Evolutionary Psychological Science

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 243–252 | Cite as

The Importance of Physical Attractiveness to the Mate Choices of Women and Their Mothers

  • Madeleine A. FugèreEmail author
  • Caitlynn Chabot
  • Kaitlyn Doucette
  • Alita J. Cousins
Research Article


Prior research investigating the mate preferences of women and their parents reveals two important findings with regard to physical attractiveness. First, daughters more strongly value mate characteristics connoting genetic quality (such as physical attractiveness) than their parents. Second, both daughters and their parents report valuing characteristics other than physical attractiveness most strongly (e.g., ambition/industriousness, friendliness/kindness). However, the prior research relies solely on self-report to assess daughters’ and parents’ preferences. We assessed mate preferences among 61 daughter-mother pairs using an experimental design varying target men’s physical attractiveness and trait profiles. We tested four hypotheses investigating whether a minimum level of physical attractiveness was a necessity to both women and their mothers and whether physical attractiveness was a more important determinant of dating desirability than trait profiles. These hypotheses were supported. Women and their mothers were strongly influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target men and preferred the attractive and moderately attractive targets. Men with the most desirable personality profiles were rated more favorably than their counterparts only when they were at least moderately attractive. Unattractive men were never rated as more desirable partners for daughters, even when they possessed the most desirable trait profiles. We conclude that a minimum level of physical attractiveness is a necessity for both women and their mothers and that when women and their parents state that other traits are more important than physical attractiveness, they assume potential mates meet a minimally acceptable standard of physical attractiveness.


Parent-offspring conflict Physical attractiveness Necessities versus luxuries Mate choice Traits 



This research was supported by a grant from the Connecticut State University American Association of University Professors.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This experiment was approved by the Committee on Using Human Subjects in Research. Informed consent was obtained from both women and their parents prior to their participation (consent from parents was obtained for daughters under 18 as well).


  1. Apostolou, M. (2008). Parent-offspring conflict over mating: the case of beauty. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(2), 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apostolou, M. (2011). Parent-offspring conflict over mating: testing the tradeoffs hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 470–495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Apostolou, M. (2015). Parent–offspring conflict over mating: domains of agreement and disagreement. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1–12. doi: 10.1177/1474704915604561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apostolou, M. (2017). The nature of parent-offspring conflict over mating: from differences in genetic relatedness to disagreement over mate choice. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3(1), 62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buunk, A. P., & Solano, A. C. (2010). Conflicting preferences of parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: a study in Argentina. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(4), 391–399. doi: 10.1037/a0020252.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1254–1270. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cousins, A. J. (2003). Male mate guarding, female solicitation, and resistance to male mate guarding in dating couples: scale development and preliminary validation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(3-B), 1477.Google Scholar
  8. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285–290. doi: 10.1037/h0033731.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dubbs, S. L., & Buunk, A. P. (2010). Sex differences in parental preferences over a child’s mate choice: a daughter’s perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(8), 1051–1059. doi: 10.1177/0265407510378666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dubbs, S. L., Buunk, A. P., & Taniguchi, H. (2013). Parent-offspring conflict in Japan and parental influence across six cultures. Japanese Psychological Research, 55(3), 241–253. doi: 10.1111/jpr.12003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Finkel, E. J., & Johnson, S. E. (2011). Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: a double dissociation in predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 993–1011. doi: 10.1037/a0024061.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fugère, M. A., Doucette, K., Chabot, C., & Cousins, A. J. (2017). Similarities and differences in mate preferences among parents and their adult children. Personality and Individual Differences, 111, 80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gangestad, S. W., & Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(2), 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–644. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0000337X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gebauer, J. E., Leary, M. R., & Neberich, W. (2012). Big two personality and big three mate preferences: similarity attracts, but country-level mate preferences crucially matter. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1579–1593. doi: 10.1177/0146167212456300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Griffin, A. M., & Langlois, J. H. (2006). Stereotype directionality and attractiveness stereotyping: is beauty good or is ugly bad? Social Cognition, 24(2), 187–206. doi: 10.1521/soco.2006.24.2.187.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 227–244. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levesque, M., Nave, C., & Lowe, C. (2006). Toward an understanding of gender differences in inferring sexual interest. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(2), 150–158. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00278.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947–955. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Li, N. P., Valentine, K. A., & Patel, L. (2011). Mate preferences in the US and Singapore: a cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 291–294. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Sng, O., Fletcher, G. J. O., Valentine, K. A., Jiang, Y. F., & Balliet, D. (2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 757–776. doi: 10.1037/a0033777.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Perilloux, H. K., Webster, G. D., & Gaulin, S. C. (2010). Signals of genetic quality and maternal investment capacity: the dynamic effects of fluctuating asymmetry and waist-to-hip ratio on men’s ratings of women’s attractiveness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 34–42. doi: 10.1177/1948550609349514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perilloux, C., Fleischman, D. S., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Meet the parents: parent-offspring convergence and divergence in mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 253–258. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shaffer, D. R., Crepaz, N., & Sun, C. (2000). Physical attractiveness stereotyping in cross-cultural perspective: similarities and differences between Americans and Taiwanese. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(5), 557–582. doi: 10.1177/0022022100031005002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Soler, C., Núñez, M., Gutiérrez, R., Núñez, J., Medina, P., Sancho, M., et al. (2003). Facial attractiveness in men provides clues to semen quality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 199–207. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00013-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sprecher, S. (1989). The importance to males and females of physical attractiveness, earning potential, and expressiveness in initial attraction. Sex Roles, 21(9–10), 591–607. doi: 10.1007/BF00289173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in western societies: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 635–653. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.635.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Zebrowitz, L. A., Wang, R., Bronstad, P., Eisenberg, D., Undurraga, E., Reyes-García, V., & Godoy, R. (2012). First impressions from faces among U.S. and culturally isolated Tsimane’ people in the Bolivian rainforest. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 119–134. doi: 10.1177/0022022111411386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Madeleine A. Fugère
    • 1
    Email author
  • Caitlynn Chabot
    • 1
  • Kaitlyn Doucette
    • 1
  • Alita J. Cousins
    • 1
  1. 1.Eastern Connecticut State UniversityWillimanticUSA

Personalised recommendations