Skip to main content

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Allgeier E., and Fogel, A. (1978). Coital position and sex roles.J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 46: 588–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, A. P., and Weinberg, M. S. (1978).Homosexualities, Simon and Schuster, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Blake, J. (1979). Is zero preferred? American attitudes toward childlessness in the 1970s.J. Marr. Fam. 41: 245–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Blumstein, P., and Schwartz, P. (1983).American Couples Morrow, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection.Am. Sci. 73: 47–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54: 616–628.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.Behav. Brain Sci. 12: 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., and Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50: 559–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50: 925–935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M., and Wilson, M. (1983).Sex Evolution, and Behavior Duxbury Press, North Scituate, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Edwards, J. N., and Booth, A. (1976). Sexual behavior in and out of marriage.J. Marr. Fam. 38: 73–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, N., Westoff, C., and Hammerslough, C. (1984). Demography of the marriage market in the United States.Population Index 50: 5–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hatfield, E., and Sprecher, S. (1986).Mirror, Mirror State University of New York Press, Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hite, S. (1976).The Hite Report: A Nationwide Study of Female Sexuality Macmillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Houston, L. N. (1981). Romanticism and eroticism among black and white college students.Adolescence 16: 263–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, J., and Henze, L. (1969). Campus values in mate selection: A replication.J. Marr. Fam. 31: 772–775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huston, T., and Levinger, G. (1979). Interpersonal attraction and relationships.Ann. Rev. Psychol. 29: 115–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Keith, P. M. and Schafer, R. B. (1980). Role strain and depression in two-job families.Fam. Rel. 29: 483–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., and Martin, C. E. (1948).Sexual Behavior in the Human Male W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kirk, R. E. (1982).Experimental Design, 2nd ed. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPlante, M. N., McCormick, N., and Brannigan, G. B. (1980). Living the sexual script.J. Sex Res. 16: 338–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Strauss, C. (1969).The Elementary Structures of Kinship Beacon Press, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebetrau, A. M. (1983).Measures of Association Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mazur, A. (1986). U.S. trends in feminine beauty and over-adaptation.J. Sex. Res. 22: 281–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Murstein, B. I., and Christy, P. (1976). Physical attractiveness and marriage adjustment in middleaged couples.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 34: 537–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Roche, J. P. (1986). Premarital sex: attitudes and behavior by dating stage.Adolescence 21: 107–121.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scanzoni, J. (1978).Sex Roles, Women's Work, and Marital Conflict Heath, Lexington, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoof-Tams, K., Schlaegel, J., and Malczak, L. (1976). Differentiation of sexual morality between 11 and 16 years.Arch. Sex. Behav. 5: 353–370.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, B. (1985a). A comparison of evolutionary and environmental theories of erotic responses, Part I.J. Sex Res. 21: 229–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, B. (1985b). A comparison of evolutionary and environmental theories of erotic response, Part II.J. Sex Res. 21: 345–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spanier, G. B. (1976). Formal and informal sex education as determinants of premarital sexual behavior.Arch. Sex. Behav. 5: 39–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Symons, D. (1979).Evolution of Human Sexuality Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symons, D. (1985). Darwinism and contemporary marriage. In Davis. K. (ed.),Contemporary Marriage Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Townsend, J. M. (1987). Sex differences in sexuality among medical students: Effects of increasing socioeconomic status.Arch. Sex. Behav. 16: 427–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townsend, J. M. (1989). Mate-selection criteria: A pilot study.Ethol. Sociobiol. 10: 241–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Udry, J. R. (1977). The importance of being beautiful.Am. J. Sociol. 83: 154–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Udry, J. R. (1981). Marital alternatives and marital disruption.J. Marr. Fam. 43: 889–897.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1982).Occupations and Income (Series P-20, No. 380), U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Berghe, P., and Barash, D. (1977). Inclusive fitness and human family structure.Am. Anthropol. 79: 809–823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, M., and Driskell, J. (1983). Beauty as status.Am. J. Sociol. 89: 140–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. D. (1981). Cross-generational stability of gender differences in sexuality.Pers. Indiv. Diff. 2: 254–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. D. (1987). Male-female differences in sexual activity, enjoyment, and fantasies.Pers. Indiv.Diff. 8: 125–135.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Townsend, J.M., Levy, G.D. Effects of potential partners' physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Arch Sex Behav 19, 149–164 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542229

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542229

Key words

  • sex differences
  • sexuality
  • partner selection
  • physical attractiveness
  • socioeconomic status