Mating Decisions in the Absence of Physical Attraction

Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology - 2021
Kaitlyn P. White1, Peter K. Jonason2,3, Laith Al-Shawaf1
1Psychology Department, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA
2Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
3Institute of Psychology, University of Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński, Warsaw, Poland

Tóm tắt

Abstract Objective Mates high in physical attractiveness are in short supply, which means that not all people are able to find mates who are sufficiently attractive. Threshold models of mate preferences suggest that when physical attractiveness minimums are not reached, other traits possessed by a potential partner may play a lesser role in mate choice. However, few studies have sought to understand mating decisions when those minimums are not met. Methods In this experiment (N = 186), participants rated images of (pre-rated) unattractive opposite-sex others for long-term and short-term relationships after learning dealbreaker or dealmaker information. Results While participants did not find targets highly desirable or physically attractive (as a stimulus check), men were more willing than women to have casual sex, and that men and women reported similar desirability ratings towards long-term partners. Learning dealbreakers was associated with less desire for the targets than dealmakers, but women’s lack of interest was insensitive to mating context, whereas men found the target especially undesirable in the long-term context. Additionally, men were willing to consider a long-term relationship with a physically unattractive partner who possessed dealmakers, but not one who possessed dealbreakers. Conclusions Our discussion focuses on men and women’s mating decisions when potential partners fail to meet minimum thresholds for physical attractiveness. Future research is needed to explore the magnitude of the effect of meeting or failing to meet one’s minimum thresholds for physical attractiveness.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Al-Shawaf, L., Lewis, D. M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Disgust and mating strategy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36, 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.11.003.

Al-Shawaf, L., Lewis, D. M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2017). Sex differences in disgust: why are women more easily disgusted than men? Emotion Review, 10, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917709940.

Al-Shawaf, L., Lewis, D. M. G., Ghossainy, M. E., & Buss, D. M. (2018). Experimentally inducing disgust reduces desire for short-term mating. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5, 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0179-z.

Apostolou, M. (2017). Why people stay single: an evolutionary perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.034.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992.

Buss, D. M. (2016). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books. ISBN: 0-465-07750-1.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-0283-5.

Confer, J. C., Perilloux, C., & Buss, D. M. (2010). More than just a pretty face: men’s priority shifts towards bodily attractiveness in short-term versus long-term mating contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 348–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.04.002.

Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 75–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/20447306.

Gladue, B. A., & Delaney, H. J. (1990). Gender differences in perception of attractiveness of men and women in bars. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167290162017.

Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: a new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.1.81.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.

Jonason, P. K., & Antoon, C. N. (2019). Mate preferences for educated partners: similarities and differences in the sexes depend on mating context. Personality and Individual Differences, 148, 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.036.

Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Madson, L. (2012a). It’s not all about the Benjamins: understanding preferences for mates with resources. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 306–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.032.

Jonason, P. K., Raulston, T., & Rotolo, A. (2012b). More than just a pretty face and a hot body: multiple cues in mate-choice. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152, 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2011.586654.

Jonason, P. K., Garcia, J. R., Webster, G. D., Li, N. P., & Fisher, H. E. (2015). Relationship dealbreakers: what individuals do not want in a mate. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 41, 1697–1711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215609064.

Jonason, P. K., Marsh, K., Dib, O., Plush, D., Doszpot, M., Fung, E., Crimmins, K., Drapski, M., & Di Pietro, K. (2019). Is smart sexy?: examining the role of relative intelligence in mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.009.

Jonason, P. K., Betes, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2020a). Solving mate shortages: lowering standards, traveling farther, and abstaining. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 14, 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000174.

Jonason, P. K., White, K. P., & Al-Shawaf, L. (2020b). Should I stay or should I go: individual differences in response to romantic dealmakers and dealbreakers. Personality and Individual Differences, 164, 110120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110120.

Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x.

Lewis, D. M. G., Al-Shawaf, L., Russell, E. M., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Friends and happiness: An evolutionary perspective on friendship. In M. Demir (ed.), Friendship and happiness (pp. 37–57). Springer. ISBN: 978-94-017-9603-3.

Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: what, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468.

Li, N. P., & Meltzer, A. L. (2015). The validity of sex-differentiated mate preferences: reconciling the seemingly conflicting evidence. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9, 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000036.

Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.947.

Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 366, 1638–1659. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0404.

Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The Chicago Face Database: a free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1122–1135. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0532-5.

Mehu, M., Little, A. C., & Dunbar, R. (2008). Sex differences in the effect of smiling on social judgments: an evolutionary approach. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2, 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099351.

Morrison, E. R., Morris, P. H., & Bard, K. A. (2013). The stability of facial attractiveness: is it what you’ve got or what you do with it? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 37, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-013-0145-1.

O’Keefe, D. J. (2007). Post hoc power, observed power, a priori power, retrospective power, prospective power, achieved power: sorting out appropriate uses of statistical power analyses. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450701641375.

Penton-Voak, I. S., & Chang, H. Y. (2008). Attractiveness judgements of individuals vary across emotional expression and movement conditions. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.2008.1011.

Perilloux, C. (2014). (Mis)reading the signs: Men’s perception of women’s sexual interest. In V. Weekes-Shackelford & T. K. Shackelford (eds) Evolutionary perspectives on human sexual psychology and behavior (pp. 119–133). New York: Springer. ISBN: 978-1-4939-0313-9.

Regan, P. C. (1998a). What if you can’t get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1294–1303. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982412004.

Regan, P. C. (1998b). Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value, relationship context, and gender. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 10, 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1300/J056v10n01_04.

Rhodes, G., Lee, K., Palermo, R., Weiss, M., Yoshikawa, S., Clissa, P., Williams, T., Peters, M., Winkler, C., & Jeffery, L. (2005). Attractiveness of own-race, other-race, and mixed-race faces. Perception, 34, 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5191.

Stewart-Williams, S., Butler, C. A., & Thomas, A. G. (2017). Sexual history and present attractiveness: people want a mate with a bit of a past, but not too much. The Journal of Sex Research, 54, 1097–1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1232690.

Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter. ISBN: 978-0202308456.

van den Berghe, P. L., & Frost, P. (1986). Skin color preference, sexual dimorphism, and sexual selection: a case of gene culture co-evolution? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 9, 87–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1986.9993516.

Webster, G. D., Smith, C. V., Orozco, T., Jonason, P. K., Gesselman, A. N., & Greenspan, R. L. (2020). Missed connections and embarrassing confessions: using big data to examine sex differences in sexual omission and commission regret. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000199.

Zentner, M., & Eagly, A. H. (2015). A sociocultural framework for understanding partner preferences of women and men: integration of concepts and evidence. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 328–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1111599.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology

Thông tin tác giả