eduardkoopman
Sub-Mod
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
- Posts
- 22,665
- Reputation
- 28,359
"attractive‐disadvantageous partners [aka person making/causing losses] were preferred to the same extent (or more) as unattractive‐advantageous [aka person making/causing money profits-gains] partners"
there's no freaking way to win, for the lesser looking people. Not even when they bring in bank, money.
sauce: https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bjop.12495?campaign=wolearlyview
Abstract:
There is ample evidence that attractive individuals, across diverse domains, are judged more favourably.
But most research has focused on single/one‐shot decisions, where decision‐makers receive no feedback following their decisions, and outcomes of their judgements are inconsequential to the self.
Would attractive individuals still be judged favourably in experience‐based decision‐making where people make iterative decisions and receive consequential feedback (money gained/lost) following each decision?
To investigate this question, participants viewed headshots of four financial partners presented side‐by‐side and repeatedly (over 50–100 trials) selected partners that would help maximize their profits. Following every partner‐selection, participants received feedback about the net monetary gains/losses the partner had conferred. Unbeknownst to participants, two partners (one attractive, one unattractive) were equally advantageous (conferred net‐gains overtime) and two partners (one attractive and one unattractive) were equally disadvantageous (conferred net‐losses overtime).
Even though attractive and unattractive partners were equally profitable and despite receiving feedback, participants selected attractive partners more throughout the task were quicker to reselect them even when they conferred losses and judged them as more helpful. Indeed, attractive‐disadvantageous partners were preferred to the same extent (or more) as unattractive‐advantageous partners. Importantly, the effect of attractiveness on decision‐making was fully explained by the perceived trustworthiness of the financial partners."
there's no freaking way to win, for the lesser looking people. Not even when they bring in bank, money.
sauce: https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bjop.12495?campaign=wolearlyview
Abstract:
There is ample evidence that attractive individuals, across diverse domains, are judged more favourably.
But most research has focused on single/one‐shot decisions, where decision‐makers receive no feedback following their decisions, and outcomes of their judgements are inconsequential to the self.
Would attractive individuals still be judged favourably in experience‐based decision‐making where people make iterative decisions and receive consequential feedback (money gained/lost) following each decision?
To investigate this question, participants viewed headshots of four financial partners presented side‐by‐side and repeatedly (over 50–100 trials) selected partners that would help maximize their profits. Following every partner‐selection, participants received feedback about the net monetary gains/losses the partner had conferred. Unbeknownst to participants, two partners (one attractive, one unattractive) were equally advantageous (conferred net‐gains overtime) and two partners (one attractive and one unattractive) were equally disadvantageous (conferred net‐losses overtime).
Even though attractive and unattractive partners were equally profitable and despite receiving feedback, participants selected attractive partners more throughout the task were quicker to reselect them even when they conferred losses and judged them as more helpful. Indeed, attractive‐disadvantageous partners were preferred to the same extent (or more) as unattractive‐advantageous partners. Importantly, the effect of attractiveness on decision‐making was fully explained by the perceived trustworthiness of the financial partners."
