The Toxic Power of Attractiveness

By: Adeline Sauer 

We all have a biologically driven need to belong. But did you know that a disruption to this need can be represented in your electrical brain activity? Neuroscientists have discovered this connection by examining the P300 (P3) event-related potential component (ERP). This means that in observing brain waves through an electroencephalogram (EEG), neuroscientists saw a high amplitude electrical brain activity, indicating a P3 response. This high amplitude happens when the brain’s attention is directed towards a stimulus, and this amplitude increases if the stimulus is novel, rare, or unexpected. So, how does this tie back to our need to belong? Neuroscientists believe that a greater P3 response reveals that an individual is experiencing greater distress and that this distress is a direct result of social exclusion—a social act of aggression that disrupts our sense of belonging. The attractiveness and friendliness of the person initiating the social exclusion can add to this connection, especially with women, as they are generally more socially invested than men. This raises some important questions. Do women have a greater P3 response when being excluded by an attractive unfriendly woman? How does this P3 response influence a woman’s competitiveness and retaliation amongst attractive women? 

Vaillancourt et al. wanted to answer these questions in a July 2024 study. The researchers recruited 87 female participants aged 18 to 22 to partake in a game called Cyberball to examine the neurological and behavioral responses of social exclusion in women, as well as the role of attractiveness and friendliness in those responses. Before the game started, participants were provided with two pictures of programmer-controlled (PC) competitors from the Chicago Face Database. The PC competitors were either attractive friendly (AF), attractive unfriendly (AU), unattractive friendly (UF), or unattractive unfriendly (UU). These PCs were randomly assigned to the real participants. Once assigned to a categorized group, the Cyberball game started, where players passed the ball between each other, like in a game of catch. While playing the game, participants were connected to an EEG, which measured the P3 amplitude during “exclusion events”, or periods where the PC competitors reduced the number of passes they made to the real participant. The researchers predicted that during the exclusion period of the Cyberball task, there would be a higher P3 response from participants in the AU condition. This prediction was mainly influenced by the profound impact high social status attractive, cruel women tend to have. 

However, the results of the experiment contradicted the researchers’ predictions. Exclusion from unattractive unfriendly women elicited a significantly higher P3 response, therefore greater feelings of distress, than being excluded by attractive women (irrespective of their friendliness). This could be due to an “expectancy violation,” where participants expected to be treated poorly by attractive women (regardless of friendliness) but not by unattractive, unfriendly women. This prediction can be backed up by past research that has shown that social exclusion is used more by attractive women. The larger P3 amplitude and unexpectedness after being excluded by unattractive women may also reflect “annoyance or disdain for being excluded by more socially subordinate women,” say the researchers. Since people tend to overestimate their attractiveness, the participants may have perceived the unattractive, unfriendly women to be less attractive than themselves. This prompted the exclusion by these unattractive, unfriendly women as audacious, as it does not align with their presumed social role as more compliant. 

Additionally, the participants may have been influenced by the “what is beautiful is good” stereotype—the assumption that attractive people “possess more socially desirable personalities” and that their lives are “happier and more successful.” So instead of being intimidated by the attractive women, participants may be seeing their attractive competitors as desirable. By competing with an attractive woman, it may let an individual feel as though they are increasing their own social status. A distressing P3 response would not be as prevalent in the participants socially rejected in the attractive conditions because they perceived their rejection as both expected and a positive way to interact with a desirable social status. 

The results from the experiment helped answer another question of Vaillancourt et al.’s study: how does the P3 response to social exclusion influence a woman’s competitiveness and retaliation amongst attractive women? Across conditions, participants tended to rate their opponents as being more competitive and ruder. This is consistent with previous research that has shown that social exclusion prompts retaliation. In the unfriendly conditions, the attractiveness ratings for the attractive opponents were reduced. Perhaps the participants were trying to “punish” the attractive unfriendly women. Women, as shown in previous studies, have expressed a desire to punish attractive women using indirect aggression. But why would women do this to one another? Why are they so stressed about social status and why are they discreetly aggressive towards one another?  

As mentioned previously, women are more socially invested than men and express a stronger need to belong. Therefore, women consider the concept social exclusion as more important; they are more willing to socially exclude others, report being excluded more often, perceive social exclusion cues more rapidly, and their physiological response to social exclusion is more pronounced (also as indicated by the P3 response). This makes the female social scene much more competitive and tense.  

Intrasexual competition amongst women is a core part of these dynamics. Women innately direct aggression towards attractive females, as they are their primary competition for mates. However, women use aggression in its indirect form, as opposed to the more direct form men use. Indirect aggression can allow women to hurt others while masking the true injurious purpose of their actions. Joyce Benenson, in her book Warriors and Worriers, reasons that women use social exclusion as an indirect aggression strategy because it allows them to compete while minimizing the risk of retaliation. On the other hand, men tend to use more direct aggression in face-to-face confrontation. Within social scenes, women mainly must worry about alienating others while men have to worry about getting beaten up, says Benenson. 

All the above findings reveal that interpersonal relationships among women are complicated and stressful. The P3 response was essential in revealing just how pronounced female social distress is, especially with the influence of the personal characteristics of other women excluding them. At its core, these dynamics come from intrasexual competition, which then has prompted females to use indirect aggression against their more attractive peers. The indirect aggression act of social exclusion allows women to carry out this competition and maintain social status. Since women tend to overestimate their attractiveness, they are sensitive to being rejected by women they consider to be socially and physically below them. Nevertheless, they look up to their more attractive, higher status peers. There are many lines to be drawn here, and women should tread carefully when competitively interacting with their female counterparts, considering the emotional, physiological, and behavioral effects of social exclusion. 

published XX/XX/2024