As a twenty-two year old, I have not quite left my need for celebrity gossip behind just yet. Indeed, my early morning routine consists of checking my emails, facebook, and twitter, and researching the celebrity news of the day. I am therefore constantly bombarded with the Kardashians (the Daily Mail seems somewhat obsessed with the family).
For those unfamiliar with The Kardashian empire, they are a family of reality television stars consisting of the “momanager” Kris Jenner, her olympian husband Bruce Jenner, Kourtney Kardashian, Kim Kardashian, Khloe Kardashian, and Rob Kardashian (her children from her previous marriage), and Kendall and Kylie (her children with Bruce Jenner). The show follows the ups and downs of every member of the family, providing an insight into the photoshoots, appearances, and product endorsements that they carry out, as well as the fashion lines and stores that they own. Furthermore, and most importantly, viewers see the family dynamics of the Kardashians as opposed to just “the brand”, with a real emphasis on the importance of family life.
However, due to the nature of reality television, many argue that The Kardashians symbolise everything that is wrong in society. The media often claims that the only real talent that the Kardashians have is their appearance and the fact that young girls are subjected to this suggests that we live in a society where young people are taught that you must be attractive in order to be successful.
An article that I read this morning in The Daily Mail supports this opinion, with the headmistress of a private girls school arguing that “almost everything that is wrong with Western society today can be summed up in that one symbolic photo of Miss Kim Kardashian on the front of Zoo magazine”. She adds that “the descent of Western civilisation can practically be read into every curve, of which, you will note, there are indeed many”.
There are several things that need to be considered here, in both moral and psychological terms, the first being the notion that in order to be successful you must be attractive. One would hope that this would not be the case and merely the media blowing the role of attractivenes out of proportion. However, many psychologists have studied this idea, with somewhat worrying findings emerging from the research conducted. Gilmore, Beehr, and Love (2011) investigated the impact of attractiveness on decisions made in interviews for jobs, finding that physical attractiveness had a significant influence on employment decisions. Furthermore, Frieze, Olson, and Russell (1991) found that later on in work lives, attractive males earned an average of $2600 more for each unit of attractiveness, whilst for females it was $2150 more. These findings suggest that even in the lives of non-celebrities, attractiveness still plays an important role in how successful one is.
This raises the fundamental question of whether this is a reflection of the celebrity obsessed culture in which we live, focussed on attractiveness rather than personal dispositions, or rather a natural response to those around us? I would argue that it is the latter due to the notion that, as human beings, we are actively seeking people who we deem to be those who will increase our own chances of success. It has been widely reported that mating success is linked with attractiveness, with researchers’ finding that attractive individuals have significantly higher numbers of sexual partners compared to their unattractive peers (Rhodes, Simmons & Peters, 2005). This idea makes sense due to the fact that we are biologically programmed to seek out a partner who indicates the presence of good genes (via attractiveness) so that we are more likely to pass superior genes to the next generation. In terms of successes in one’s career, it has been suggested that attractive people are generally more successful due to the halo effect (Asch, 1946). This is the subconscious act by employers whereby they see that the individual has a desirable trait, in this case attractiveness, and therefore assumes that all of their other features are desirable also.
Much of the evidence available points to the notion that individuals who are attractive are more successful, not due to celebrity culture, but due to the biological inbuilt tendency for humans to base opinions and desires on attractiveness. This is a bold statement; one that many may queery, but the evidence does suggest that this is the case.
In spite of this, my view is that although attractiveness does play some role in determining how successful one can be, it is only one factor and there are many others that can play an equally important role. In this example, the Kardashians are an attractive family however, they also display the work ethic, intelligence, humour, and loyalty that makes the Kardashian brand what it is. Without the Kardashian’s constant support for one another, their impressive work ethic, and business skills in running their careers, fashion labels, stores, and products, the Kardashian empire would not exist. Attractiveness alone would not be able to make the Kardashians the celebrities that they are today.
Instead of focussing on the roles of attractiveness in society, the headmistress in question should perhaps focus on the business accumen, intelligence, and ambition of this family. In my own view, attractiveness is just one factor in how successful that one can be, and without it success is still possible providing that one works hard and always strives to be the best possible versions of themselves, regardless of others.
nat1990psych 