Value Physical Attractiveness Research Articles

Testing Sexual Strategy Theory in Norway.

Choosing a romantic partner for a long-term relationship is one of the most significant decisions one makes during our lifetime. We have inherited an evolved framework from our ancestors that contains traits, as well as preferences for these traits, to solve this task. We use this framework consciously or unconsciously to choose prospective romantic partners. Following this reasoning, sexual strategy theory (SST) has been proposed for predicting which traits women and men prefer in a romantic partner for a long-term relationship. These predictions were empirically tested in the current work based on a sample of 1193 Norwegian adolescents who responded to an online questionnaire. We implemented the study hypotheses, derived from SST, in three statistical models, which were tested using structural equation modeling. In brief, our results revealed that women only valued resources more than men when we controlled for materialistic traits. This finding contrasts with SST's prediction that women would value resources more than men, independently of other variables. As for the second prediction that men value physical attractiveness more than women, this pattern existed universally and was independent of, for instance, how egalitarian they were. We thus conclude that SST was only partially supported and that variables that may reflect societal circumstances (e.g., wealth, gender, equality) should be considered when examining the mate choice behavior of women and men. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are also discussed.

Gender‐role egalitarianism predicts desirable traits of potential marriage partners: A cross‐cultural comparison

We examined whether gender‐role egalitarianism predicted participants' rank‐order preferences for traits in potential marriage partners of the opposite sex, and whether gender‐role egalitarianism mediated cultural differences between participants from North America, Polynesia and East Asia. Participants completed the Sex‐Role Egalitarianism Scale and ranked the following traits in terms of their importance in choosing a potential marriage partner: kindness, physical attractiveness, social level, athleticism, creativity and liveliness. Parallel analyses for male and female participants reveal that traditional males value physical attractiveness more than egalitarian males, and that traditional females value social level more and kindness less than egalitarian females. Gender‐role egalitarianism fully mediated the effect of culture on kindness rankings, but no others. These results expand upon previous findings by accounting for individual differences regarding beliefs about traditional gender roles.

Men still value physical attractiveness in a long-term mate more than women: Rejoinder to Eastwick, Neff, Finkel, Luchies, and Hunt (2014).

Sexual selection theory and parental investment theory suggest that partner physical attractiveness should more strongly affect men's relationship outcomes than women's relationship outcomes. Nevertheless, the contextual nature of this prediction makes serious methodological demands on studies designed to evaluate it. Given these theories suggest that men value observable aspects of partner attractiveness more than women do only in the context of long-term and reproductively viable relationships, they require that studies testing this sex difference involve (a) participants in long-term relationships, (b) women of child-bearing age, and (c) measures of physical attractiveness that assess observable aspects of appearance. In our original article (Meltzer, McNulty, Jackson, & Karney, 2014), we applied 7 methodological standards that allowed us to meet these 3 criteria and demonstrated that partner physical attractiveness is more strongly associated with men's long-term relationship satisfaction than women's long-term relationship satisfaction. Eastwick, Neff, Finkel, Luchies, and Hunt (2014), in contrast, described an unfocused meta-analysis, a refocused meta-analysis, and new data that all failed to meet these criteria and, not surprisingly, failed to demonstrate such a sex difference. We continue to believe that men value physical attractiveness more than women do, that such preferences have implications for their evaluations of long-term relationships, and that studies properly calibrated to detect such differences will do so.

Sex differences in the implications of partner physical attractiveness for the trajectory of marital satisfaction.

Do men value physical attractiveness in a mate more than women? Scientists in numerous disciplines believe that they do, but recent research using speed-dating paradigms suggests that males and females are equally influenced by physical attractiveness when choosing potential mates. Nevertheless, the premise of the current work is that sex differences in the importance of physical attractiveness are most likely to emerge in research on long-term relationships. Accordingly, the current work drew from 4 independent, longitudinal studies to examine sex differences in the implications of partner physical attractiveness for trajectories of marital satisfaction. In all 4 studies, both partners' physical attractiveness was objectively rated at baseline, and both partners reported their marital satisfaction up to 8 times over the first 4 years of marriage. Whereas husbands were more satisfied at the beginning of the marriage and remained more satisfied over the next 4 years to the extent that they had an attractive wife, wives were no more or less satisfied initially or over the next 4 years to the extent that they had an attractive husband. Most importantly, a direct test indicated that partner physical attractiveness played a larger role in predicting husbands' satisfaction than predicting wives' satisfaction. These findings strengthen support for the idea that sex differences in self-reported preferences for physical attractiveness do have implications for long-term relationship outcomes.

Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection.

Although mate preference research has firmly established that men value physical attractiveness more than women do and women value social status more than men do, recent speed-dating studies have indicated mixed evidence (at best) for whether people's sex-differentiated mate preferences predict actual mate choices. According to an evolutionary, mate preference priority model (Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Li, Valentine, & Patel, 2011), the sexes are largely similar in what they ideally like, but for long-term mates, they should differ on what they most want to avoid in early selection contexts. Following this model, we conducted experiments using online messaging and modified speed-dating platforms. Results indicate that when a mating pool includes people at the low end of social status and physical attractiveness, mate choice criteria are sex-differentiated: Men, more than women, chose mates based on physical attractiveness, whereas women, more than men, chose mates based on social status. In addition, individuals who more greatly valued social status or physical attractiveness on paper valued these traits more in their actual choices. In particular, mate choices were sex-differentiated when considering long-term relationships but not short-term ones, where both sexes shunned partners with low physical attractiveness. The findings validate a large body of mate preferences research and an evolutionary perspective on mating, and they have implications for research using speed-dating and other interactive contexts.

Beauty at the Ballot Box

Why does beauty win out at the ballot box? Some researchers have posited that it occurs because people ascribe generally positive characteristics to physically attractive candidates. We propose an alternative explanation—that leadership preferences are related to functional disease-avoidance mechanisms. Because physical attractiveness is a cue to health, people concerned with disease should especially prefer physically attractive leaders. Using real-world voting data and laboratory-based experiments, we found support for this relationship. In congressional districts with elevated disease threats, physically attractive candidates are more likely to be elected (Study 1). Experimentally activating disease concerns leads people to especially value physical attractiveness in leaders (Study 2) and prefer more physically attractive political candidates (Study 3). In a final study, we demonstrated that these findings are related to leadership preferences, specifically, rather than preferences for physically attractive group members more generally (Study 4). Together, these findings highlight the nuanced and functional nature of leadership preferences.

Mate preferences in the US and Singapore: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model

Sex differences have been found in mate preferences across several decades. Especially for long-term partners, men tend to value physical attractiveness and women tend to value social status. However, the sexes both value various other traits even more highly. Such findings thus diminish the importance of the sex differences and challenge the theoretical importance that evolutionary psychologists place on physical attractiveness and social status. Using a budget allocation methodology to examine mate preferences in both the US and Singapore, we found not only the usual sex differences, but also evidence that men prioritize physical attractiveness and women prioritize social status as necessities in their long-term mates. We also found that both sexes tend to value physical attractiveness as a necessity in short-term mates. Results replicate previous budget allocation findings and provide cross-cultural validation for a mate preference priorities model.

Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?

In paradigms in which participants state their ideal romantic-partner preferences or examine vignettes and photographs, men value physical attractiveness more than women do, and women value earning prospects more than men do. Yet it remains unclear if these preferences remain sex differentiated in predicting desire for real-life potential partners (i.e., individuals whom one has actually met). In the present study, the authors explored this possibility using speed dating and longitudinal follow-up procedures. Replicating previous research, participants exhibited traditional sex differences when stating the importance of physical attractiveness and earning prospects in an ideal partner and ideal speed date. However, data revealed no sex differences in the associations between participants' romantic interest in real-life potential partners (met during and outside of speed dating) and the attractiveness and earning prospects of those partners. Furthermore, participants' ideal preferences, assessed before the speed-dating event, failed to predict what inspired their actual desire at the event. Results are discussed within the context of R. E. Nisbett and T. D. Wilson's (1977) seminal article: Even regarding such a consequential aspect of mental life as romantic-partner preferences, people may lack introspective awareness of what influences their judgments and behavior.

Why single men might abhor foreign cultures.

In contrast to cues to women's mate value (youth and physical attractiveness), many qualities that men display in lekking are socially and culturally specific. We predict that, for this reason, men avoid exposure to foreign cultures, but such xenophobia should cease once they are married (especially since the presence of their wives can function as a cross-culturally meaningful lekking device). Analyses of data from Europe and the United States confirm our predictions.

Fleeing the Body: A Terror Management Perspective on the Problem of Human Corporeality

From the perspective of terror management theory, the human body is problematic because it serves as a perpetual reminder of the inevitability of death. Human beings confront this problem through the development of cultural worldviews that imbue reality-and the body as part of that reality-with abstract symbolic meaning. This fanciful flight from death is in turn the psychological impetus for distancing from other animals and the need to regulate behaviors that remind us of our physical nature. This analysis is applied to questions concerning why people are embarrassed and disgusted by their bodies' functions; why sex is such a common source of problems, difficulties, regulations, and ritualizations; why sex tends to be associated with romantic love; and why cultures value physical attractiveness and objectify women. This article then briefly considers implications of this analysis for understanding psychological problems related to the physical body and cultural variations in the need to separate oneself from the natural world.

Jealousy as a Function of Rival Characteristics: An Evolutionary Perspective

Following from evolutionary psychology, men and women differ in the characteristics they value in a partner. Men value physical attractiveness in women because a woman's physical attractiveness is related to her fertility, whereas women value dominance in men since dominance is related to a man's ability to provide resources. As jealousy is evoked by characteristics of the rival that are believed to be important to the other sex, it was predicted that jealousy in males would be influenced by the rival's dominance, whereas jealousy in females would be influenced by the rival's physical attractiveness. In an experiment, participants were presented with a scenario in which the participants' partners were flirting with an individual of the opposite sex. Each participant then received one of four profiles of rivals for the partner's attentions consisting of a photograph (low or high in attractiveness) and a personality description (low or high in dominance). Results showed that the hypotheses were supported. In addition, the rival's dominance had a greater impact on males' jealousy if males were exposed to a physically unattractive rival compared with a physically attractive rival.