Measuring Perceived Celebrity Attractiveness - Research Paper Example

Matching Hypothesis Matching Hypothesis: Research Study Measuring Perceived Celebrity Attractiveness BY YOU ACADEMIC ORGANISATION Matching Hypothesis 2 Abstract The purpose of this research study is to investigate the validity and accuracy of the Matching Hypothesis; which implicates that people of similar traits of physical attractiveness are drawn toward one another in establishing romantic relationships. The participants of this study were exposed to 14 photographs of public celebrities and solicited to measure each celebritys physical attributes on a scale measuring one to ten. A cumulative average score was calculated for each famous individual for the sake of supporting or invalidating the Matching Hypothesis. Matching Hypothesis 3 Matching Hypothesis: Research Study Measuring Perceived Celebrity Attractiveness Introduction The Matching Hypothesis proposes that people of similar levels of physical attractiveness gravitate toward one another (Weiten & Lloyd, 2003). For the sake of testing the validity of the Matching Hypothesis, this research study was conducted to witness whether married couples (or romantic partners) form relationships based primarily on physical attractiveness. This researcher hypothesised that there would, indeed, exist a positive correlation between couples of the same average level of physical beauty being rated on similar levels in a 1-10 scale; or that both variables representing each partner in a romantic relationship would co-vary in the same direction; thus a directional hypothesis. In a correlational research study, the correlational coefficient will vary between 0 and +1.00 (if positive) or between 0 and -1.00 (if negative). In some studies, attractiveness levels of long-term spouses have correlated above .50. (Manstead & Hewstone, 1999). Walster & Walster (1969) conducted an experiment which indicated a .89 correlation (high) between physical attractiveness and the subsequent perceived desire for another individual. This researcher chose to analyse the results of this study using a correlational method as part of verifying the directional hypothesis. The concept of the Matching Hypothesis was offered by a professional researcher in psychology, E. Walster, who, in conjunction with various researchers, established high correlation coefficients that supported the theory. Walster and Walster (1969) conducted an experiment where participants in the study were randomly paired in a "computer dance" scenario and then issued a follow up survey to rate the acceptability of their partners. It was found in this study that physical attractiveness Matching Hypothesis 4 outweighed any other factor for the participants favouring their paired partner; thus a positive correlation between perceived attractiveness and the desire to co-mingle. Further, Berscheid & Walster have conducted research studies which have supported the view that people tend to prefer partners who are more similar to them in terms of attractiveness (Harvey et al, 2004). With this mounting professional evidence available supporting the Matching Hypothesis, this researcher formulated a viable study following a similar methodology as that of previous researchers in the pursuit of establishing a direct correlation between similar levels of celebrity beauty and their subsequent participants ratings. Methods In order to confirm the directional hypothesis, this researcher formulated a method in which seven celebrity couples photographs (14 photos total of each celebrity) were distributed amongst a sampling of individuals in randomised order. As it was necessary to obtain a diverse set of ages, backgrounds, and levels of facial-physical beauty to obtain a diverse data collection, this researcher identified 19 subjects representing this mixture of participants. The participants in this study consisted of professionals within the health care industry, including nursing staff, hospital administrators, physicians, and technical support. Further included in the study group were several of this researchers acquaintances representing various ethnicities, ages and genders. The sample group was comprised of age ranges from 26 to 60 years. None of the study subjects were informed as to the purpose of this research, only that they would be participating in a celebrity assessment project to satisfy a sociology project. Matching Hypothesis 5 The participants were invited to witness each celebrity photograph and offer a physical attractiveness rating on a scale of 1 (being least attractive) to 10 (being most attractive). In order to minimise any corruption of the data through exposing the participants to the purpose of the study, none of the 14 celebrities were revealed with their corresponding celebrity partner. The celebrities chosen for this represented various body types, ages, and facial-physical features and included well-known public figures including Jennifer Aniston (USA), Brad Pitt (USA), Camilla Parker Bowles (UK), Prince Charles of Wales (UK), Jennifer Saunders (UK), Adrian Edmondton (UK), Winona Ryder (USA), Johnny Depp (USA), George W Bush (USA), Laura Bush (USA), Roseanne Barr (USA), Tom Arnold (USA), Huh Grant (UK) and Elizabeth Hurley (USA). [Appendices A]. The 19 subjects partook in the study during isolated questioning sessions for the purpose of the study results not being contaminated by social biases in which this researcher felt would serve to undermine the studys results. Following the questioning sessions, this researcher compiled the ratings received from each participant regarding individual celebrity assessments and recorded the results within a Participant Data Range document (Appendices B) highlighting the demographics of each subject. This researcher assumes a 5% level of statistical significance, with the premise that the majority of external data bias or corruption had been satisfied by the methodology used to guarantee the significance of the results. Further, this researcher chose to represent the celebrity relationship using a percentile method rather than calculate the correlation coefficient for each celebrity relationship during data analysis. Following the completion of 19 ratings sessions with the subjects, this researcher then calculated an average total score for each celebrity. The tally of each celebritys scale assessment was calculated; subsequently divided by the number of participants to Matching Hypothesis 6 achieve this mean for celebrity attractiveness. The mean total for each celebrity was then compared to the average total attractiveness score to their corresponding celebrity romantic partner to determine whether a correlation existed between similar levels of attractiveness and the desire to establish relationships based on this factor. Results Measuring mean totals for celebrities per romantic coupling as illustrated by Appendices C: Jennifer Aniston – Mean Attractiveness Scale: 6.68 Brad Pitt – Mean Attractiveness Scale: 7.05 Elizabeth Hurley – Mean Attractiveness Scale: 7.68 Hugh Grant – Mean Attractiveness Scale: 5.58 George W Bush – Mean Attractiveness Scale: 5.05 Laura Bush – Mean Attractiveness Scale: 6.16 Camilla Parker Bowles – Mean Attractiveness Scale: 5.32 Prince Charles of Wales – Mean Attractiveness Scale: 4.16 Jennifer Saunders – Mean Attractiveness Scale: 7.37 Adrian Edmonton – Mean Attractiveness Scale: 5.63 Winona Ryder – Mean Attractiveness Scale: 7.32 Johnny Depp – Mean Attractiveness Scale: 7.47 Roseanne Barr – Mean Attractiveness Scale: 5.21 Tom Arnold – Mean Attractiveness Scale: 4.47 The participants mean averages for each celebrity couples level of attractiveness indicates, in virtually all instances, a direct relationship between perceived assessments of beauty and that of the reality of the celebrities romantic partnerships. It would be prudent to illustrate the results per coupling: Matching Hypothesis 7 Jennifer Aniston & Brad Pitt – This couple represents a 94.8% significance in terms of their perceived attractiveness levels, linking a strong correlation to physical beauty and their matching preference for romantic coupling. Elizabeth Hurley & Hugh Grant – This couple represents a 72.7% significance in relationship to their effective romantic partnership. George W Bush & Laura Bush – This couple represents a 82.0% significance in ratio to their mean totals. Camilla Parker Bowles & Prince Charles of Wales – This couple represents a 78.2% significance between mean totals. Jennifer Saunders & Adrian Edmondton – This coupling represents 76.4% significance between mean attractiveness totals. Winona Ryder & Johnny Depp – This romantic pairing represents a 98.0% relationship to mean totals. Roseanne Barr & Tom Arnold – This relationship represents a 85.8% relationship to mean attractiveness totals. Assuming for a moment that a 50% ratio indicates an "average" correlation between mean totals, the results indicate that all celebrity couples sustained ratios that support above average or substantially superior percentile partnership matches in the relationship to participants assessments regarding perceived celebrity attractiveness. A lower than 50% ratio would reflect the point where directional relationships would begin to move in opposite directions, indicating less correlation. Matching Hypothesis 8 Discussion With this researchers assumption of a directional hypothesis, implying there would be a direct relationship between similar levels of perceived attractiveness and that of actual romantic coupling, there were several minor disadvantages to assuming this research. The first disadvantage lies in this researchers awareness of social guidelines regarding heterosexual men offering variously lower ratings for other celebrity men to satisfy perceptions of this researchers social judgment regarding issues of masculinity. Though the male celebrity results offered by this studys male participants do not necessarily warrant scepticism regarding the validity of the data, this study analysis must consider all variables that could potentially corrupt the usefulness of the results. Further, this researcher was forced to take into consideration external factors that might affect coupling in celebrity-style relationships, including desire for relationships based on financial or public status aspirations. It may be considered a somewhat commonly understood reality for celebrity relationships to fluctuate more routinely from partner to partner than "common citizen" relationships, thus the significance of the results should be measured accordingly to this potentially minor disadvantage. Nineteen participants involved in this study cannot represent the social attitudes regarding perceived attractiveness on a broader scale, such as in measuring the perceptions of an entire community. However, this researchers purposeful representation of a diverse group of subjects does serve to reflect a wider range of opinions and perceptions that can best support the Matching Hypothesis. The results of this study support the directional hypothesis formulated by this researcher as none of the celebrity pairings versus participant assessments of total Matching Hypothesis 9 attractiveness were substantially below an average rate of 50%; in fact, several couples mean ratios returned near 100% correlation. Assume, as one example, that one celebrity in a coupled relationship had returned results at 8.50 on the mean attractiveness scale, while his or her partner had achieved a participant rating of 2.50. This would return a 29.4% correlating ratio which would substantially refute this researchers directional hypothesis. As indicated within the data collection, this study has accomplished support for the validity of the Matching Hypothesis. Throughout the course of the participant ratings sessions, none of the subjects expressed inquiries leading this researcher to suspect participant awareness of the nature of this study. None of the subjects expressed significant dislike or bias against the celebrities in the photographs or led this researcher to believe that the ratings had been compromised by external factors or personal prejudice. The availability of celebrity photographs used as instruments in this study were all of similar quality so as not to limit the significance of participant results. This researcher avoided "candid" photography which cast the public figures as they might exist in their "natural environment"; that being hidden camera tabloid photographs displaying celebrities without make-up or any other enhancement mechanism usually associated with public recognition of celebrities. Taking into consideration this researchers efforts to sustain the significance of the data, it is believed that the validity of the data received is substantially reliable. Referencing the original directional hypotheses utilised by previous researchers in the pursuit of validating the Matching Hypothesis, this researcher has offered a distinctly new variable in this research by introducing a third party assessment of physical attractiveness. Where previous research has consisted of primary data collected Matching Hypothesis 10 by direct assessment of participants, this particular study broadened the scope of research involving the Matching Hypothesis by allowing a third party to validate the correlation between beauty and the likelihood of beauty-driven established relationships. This researcher believes that the methodology behind this project study can serve as a template for future researchers to expand on third party research through similarly-designed studies utilising a much larger sample population for data collection. It is proposed that a future research study of higher magnitude, in terms of the volume of participants, could serve to concretely prove the theory, allowing the Matching Hypothesis to become recognised as more than merely a theoretical assumption, but a substantiated psychological reality based on solid supporting evidence. Matching Hypothesis 11 References Manstead, A.S. & Hewstone, Miles. (1999). The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Psychology. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford UK: p.58. Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. (1974). Physical Attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (ed) Advances in Experimental Psychology. Vol. 7. Retrieved on Oct. 4, 2006 from http://faculty.babson.edu/krollag/org_site/soc_psych/berscheid_attract.html. Harvey, John H., Wenzel, Amy & Sprecher, Susan. The Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships. NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: p.209. Weiten, Wayne & Lloyd, Margaret A. (2003). Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21st Century. 7th ed. Thomson-Wadsworth, United Kingdom: p.216. Appendices A: Celebrity Photographs as Illustrated in Research Study Celebrity matches are based on current or historical relationships involving: 1. Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt – USA 2. Jennifer Saunders and Adrian Edmondson – United Kingdom 3. Johnny Depp and Winona Ryder – USA 4. George W Bush and Laura Bush – USA 5. Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles of Wales – United Kingdom 6. Hugh Grant and Elizabeth Hurley – United Kingdom 7. Roseanne Barr and Tom Arnold - USA   Jennifer Aniston - USA Prince Charles of Wales - England   Brad Pitt - USA Winona Ryder - USA Hugh Grant - England George W Bush - USA Laura Bush - USA Roseanne Barr - USA Camilla Parker Bowles - England Tom Arnold - USA Elizabeth Hurley - England     Johnny Depp - USA Jennifer Saunders – England Adrian Edmondton - England Appendices B: Participant Data Ranges for Attractiveness Scales per Celebrity Assessment 11 Female Assessments – 8 Male Assessments Participant 1: Approximately 50 years of age, female, receptionist. Jennifer Aniston: 6 Brad Pitt: 7 Camilla Parker Bowles: 4 Prince Charles: 3 Jennifer Saunders: 6 Adrian Edmondton: 5 Winona Ryder: 6 Johnny Depp: 7 George W Bush: 5 Laura Bush: 7 Roseanne Barr: 5 Tom Arnold: 4 Hugh Grant: 5 Elizabeth Hurley: 8 Participant 2: 32 years of age, female, administrator Jennifer Aniston: 6 Brad Pitt: 6 Camilla Parker Bowles: 6 Prince Charles: 4 Jennifer Saunders: 7 Adrian Edmondton: 6 Winona Ryder: 8 Johnny Depp: 9 George W Bush: 6 Laura Bush: 9 Roseanne Barr: 5 Tom Arnold: 2 Hugh Grant: 6 Elizabeth Hurley: 10 Participant 3: 52 years of age, female, nursing Jennifer Aniston: 6 Brad Pitt: 8 Camilla Parker Bowles: 4 Prince Charles: 2 Jennifer Saunders: 9 Adrian Edmondton: 6 Winona Ryder: 6 Johnny Depp: 7 George W Bush: 4 Laura Bush: 8 Roseanne Barr: 7 Tom Arnold: 6 Hugh Grant: 7 Elizabeth Hurley: 9 Participant 4: 26 years of age, male, interoffice repair technician Jennifer Aniston: 9 Brad Pitt: 6 Camilla Parker Bowles: 5 Prince Charles: 4 Jennifer Saunders: 7 Adrian Edmondton: 5 Winona Ryder: 9 Johnny Depp: 6 George W Bush: 4 Laura Bush: 6 Roseanne Barr: 5 Tom Arnold: 2 Hugh Grant: 5 Elizabeth Hurley: 8 Participant 5: 60 years of age, female, physician Jennifer Aniston: 6 Brad Pitt: 7 Camilla Parker Bowles: 6 Prince Charles: 3 Jennifer Saunders: 8 Adrian Edmondton: 7 Winona Ryder: 6 Johnny Depp: 8 George W Bush: 5 Laura Bush: 7 Roseanne Barr: 6 Tom Arnold: 6 Hugh Grant: 6 Elizabeth Hurley: 8 Participant 6: Approximately 40 years of age, female, office assistant Jennifer Aniston: 8 Brad Pitt: 9 Camilla Parker Bowles: 6 Prince Charles: 5 Jennifer Saunders: 7 Adrian Edmondton: 3 Winona Ryder: 8 Johnny Depp: 8 George W Bush: 7 Laura Bush: 9 Roseanne Barr: 5 Tom Arnold: 4 Hugh Grant: 8 Elizabeth Hurley: 9 Participant 7: 28 years of age, male, nursing Jennifer Aniston: 5 Brad Pitt: 6 Camilla Parker Bowles: 4 Prince Charles: 4 Jennifer Saunders: 9 Adrian Edmondton: 6 Winona Ryder: 6 Johnny Depp: 6 George W Bush: 2 Laura Bush: 7 Roseanne Barr: 6 Tom Arnold: 4 Hugh Grant: 5 Elizabeth Hurley: 7 Participant 8: 39 years of age, male, physician Jennifer Aniston: 8 Brad Pitt: 6 Camilla Parker Bowles: 5 Prince Charles: 4 Jennifer Saunders: 6 Adrian Edmondton: 5 Winona Ryder: 9 Johnny Depp: 8 George W Bush: 5 Laura Bush: 6 Roseanne Barr: 5 Tom Arnold: 5 Hugh Grant: 5 Elizabeth Hurley: 6 Participant 9: 58 years of age, female, personal acquaintance Jennifer Aniston: 6 Brad Pitt: 8 Camilla Parker Bowles: 7 Prince Charles: 6 Jennifer Saunders: 8 Adrian Edmondton: 6 Winona Ryder: 5 Johnny Depp: 7 George W Bush: 6 Laura Bush: 9 Roseanne Barr: 6 Tom Arnold: 7 Hugh Grant: 6 Elizabeth Hurley: 8 Participant 10: 52 years of age, male, personal acquaintance Jennifer Aniston: 5 Brad Pitt: 6 Camilla Parker Bowles: 6 Prince Charles: 5 Jennifer Saunders: 6 Adrian Edmondton: 5 Winona Ryder: 9 Johnny Depp: 8 George W Bush: 3 Laura Bush: 7 Roseanne Barr: 5 Tom Arnold: 5 Hugh Grant: 8 Elizabeth Hurley: 7 Participant 11: 45 years of age, male, staff administration assistant Jennifer Aniston: 9 Brad Pitt: 8 Camilla Parker Bowles: 7 Prince Charles: 5 Jennifer Saunders: 8 Adrian Edmondton: 7 Winona Ryder: 6 Johnny Depp: 8 George W Bush: 7 Laura Bush: 8 Roseanne Barr: 6 Tom Arnold: 6 Hugh Grant: 5 Elizabeth Hurley: 7 Participant 12: 50 years of age, female, personal acquaintance Jennifer Aniston: 4 Brad Pitt: 6 Camilla Parker Bowles: 5 Prince Charles: 4 Jennifer Saunders: 7 Adrian Edmondton: 5 Winona Ryder: 7 Johnny Depp: 9 George W Bush: 6 Laura Bush: 7 Roseanne Barr: 4 Tom Arnold: 5 Hugh Grant: 6 Elizabeth Hurley: 6 Participant 13: Approximately 50 years of age, male, physician Jennifer Aniston: 7 Brad Pitt: 7 Camilla Parker Bowles: 5 Prince Charles: 3 Jennifer Saunders: 9 Adrian Edmondton: 7 Winona Ryder: 9 Johnny Depp: 7 George W Bush: 5 Laura Bush: 6 Roseanne Barr: 5 Tom Arnold: 4 Hugh Grant: 7 Elizabeth Hurley: 8 Participant 14: Approximately 45 years of age, female, physician Jennifer Aniston: 4 Brad Pitt: 6 Camilla Parker Bowles: 8 Prince Charles: 6 Jennifer Saunders: 6 Adrian Edmondton: 6 Winona Ryder: 8 Johnny Depp: 7 George W Bush: 6 Laura Bush: 9 Roseanne Barr: 5 Tom Arnold: 5 Hugh Grant: 6 Elizabeth Hurley: 7 Participant 15: Approximately 30 years of age, female, personal acquaintance Jennifer Aniston: 9 Brad Pitt: 10 Camilla Parker Bowles: 6 Prince Charles: 5 Jennifer Saunders: 7 Adrian Edmondton: 5 Winona Ryder: 7 Johnny Depp: 8 George W Bush: 8 Laura Bush: 7 Roseanne Barr: 6 Tom Arnold: 4 Hugh Grant: 2 Elizabeth Hurley: 9 Participant 16: Approximately 50 years of age, male, staff administrator Jennifer Aniston: 9 Brad Pitt: 6 Camilla Parker Bowles: 5 Prince Charles: 4 Jennifer Saunders: 8 Adrian Edmondton: 4 Winona Ryder: 8 Johnny Depp: 8 George W Bush: 4 Laura Bush: 5 Roseanne Barr: 4 Tom Arnold: 3 Hugh Grant: 5 Elizabeth Hurley: 7 Participant 17: 39 years of age, female, health physician aide Jennifer Aniston: 7 Brad Pitt: 8 Camilla Parker Bowles: 2 Prince Charles: 3 Jennifer Saunders: 6 Adrian Edmondton: 6 Winona Ryder: 6 Johnny Depp: 7 George W Bush: 6 Laura Bush: 8 Roseanne Barr: 5 Tom Arnold: 5 Hugh Grant: 4 Elizabeth Hurley: 7 Participant 18: Approximately 40 years of age, male, information systems Jennifer Aniston: 6 Brad Pitt: 6 Camilla Parker Bowles: 5 Prince Charles: 4 Jennifer Saunders: 9 Adrian Edmondton: 7 Winona Ryder: 7 Johnny Depp: 6 George W Bush: 4 Laura Bush: 5 Roseanne Barr: 4 Tom Arnold: 3 Hugh Grant: 4 Elizabeth Hurley: 7 Participant 19: 42 years of age, female, staff accountancy Jennifer Aniston: 7 Brad Pitt: 8 Camilla Parker Bowles: 5 Prince Charles: 5 Jennifer Saunders: 7 Adrian Edmondton: 6 Winona Ryder: 9 Johnny Depp: 8 George W Bush: 3 Laura Bush: 5 Roseanne Barr: 5 Tom Arnold: 5 Hugh Grant: 6 Elizabeth Hurley: 8 Appendices C: Average Data Range Per Celebrity Average Attractiveness Scale Compiled Using Total Assessments Within Specified Range Divided by Number of Study Participants Mean Attractiveness Scale     Celebrity Participant Assessments - Average Range     Jennifer Aniston 6.68         Brad Pitt 7.05         Elizabeth Hurley 7.68         Hugh Grant 5.58         George W Bush 5.05         Laura Bush 6.16         Camilla Parker Bowles 5.32         Prince Charles of Wales 4.16         Jennifer Saunders 7.37         Adrian Edmondton 5.63         Winona Ryder 7.32         Johnny Depp 7.47         Roseanne Barr 5.21         Tom Arnold 4.47     Read More