Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 149–164 | Cite as

Effects of potential partners' physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection

  • John Marshall Townsend
  • Gary D. Levy
Article

Abstract

Male (n= 170) and female (n= 212) college students viewed photographs, which had been prerated for physical attractiveness, of three opposite-sex individuals. These photographs were paired with three levels of occupational status and income. Subjects indicated their willingness to engage in relationships of varying levels of sexual intimacy and marital potential with the portrayed individuals. Analyses of variance, correlations, and trend analyses supported the hypotheses. Compared to men, women are more likely to prefer or insist that sexual intercourse occur in relationships that involve affection and marital potential, and women place more emphasis than men do on partners' SES in such relationships. Consequently, men's SES and their willingness and ability to invest affection and resources in relationships may often outweigh the effects of their physical attractiveness in women's actual selection of partners. These results and the literature reviewed are more consistent with parental investment theory than with the view that these sex differences are solely the result of differential access to resources and differential socialization.

Key words

sex differences sexuality partner selection physical attractiveness socioeconomic status 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allgeier E., and Fogel, A. (1978). Coital position and sex roles.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 46: 588–589.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, A. P., and Weinberg, M. S. (1978).Homosexualities, Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Berscheid, E., and Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Academic Press, New York, pp. 157–215.Google Scholar
  4. Blake, J. (1979). Is zero preferred? American attitudes toward childlessness in the 1970s.J. Marr. Fam. 41: 245–257.Google Scholar
  5. Blake, J. (1982). Demographic revolution and family evolution. In Berman, P., and Ramey, E. (eds.),Women: A Developmental Perspective (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIH Publication No. 822298), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Blumstein, P., and Schwartz, P. (1983).American Couples Morrow, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection.Am. Sci. 73: 47–51.Google Scholar
  8. Buss, D. M. (1987). Sex differences in human mate selection criteria: An evolutionary perspective. In Crawford, C., Smith, M., and Krebs, D. (eds.),Sociobiology and Psychology Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  9. Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54: 616–628.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.Behav. Brain Sci. 12: 1–49.Google Scholar
  11. Buss, D. M., and Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50: 559–570.Google Scholar
  12. Carroll, J. C., Volk, K. D., and Hyde, J. S. (1985). Differences in motives for engaging in sexual intercourse.Arch. Sex. Behav. 14: 131–143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunningham M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50: 925–935.Google Scholar
  14. Daly, M., and Wilson, M. (1983).Sex Evolution, and Behavior Duxbury Press, North Scituate, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, K. (1985). The meaning and significance of marriage in contemporary society. In Davis, K. (ed.),Contemporary Marriage Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Dion, K. (1981). Physical attractiveness, sex roles, and heterosexual attraction. In Cook, M. (ed.),The Bases of Human Sexual Attraction Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Edwards, J. N., and Booth, A. (1976). Sexual behavior in and out of marriage.J. Marr. Fam. 38: 73–81.Google Scholar
  18. Goldman, N., Westoff, C., and Hammerslough, C. (1984). Demography of the marriage market in the United States.Population Index 50: 5–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatfield, E., and Sprecher, S. (1986).Mirror, Mirror State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar
  20. Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., and Peplau, L. A. (1979). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. In Levinger, G., and Moles, O. C. (eds.),Divorce and Separation Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Hite, S. (1976).The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Holmes, S., and Hatch, C. (1938). Personal appearance as related to scholastic records and marriage selection in college women.Hum. Biol. 40: 63–76.Google Scholar
  23. Houston, L. N. (1981). Romanticism and eroticism among black and white college students.Adolescence 16: 263–269.Google Scholar
  24. Hudson, J., and Henze, L. (1969). Campus values in mate selection: A replication.J. Marr. Fam. 31: 772–775.Google Scholar
  25. Huston, T., and Levinger, G. (1979). Interpersonal attraction and relationships.Ann. Rev. Psychol. 29: 115–156.Google Scholar
  26. Kanin, E. J., Davidson, D. R., and Scheck, S. R. (1970). A research note on male-female differentials in the experience of heterosexual love.J. Sex. Res. 6: 64–72.Google Scholar
  27. Keith, P. M. and Schafer, R. B. (1980). Role strain and depression in two-job families.Fam. Rel. 29: 483–488.Google Scholar
  28. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., and Martin, C. E. (1948).Sexual Behavior in the Human Male W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  29. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., and Gebhard, P. H. (1953).Sexual Behavior in the Human Female W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  30. Kirk, R. E. (1982).Experimental Design, 2nd ed. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
  31. LaPlante, M. N., McCormick, N., and Brannigan, G. B. (1980). Living the sexual script.J. Sex Res. 16: 338–355.Google Scholar
  32. Levi-Strauss, C. (1969).The Elementary Structures of Kinship Beacon Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  33. Liebetrau, A. M. (1983).Measures of Association Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  34. Mathes, E., Brennan, S., Haugen, P., and Rice, H. (1985). Rating of physical attractiveness as a function of age.J. Soc. Psychol. 125: 157–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Mazur, A. (1986). U.S. trends in feminine beauty and over-adaptation.J. Sex. Res. 22: 281–303.Google Scholar
  36. McCormick, N. (1979). Come-ons and put-offs: Unmarried students' strategies for having and avoiding sexual intercourse.Psychol. Women Quart. 4: 194–211.Google Scholar
  37. Murstein, B. I., and Christy, P. (1976). Physical attractiveness and marriage adjustment in middleaged couples.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 34: 537–542.Google Scholar
  38. Naficy, A. (1981). Mate selection: the relative contributions of age, physical attractiveness, and income to desirability as romantic and marriage partners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  39. Roche, J. P. (1986). Premarital sex: attitudes and behavior by dating stage.Adolescence 21: 107–121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Scanzoni, J. (1978).Sex Roles, Women's Work, and Marital Conflict Heath, Lexington, MA.Google Scholar
  41. Schoof-Tams, K., Schlaegel, J., and Malczak, L. (1976). Differentiation of sexual morality between 11 and 16 years.Arch. Sex. Behav. 5: 353–370.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Singer, B. (1985a). A comparison of evolutionary and environmental theories of erotic responses, Part I.J. Sex Res. 21: 229–257.Google Scholar
  43. Singer, B. (1985b). A comparison of evolutionary and environmental theories of erotic response, Part II.J. Sex Res. 21: 345–374.Google Scholar
  44. Spanier, G. B. (1976). Formal and informal sex education as determinants of premarital sexual behavior.Arch. Sex. Behav. 5: 39–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Symons, D. (1979).Evolution of Human Sexuality Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  46. Symons, D. (1985). Darwinism and contemporary marriage. In Davis. K. (ed.),Contemporary Marriage Russell Sage Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
  47. Symons, D. (1987). The evolutionary approach: Can Darwin's view of life shed light on human sexuality? In Geer, J., and O'Donohue, W. (eds.),Approaches and Paradigms of Human Sexuality Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Symons, D., and Ellis, B. (1989). Human male-female differences in sexual desire. In Rasa, A., Vogel, C., and Voland, E. (eds.),Sociology of Sexual and Reproductive Strategies Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  49. Townsend, J. M. (1987). Sex differences in sexuality among medical students: Effects of increasing socioeconomic status.Arch. Sex. Behav. 16: 427–446.Google Scholar
  50. Townsend, J. M. (1989). Mate-selection criteria: A pilot study.Ethol. Sociobiol. 10: 241–253.Google Scholar
  51. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (ed.),Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871–1971 Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  52. Udry, J. R. (1977). The importance of being beautiful.Am. J. Sociol. 83: 154–160.Google Scholar
  53. Udry, J. R. (1981). Marital alternatives and marital disruption.J. Marr. Fam. 43: 889–897.Google Scholar
  54. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1982).Occupations and Income (Series P-20, No. 380), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  55. Van den Berghe, P., and Barash, D. (1977). Inclusive fitness and human family structure.Am. Anthropol. 79: 809–823.Google Scholar
  56. Webster, M., and Driskell, J. (1983). Beauty as status.Am. J. Sociol. 89: 140–165.Google Scholar
  57. Wilson, G. D. (1981). Cross-generational stability of gender differences in sexuality.Pers. Indiv. Diff. 2: 254–262.Google Scholar
  58. Wilson, G. D. (1987). Male-female differences in sexual activity, enjoyment, and fantasies.Pers. Indiv.Diff. 8: 125–135.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Marshall Townsend
    • 1
  • Gary D. Levy
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologySyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ToledoToledoUSA

Personalised recommendations