1. The Role of Physical Attractiveness in Adolescent Romantic Relationships. Rebecca Furr, M.A. & Deborah Welsh, Ph.D. University of Tennessee

2. Abstract We examine the role that physical attractiveness plays in adolescent romantic relationships. Specifically, this study explores two questions: 1) Do adolescents who share a similar level of physical attractiveness with their partner have longer or more satisfying relationships? and 2) Does physical attractiveness impact power in the relationship, as observed in couple interactions? 209 adolescent dating couples between the ages of 14 and 21 participated. HLM analyses revealed that participants whose partners were more physically attractive were rated higher in persuading (t = 2.76, p <.01) and giving in (t = 2.50, p <.01) during observed interactions. No significant association was found between physical attractiveness and relationship length or satisfaction.

3. Introduction Many physical changes are associated with puberty, and many adolescents become preoccupied with physical appearance (Elkind, 1967). Also, for the first time many adolescents are becoming involved in romantic relationships. Therefore, adolescence is a developmental period in which it is important to study the intersection of physical appearance & romantic relationships.

4. Introduction According to the matching hypothesis, people tend to form long-term romantic relationships with partners who are similar to themselves in physical attractiveness (Goffman, 1952). This theory has been supported by research with married couples and late adolescent couples (Critelli & Waid, 1982; Murstein & Christy, 1976; Peterson & Miller, 1980; White, 1980), but there has been little examination of physical attractiveness in younger adolescent couples. Matching tends to occur more often in longer-term and more committed couples (Cavior & Boblett, 1972). In addition, relationship satisfaction is related to partner physical attractiveness in married couples (Peterson & Miller, 1980).

5. Introduction Physical attractiveness appears to have an important impact on personal power, particularly in adolescence. In a study with high school females, Weisfeld, Bloch, and Ivers (1984) found that girls who were rated high in physical attractiveness were also more likely to be rated highly in a variety of dominance dimensions. In romantic relationships, partners who perceive themselves as the less physically attractive member also report being more submissive (Critelli & Waid, 1980) in their relationship.

6. Questions 1.) Do adolescents who share a similar level of physical attractiveness with their partner have longer or more satisfying relationships? 2.) Does the more physically attractive member of a couple have greater power in the relationship, as observed in couple interactions?

7. Sample Conducted as part of the Study of Tennessee Adolescent Romantic Relationships (STARR), funded by NICHD. 209 adolescent dating couples 1  102 couples between 14-17 yrs old  107 couples between 17-21 yrs old Couples dating a minimum of 4 weeks  (range: 4 weeks – 260 weeks; mean: 45.5 weeks) 1 Couples recruited from a previous study of 2201 high school students from 17 different high schools representing geographic (rural, urban, suburban) and economic diversity

8. Procedures Time 1: Couples came to the laboratory for data collection which lasted approximately three hours, and were paid $30 each for their time. In addition to self-report data, interaction data was collected from the couples. Follow-up: Approximately one year after Time 1, participants were mailed a shorter follow-up questionnaire (Time 2) and were paid $15 upon completion (N = 351). Participants were contacted again a little less than 2 years after Time 2 to gain relationship status (Time 3).

9. Measures Physical Attractiveness – 8 undergraduate coders rated participants on a 7-point Likert-type scale (with 1 = less attractive and 7 = more attractive), from which an average physical attractiveness score was computed. Inter-rater reliability was excellent, with the intra-class correlation coefficient =.90. Relationship Length – Participants were asked how long they had been dating their current partner, in number of weeks, at Time 1 and at follow-up (Times 2 & 3). Because couple members’ reports of how long they had been dating were sometimes discrepant, partners’ reports were averaged.

10. Measures Relationship Satisfaction – (Levesque, 1993); 5-item subscale measuring participants’ satisfaction with their current romantic relationship, used at Time 1 and at follow-up. The internal reliability for this scale was acceptable (α = 0.84). Power Dynamics – Participants’ power dynamics were measured through the observed interactions, which were coded by three trained graduate students. Specifically, interactions were coded for the extent to which both partners were making attempts at “persuading” and “giving in” during the conversations. An average score for both persuading and giving in was computed for each participant.

11. Descriptives While there was a wide range of physical attractiveness in participants, most couples are roughly “matched”. In the majority of couples (158 couples or roughly 75%), couple members are within one point of each other. While most couples are fairly close in physical attractiveness, it is more common for the female to be the more attractive member in the couple.

12. Descriptives Discrepancies in Physical Attractiveness by Gender Discrepancy Scores Females more attractive Males more attractive “Matched” couples

13. Results Relationship length: Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) analyses revealed that there was no significant relationship between physical attractiveness and relationship length. Relationship satisfaction: HLM analyses also revealed that there was no significant relationship between physical attractiveness and relationship satisfaction.

14. Results Power dynamics  Persuading: HLM analyses revealed that those individuals whose partners were more physically attractive made more attempts at persuading during interactions (t = 2.76, p <.01).  Giving in: Similarly, individuals whose partners were more physically attractive also had higher rates of giving in during interactions (t = 2.50, p <.01).

15. Discussion Surprisingly, participants whose partners were more physically attractive engaged in “persuading” and “giving in” more frequently. While we expected the partners of highly attractive adolescents to give in more frequently (in the hopes of keeping the attractive partner happy), we expected that highly attractive adolescents would have higher rates of persuading. It may be that if you have a partner high in physical attractiveness, you enact “power plays” in an attempt to even power in the relationship. The concurrent rates of more persuading attempts and giving in suggest that these power plays are largely unsuccessful.

16. Discussion In this study, physical attractiveness did not significantly predict relationship satisfaction or relationship longevity. It must be noted that couples in this sample were well “matched,” which may have resulted in little predictive power.