Physical Disability Affects Women’s but Not Men’s Perception of Opposite-Sex Attractiveness

Physical Disability Affects Women’s but Not Men’s Perception of Opposite-Sex Attractiveness. Farid Pazhoohi, Francesca Capozzi and Alan Kingstone. Front. Psychol., Dec 7 2021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.788287

Abstract: Physical appearance influences our perceptions, judgments, and decision making about others. While the current literature with regard to the perceptions and judgments of nondisabled people’s attractiveness is robust, the research investigating the perceived physical attractiveness and judgments of physically disabled individuals is scarce. Therefore, in the current study, we investigated whether people with physical disabilities are perceived by the opposite sex as more or less attractive relative to nondisabled individuals. Our results, based on over 675 participants, showed a positive effect for women’s attractiveness ratings of men with physical disabilities, but not men’s attractiveness ratings of physically disabled women. Moreover, social desirability bias was positively associated with attractiveness ratings of physically disabled individuals, meaning those with higher tendency to be viewed favorably by others rated physically disabled individuals more attractive. Finally, our results revealed that attractiveness ratings of individuals with physical disabilities are positively associated with extroversion and empathy in both men and women, and positively with agreeableness and negatively with neuroticism in women. In conclusion, our study showed women rate men with physical disabilities as higher on attractiveness than nondisabled men, which is also influenced by their social desirability bias.

Discussion

Previous research has considered physical attractiveness mainly from an evolutionary perspective using nondisabled individuals. However, for the first time, the current research investigated the perception of attractiveness in individuals of the opposite sex with physical disabilities. Personality traits, interpersonal empathic reactivity, and social desirability bias were also measured to test for the potential contribution of individual differences on perception. Our results revealed that women considered physically disabled men as more attractive than nondisabled men, while no difference was found for men’s attractiveness ratings of women as a function of physical disability.

Results of the analysis of a subsample that answered the social desirability scale showed a similar effect for men and women’s ratings, as well as a positive association with social desirability bias (SDB), indicating social desirability played a role in the ratings of attractiveness.

Collectively, the results show that women rate physically disabled men more attractive than nondisabled men and suggest that women’s tendency to inaccurately report on sensitive topics (e.g., judgment of physically disabled individuals), as was measured using SDB, was positively associated with their higher attractiveness ratings of men. This is in line with previous findings showing a positive attitude toward physical disabilities, as well as a sex difference in such an attitude, with women holding a more favorable attitude compared to men (Fonosch and Schwab, 1981; Olkin and Howson, 1994; Satchidanand et al., 2012). However, it should be noted that the previous studies mainly tested healthcare workers or school-age children’s attitudes toward physical disabilities (e.g., Ten Klooster et al., 2009; Satchidanand et al., 2012; Bustillos and Silván-Ferrero, 2013; Yorke et al., 2017), but not in an interpersonal attraction context. The finding that women rate disabled men more attractive is counterintuitive from an evolutionary perspective. From an adaptive perspective, the predication is that both men and women would consider nondisabled individuals more attractive compared to disabled individuals, as such characteristics might trigger disease-avoidance mechanism (Park et al., 2003). Our results suggest that individual differences in personality and empathy override the influence of such a mechanism in the perception of attractiveness.

Attractiveness ratings of physically disabled individuals were positively associated with extraversion personality in both men and women. The positive association of extraversion and attractiveness ratings is in line with previous research finding a positive relationship between extraversion personality and preference for attractive faces (Fink et al., 2005; Pound et al., 2007; Welling et al., 2009). However, our finding of a positive association between physical disability attractiveness ratings and extraversion suggests that individuals who happen to be more outgoing and energetic consider physically disabled individuals of the opposite sex as more attractive. For female participants, agreeableness (positively) and neuroticism (negatively) were associated with ratings of physically disabled male attractiveness. This suggests that more friendly and compassionate women consider physically disabled men more attractive, as do women who score lower on measures of neuroticism. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first investigation on the association between personality traits and attractiveness ratings of individuals with physical disabilities.

Similarly, no previous research has tested the relationship between personality traits and overall perception of individuals with physical disabilities. Clearly, more research is warranted to explore the relationship between personality traits of nondisabled individuals and their perception of people with physical disabilities.

As for measures of empathy, male and female participants’ ratings of attractiveness were positively associated with their empathic concern and perspective taking tendencies; though male’s attractiveness ratings were also associated with the fantasy aspect of empathy. In other words, in general, both male and female participants’ tendency to spontaneously adopt the psychological point of view of others and their ability in assess feelings of sympathy and concern for others was correlated with their attractiveness ratings of physically disabled individuals. While no previous study has tested the association of empathy and perception of attractiveness in physically disabled individuals, previous research has shown a similar positive relationship between empathy with regard to stigmatized groups (Batson et al., 1997, 2002). Moreover, a cross-cultural study provided evidence that individuals with a disability are often rated higher on perceived warmth, but not competence, than individuals without a disability (Cuddy et al., 2009). While we did not consider the characteristics of warmth and competence, our results show that women attributed more positive characteristics (i.e., attractiveness) to physically disabled individuals of the opposite sex.

Future Remarks and Conclusion

In the current study, we were interested in investigating the effect of perception of attractiveness as a function of physical disability in an interpersonal attraction context, in which individuals consider and rate individuals of the opposite sex. However, future research can test for the potential interactions regarding the sex of the participants’ and the stimuli, as well as the effect that other variables, such as ethnicity and age, have on one’s attractiveness ratings. For example, it is an open question whether women view women with physical disabilities with the same positive bias as they view men, or participants view older individuals with physical disabilities similar as young people. Moreover, future research may assess the degree to which participants’ prior experiences in interacting with people with physical disabilities affect their ratings of attractiveness of physically disabled individuals. Previous research has shown that prior contact with individuals with disabilities can lead to more favorable and positive attitudes toward children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities (McDougall et al., 2004; Kalyva and Agaliotis, 2009; Seo and Chen, 2009; Perenc and Pęczkowski, 2018). Therefore, future research should consider such contact experiences on perception of attractiveness. Moreover, we used diverse categories of stimuli as the disability group (e.g., amputated legs, amputated arms, either with prosthetics or without), which might have influenced participants’ ratings. While our study lacks the statistical power to address this issue definitively, further studies could consider effect of each category separately on perception of attractiveness. Additionally, women’s attractiveness ratings of physically disabled men do not necessarily indicate they would actually want to date these men, a point that is reinforced by the social desirability data. Therefore, future research could investigate women’s level of interest in a short-term relationship as well as a long-term relationship with disabled men. It might be the case that women judge men with a disability hindered in their ability to secure and provide resources – a quality important in mate selection for women – thereby potentially reducing their interest in a long-term relationship with disabled men. Future research could also test the effect of attractiveness as a function of the cause of a disability. For example, pairing photos of a man’s disability with a story to explain the origin of the disability, either a story of an altruistic act (e.g., through military or police service) or a story about a reckless accident (e. g., car crash from driving drunk) might result in different attractiveness perception. For instance, in light of the fact that women find war heroes sexually attractive (Rusch et al., 2015), women may infer a disability resulting from an altruistic act as attractive. Finally, although we excluded the possibility of the visual images biasing the responses to the questionnaires by always presenting the questionnaires first, future research might choose to ensure that there was no effect of the questionnaires on the attractiveness ratings by inserting a distracting task between the two experimental procedures.

In summary, in the current study, we sought to examine if people with physical disabilities are perceived by the opposite sex as more or less attractive relative to nondisabled individuals. We also examined whether attractiveness ratings of physically disabled individuals are influenced by observers’ personality, empathy, and social desirability bias. Our results indicate that women rate men with physical disabilities as higher on attractiveness than nondisabled men. Such ratings were positively influenced by participants’ SDB, meaning those with higher tendency to be viewed favorably by others rated physically disabled individuals more attractive. Physical disability, however, does not appear to play a role in male perception of female attractiveness. Finally, our results reveal that ratings of individuals with physical disabilities are positively associated with extroversion and empathy in both men and women, and associated positively with agreeableness and negatively with neuroticism in women. These findings suggest that individual differences in personality and empathy can offset or override the influence of disease-avoidance mechanisms as predicted by an evolutionary perspective.