Sexual Attractiveness: Sex Differences in Assessment and Criteria

Abstract Two studies of university undergraduates used novel measures to explore sex differences and intrasexual variation in mate preferences and sexual behavior. Study 1 used photographs of models to assess the effects of sex of subject and target persons' ambition/income on judgments of dating, sexual, and marital desirability, and analyzed these effects' associations with subjects' sexual attitudes and behavior (Simpson's and Gangestad's Sociosexual Orientation Inventory [SOI]). Results were consistent with the proposed model of mate selection: for men, potential partners' physical attributes establish a pool of coitally acceptable partners, some of whom may merit long-term investment. When women choose partners, nonphysical characteristics such as ambition, status, and dominance establish a pool of partners who are potentially acceptable for sexual relations and higher-investment relationships. Target persons' ambition/income strongly affected women's, but not men's, reported willingness to date and have sex with target persons, and the effects on women were not associated with their SOI scores. Study 2 used photographs of models in bathing suits to explore sex differences in the capacity to determine coital acceptability by means of a visual scan, what types of information men and women need in addition to a visual scan in order to determine coital acceptability, and whether these variables are associated with subjects' SOI scores. Results were consistent with the hypotheses. Women with high SOI scores require fewer signs of male willingness to invest in order to engage in sexual relations than do women with low scores. Nevertheless, the two groups have essentially the same perceptual filters and criteria in mate selection, and these differ dramatically from those of men. A "tradeoff-threshold" model of mate evaluation is described, and its compatibility with Singh's models is discussed.

[1]  D. Buss,et al.  Sexual strategies theory , 1998 .

[2]  J. Townsend,et al.  Mate selection criteria. A pilot study , 1989 .

[3]  N. Malamuth,et al.  Personality and sexuality , 1984 .

[4]  J. Weinrich The periodic table model of the gender transpositions: Part II. Limerent and lusty sexual attractions and the nature of bisexuality. , 1988, Journal of sex research.

[5]  E. Hill,et al.  Physical attractiveness: Manipulation by physique and status displays , 1987 .

[6]  D. Buss,et al.  Tactics for promoting sexual encounters , 1994 .

[7]  R. Bixler Diversity: A historical/comparative perspective , 1989, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[8]  M. Wiederman,et al.  Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation?☆ , 1992 .

[9]  William G. Graziano,et al.  Social influence, sex differences, and judgments of beauty: Putting the interpersonal back in interpersonal attraction. , 1993 .

[10]  S. Morse,et al.  The “eye of the beholder”: A neglected variable in the study of physical attractiveness?1 , 1976 .

[11]  R. Thornhill,et al.  The evolution of human sexuality. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[12]  D. Kenrick,et al.  Time to integrate sociobiology and social psychology , 1989, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[13]  D. Kenrick,et al.  Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies , 1992, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[14]  R. D. Clark The Impact of AIDS on Gender Differences in Willingness to Engage in Casual Sex , 1990 .

[15]  J. Townsend,et al.  Sexuality and partner selection: Sex differences among college students , 1993 .

[16]  J. Townsend Measuring the magnitude of sex differences , 1992, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[17]  J. Townsend,et al.  Sex differences in sexuality among medical students: Effects of increasing socioeconomic status , 1987, Archives of sexual behavior.

[18]  L. Roberts,et al.  Gender difference in mate preference among law students: divergence and convergence of criteria. , 1993, The Journal of psychology.

[19]  William G. Cochran,et al.  Experimental Designs, 2nd Edition , 1950 .

[20]  Ivan D Chase A COMPARISON OF MEN'S AND WOMEN'S INTERGENERATIONAL MOBILITY IN THE UNITED STATES* , 1975 .

[21]  J. Donovan,et al.  The effects of sex and sexual orientation on attractiveness judgments: An evolutionary interpretation , 1992 .

[22]  J. Udry,et al.  Dominant looking male teenagers copulate earlier , 1994 .

[23]  D. Buss,et al.  Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. , 1993, Psychological review.

[24]  Randy Thornhill,et al.  Human facial beauty , 1993, Human nature.

[25]  E K Sadalla,et al.  Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: qualifying the parental investment model. , 1990, Journal of personality.

[26]  J. Townsend What Women Want--What Men Want: Why the Sexes Still See Love and Commitment So Differently , 1998 .

[27]  J. Townsend,et al.  Low-investment copulation: Sex differences in motivations and emotional reactions , 1995 .

[28]  E. Hatfield,et al.  PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Mate Selection Preferences : Gender Differences Examined in a National Sample , 2004 .

[29]  J. Townsend Sex without emotional involvement: An evolutionary interpretation of sex differences , 1995, Archives of sexual behavior.

[30]  J. Simpson,et al.  Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. , 1990, Journal of personality.

[31]  D. Perusse Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: Testing the relationship at the proximate and ultimate levels , 1993 .

[32]  D. Buss Individual differences in mating strategies , 1994, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[33]  N. W. Thornhill Characteristics of female desirability: Facultative standards of beauty , 1989, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[34]  Gary D. Levy,et al.  Effects of Potential Partners' Costume and Physical Attractiveness on Sexuality and Partner Selection , 1990 .

[35]  D. Buss,et al.  Preferences in human mate selection. , 1986 .

[36]  J. Townsend,et al.  Effects of potential partners' physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection , 1990, Archives of sexual behavior.

[37]  J. Townsend,et al.  The Perception of Sexual Attractiveness: Sex Differences in Variability , 1997, Archives of sexual behavior.

[38]  S. Gaulin,et al.  Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[39]  J. Udry,et al.  Benefits of Being Attractive: Differential Payoffs for Men and Women , 1984 .

[40]  D. Kenrick,et al.  Gender and sexual orientation: Why the different age preferences? , 1994, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[41]  J. Simpson,et al.  Sociosexuality and Romantic Partner Choice , 1992 .

[42]  G. Elder Appearance and education in marriage mobility. , 1969, American sociological review.

[43]  J. Simpson,et al.  Individual differences in sociosexuality: evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[44]  B. Ellis,et al.  Sex Differences in Sexual Fantasy: an Evolutionary Psychological Approach , 1990 .

[45]  D. Singh,et al.  Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. , 1993, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[46]  D. Buss,et al.  Conflict between the sexes: strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[47]  Susan Sprecher,et al.  The importance to males and females of physical attractiveness, earning potential, and expressiveness in initial attraction , 1989 .

[48]  R. Knoth,et al.  Empirical tests of sexual selection theory: Predictions of sex differences in onset, intensity, and time course of sexual arousal. , 1988, Journal of sex research.

[49]  N. Waller Individual differences in age preferences in mates , 1994, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[50]  B. Ellis,et al.  The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mechanisms in women. , 1992 .

[51]  D. Singh,et al.  Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: role of waist-to-hip ratio and financial status. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[52]  D. Buss,et al.  Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures , 1989, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[53]  J. Simpson,et al.  Individual Differences in Sociosexuality , 1991 .

[54]  J. Simpson,et al.  Personality and Sexuality: Empirical Relations and an Integrative Theoretical Model , 1991 .