In 2010, the CNN correspondent and blogger Jack Cafferty posed the following question “What does it mean that despite the worst recession since the Great Depression, Americans spent more than $10 billion on cosmetic procedures last year?” Although many Americans worried about health care costs, employment, and the like, they still managed to spend what money they had on tucking their tummies, enlarging their breasts, and chiseling their cheekbones—in short, making themselves appear more physically attractive. In fact, Americans collectively spent the same amount that some economists estimate it would cost to provide universal schooling. So to answer Cafferty’s question: Clearly, physical attractiveness is important to people.

But just how important is physical attractiveness to liking someone? Is it important enough to influence who we decide to put in charge of leading our country? Todorov and colleagues (2005) showed students photographs of two of the major political candidates from each of 95 different Senate races and 600 different races for the House of Representatives in the United States. Simply by viewing these candidates’ pictures and judging their physical attractiveness, students correctly guessed the winner of each contest in 72% of the Senate and 67% of the House races.

If physical attractiveness can have such a potent influence on political decisions, just imagine how important it is for our interpersonal decisions. As you probably would guess, people who are more physically attractive are also more popular and date more frequently (Berscheid et al., 1971; Reis et al., 1980). But is physical attractiveness more important than other factors in determining whether a relationship gets off the ground? The short answer, at least in terms of the spark that gets the relationship going, is yes. For most people heading off to a blind date, the physical attractiveness of their partner is going to be the most important factor influencing whether they want to have a second date. Although as we will see later in our discussion, after we meet and get to know another person, attractiveness matters less for sustaining our interest over time.

Why Is Physical Attractiveness Important?

Physical attractiveness is important for a variety of reasons. Seen from the perspective of the reward model, it obviously contributes to sexual appeal. But sex aside, it also simply may be more pleasant to look at attractive (rather than unattractive) babies, kids, and adults. In fact, even infants gaze more at attractive adult faces (Langlois et al., 1990). Physical appearance is also typically the first attribute we come to know about a person. It takes much less time to assess someone’s looks than his or her honesty, intelligence, and other qualities; some evidence suggests it takes as little as 0.15 seconds (Zajonc, 1998). So when you meet someone, the very first impression you form will be based on his or her looks.

521

Physical attractiveness also may be important in many cultures because the hotter the person we’re with, the more we can BIRG (bask in their reflected glory). Consider a study by Sigall and Landy from 1973. As a participant in this study, you show up at the lab and find two other people in the waiting room. These two people are actually confederates. One is an average-looking guy, and the other is a naturally good-looking woman. For half of the participants, her appearance accentuates her attractiveness. She wears makeup and is tastefully dressed. But for the other half of the participants, she wears an unflattering wig, no makeup, and unbecoming clothes to mask her attractiveness. After a few minutes, an experimenter enters and asks the other people if they are here for a study on perception. Half the time the woman holds the man’s hand and says, “No, I’m just waiting with my boyfriend.” This leads you to infer that she is in a relationship with the man. The other half of the time she does not hold the other confederate’s hand and replies, “No, I’m just waiting for Dr. X.” Subsequently both you (the participant) and the man are led to different rooms, and under the pretext of a person-perception study, you’re asked to give your impressions of him.

What did the researchers find? As you can see in FIGURE 14.1, participants formed more positive impressions of the man when he was the boyfriend of the attractive woman (the condition labeled Associated) than when he was unassociated with the attractive woman. They formed the least positive impressions when he was the boyfriend of the unattractive woman. This shows how our impressions of people are influenced by the attractiveness of those with whom they are associated. When we date attractive people, other people see us more positively than if we dated unattractive people. What is more, people anticipate that an attractive partner can have this effect! In a second study, Sigall and Landy (1973) created a similar scenario, but asked male participants to pretend to be either the boyfriend of an attractive or unattractive confederate and then to guess how other people would rate him. Sure enough, guys thought they would be evaluated more positively when they were seen as having a relationship with an attractive woman. So part of the reason we like to be with attractive people is that we know that this will lead others to think better of us.

The Physical Attractiveness Stereotype, AKA the Halo Effect

Another reason we might care about someone’s attractiveness is that we assume it will mean that they have other positive characteristics. Despite the cultural maxims to “never judge a book by its cover” or that “beauty is only skin deep,” in Western cultures people see beautiful people (compared with those of average attractiveness) as happier, warmer, more dominant, mature, mentally healthy, and more outgoing, intelligent, sensitive, confident, and successful—though not more honest, concerned for others, or modest (e.g., Eagly et al., 1991; Feingold, 1992b; Langlois et al., 2000). This tendency to see attractive people as having positive traits, to see beautiful as good in a global sense, is referred to as a physical attractiveness stereotype, or halo effect (Dion et al., 1972). The effects of a physical attractiveness stereotype have been shown in a number of studies, many of which simply asked people to judge others, or work attributed to them, on the basis of only a photograph (Anderson & Nida, 1978; Cash & Trimer, 1984). For example, people evaluated an essay supposedly written by an attractive person more positively than that very same essay when it was supposedly written by an unattractive person (Landy & Sigall, 1974).

522

Lest you be tempted to think that folks simply judge more positively those people with whom they want to hook up, note that halo effects occur throughout the life span in many contexts in which sexual arousal or interest is not involved. In one alarming study, cuter premature infants were treated better in hospitals and consequently fared better than their less cute fellow preemies (Badr & Abdallah, 2001). Young children show preferences for other attractive children (Dion & Berscheid, 1974). Attractive babies get more attention from parents and staff even before leaving the hospital (Langlois et al., 1995). Halo effects continue to occur in nursery school, with attractive children being more popular (Dion, 1973). But maybe it weakens by the time children get to elementary school? No—attractiveness biases occur there as well. Clifford and Walster (1973), for example, gave fifth-grade teachers identical information about a boy or a girl but manipulated whether the information was paired with an attractive or unattractive photograph. When asked how intelligent the student was and how successful the student was likely to be in school, teachers saw the attractive child as both more intelligent and more likely to be successful.

In some ways, though, at least with predicted success, the teachers may not have been entirely inaccurate. The benefits of physical attractiveness continue into adulthood, with implications for several positive outcomes. For example, for each point increase on a 1 (homely) to 5 (strikingly attractive) scale of attractiveness, people are likely to earn an average of about $2,000 more a year (Frieze et al., 1991; Roszell et al., 1989). Other life domains are affected as well. For instance, attractive defendants are less likely than unattractive defendants to be found guilty when accused of a crime (Efran, 1974), and when they are found guilty, they are given lighter sentences (Stewart, 1980). This bias in the legal domain is strongest in jurors who rely on their emotions and gut-level reactions in their decision making (Gunnell & Ceci, 2010).

These kinds of outcomes raise important questions about whether or not there is truth to the stereotype. The answer is somewhat complex. Attractive people are generally more outgoing, popular, and socially skilled (Feingold, 1992b; Langlois et al., 2000), but they are not higher in self-esteem, life satisfaction, mental health, sensitivity, or intelligence (Diener et al., 1995; Feingold, 1992b; Sparacino & Hansell, 1979; Major et al., 1984).

Given how favorably people react to those who are highly attractive, it’s a bit surprising that physical attractiveness is not more of a psychological boon than it actually is. Research suggests two reasons the benefits are limited. First, it turns out that people are often mistaken in their perceptions of how physically attractive other people think they are (Feingold, 1992b). So some people think they are less physically attractive than they really are. Second, no one wants to be valued only because of their looks or any other single characteristic. Highly attractive people may sometimes wonder if that’s the only reason people compliment them or care for them (Major et al., 1984).

Nevertheless, although the stereotype paints a much more positive picture than the reality, it does have some validity in the domain of social skills. For example, when researchers conduct phone interviews with attractive versus unattractive people, more attractive people are rated by interviewers (who don’t know what they look like) as more likable and socially skilled (Goldman & Lewis, 1977).

But then the next important question to ask is why? Is it because more attractive people are in fact naturally more socially skilled? Or might it have something to do with the way they have been treated throughout their lives? Take a moment and think back to our discussion in chapter 3 of self-fulfilling prophecies and how they might operate in this context. When we see an attractive person, we assume all kinds of good things and become motivated to impress him. As a consequence, we are likely to be more pleasant and charming with him. Because we treat him in a more accepting and encouraging manner, he is likely to respond in kind. In the television show 30 Rock, the TV writer Liz Lemon (Tina Fey) begins dating a super handsome man (played by John Hamm) and is awed and dismayed at the special treatment he receives (Fey & Brock, 2009):

523

Liz (telling her boss, Jack, about her new boyfriend): He’s a doctor who doesn’t know the Heimlich maneuver. He can’t play tennis. He can’t cook. He’s as bad at sex as I am. But he has no idea!

Jack: That is the danger of being super handsome. When you are in the bubble, no one tells you the truth.

So do beautiful people really get special treatment that then makes them more socially skilled? Snyder and colleagues (1977) set up a study to test this idea. They had a male and female participant show up (separately) to their lab and escorted them to separate cubicles such that they never saw each other. The male participant was told to interview the female through a microphone setup, and their conversation was recorded. In a critical step, before the interview, the male participant was given some information about the participant, including a photograph. The photograph either depicted a very attractive or a rather unattractive woman. Thus, the male participant thought he knew what the person he was talking to looked like, but in actuality, the photograph was of a different person. Later, independent judges who did not know what the study was about rated the female participants on various characteristics only on the basis of listening to the tape-recorded interview. What do you think happened?

When the male participant thought he was talking to an attractive woman, the independent judges actually rated her more positively (e.g., friendlier and more open). Thinking that he was talking to an attractive woman, the male participant was more pleasant, and elicited pleasantness in return. This effect occurred when women conversed with men they thought were attractive or unattractive (Andersen & Bem, 1981). Indeed, meta-analyses have found that people are equally positive in their treatment of attractive men and women (Eagly et al., 1991; Feingold, 1992b; Langlois et al., 2000).

Where does this stereotype come from? Partly it comes from our own motivations. We generally want to bond with attractive people, so on seeing them—whether in photographs, as romantic partners, or as friends—we very quickly make a judgment of desirability (Lemay et al., 2010). We then project onto them other positive characteristics that fit this judgment. But as we noted earlier, these halo effects occur even when we are judging young children. Thus, such motivations for bonding are likely only part of the story.

Overwhelmingly the good princess is beautiful and the hero handsome, whereas the evil witch and villain are ugly. When Anakin Skywalker chooses the dark side of the force, his good looks are masked in robotic, menacing armor. From Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Princess Leia (and their accompanying saviors) to stepsisters, wicked witches (with crooked noses complete with bulging warts), and Darth Vader, all of them convey pretty consistent messages.

524

Supporting this cultural media explanation, Smith and colleagues (1999) found that in popular Hollywood movies, there was a positive correlation between how physically attractive the main character was and how virtuous and successful the character was in the film. In a second study, they showed college students a film reinforcing the beautiful-is-good stereotype. Subsequently, the students were asked to give their impression of two people they thought were applicants to graduate school. They thought more highly of the physically attractive applicant than the less attractive applicant, even though the two applicants had similar academic credentials.

If the physical attractiveness stereotype is at least partly a product of our culture, then we should expect it to vary along cultural lines. And to a certain extent it does. People tend to associate beauty with those traits that their culture generally defines as positive and valuable. So in the United States and other Western cultures, this means seeing beautiful people as friendly, independent, and assertive. But when researchers gave Korean students pictures of attractive Koreans, they did not see them as having characteristics such as potency, which Americans value (Wheeler & Kim, 1997). Rather, Korean students judged attractive Koreans as being more honest and concerned for others, precisely the traits that are valued in that culture and less so than in the United States.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” This popular saying suggests that people have very different notions of who is physically attractive. There are indeed important differences among individuals, cultures, and historical periods in assessments of what is attractive (Darwin, 1872; Landau, 1989; Newman, 2000; Wiggins et al., 1968). In recent years, teenage Twilight film fans have debated the merits of Jacob versus Edward. Magazines such as People and Maxim have yearly issues on the most attractive celebrity men and women; the rankings change substantially from year to year. People’s tastes in food, music, and clothes vary; surely their tastes in whom they find attractive also vary, both within and across cultures.

But research shows that people actually agree about who is (and isn’t) physically attractive much more than they disagree (Langlois et al., 2000; Marcus & Miller, 2003). Within and across cultures, the consensus as to who is and who is not attractive is generally strong. For example, when Latino, Asian, Black, and White men rated the attractiveness of different women in pictures, there was some variability in preferred body shape, but in general, the correlations across the groups exceeded 0.90 (Cunningham et al., 1995). This indicates strong agreement in perceptions of who is hot and who is not. What’s more, newborn infants—too young to be aware of their culture’s local beauty standards—prefer to gaze longer at the faces that adults find attractive than at those adults find unattractive (Langlois et al., 1987; Langlois et al., 1991; Slater et al., 2000). But what exactly makes those faces so lovely?

The Averageness Effect

Beautiful faces seem to stand out from the crowd, so we might infer that attractive faces have unique features. Think again. To be attractive is actually to have quite average facial features. Researchers studying attraction have used computerimaging software to superimpose images of faces on top of each other, thus creating composite faces that represent the digital “average” of the individual faces (see FIGURE 14.2).

525

Both men and women rate these composite faces as more attractive than nearly all of the individual faces that make them up, leading to what is known as the averageness effect (Langlois & Roggman, 1990; Rubenstein et al., 2002). And the more faces that are combined to create a composite face, the more attractive that face is perceived to be. However, it’s also the case that composites of sets of faces that are attractive to begin with are viewed as more attractive than composites of nonselective samples of faces.

Do these averaging effects mean that to be attractive is to have bland, ordinary looks? Not at all. These composite faces are actually quite unusual (that’s why we put “average” in quotes): They are mean composites, not modal or common faces. Their features are all proportional to one another; no nose is remarkably big or small; no cheeks are puffy or sunken. In short, nothing about these composite faces is exaggerated, underdeveloped, or odd.

Symmetry

Another feature of faces that both men and women find attractive is bilateral symmetry (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1993). Symmetry occurs when the two sides of the face are mirror images of one another (FIGURE 14.3). You might think that you have a symmetrical face; after all, you probably have one eye on the right side of your face and another eye on the left. Yes, but look closer (perhaps with the help of a computer, as researchers have done) and you will find numerous asymmetries: Your eyes are slightly different in shape, size, and position on your face, your cheekbones are at slightly different angles, and, if you are like the current author, one of your nostrils has a bigger circumference than the other. All things being equal, the more symmetrical a face, the more people find it attractive.

It is interesting to note that symmetry and “averageness” each make a unique contribution to facial beauty. Composite faces made by the digital averaging process we just mentioned tend to be more symmetrical than the individual faces making them up (Rhodes, 2006). This is to be expected: When you combine faces, each face’s unique asymmetries become less noticeable. But facial symmetry is attractive in its own right, whether or not a face is “average” (Fink et al., 2006). Among symmetrical faces, those that average together the features of many individual faces are seen as the most attractive (Rhodes et al., 1999).

The preference for “average” and symmetrical faces is universal. Men and women from all over the world—in the United States, China, Nigeria, India, and Japan—agree that “average,” symmetrical faces are more attractive than faces with exaggerated features or asymmetries (Rhodes et al., 2002). Why do we see widespread agreement that these features are attractive?

Why Are “Average,” Symmetrical Faces Attractive?

One influential answer comes from evolutionary psychology. It seems plausible that a big challenge to successful reproduction was—and continues to be—finding a healthy person to mate with. Because diseases and developmental disorders can be passed on genetically, our ancestors who mated with healthy partners were more likely to have healthy offspring, who themselves went on to reproduce, than were those who mated with unhealthy partners.

But how can we tell whether or not a potential mate is in good health? One indicator may be facial features. When people are developing in utero (in the womb) before birth, their genes are normally set up to create a symmetrical face and body, with no skeletal feature badly out of proportion. Yet if they are exposed to pathogens, parasites, or viruses during development, the result can be irregular and asymmetric features of the face and body. For example, the more infectious diseases experienced by a mother during pregnancy, the more likely her infant is to show departures from perfect facial and bodily symmetry (Livshits & Kobyliansky, 1991).

526

Indeed, some research shows that men and women with more symmetrical faces are healthier than are people whose faces have odd proportions. For example, studies have found that symmetrical-faced individuals tend to have fewer respiratory and intestinal infections than less symmetrical individuals (Thornhill & Gangestad, 2006) and have higher potential fertility (Jasienska et al., 2006; Soler et al., 2003).

Although this evolutionary perspective on the allure of averageness and symmetry has some appeal, another explanation is that more average-appearing and symmetrical faces simply seem more familiar and are thus easier for us to process as faces. Research has not always supported the idea that facial averageness and symmetry are indicators of physical health (e.g., Kalick et al., 1998; Rhodes et al., 2001). But other evidence shows that people like faces more to the extent that they look like very familiar faces—their own (Little & Perrett, 2002)! Also spouses, siblings, and close friends, who tend to stay near each other, agree more in their ratings of facial attractiveness than pairs of strangers do (Bronstad & Russell, 2007). Such evidence has led some researchers to argue that the preference for averageness may be a byproduct of liking for familiarity and stimuli that are easily processed rather than the legacy of an evolved mechanism to read these cues as signals of health.

527

Now you might wonder if there are differences in what men and women find attractive. Research into such differences covers two distinct questions. One is whether men and women differ in the kinds of physical attributes they think make a person physically attractive. The second, somewhat related question is whether men place more importance on physical attractiveness and whether women prioritize signs of social status.

We preface this section by acknowledging a few points. One is that research on this question can sometime be controversial, invoking a common nature versus nurture debate that we’ll return to later. The second is that any evidence of mean differences between men’s and women’s preferences does not preclude the possibility of a wide range of individual variation within each sex, which we will also discuss. Finally, it’s also worth acknowledging that most of the research in this area has focused on attraction to members of the opposite sex, but we will also highlight the emerging interest in studying patterns of attraction among same-sex couples. This topic is the focus of the Social Psych out in the World section.

528

What Attributes Do Men and Women Find Attractive?

Although both men and women prefer “average” and symmetrical faces, heterosexual men and women differ somewhat in the physical features they find attractive in someone of the opposite sex. Here an evolutionary perspective might shed some light. Over the course of evolutionary history, men and women both were motivated to reproduce, but they faced different reproductive challenges. As a result, men and women evolved to have different, specialized preferences in their mates that favor the conception, birth, and survival of their offspring (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Geary, 2010; Trivers, 1972). Let’s look at the features that men and women each consider attractive in a potential mate, and then think back to our deep evolutionary past to see why evolution may have favored different preferences in men and women.

For Men, Signs of Fertility

The psychologist David Buss (1989) asked thousands of men and women in 37 cultures what they found attractive in a romantic partner. Across these cultures, men and women judged the attractiveness of the opposite sex on the basis of many common attributes. Both men and women gave their highest rating—and equally high ratings—to kindness, dependability, a good sense of humor, and a pleasant disposition. But women and men differ in some ways as well. One gender difference concerned preferred age. Across many cultures, men universally prefer their sexual partners to be younger than themselves. It is no surprise that men report a preference for female features that signal a potential mate’s youth. For example, men like facial features that resemble to some extent those of a baby: large eyes, a small nose, a small chin, and full lips (Jones, 1995). But, in fact, men are most attracted to women whose “baby-faced” features are combined with features that signal maturity, such as prominent cheekbones and a broad smile (Cunningham et al., 2002).

How can we account for these universal patterns in the preferences men report? An evolutionary perspective suggests that the challenge men face when attempting to reproduce is finding a mate who is fertile—put simply, capable of producing offspring. But how can men deduce a potential mate’s fertility level? One useful clue is a woman’s age. Women are not fertile until puberty, and their fertility ends after they reach menopause around age 50. As our species evolved, men who were attracted to features of women’s faces and bodies that signal that they are young (but not too young) were more likely to find a fertile mate and successfully reproduce. Those attracted to women with other features were less successful in populating the gene pool. As a result, those preferences may be built into modern men’s genetic inheritance (Buss, 2003).

Another physical feature linked to fertility in women is waist-to-hip ratio (FIGURE 14.4). If you measure the circumference of your waist at its narrowest point, and divide that by the circumference of your hips at your broadest point (including your butt), the number you get is your waist-to-hip ratio. Men are most attracted to women’s bodies with a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7—a very curvy “hourglass” figure in which the waist is 30% narrower than the hips (Furnham et al., 2005; Singh, 1993).

Interestingly, even though men in different cultures and historical periods are attracted to varying levels of plumpness, they all agree on the appeal of a 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio. For example, in the United States, Black men prefer women with heavier physiques than do White men, and yet both Black and White men prefer the same curvaceous 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio (Singh & Luis, 1995). Similarly, a quick glance at Renaissance paintings or the pinup girls popular in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s reveals that women considered to be consummately sexy during those periods in history look rather voluptuous by today’s standards (Pettijohn & Jungeberg, 2004; Silverstein et al., 1986; Wiseman et al., 1992). Yet all those women who were considered attractive have the same curvaceous 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio. For example, even though there are clear differences in the body masses of Marilyn Monroe and Jessica Alba, two women deemed by their respective times to be very attractive, they share similar waist-to-hip ratios (0.63 for Marilyn and 0.7 for Jessica).

529

A person’s waist-to-hip ratio is largely determined by the distribution of fat on his or her body, which is determined by hormones. Women with a waist-to-hip ratio near the attractiveness norm of 0.7 have a particular mix of hormones (estradiol and progesterone) that allows them to become pregnant more easily and to enjoy better physical health than do women with fewer curves (Lassek & Gaulin, 2008). So there is some evidence that the physical attributes that appeal to men around the world are signs of women’s fertility. In the past, men who were not sensitive to such cues, or who didn’t care enough to respond to them by seeking out sexual partners with certain features, presumably left fewer copies of their genes in the gene pool over the millennia.

For Women, Signs of Masculinity and Power

From an evolutionary perspective, women did not need to be so concerned as men with finding a youthful partner, because men’s fertility is less bound to their age. In theory, men can continue to reproduce until they die (although sperm motility does decrease, and chromosomal mutations do increase, with age). Consistent with these factors, women generally prefer their mates to be the same age as themselves or older (Buss, 1989). But consider what made it challenging for women to reproduce successfully in the primeval social environment. During the many months of pregnancy, it was more difficult for them to go out on their own to forage for food, build shelters, and fend off saber-toothed tigers. What’s more, they had to nurse the child and stay by its side to ensure that it didn’t die.

Given these challenges to survival and reproduction, what features do you suppose women looked for when evaluating potential mates? They might have pursued men whose physical features they associated with masculinity, virility, and social power, as well as men who could be counted on to invest resources in protecting and providing for them and their offspring. For example, women find most attractive those men who have a waist-to-hip ratio around 0.9, yielding a V shape that signals more muscle than fat (Singh, 1995). Height is also important in standards of male attractiveness. Taller men tend to be seen as more attractive, and it’s especially important that a man be at least somewhat taller than the woman who is considering dating him (Shepperd & Strathman, 1989). Other signs of masculinity are seen in a man’s face. Preferences run to prominent cheekbones and a large chin (e.g., Cunningham et al., 1990).

530

To demonstrate a role for women’s evolved preferences for more masculine-looking men, the evolutionary perspective must be able to account for patterns of attraction that are not easily explained by a sociocultural perspective. The strongest evidence of the evolutionary perspective can be found in studies on women’s mate preferences at different times of their monthly menstrual cycle. Women are fertile for only a few days preceding ovulation each month. This is the time when they are most likely to conceive if they have sex (of course, this all changes with the Pill or other forms of contraception), and so it also is the time when issues of genetic transmission are most relevant. During this stage of the menstrual cycle, some research suggests that women report preferring more masculine faces, that is, faces with strong jaws and broad foreheads (think George Clooney) rather than youthful boyishness (think Tobey Maguire) (Penton-Voak et al., 1999).

In addition, during the ovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle, women seem to prefer men who have deeper, more masculine voices (Puts, 2005) and who present themselves as more assertive, confident, and dominant (Gangestad et al., 2004; Gangestad et al., 2007; Macrae et al., 2002). Thus, during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle (as opposed to the nonfertile phase), when the probability of conception is relatively high, women might become more attracted to men who show signs of power and dominance. Presumably, over the millennia, women genetically prone to mate with more dominant men were more likely to have their genes live on in future generations. In a related study, female strippers reported earning higher tips for lap dances during high-fertility phases (Miller et al., 2007), suggesting that women may appear more sexually appealing or behave in more appealing ways to men during fertile phases.

Men also seem to pick up on women’s fertility unconsciously and play the part of the dominant man. Men who sniffed T-shirts worn by women who were in the fertile phase of their cycle showed a bigger spike in their testosterone levels than did men who sniffed T-shirts worn by women who were not fertile (Miller & Maner, 2010). Testosterone plays a role in dominant behavior, aggressiveness, and risk taking. These results suggest that men’s hormonal reactions increase their chances of appearing attractive to fertile women and thus mating with them.

Do findings like this mean that there are fundamental, built-in, or hard-wired differences between men and women? Not necessarily. This is a very strong claim, and you might not be surprised to hear that it has sparked controversy. Scientists are not currently in agreement about whether women’s mate preferences vary by ovulatory cycle. In 2014, two different meta-analyses were published drawing quite different interpretations about the strength of the evidence for these effects (Gildersleeve et al., 2014; Wood et al., 2014). This debate reminds us that it is important to keep a couple points in mind whenever we come across research that asserts a biologically innate mechanism. First, most of these studies have been conducted only with participants from Western cultures, and it’s difficult to tease apart how culture might inform what is considered to be attractive. Before jumping to conclusions about innate differences, we need to see whether the findings we’re discussing (e.g., women’s preferences during specific phases of their menstrual cycle) replicate across non-Western cultures. Second, even if there are some biologically driven components to attraction that differentiate the sexes, it’s also important to remember that men and women are far more similar than they are different in terms of the traits they rate as highly preferable in a romantic partner. If we focus solely on the differences, we risk losing the broader perspective on human attraction.

531

Do Men Prefer Beauty? Do Women Prefer Status?

The evidence reviewed above largely supports an evolutionary perspective for why men and women consider different physical attributes attractive. However, another controversial question is whether men more than women care about physical attractiveness in the first place, whereas women more than men care about evidence of financial status and resources. Certainly some of the evidence fits our stereotype that men care about a woman’s beauty, whereas women care more about a man’s social status.

For example, Buss’s (1989) initial research suggested that these gender differences exist across the 37 countries he assessed (see FIGURE 14.5) (Buss, 2008; Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Feingold, 1992a; Geary, 2010). And when given pictures and background information of potential dating partners, men were more likely than women to base their preferences on appearance, selecting the more attractive women (Feingold, 1990). In contrast, the better predictor of women’s interest in a man was his income (see FIGURE 14.6). In studies of online dating, wealthier guys get more e-mails from the ladies (Hitsch et al., 2010). Such evidence seems to support our stereotypes about what men and women want.

However, other researchers suggest that these results are limited. For example, note that in these studies participants are indicating only whom they think they want to go out with. Studies that examine what happens when people actually meet and interact reveal a different picture. As far back as 1966, Walster and colleagues recruited students for a “welcome dance” at the University of Minnesota. They measured the students’ personality traits, rated their physical attractiveness, and then later randomly matched men and women up for the evening. What was the best predictor of whether the students wanted to see their partners again after the dance? For men and women equally, it was the physical attractiveness of the partner.

532

Eastwick and Finkel (2008) got the same results from their speed-dating paradigm. Men more than women self-reported valuing physical attractiveness, but when it came to choosing a live dating partner, both sexes were equally influenced by physical attractiveness. In fact, a recent meta-analysis confirms that across many studies, once live interaction occurs with a potential romantic partner, physical attractiveness is equally predictive of liking and interest for men and women (Eastwick et al., 2013).

The same is true for the gender difference in focus on wealth and status. Once live interaction with a potential partner occurs, the wealth and status of a potential partner are only slightly influential and equally so for both women and men (Eastwick et al., 2014). As we’ve seen throughout this textbook, we don’t always know what it is we really want. So one caveat to this discussion of physical attractiveness is that what we think we will be attracted to often is wrong once we are face to face with a real person.

To understand why women say they prefer men of higher status, when their actual behavior doesn’t follow these same trends, let’s turn to a more sociocultural account. Although it historically has been the case that men have had disproportionate if not exclusive control over material resources and economic and political power, women have gained greater access to equal opportunities in recent decades. Women’s preference for higher-status men makes rational sense in a historic or cultural context in which women rely on men for protection and support (Eagly & Wood, 1999; Wood & Eagly, 2002, 2007). But this sociocultural perspective suggests that in societies with greater gender equality—that is, societies in which women’s occupation of powerful positions and their earning capacity are similar to men’s—the greater female emphasis on finding a mate with status and economic resources should be reduced, and in fact it is (Eagly & Diekman, 2003; Wood & Eagly, 2002; Zentner & Mitura, 2012).

Because women in more egalitarian societies do not need to depend on their partners’ earning capacity, they tend to report placing more value on the physical attractiveness of a potential mate. If we look at the distribution of wealth in each of the countries in Buss’s (1989) study of mate preferences, we find that the more women had direct access to economic power, the more they reported that physical attractiveness mattered to them in selecting a long-term mate (Eagly & Wood, 1999; Gangestad, 1993). Also, when they are looking for a short-term fling, women prefer physically attractive mates as much as men do (Li & Kenrick, 2006). Because women in gender-egalitarian societies also tend to enjoy more sexual freedom, any gender differences in using physical attractiveness as a cue will be reduced. Finally, women who are higher in intelligence also indicate less emphasis on the status of potential male partners (Stanik & Ellsworth, 2010). This evidence cannot be explained by the evolutionary account, which points to innate preferences that evolved over thousands of years. It seems instead that women report caring more than men do about pursuing desirable resources through their partners when they expect to have relatively lower social and economic status.

Evolution in Context

Evolutionary psychology offers a provocative perspective on what characteristics men and women initially seek in partners. However, the evolutionary perspective on mate preferences also has sparked considerable controversy as researchers debate the role of innate mechanisms and sociocultural inputs. The current evidence seems to support a role for both sets of factors.

For example, according to evolutionary psychology, both sexes are most attracted to physical features that signal the highest likelihood of good health in the other sex, but the case for this explanation as opposed to one based on familiarity is inconclusive at this point. Furthermore, although men more than women report a greater interest in physically attractive mates, whereas women report a greater interest in mates with higher status, these gender differences in stated preferences are not found in studies of actual evaluation and dating patterns and are reduced in countries with greater gender equality. Thus, sociocultural influences seem to play a role in shaping women’s changing prioritization of attractiveness and status in a mate.

533

However, evolutionary psychologists further posit that men and women are attracted to different physical attributes that helped them to solve sex-specific challenges to successful reproduction. And the current evidence does suggest that modern men have inherited a preference for youthfully mature, low-waist-to-hip-ratio partners, because these partners are most likely to be fertile. But researchers continue to debate whether during times of peak fertility, women have an increased preference for men with physical attributes that suggest dominance.

Finally, as we noted earlier, the sex differences we’ve discussed are small compared with the similarities between men and women. In every culture, both sexes look for partners who offer warmth and loyalty, which are always rated above physical attractiveness and status (Buss, 1989; Tran et al., 2008). Everyone, it seems, desires a partner who is agreeable, loving, and kind.

The broader point is this: The study of gender differences in attraction is addressed by some researchers from an evolutionary perspective and by others from a sociocultural perspective. The truth might lie somewhat in the middle. The most important thing to keep in mind is that much like other forms of human behavior, attraction stems from an intricate web of influences derived from each person’s biology, culture, and immediate social context.

Despite the cross-cultural consistency in what people find physically attractive, there is also plenty of variability. As you’ve likely noticed from your own travels or even just from looking at issues of National Geographic, from nose rings to filed teeth to hairstyles to body weight and even neck stretching, there are often considerable cultural and subcultural differences in what people find fetching (e.g., Darwin, 1872; Fallon, 1990; Ford & Beach, 1951; Hebl & Heatherton, 1998). Moreover, people in different cultures are attracted to those who exemplify the traits that their culture values (Wheeler & Kim, 1997).

In addition, within cultures, standards of beauty often vary over time. For example, a study of female models appearing in women’s magazines from 1901 to 1981 found that bust-to-waist ratios varied over time, with a more slender look becoming popular more recently. Similarly, a study of Playboy centerfolds from 1953 to 2001 also showed a trend toward thinner figures and a lower bust-to-waist ratio (Voracek & Fisher, 2002). It is impossible to explain such cultural trends with confidence, but a plausible speculation is that with increases in women’s rights and power in the United States has come a shift toward a more athletic, health-conscious ideal for women.

534

Status and Access to Scarce Resources

One approach to understanding cultural variations in preferences is to note that attributes that are associated with having high status in a given culture are often seen as more attractive. Consider the current preference for tanning among Caucasian Americans. In days gone by, those lower in socioeconomic status worked outside as manual laborers. As a result, they tended to be more tanned than their financially well-off counterparts, and it seems, at least for the upper class, pale skin tones were culturally valued and considered attractive. But the Industrial Revolution and the consequent proliferation of factories changed those standards by moving many low-paying jobs indoors.

Most people judging Caucasian individuals now consider tanned skin more attractive. This is what Chung and colleagues (2010) discovered when they manipulated the skin tones of women on the web site hotornot.com and had people rate the attractiveness of different faces. What about for judgments of African Americans? Evidence shows that lighter skin tones are considered more attractive than darker complexions (Frisby, 2006). This may help to explain why Caucasians frequent tanning salons as well as the push for skin-lightening products among darker-skinned minority groups.

And it’s not just skin tone. Body size and weight are similarly influenced by cultural trends and values. In cultures and societies in which resources such as food are scarce, men tend to prefer heavier women, but in cultures and societies with an abundance of resources, men prefer thinner women (Anderson et al., 1992; Sobal & Stunkard, 1989). Conditions of scarcity or plenty thus influence what is desired.

Nelson and Morrison (2005) took the analysis one step further. They reasoned that not only would cultural and temporal trends in scarcity influence perceptions of attractiveness, but these influences might also operate differently depending on the situations people are in. To test this hypothesis, they asked people how much money they currently had in their pocket and later asked them to estimate the ideal body weight of an attractive opposite-sex person. When men had more cash on hand and they were reminded to make an estimate, they suggested that a really attractive woman would weigh about 125 pounds. But when they had less cash on hand and were reminded to make an estimate, they said she would weigh about 127 pounds. In a clever follow-up study, Nelson and Morrison interviewed participants either before they entered, or after they came out of, the dining hall at their university. Walking into the cafeteria and presumably hungry, men preferred women who weighed approximately 125.5 pounds. But after they had chowed down and were no longer hungry, their preferences were more in the ballpark of 123 pounds. So we see that for men, the current motivational state of having or not having resources influences what they consider an attractive body weight for women. This could reflect men’s wanting what for the moment seems scarcer, or men’s feeling more able to shoot for the thinner cultural ideal when they feel they have more resources.

One interesting finding was that across all of Nelson and Morrison’s (2005) studies, women were not influenced by their own resources when judging the attractiveness of men. This might be because body weight is a less critical aspect of how women perceive male physical attractiveness, or because women are less influenced by situational factors when judging attractiveness.

535

Media Effects

Certainly the most ubiquitous situational influences on perceptions of attractiveness come from the mass media. Billboards, television shows, movies, magazines, and the Internet all routinely expose us to a seemingly endless parade of images of attractive people, especially women. In an interesting twist, women are less likely to be represented in some mass media such as feature films and television, but when they are, they are more likely to be physically attractive and dressed in revealing clothing (e.g., Smith et al., 2013). This leads to critical questions about what kinds of effects such exposure has both on how we view others and on how we view ourselves.

Back in 1980, people had no cable or satellite television or hundreds of channels, no DVRs, no shows streaming over the Internet—let alone handheld devices to watch them on. (Yes, it was a bleak time.) You watched what was on one of the three or four channels you could tune in. In 1980, one of the most popular TV shows was Charlie’s Angels, which centered on the adventures of three very attractive, crime-solving women. It also formed the basis for a naturalistic study by Kenrick and Gutierres (1980). The researchers sent two confederates to the common TV areas in dorms (no, practically nobody had their own TVs in their rooms; as we said, a bleak time) either just before the show was scheduled to start or while the episode was on the air. Check out FIGURE 14.7 for a transcript of what the confederates said to the groups of people who either were or were not watching Charlie’s Angels. The short of it is that they had students rate the attractiveness of a purported blind date for one of their friends while those students were watching Charlie’s Angels or while they were not watching the show. In what they coined “the Farrah factor” (after the most famous of the “angels,” Farrah Fawcett), the researchers found that those watching Charlie’s Angels rated the blind date as less physically attractive than did those not watching the show. Although this study was methodologically limited (note that participants were not randomly assigned to conditions of watching the show or not), subsequent studies using more tightly controlled laboratory procedures have replicated this effect (Kenrick et al., 1989).

537

Over 2,000 years ago, the Roman statesman Cicero (45 BC/1883) advised, “The final good and supreme duty of the wise person is to resist appearance.” If that is so, wisdom has come to our species rather slowly if at all. So far in this chapter we have dwelled on the fact that physical attractiveness is a major factor in how people evaluate potential mates. However, despite certain universal standards and the genetic basis of many of our physical features, people’s perceived attractiveness is not locked in stone at birth. Standards of physical beauty change over time and place. In addition, people often become more or less attractive as they age. Indeed, some research suggests that someone’s perceived attractiveness at age 17 does not predict the same person’s perceived attractiveness at ages 30 and 50 (Zebrowitz, 1997).

Finally, even though some physical attributes are considered universally attractive, experience with a person can also elevate his or her beauty. Research clearly shows that people who are viewed positively or as familiar and who are liked or loved are all rated by perceivers to be more physically attractive (e.g., Gross & Crofton, 1977; Lewandowski et al., 2007; Price & Vandenberg, 1979). And the happier a couple is with their relationship, the more physically attractive they view each other as being (Murray & Holmes, 1997).

538