The Psychology of Likability

“Likability is a soft skill that leads to hard results.” ― Mo Bunnell, The Snowball System: How to Win More Business and Turn Clients into Raving Fans

The human desire to be liked and to connect with others is deeply rooted in our evolutionary history. This intrinsic motivation not only impacts our interpersonal relationships but also has a profound effect on our psychological well-being. Delving into the psychology of likability provides an understanding of how these connections are formed and why they play such a crucial role in our lives.

Foundations of Likability: The Role of Evolution and Biology

From an evolutionary perspective, being likable had survival advantages. Humans are inherently social creatures, and our ancestors depended on one another for protection, resource sharing, and procreation. Being well-liked in a tribal setting meant better access to resources and increased chances of survival. Evolutionary psychologists argue that the need to be likable is an adaptive trait that has been hardwired into our brains. Humans have evolved to be particularly sensitive to social cues, which is evident in our ability to detect and react to facial expressions, tone of voice, and body language (Dunbar, 1998). Moreover, neuroimaging studies have shown that social acceptance and rejection activate regions in the brain linked to reward and pain, respectively (Eisenberger, 2012).

Components of Likability: What Makes One Person More Likable Than Another?

Various factors contribute to one’s likability, ranging from superficial attributes to deep-seated personality traits. Physical attractiveness, for instance, is a well-documented factor that can boost likability due to the “halo effect,” where attractive individuals are perceived as having a host of other positive qualities, such as intelligence and kindness (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972). However, while physical attractiveness might offer an initial advantage, other factors, such as warmth, authenticity, and competence, play more enduring roles in sustaining likability. Research indicates that people tend to gravitate towards those who exude warmth and authenticity because they are perceived as trustworthy and non-threatening (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008). Competence, on the other hand, contributes to likability because competent individuals can offer tangible benefits in collaborative settings.

Likability and Well-being: The Interconnectedness of Acceptance and Health

Beyond the immediate benefits of building relationships and fostering social harmony, likability has been shown to have far-reaching implications on an individual’s mental and physical well-being. Those who are well-liked tend to report higher levels of happiness, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. They also show lower levels of depression and anxiety (Lopes, Salovey, Côté, Beers, & Petty, 2005). Such findings underscore the significance of human connections and the importance of likability in leading a fulfilled life.

Furthermore, there is evidence that likability can have a protective effect on physical health. Holt-Lunstad, Smith, and Layton (2010) found that individuals with strong social connections had a 50% increased likelihood of survival over those with weaker connections. The protective effect of these connections was comparable to the effect of quitting smoking and even exceeded the risks associated with obesity and physical inactivity.

The psychology of likability is a multi-faceted domain that touches on various aspects of human existence, from our evolutionary past to our modern-day interactions. Understanding the factors that contribute to likability can help individuals navigate the complexities of human relationships and foster genuine connections. More importantly, nurturing these connections can have a profound impact on our psychological and physical well-being, underscoring the importance of likability in leading a holistic and fulfilled life.

References

Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149.

Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285–290.

Dunbar, R. I. M. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 6(5), 178–190.

Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). The neural bases of social pain: Evidence for shared representations with physical pain. Psychosomatic Medicine, 74(2), 126–135.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review. PLOS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316.

Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Côté, S., Beers, M., & Petty, R. E. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5(1), 113–118.