by: adam weseloh
According to Stewart-William and Thomas (2013), there are evolutionary reasons why there are gender differences between males and females. They note females physiologically have more of a time investment in reproduction than males do. There is a discrepancy between the biological time commitment females experience (at least 9 months) and males have a time commitment of maybe just a few minutes. The evolutionary perspective guides gender differences in what characteristics the genders view as desirable characteristics.
Women tend to prefer men who have resources (Fiske, 2014). These resources could be financial. From an evolutionary psychology prospective, a woman would want a man who has the ability to support a family. Men value attractiveness in woman more so than vice versa. (Fiske, 2014). From an evolutionary prospective, attractiveness is a sign of fertility. From the same prospective, the more attractive you are the more likely you will have many children because attractiveness can be seen as a sign of physical health.
Attractive characteristics in men are often seen during the mate selection process. Human females choose those males whose good genes shine through in their competitive prowess (Stewart-Williams & Thomas, 2013). Status is valued more in men than in woman as is a sense of humor (Fiske, 2014; Morse, Gruzen, & Reis, 1976). From an evolutionary prospective, men prefer woman who have a longer reproductive life span ahead of them and men who have resources gathered from age (Fiske, 2014).
Situational Factors
Excitation transfer theory states that residual excitement from a previous arousing stimulus or situation can serve to intensify emotional states after experiencing an arousing state (Meston & Frohlich, 2003). The researchers used a roller coaster to induce a level of excitation in participants. Dopamine levels in the brain are higher after experiencing this excitation. As excitation and Dopamine levels increased the subjects view of physical attractiveness rating of others increased (Meston & Frohlich, 2003). In this study participants rated a photographed individual’s level of attractiveness when entering a roller coasters and also when they got off the roller coaster. In the study, the individual’s level of attractiveness was found to be higher when participants were getting off of the roller coaster as compared to getting on. The research demonstrated how situational factors can have an impact on an individual’s level of attractiveness. It is also important to acknowledge the physiological factors that contributed to this as well. The nervous system also becomes aroused while on the roller coaster. This could be seen as a combination of situational/social factors and physiological factors.
Situational factors were also seen in the so called “cheerleader effect”. One study found, people tended to selectively attend to the most attractive members of a group and their attractiveness has a greater influence on other members of the group (Osch, Blanken, Meijs, & Wolferen, 2015). The perceived physical attractiveness of other members of the group are increased in the “cheerleader effect” and even if the other cheerleaders may not be as physically attractive.
Individual Choice
A speed dating paradigm is often used to determine how individual preferences have on the choice of date (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008 Li et. al., 2013). In Eastwick and Finkel (2008) researchers attempted to determine if the factors participants said attracted them were indicative of who they actually chose during speed dating. Pre-stated preferences were not found to be predictive who they ended up choosing. When the stated preferences failed to predict the outcome with something as important as romantic-partner preferences, it maybe people may lack an awareness of what influences their judgments and behaviors (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008).
Conclusion: How much is it Biology, Situational Factors, or Individual Choice?
It would appear all three factors play at least some role in determining how we feel about an individual’s level of attractiveness. Biology and specifically evolutionary psychology provide us with the best explanation for why we become attracted to a certain person. Evolutionary psychologists have shown gender difference in mate selection play a role in our prefers for what type of mate we desire. This is not to discount the role of situational and social factors. Situational factors such as the “cheerleader effect” were shown to have an influence on our judgement as well. Individual choice or preferences was shown to not have a big of impact on romantic-partner preferences. It was shown we are not always aware of what influences our judgement and behaviors. Therefore, we are likely being influenced by something other than individual preferences such as our physiology or situational factors.
Word Cited
- Eastwick, P.W., Finkel, E.J. (2008) Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245-264.
- Fiske, S. T. (2014). Social Beings. Danvers, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
- Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Sng, O., Fletcher, G. O., Valentine, K. A., & Balliet, D. (2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(5), 757-776. doi:10.1037/a0033777
- Meston, C. M., & Frohlich, P. F. (2003). Love at first fright: Partner salience moderates roller-coaster-induced excitation transfer. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(6), 537-544.
- Morse, S. J., Gruzen, J., & Reis, H. (1976). The "eye of the beholder": A neglected variable in the study of physical attractiveness? Journal of Personality, 209-225.
- Osch, Y. v., Blanken, I., Meijs, M. H., & Wolferen, J. v. (2015). A group's physical attractiveness is greater than the average attractiveness of its members: The group attractiveness effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(4), 559-574. doi:10.1177/0146167215572799
- Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 557-570. doi:10.1037/a0022885
- Stewart-Williams, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2013). The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate human sex differences? Psychological Iquiry, 24, 137-168. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2013.804899