Perceived attractiveness is one of the things I’ve started thinking about recently, and it’s actually quite fascinating to see what visual factors contribute to someone appearing better-looking than they actually are. How someone is framed socially, their perceived status, the people they’re interacting with, and the environment they’re being photographed in all play a role in influencing someone’s attractiveness to a degree.
What I’m saying refers mostly to the idea of social status, and how it can enhance, detract from, or modify the appearance of someone else. This is why two photos of someone can appear drastically different from one another, based on the social and behavioural queues that they display.
The reason I’m bringing this up is that by applying these principles with animals it becomes significantly easier to identify the cues which modify an appearance, while also allowing you to utilise animals as an enhancement to your own appearance. An image with animals changes the way the subject is perceived by adding additional social queues such as friendliness, sociality, and reassurance, among other traits. The thing that adds these traits is the animal themselves, which is why this example works so well; by putting the subject with a dog, the appearance of the subject becomes altered in a way that’s dependent on the animal they’re interacting with.
This is why in this thread I’ve been talking so much about the influence of social context on perceived attractiveness, and the ways by which you can alter your presentation to modify your personal appearance by proxy
This is not a groundbreaking statement and has likely been concluded by many users of this site, however, there is a body of research literature supporting the idea that one’s perceived attractiveness in a social context can be influenced by contextual clues. The focus tends to be not on the subject of the interaction as perceived by others, but rather the associations one is supposed to have on others - that is, their warmth, tendency to engage in social exchanges, relationship-oriented conduct, and behavioural reliability
Relevant Literature
The study most frequently referenced in this vein is probably Guéguen & Ciccotti (2015), which reported that men who accompanied a dog in the street were far more likely to receive positive responses from women. The reason for the response bias was concluded to be the association of dogs with sociable behaviour, rather than any particular physical attractiveness
Another study Pendry & Vandagriff (2019) touches on the subject of how men’s personal ads which featured pets were perceived by women for their social desirability cues, as well as general approachability and friendliness
In broader context, the phenomenon is explained by thin-slice judgements of social competence and personality, as demonstrated by Ambady & Rosenthal (1992). In brief, a person observing another can reliably judge the observed’s fundamental social traits based exclusively on thin slices of information such as a single image. This has been demonstrated to affect such variables as trustworthiness, friendliness, approachability, and social competence, even if the observed’s facial structure remains constant
The More Plausible Explanation
It is probably not an effect of dogs increasing someone’s objective attractiveness, but rather the associations users have with the presence of an animal in the image, and the social context such an addition provides
In brief, the most plausible explanation is that a person featuring their dog will be judged positively by others on account of
the increased level of prosocial traits,
reduced threat,
caregiving capacity,
and social integration
as judged by observers
It aligns most closely with the stereotype content model of Fiske et al, which concludes that social judgement is primarily dictated by warmth and competence. Physical attractiveness is generally secondary to social judgements of people’s competence, and an increased perceived level of social competence is linked with positive impressions. It is worth noting that the introduction of a pet increases the perceived competence of the person featuring it in a manner comparable to the introduction of an attractive face.
The Importance of Interaction
However, it should be noted that the effect only appears when the interaction between the subject and the animal is obvious. As mentioned by Pendry & Vandagriff (2019), merely featuring a dog in the picture does not produce the same improvements across the board. Images which demonstrate interaction produce far better results, as judged by the increase of approachability and social desirability scores
From the perspective of social exchange theory, this is explained by the fact that interaction demonstrates the subject’s competence as a social partner. Whereas the presence of an animal demonstrates ownership, interaction demonstrates behaviour
Application to Self-Improvement and Conclusion
When it comes to one’s own social and romantic desirability, the implications are simple. The addition of a single picture featuring an animal interacts with the judgement process in such a way that its absence is immediately noticeable. It conveys positive social information about the subject, reducing their perceived degree of narcissism and increasing approachability and perceived social competence. Such an image can complement one’s desirability as a romantic partner without reducing one’s perceived attractiveness as a person, owing to its lack of focus on the subject’s appearance.
It must be stated that the effect described in this article is nowhere near universally applicable and can be dramatically reduced depending on the perceived attractiveness of the subject in the image, the perceived status of the animal, and the social competence of the subject. The body of literature reviewed only rarely addresses the question of relative importance of these factors, and it is probably best to consider the effect to be described as small and situational. However, it does appear to be consistent enough to serve as an explanation for independent observations of one’s own judgements being positively affected by the inclusion of an image demonstrating interaction with an animal in a social media post.
~ced
What I’m saying refers mostly to the idea of social status, and how it can enhance, detract from, or modify the appearance of someone else. This is why two photos of someone can appear drastically different from one another, based on the social and behavioural queues that they display.
The reason I’m bringing this up is that by applying these principles with animals it becomes significantly easier to identify the cues which modify an appearance, while also allowing you to utilise animals as an enhancement to your own appearance. An image with animals changes the way the subject is perceived by adding additional social queues such as friendliness, sociality, and reassurance, among other traits. The thing that adds these traits is the animal themselves, which is why this example works so well; by putting the subject with a dog, the appearance of the subject becomes altered in a way that’s dependent on the animal they’re interacting with.
This is why in this thread I’ve been talking so much about the influence of social context on perceived attractiveness, and the ways by which you can alter your presentation to modify your personal appearance by proxy
This is not a groundbreaking statement and has likely been concluded by many users of this site, however, there is a body of research literature supporting the idea that one’s perceived attractiveness in a social context can be influenced by contextual clues. The focus tends to be not on the subject of the interaction as perceived by others, but rather the associations one is supposed to have on others - that is, their warmth, tendency to engage in social exchanges, relationship-oriented conduct, and behavioural reliability
Relevant Literature
The study most frequently referenced in this vein is probably Guéguen & Ciccotti (2015), which reported that men who accompanied a dog in the street were far more likely to receive positive responses from women. The reason for the response bias was concluded to be the association of dogs with sociable behaviour, rather than any particular physical attractiveness
Another study Pendry & Vandagriff (2019) touches on the subject of how men’s personal ads which featured pets were perceived by women for their social desirability cues, as well as general approachability and friendliness
In broader context, the phenomenon is explained by thin-slice judgements of social competence and personality, as demonstrated by Ambady & Rosenthal (1992). In brief, a person observing another can reliably judge the observed’s fundamental social traits based exclusively on thin slices of information such as a single image. This has been demonstrated to affect such variables as trustworthiness, friendliness, approachability, and social competence, even if the observed’s facial structure remains constant
The More Plausible Explanation
It is probably not an effect of dogs increasing someone’s objective attractiveness, but rather the associations users have with the presence of an animal in the image, and the social context such an addition provides
In brief, the most plausible explanation is that a person featuring their dog will be judged positively by others on account of
the increased level of prosocial traits,
reduced threat,
caregiving capacity,
and social integration
as judged by observers
It aligns most closely with the stereotype content model of Fiske et al, which concludes that social judgement is primarily dictated by warmth and competence. Physical attractiveness is generally secondary to social judgements of people’s competence, and an increased perceived level of social competence is linked with positive impressions. It is worth noting that the introduction of a pet increases the perceived competence of the person featuring it in a manner comparable to the introduction of an attractive face.
The Importance of Interaction
However, it should be noted that the effect only appears when the interaction between the subject and the animal is obvious. As mentioned by Pendry & Vandagriff (2019), merely featuring a dog in the picture does not produce the same improvements across the board. Images which demonstrate interaction produce far better results, as judged by the increase of approachability and social desirability scores
From the perspective of social exchange theory, this is explained by the fact that interaction demonstrates the subject’s competence as a social partner. Whereas the presence of an animal demonstrates ownership, interaction demonstrates behaviour
Application to Self-Improvement and Conclusion
When it comes to one’s own social and romantic desirability, the implications are simple. The addition of a single picture featuring an animal interacts with the judgement process in such a way that its absence is immediately noticeable. It conveys positive social information about the subject, reducing their perceived degree of narcissism and increasing approachability and perceived social competence. Such an image can complement one’s desirability as a romantic partner without reducing one’s perceived attractiveness as a person, owing to its lack of focus on the subject’s appearance.
It must be stated that the effect described in this article is nowhere near universally applicable and can be dramatically reduced depending on the perceived attractiveness of the subject in the image, the perceived status of the animal, and the social competence of the subject. The body of literature reviewed only rarely addresses the question of relative importance of these factors, and it is probably best to consider the effect to be described as small and situational. However, it does appear to be consistent enough to serve as an explanation for independent observations of one’s own judgements being positively affected by the inclusion of an image demonstrating interaction with an animal in a social media post.
~ced
