to women, who themselves developed the intellect to assess that of the males. This contention is supported by studies which show correlations between IQ and other indicators of genetic quality, such as symmetry (Banks et al, 2010) and health and longevity (see Gottfredson & Deary, 2004, for a review), and by Buss’ (1989) finding that, across cultures, intelligence plays an
important part in mate choice. Furthermore, given that intelligence is strongly correlated with both monetary income and socio-economic status (Herrnstein & Murray, 1996; but see also Zagorsky, 2007), it may serve as an important indicator of potential parental investment in men. All of this suggests the hypothesis that, in the present study, the academic sub-scale of the PEI should correlate more strongly with global self-esteem in men than in women.
The speaking with people sub-scale of the PEI contains items which pertain to people’s perceptions of their competency in delivering public speeches and
presentations. Burling (1986) has argued that historically, in many cultures public speaking has been key in allowing men to attain high social status, and consequently, access to mates. Following from this, it is hypothesised that in the present study, the speaking with people sub-scale of the PEI will correlate more highly with global self-esteem in males than in females.
Thus it is hypothesised that given that the athletic, academic and speaking with people sub-scales of the PEI pertain to competencies in domains which are likely to be more strongly related to market value in men than in women, the relationship between these and global measures of self-esteem should be
43
stronger in the former group than the latter. In contrast, given that women seem to be especially concerned with social acceptance (Mruk, 2006) and maintaining social bonds (Hrdy, 2000), the relationship between scores on the PEI social interaction sub-scale and global self-esteem is predicted to be stronger in women than in men.
44 2.2 METHOD
2.2.1 Participants
Participants were recruited by sending an email to all students at the University of Liverpool (n = 155), and by distributing flyers to undergraduate psychology students at the University of Central Lancashire (n = 145). These briefly explained the background to the study and invited people to take part, either by following a link to the web pages containing the study placed in the email, or by giving the address of the web-site on the flyers.
The data was filtered to exclude probable instances of multiple responding by the same individuals (see section 2.2.3 below). This left 108 men and 192 women who made up the 300 participants who responded to the study. Participants were aged between 19 and 50 (mean = 23.5, SD = 5.0).
The design of the study allowed participants to complete some parts of the test without finishing the study as a whole. This meant that different sample numbers were obtained for each part of the study. Therefore separate sample numbers are reported for each of the statistical analyses conducted and described below.
2.2.2 Materials
2.2.2.1 Facial Attractiveness Scale
In order to measure participants’ self-perceived facial attractiveness, a
development of a recently devised test by the present author was used (Bale, 2004). This computer-based test asks participants to compare their own attractiveness, on a 7-point Lickert scale, to that of a series of pictures of men’s
45
and women’s faces, which have been previously rated on this. A rating of 1 on
the scale indicates that the participant considers him- or her-self to be much
less attractive than the face presented, whilst scores of 4 and 7 correspond to equally attractive and much more attractive respectively. Responses are scored
in the following manner. Since ratings of 4 correspond to equally attractive these receive a score equal to the mean attractiveness rating of the face presented. Ratings of 1, 2 and 3, correspond to degrees of much less attractive and thus receive scores equal to the mean rating for the face presented, minus 3, 2 and 1 respectively. Conversely, ratings of 5, 6 and 7 correspond to degrees of much more attractive and thus receive scores equal to the mean rating for the face presented, plus 1, 2 or 3 respectively. Thus the formula for scoring the test is:
Score = mean attractiveness rating for picture + (participants response – 4)
and total test scores were simply the sum of the scores for all of the items. This test was found to show a high degree of reliability, in terms of internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha = .89), and scores on it correlated moderately
but significantly (r = .67, p<.05) with a popular single-item measure of self- perceived facial attractiveness (Bale, 2004).
Study 1 utilised this comparison approach to measuring self-perceived facial attractiveness for both sexes. Comparison stimuli were constructed for each sex by digitally combining 50 colour JPEG images of faces which had been previously rated for attractiveness: 25 male or female face stimuli were generated such that the two lowest-rated images were combined, then the next two lowest, proceeding in that fashion up to the two highest rated pictures. This
46
method was employed to try to ensure that there would be sufficient variance in the attractiveness of the stimuli to which participants would compare themselves.
The 25 male and 25 female composite-face stimuli were then rated for attractiveness, on a 7-point Likert scale, by 64 undergraduate psychology students of the University of Liverpool. The mean ratings for the stimuli ranged from .88 to 4.22 for the female and from 1.00 to 3.61 for the male faces, and approximately corresponded to the ratings for the original pictures from which they were constructed.
These stimuli were then used to construct male and female comparison computer-based tests of self-perceived attractiveness. In accordance with the Bale (2004) study described above, participants were asked to compare themselves to both same-sex and opposite-sex faces. For the same-sex test, participants were instructed to “Please compare your own face to the faces below for attractiveness” on a seven-point scale where one corresponded to “my face is much less attractive”, four to “same” and seven to “my face is much
more attractive”. For the opposite-sex test, participants were instructed as
follows: “In the next set of ratings you will see photos of the opposite-sex. When
judging your face against theirs consider whether you think they would consider