Introduction
The article under consideration dwells upon a recent research concerning rating attractiveness (Queens College, 2009). The article reveals the major findings of the researchers. More than four thousand participants took part in the research. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 70. The participants were rating attractiveness of people depicted on photographs.
The researchers found that there was “much more consensus” among males when rating attractiveness (Queens College, 2009). It was also reported that men paid more attention to physical characteristics of females, whereas women were less concerned with such characteristics. Interestingly, it was found that both men and women tend to find attractive people who looked more confident. It is also important to note that age is reported to play significant role in rating, since older people tend to find smiling people more attractive.
The key assumption of the research claim
Thus, the major claim of the researchers is that the present research can have numerous implications “for the different experiences and strategies that could be expected for men and women in the dating marketplace” and “for eating disorders and how expectations regarding attractiveness affect behavior” (Queens College, 2009).
Admittedly, people’s behaviour is shaped by many factors. The key assumption that men and women behave in different ways in the “dating marketplace” is based on the researcher’s claim that men and women differently rate attractiveness. For instance, females are preoccupied with their appearance because they are aware of the fact that males judge females’ attractiveness in terms of physical characteristics.
Viability of the claim
It is important to state that the article under consideration provides enough information to assume that the researchers’ claim is viable. The article provides the key information about the research methodology. Admittedly, the number of participants and their age can be regarded as suffice for making viable claim.
However, it is also necessary to point out that the article only mentions some of the findings which support the researcher’s claim. For instance, the article reports that the researchers came to the conclusion that the difference in rating of attractiveness influences people’s behaviour.
Nevertheless, this claim requires more detailed description. The article does not reveal all facts supporting the researchers’ claim. It goes without saying that the reader should refer to the primary source (the article by Wood and Brumbaugh (2009)) to obtain more complete picture of the research and its findings.
Modifications
When considering the claim provided in the article by Queens College (2009) the reader has to refer to the primary source, the article by Wood and Brumbaugh (2009) to find out more about the research itself and data which made the researchers come to their conclusions.
For instance, the article by Queens College (2009) only mentions that the difference in attractiveness rating influences people’s behaviour and is manifested in the “dating marketplace” and has a great impact on eating disorders. Whereas, Wood and Brumbaugh (2009) support their claim by certain data which, for instance, suggest that among homosexual raters the tendency remains (1234).
More so, the behaviour of heterosexual women and homosexual men or heterosexual men and homosexual women are similar, which is also manifested in the rate of eating disorders among heterosexual women and homosexual men who are more concerned with physical characteristics to attract potential partners (Wood and Brumbaugh, 2009, p. 1242).
Apart from this (Wood and Brumbaugh, 2009) also report about the test concerning “short-term and long-term preferences” which also prove that the difference in attractiveness rating affects people’s behaviour.
The participants were asked to comment upon possibility of dating with people depicted on the photographs. This part of the research was not highlighted in the article by Queens College (2009) and this is another evidence that the article is not detailed enough to fully prove the viability of the researchers’ claim.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is possible to state that the article by Queens College (2009) though provides certain information which proves that the researchers’ claim about the difference of attractiveness rating is viable, the article still leaves out many important data. Therefore, the reader only gets an idea about the research: the major concern of the research, some data about methodology, the major claim of the researchers and some evidence of the claim’s viability.
On the basis of the article under consideration the reader will only draw a conclusion that there is a difference between rating attractiveness and that it affects people’s behaviour. However, the reader will have too many questions as for validity of the researchers’ claim since a few arguments to support the claim are far from being enough. Therefore, the reader will need to refer to the primary source for more details.
Thus, the article under consideration can be regarded as a successful article which announces the major claim of some research refers the reader to the primary sources. It goes without saying that the article cannot be regarded as a profound and reliable source for further research of the problem.
Reference List
Queens College (2009). Rating Attractiveness: Consensus among Men, not Women, Study Finds. ScienceDaily. Web.
Wood, D., Brumbaugh, C.C. (2009). Using Revealed Mate Preferences to Evaluate Market Force and Differential Preference Explanations for Mate Selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1226-1244.