{"id":2556,"date":"2017-04-12T19:54:31","date_gmt":"2017-04-12T23:54:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/?p=2556"},"modified":"2020-02-07T09:55:53","modified_gmt":"2020-02-07T14:55:53","slug":"the-cheerleader-effect-how-you-can-actually-seem-more-attractive-with-a-little-help-from-your-friends","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/2017\/04\/12\/the-cheerleader-effect-how-you-can-actually-seem-more-attractive-with-a-little-help-from-your-friends\/","title":{"rendered":"The Cheerleader Effect: How You Can Actually Seem More Attractive With a Little Help From Your Friends"},"content":{"rendered":"

Imagine you\u2019re sitting in a restaurant, walking through the mall, or even scrolling through social media, and you notice a really good looking group of guys or girls. Maybe you admire them, maybe you\u2019re attracted to them, maybe you\u2019re envious of them, or maybe you even resent them. Regardless of exactly how you react to their attractiveness, you may want to reassess their looks. Research suggests that people are perceived as more attractive when they\u2019re seen in a group than they are when they\u2019re seen individually (Walker and Vul, 2104). So, that glorified group of guys or gals I asked you to imagine before? They might not be just as attractive as they appear.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

http:\/\/splitshot.com<\/p><\/div>\n

If you\u2019ve ever seen the show \u201cHow I Met Your Mother,\u201d you might be familiar with this phenomena\u00a0that is commonly referred to as \u201cthe Cheerleader Effect.\u201d In season four, episode seven, main character Barney Stinson coined the term. He explains the phenomenon when he encounters a group of <\/span>seemingly<\/span><\/i> attractive women at a bar. He explains, quite discourteously, that, just like cheerleaders that look stunningly gorgeous as a squad, but like the average girl next door individually, \u201cThey seem hot, but only as a group. Take each individually? Sled dogs.\u201d This phenomenon has also been referred to as the Bridesmaid Paradox, Sorority Girl Syndrome, or even the Spice Girls Conspiracy (https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=qDzkMXpDZfc<\/a>)<\/span>. Regardless of how superficial and shallow some of these phrases are, there is, in fact, psychological research backing the \u201cHow I Met Your Mother\u201d h<\/span>ypothesis.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In 2014, eight years after Barney Stinson first uttered the term \u201ccheerleader effect,\u201d Drew Walker and Edward Vul published research supporting the phenomenon and explaining some mechanisms that are potentially responsible for it. If I asked you to guess why the cheerleader effect exists, you might speculate something social in nature, like, \u2018being surrounded by others makes an individual seem more likable, charming, or socially desirable.\u2019 Potentially to your surprise, though, Walker and Vul suggest a perceptually grounded explanation; persons seem more attractive in a group than alone because of the hierarchical manner of human visual encoding.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

http:\/\/howtobelikebarneystinson.com<\/p><\/div>\n

Now, if you\u2019re not an avid consumer of cognitive psychological reading and information, that may just be a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo. But have no fear, in order to better understand visual encoding and the role it plays in the Cheerleader Effect, we\u2019ll take things a few steps back. You may be familiar with the Ebbinghaus Illusion in which a medium sized dot looks larger when surrounded by a set of smaller dots and looks smaller when surrounded by a larger set of dots (https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Ebbinghaus_illusion<\/a>). Although the center dot doesn\u2019t change in size, it is perceived differently based on the rest of the array. This visual illusion demonstrates that the way humans perceive individual objects is partially dependent upon their surroundings or context — this is known in cognitive psychology as <\/span>top down processing.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

http:\/\/wikipedia.org<\/p><\/div>\n

When we encounter a collection of stimuli, our visual system automatically processes things in this top down manner. If a process is automatic, that means that it is done quickly, easily, and without intentional effort. When we automatically process a set of stimuli, our visual system also automatically produces general information about the things we\u2019re looking at. Information like the average size, average location, and even average facial expression of all of the parts we\u2019re seeing is subconsciously and automatically calculated by our visual system (Airely, 2001; Parks, Lund, Angelucci, Solomon & Morgan, 2011; Haberman & Whitney, 2009). So, for example, when Barney Stinson looked at the group of women in the bar, his visual system automatically computed their average attractiveness without him even realizing it. Next, that impression of the whole biases us to view any one part of the group as more similar to that automatically determined average. For example, when individuals see a collection of dots, they remember any one of the dots as being larger or smaller based on the average size of the collection of dots. A larger dot will be interpreted as smaller if the average size of the rest of the dots is\u00a0small, and a smaller dot will be interpreted as larger if the average size of the rest of the dots is\u00a0large (Brady & Alvarez, 2011). This phenomenon is referred to as hierarchical encoding. We refer to the average, or overarching characteristics of items in a group rather than their individual features. So, back to Barney, when he looked at any one woman in the group, he interpreted her attractiveness as similar to the average attractiveness of all the women. But why does that make her seem <\/span>more<\/span><\/i> attractive? Whether you believe it or not, humans actually tend to find average faces more attractive than individual faces. By average faces I refer to composite faces created by combining or averaging images of multiple faces, not the average between attractive and unattractive. Research done by Langlois and Roggman in 1990 showed that compos<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

https:\/\/sciencenewsforstudents.com<\/p><\/div>\n

ite faces are rated as more attractive than each of the\u00a0individual faces used to compose them. <\/span>So<\/span><\/i>, ultimately, when Barney looked at any one woman in the group, he likely found her more attractive because his visual system made him perceive her as more average looking.<\/span><\/p>\n

So how <\/span>exactly<\/span><\/i> did Walker and Vul investigate the cheerleader effect and provide evidence for this visual encoding hypothesis? They ran a series of experiments where participants rated the attractiveness of faces. Participants saw, and rated, 100 faces. They rated each face twice though, once in a group photo with two other individuals of the same gender, and once in an isolated portrait that was created by cropping the same group photo. Whether the participants saw the group photo or individual portrait first was random. Walker and Vul found that both male and female faces were rated as significantly more attractive in the group photo than in the isolated portrait.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, you might have realized that under those particular circumstances, participants still\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

http:\/\/pinterest.com<\/p><\/div>\n

may have preferred faces in the group condition because the group photos communicated that those people were more pleasant, friendly, personable, etc.. To confront this possibility, Walker and Vul conducted another study. This time around, the group photos were created by placing simple individual headshots into grids so that there was no social context. Again, participants rated each face in the group setting and in isolation, and, again, participants rated faces as significantly more attractive in the group setting. <\/span><\/p>\n

Although this cognitive phenomenon may seem superficial with few everyday applications, there are actually a few things we can learn from Mr. Stinson\u2019s shallow theory. If you\u2019re in the dating scene, it might not hurt to have a wingman\/wingwoman, or two. If you\u2019re headed out on a friday night, bring along a couple of friends, <\/span>or<\/span><\/i> if you\u2019re trying to choose a profile picture for your online dating account it might be helpful to choose a photo of you and some friends… no matter how good you look in the\u00a0selfie you took last week. This same rule could also apply to almost any social media platform.\u00a0<\/span>You may even want to consider Stinson\u2019s advice in choosing a profile photo for a more business oriented app or website like linkedin. Although it may seem a little peculiar or unprofessional to intentionally<\/em> select a more appealing photo of yourself to show to potential employers or coworkers, research (on another cognitive bias, the halo effect) shows that positive attributes like intelligence and competence are actually projected onto more attractive people (http:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/2017\/04\/14\/the-halo-effect-swiping-right-for-the-wrong-reasons\/#more-2601)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the cheerleader effect and its potential real world applications have significant implications about the society we live in. The simple existence of the cheerleader effect, let alone the means by which it could be used to individuals\u2019 advantage in real life, show the strong value and importance placed on attractiveness in our society. Whether we like it or not, sometimes it pays off to flaunt attractiveness. Why is that? Many people claim that individuals have become vain or that capitalism and materialism have corrupted us all. However, looking to cognitive and social psychology often offers contrasting explanations rooted in scientific evidence. Thus, the cheerleader effect and its potential real world applications go deeper than the surface by forcing\u00a0us to ask bigger questions about our society as a whole and the morals and values we adhere to. Who would\u2019ve thought that Barney Stinson and\u00a0How I Met Your Mother<\/em>\u00a0would offer such comprehensive and momentous food for thought?<\/p>\n

If you want to learn more about the cheerleader effect, check out these other articles!<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.theatlantic.com\/business\/archive\/2013\/11\/cheerleader-effect-why-people-are-more-beautiful-in-groups\/281119\/<\/a><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/people-look-more-attractive-in-groups-2013-10<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

References<\/p>\n

Ariely, D. (2001). Seeing sets: representation by statistical properties.\u00a0Psychological Science, 12<\/em>(2), 157-162. doi:10.1111\/1467-9280.00327<\/p>\n

Brady, T. F., & Alvarez, G. A. (2011). Hierarchical encoding in visual working memory.<\/p>\n

Psychological Science,<\/em>\u00a022<\/em>(3), 384-392. doi:10.1177\/0956797610397956<\/p>\n

Haberman, J., & Whitney, D. (2009). Seeing the mean: ensemble coding for sets of faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,35<\/em>(3), 718-734. doi:10.1037\/a0013899<\/p>\n

Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average.\u00a0Psychological Science,<\/em>\u00a01<\/em>(2), 115-121. doi:10.1111\/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00079.x<\/p>\n

Parkes, L., Lund, J., Angelucci, A., Solomon, J. A., and Morgan, M. (2001). Compulsory<\/p>\n

averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision.\u00a0Nature Neuroscience,\u00a0<\/em>4,<\/p>\n

739-744. doi: 10.1038\/89532<\/p>\n

Walker, D., & Vul, E. (2014). Hierarchical encoding makes individuals in a group seem more attractive.\u00a0Psychological Science,<\/em>\u00a025<\/em>(1), 230-235. doi:10.1177\/0956797613497969<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Imagine you\u2019re sitting in a restaurant, walking through the mall, or even scrolling through social media, and you notice a really good looking group of guys or girls. Maybe you admire them, maybe you\u2019re attracted to them, maybe you\u2019re envious of them, or maybe you even resent them. Regardless of exactly how you react to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7474,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[80218],"tags":[150206,130382,130381],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2556"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7474"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2556"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2556\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3365,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2556\/revisions\/3365"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2556"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2556"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/web.colby.edu\/cogblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2556"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}