Senior Fall Final Review 2014
The Beautiful People
By Bradley Wright
Like many people, you want to get ahead in life… have a successful career, be wellliked, you know, all that good stuff. So, you go to school, work hard, treat others
well, and hope for the best.
Well, you’re forgetting something, and that is to look good. Why? It turns out that
we attribute all sorts of positive qualities to good looking people, and these qualities have a way of
becoming true.
Here’s how it works. Social psychologists have identified something called the “what is beautiful is
good” stereotype. If someone is good looking—clear skin, symmetrical face, sparkly eyes or whatever
else we see as beautiful or sexy or cute—we think that they are also lots of other good things. Just
because they are hot, we think that they are more intelligent, sensitive, interesting, competent, and
kind.
Our positive expectations for attractive people can serve as a self-fulfilling prophesy. If we think
someone is smart and has a great personality, we start to treat them differently. We expect them to
live up to our expectations, and, lo and behold, they do. As such, if we think that beautiful people are
better people overall, they become so.
Usually we think about stereotypes being negative, and the problems that they cause. For example, if
teachers think that girls are inherently worse at math than boys, they might put less effort into
teaching them, call on them less in the class, and in general have lower expectations. The result, girls
end up doing worse in math because the teachers think they will.
The “what is beautiful is good” stereotype is positive, and it can be just as powerful. In a classic study,
researchers had men talk with a woman via intercom for 10 minutes, and after the conversation the
men were asked to rate the woman’s personality. Half the men were shown a picture of an attractive
woman and told that was the woman they were talking to. The other half were shown a picture of an
unattractive woman. In reality, as you probably guessed, it was the same woman talking to each of the
men.
The men who thought they were talking to an attractive woman rated her as more friendly, sociable,
and likable than those talking to an “unattractive” woman. They perceived her as having a much
better personality just because she was beautiful. Why? Self-fulfilling prophesy. The men talking to
the “attractive” woman had higher expectations for her, and she lived up to them.
The effect of this stereotype varies. As might be expected, it works most strongly with first
impressions. We evaluate somebody’s appearance when we first meet them, and that information
becomes most important. The more we get to know them, however, the more we factor in their other
characteristics as well. Also, some people put more weight on physical appearances than others, and
so they would be more affected by this stereotype.
This stereotype has various social implications. We’re all aware of the
remarkable amounts of time and energy that people put into their
appearance. Here in the U.S. alone, women spend billions of dollars on
cosmetics. This seems like frivolity, but if in fact attractive people receive
preferential treatment, it might not be as misguided as it first seems.
It also suggests another source of social stratification. Sociologists are
quite attuned to how race, gender, sexuality, age, and other demographic
characteristics affect our social standing. Perhaps we should incorporate
other characteristics, such as attractiveness. Who knows, maybe an
attractive person of minority status might have better odds in society
than an unattractive person of majority status.
This stereotype also gives an idea as to why the media so often uses attractive people. Open up any
magazine, and there are beautiful people selling everything from vacuum cleaners to computers to
watches. We see their attractiveness, and we associate other good qualities with them, and so maybe
we should listen to them about what to buy.
An instance of this stereotype is found with newscasters. In
general, television news anchors tend to be attractive people. Here
are pictures of two of them. Stone Phillips is a reporter and anchor
for CBS news. Melissa Theuriau is a reporter on French television.
Both of them are remarkably attractive people. Now, it’s been
awhile since I’ve walked through the journalism department here
at UConn, but I’m pretty sure that the average journalism student
isn’t this good looking. News organizations pick anchors, in part,
on their physical attractiveness, and given all the positive
attributes associated with attractiveness, this isn’t a bad idea.
The beauty stereotype raises some interesting moral questions.
One could justifiably argue that it is wrong to give extra social capital to
people because of their good looks. Somehow it seems unfair, almost
discriminatory, to those of us who will never earn the name “Stone.” Still, the
same argument applies to intelligence, education, organizational skills, and
any other factors that society rewards. Some have more, some have less.
Now, don’t get me wrong. If society rewarded only beauty, I’d be in deep,
deep trouble. But, if society is inherently random in the rewards it gives—
some people get them and some people don’t—how much does it matter
which criteria are used?
Questions:
1. What is the author’s main message in this article? Answer the question and find one piece of text evidence to
support your claim.
2. What is the over-all tone of the article?
A. sympathetic
B. irritated
C. matter-of-fact
D. mocking
3. According to the article, why does the media use attractive people on the news and to sell all sorts of things?
4. What is the author’s point in the last paragraph when he says:
One could justifiably argue that it is wrong to give extra social capital to people because of their
good looks. Somehow it seems unfair, almost discriminatory, to those of us who will never earn
the name “Stone”. Still, the same argument applies to intelligence, education, organizational
skills, and any other factors that society rewards. Some have more, some have less. Now, don’t
get me wrong. If society rewarded only beauty, I’d be in deep, deep trouble. But, if society is
inherently random in the rewards it gives—some people get them and some people don’t—how
much does it matter which criteria are used?
5. The experiment with men talking to a woman on the intercom for 10 minutes reveals that….
6. How does the author feel about this type of stereotype?
a. disappointed and melancholy
b. apathetic or indifferent
c. reflective and objective
d. nervous and angry
7. Find one sentence in the article that is considered a “critique” or an opinion (not a fact)?
8. The author’s style of writing is somewhat relaxed and casual. Find one piece of text evidence that reveals his
casual style.
9. How does the author feel about the amount of money that people spend each year in America on appearance?
10. According to the text, when we first judge a person to be attractive, we also assume…
The Science of a Happy Marriage by Tara Pope
Why do some men and women cheat on their partners while others resist the temptation?
To find the answer, a growing body of research is focusing on the science of commitment. Scientists are studying
everything from the biological factors that seem to influence marital stability to a person’s psychological response after
flirting with a stranger.
Their findings suggest that while some people may be naturally more resistant to temptation, men and women can also
train themselves to protect their relationships and raise their feelings of commitment.
Recent studies have raised questions about whether genetic factors may influence commitment and marital stability.
Hasse Walum, a biologist at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, studied 552 sets of twins to learn more about a gene
related to the body’s regulation of the brain chemical vasopressin, a bonding hormone.
Over all, men who carried a variation in the gene were less likely to be married, and those who had wed were more
likely to have had serious marital problems and unhappy wives. Among men who carried two copies of the gene variant,
about a third had experienced a serious relationship crisis in the past year, double the number seen in the men who did
not carry the variant.
Although the trait is often called the “fidelity gene,” Mr. Walum called that a misnomer: his research focused on marital
stability, not faithfulness. “It’s difficult to use this information to predict any future behavior in men,” he told me. Now
he and his colleagues are working to replicate the findings and conducting similar research in women.
While there may be genetic differences that influence commitment, other studies suggest that the brain can be trained
to resist temptation.
A series of unusual studies led by John Lydon, a psychologist at McGill University in Montreal, have looked at how
people in a committed relationship react in the face of temptation. In one study, highly committed married men and
women were asked to rate the attractiveness of people of the opposite sex in a series of photos. Not surprisingly, they
gave the highest ratings to people who would typically be viewed as attractive.
Later, they were shown similar pictures and told that the person was interested in meeting them. In that situation,
participants consistently gave those pictures lower scores than they had the first time around.
When they were attracted to someone who might threaten the relationship, they seemed to instinctively tell
themselves, “He’s not so great.” “The more committed you are,” Dr. Lydon said, “the less attractive you find other
people who threaten your relationship.”
But some of the McGill research has shown gender differences in how we respond to a cheating threat. In a study of 300
heterosexual men and women, half the participants were primed for cheating by imagining a flirtatious conversation
with someone they found attractive. The other half just imagined a routine encounter.
Afterward, the study subjects were asked to complete fill-in-the-blank puzzles like LO_AL and THR__T.
Unbeknownst to the participants, the word fragments were a psychological test to reveal subconscious feelings about
commitment. (Similar word puzzles are used to study subconscious feelings about prejudice and stereotyping.)
No pattern emerged among the study participants who imagined a routine encounter. But there were differences
among men and women who had entertained the flirtatious fantasy. In that group, the men were more likely to
complete the puzzles with the neutral words LOCAL and THROAT. But the women who had imagined flirting were far
more likely to choose LOYAL and THREAT, suggesting that the exercise had touched off subconscious concerns about
commitment.
Of course, this does not necessarily predict behavior in the real world. But the pronounced difference in responses led
the researchers to think women might have developed a kind of early warning system to alert them to relationship
threats.
Other McGill studies confirmed differences in how men and women react to such threats. In one, attractive actors or
actresses were brought in to flirt with study participants in a waiting room. Later, the participants were asked questions
about their relationships, particularly how they would respond to a partner’s bad behavior, like being late and forgetting
to call.
Men who had just been flirting were less forgiving of the hypothetical bad behavior, suggesting that the attractive
actress had momentarily chipped away at their commitment. But women who had been flirting were more likely to be
forgiving and to make excuses for the man, suggesting that their earlier flirting had triggered a protective response
when discussing their relationship.
“We think the men in these studies may have had commitment, but the women had the contingency plan — the
attractive alternative sets off the alarm bell,” Dr. Lydon said. “Women implicitly code that as a threat. Men don’t.”
The question is whether a person can be trained to resist temptation. In another study, the team prompted male
students who were in committed dating relationships to imagine running into an attractive woman on a weekend when
their girlfriends were away. Some of the men were then asked to develop a contingency plan by filling in the sentence
“When she approaches me, I will __________ to protect my relationship.”
Because the researchers could not bring in a real woman to act as a temptation, they created a virtual-reality game in
which two out of four rooms included subliminal images of an attractive woman. The men who had practiced resisting
temptation gravitated toward those rooms 25 percent of the time; for the others, the figure was 62 percent.
But it may not be feelings of love or loyalty that keep couples together. Instead, scientists speculate that your level of
commitment may depend on how much a partner enhances your life and broadens your horizons — a concept that
Arthur Aron, a psychologist and relationship researcher at Stony Brook University, calls “self-expansion.”
To measure this quality, couples are asked a series of questions: How much does your partner provide a source of
exciting experiences? How much has knowing your partner made you a better person? How much do you see your
partner as a way to expand your own capabilities?
The Stony Brook researchers conducted experiments using activities that stimulated self-expansion. Some couples were
given mundane tasks, while others took part in a silly exercise in which they were tied together and asked to crawl on
mats, pushing a foam cylinder with their heads. The study was rigged so the couples failed the time limit on the first two
tries, but just barely made it on the third, resulting in much celebration.
Couples were given relationship tests before and after the experiment. Those who had taken part in the challenging
activity posted greater increases in love and relationship satisfaction than those who had not experienced victory
together.
Now the researchers are embarking on a series of studies to measure how self-expansion influences a relationship. They
theorize that couples who explore new places and try new things will tap into feelings of self-expansion, lifting their level
of commitment.
“We enter relationships because the other person becomes part of ourselves, and that expands us,” Dr. Aron said.
“That’s why people who fall in love stay up all night talking and it feels really exciting. We think couples can get some of
that back by doing challenging and exciting things together.”
QUESTIONS:
1. According to Dr. Aron, the couple that stays together…
A. has a contingency plan against temptation.
B. explores new hobbies, challenges, and places.
C. takes care of their health and appearance over the years.
D. often discusses their level of commitment.
2. The over-all tone of the article is best described as…
A. mocking
B. romantic
C. solemn
D. objective
3. All of the following statements are main ideas of this article EXCEPT:
A. The idea that a person can improve his or her level of commitment and resist temptation is not viable.
B. Temptation is narrowed by high levels of commitment.
C. Over-all, women innately avoid temptation more than men.
D. Commitment levels are also influenced by how a partner expands one’s horizons.
4. Which text evidence below proves that certain genetic codes (genes) affect how we relate and get along with
others?
A. In another study, the team prompted male students who were in committed dating relationships to imagine
running into an attractive woman on a weekend when their girlfriends were away.
B. Among men who carried two copies of the gene variant, about a third had experienced a serious
relationship crisis in the past year.
C. The more committed you are, the less attractive you find other people who threaten your relationship.
D. No pattern emerged among the study participants who imagined a routine encounter.
5. Although the trait is often called the “fidelity gene,” Mr. Walum called that a misnomer: his research focused
on marital stability, not faithfulness.
The word “misnomer” most likely means…
A. exaggeration
C. misinterpretation
B. joke
D. ridiculous term
6. The article uses the term “self-expansion”. Looking at the context clues surrounding the word, the concept most
likely suggests…
A. One partner’s personality and hobbies should encourage the other to learn and try new things.
B. Training the brain to resist temptation expands the life of the relationship.
C. Teaching men to walk away from situations involving flirtation.
D. Training yourself to be exposed to all types of people without considering a break in a committed
relationship
7. The article studies all of the following concepts EXCEPT:
A. possible biological factors for marriage stability
B. responses to flirting with strangers
C. hormones that contribute to bonding among people
D. future behavior in men
8. The best alternate title for this article would be
A. the only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it. C. the science behind commitment.
B. independence or fear of commitment.
D. moral excellence comes as a result of habit.