Journal of Student Research 2019

Journal of Student Research

Why Do You Taste So Ugly: Examination of Flavor on Perceived Attractiveness (59.65%), with 32.75% of participants not reporting.

164 one’s attractiveness.

165

Experimental Attractiveness Group. Participants that took part in the experimental conditions consisted of 145 individuals who participated in person, in a lab-setting, and took part in one of the two experimental conditions (consuming either a pleasant or unpleasant jelly bean). Participants in this group ranged in age from 18 to 31 years old ( M = 18.96, SD = 1.66). Overall, the experimental sample was 65.52% female and 34.48% male. Additionally, the majority of the sample identified as straight (89.66%), with 10.34% identifying as asexual, bisexual, lesbian/gay or other. Most of the participants in the experimental conditions identified as first-year students (69.66%), with 30.35% identifying as a sophomore, junior, senior, or other. The majority of participants identified as being white (66.90%). Overall, the current study utilized a quantitative survey design, involving a baseline group and an experimental group with two conditions. Those in the baseline group completed a survey distributed via Facebook, pretesting a set of facial images to obtain baseline attractiveness ratings. Those in the two experimental conditions completed a survey rating attractiveness of facial images selected from those presented to those in the pretest group in a psychology research lab setting. Materials

Current Study

The purpose of the current research was to examine whether or not the sense of taste has an effect on how one perceives someone else’s attractiveness. For the present study, the word ‘attractive’ was defined as generally aesthetically pleasing. The basis of the current research was to have participants experience either a pleasant or unpleasant flavor and then examine how ratings of attractiveness were influenced by these taste experiences. Specifically, participants in the experimental conditions were asked to consume a Bean Boozled Jelly Bean, which has the potential to have either a pleasant or unpleasant flavor. They were then asked to rate the flavor they experienced, before rating the ‘attractiveness’ of faces. Hypothesis 1: Flavor ratings of the Bean Boozled Jelly Beans will be positively correlated with ratings of the general attractiveness of the observed faces. Hypothesis 2: The experience of pleasant (unpleasant) flavors will result in exaggerated positive (negative) ratings of attractiveness relative to the ratings provided by individuals who did not consume a jelly bean while rating the faces. Rubenstein (2005) found that men value the physical appearance of their partner more than women. Men were also noted to report higher expectations regarding their partner’s appearance. Given this finding, it was also hypothesized that men, relative to women, will be more negative in their ratings of the general attractiveness of faces (Hypothesis 3), regardless of jelly bean flavor. Although specific predictions were not made, the researchers were also interested in how sexual attraction may influence the extent to which unpleasant flavor experiences influence facial attractiveness scores. Therefore, participants were coded based on their identified sexual preferences to examine how flavor may impact ratings of attractiveness more broadly. Baseline Attractiveness Group. Participants in a baseline attractiveness group completed a face rating activity online. This group consisted of 171 individuals ranging from 18 to 80 years old ( M = 29.97, SD = 13.70). The baseline sample was 49.12% female and 14.62% male, with 2.34% selecting non-binary, 1.17% reporting as other, and 32.75% not reporting. Additionally, the majority of the sample identified as straight (53.22%), with 14.03% identifying as asexual, bisexual, lesbian/gay, or other, and 32.75% not reporting. The majority of participants identified as being white Method Participants

Figure 1 . Facial images rated by the experimental groups.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents