Abstract
Researchers studying human sexuality have repeatedly concluded that men place more emphasis on the physical attractiveness of potential mates than women do, particularly in long-term sexual relationships. Evolutionary theorists have suggested that this is the case because male mate value (the total value of the characteristics that an individual possesses in terms of the potential contribution to his or her mate’s reproductive success) is better predicted by social status and economic resources, whereas women’s mate value hinges on signals conveyed by their physical appearance. This pattern may imply that women trade off attractiveness for resources in mate choice. Here I test whether a trade-off between resources and attractiveness seems to be occurring in the mate choice decisions of women in the United States. In addition, the possibility that the risk of mate desertion drives women to choose less attractive men as long-term mates is tested. The results were that women rated physically attractive men as more likely to cheat or desert a long-term relationship, whereas men did not consider attractive women to be more likely to cheat. However, women showed no aversion to the idea of forming long-term relationships with attractive men. Evidence for a trade-off between resources and attractiveness was found for women, who traded off attractiveness, but not other traits, for resources. The potential meaning of these findings, as well as how they relate to broader issues in the study of sex differences in the evolution of human mate choice for physical traits, is discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Andersson, M. 1994 Sexual Selection. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Bateman, A. 1948 Intra-sexual Selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368.
Berscheid, E., and E. Walster 1974 Physical Attractiveness. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, L. Berkowitz, ed. Pp. 157–215. New York: Academic Press.
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. 1987 On Cultural and Reproductive Success: Kipsigis Evidence. American Anthropologist 89:617–634.
Buss, D. M. 1989 Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:1–49.
1999 Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Buss, D. M., and D. P. Schmitt 1993 Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating. Psychological Review 100:204–232.
Buss, D. M., and T. K. Shackelford 1997 From Vigilance to Violence: Mate Retention Tactics in Married Couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72:346–361.
Cunningham, M. R., A. P. Barbee, and C. L. Pike 1990 What Do Women Want? Facialmetric Assessment of Multiple Motives in the Perception of Male Facial Physical Attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:61–72.
Gangestad, S., and D. Buss 1993 Pathogen Prevalence and Human Mate Preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology 14:89–96.
Gangestad, S., R. Thornhill, and R. Yeo 1993 Facial Attractiveness, Developmental Stability, and Fluctuating Asymmetry. Ethology and Sociobiology 15:73–85.
Hill, K. R., and A. M. Hurtado 1996 Ache Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Husain, A., and Firdous 1990 Physical Factors of Mate Selection: Testing Assortative Mating Theory. Psychologia 33:118–122.
Ihara, Y., and K. Aoki in press Sexual Selection by Male Choice in Monogamous and Polygynous Human Populations. Theoretical Population Biology.
Kenrick, D. T., and R. C. Keefe 1992 Age Preferences in Mates Reflect Sex Differences in Reproductive Strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15:75–133.
Johnston, V. S., and M. Franklin 1993 Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder? Ethology and Sociobiology 14:183–199.
Langlois, J. H., and L. A. Roggman 1990 Attractive Faces Are Only Average. Psychological Science 1:115–121.
Li, N. P., J. Bailey, and D. T. Kenrick in prep. The Necessities and Luxuries of Mate Preferences: Testing the Trade-offs.
Low, B. S. 1988 Pathogen Stress and Polygyny in Humans. In Human Reproductive Behaviour: A Darwinian Perspective, L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, and P. Turke, eds. Pp. 115–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mealey, L., R. Bridgestock, and G. C. Townsend 1999 Symmetry and Perceived Facial Attractiveness: A Monozygotic Co-twin Comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76:151–158.
Oda, R. 2001 Sexually Dimorphic Mate Preferences in Japan: An Analysis of Lonely Hearts Advertisements. Human Nature 12:191–206.
Parsons, P. A. 1990 Fluctuating Asymmetry: An Epigenetic Measure of Stress. Biological Review 65:131–145.
Pawlowski, B., R. I. M. Dunbar, and A. Lipowicz 2000 Evolutionary Fitness: Tall Men Have More Reproductive Success. Nature 403:156.
Penton-Voak, I., D. Perrett, D. Castles, M. Burt, T. Koyabashi, and L. K. Murray 1999 Female Preference for Male Faces Changes Cyclically. Nature 399:741–742.
Perrett, D., K. Lee, I. Penton-Voak, D. Rowland, S. Yoshikawa, D. Burt, S. Henzi, D. Castles, and S. Akamatsu 1998 Effects of Sexual Dimorphism on Facial Attractiveness. Nature 394:884–887.
Singh, D. 1993 Adaptive Significance of Waist-to-hip Ratio and Female Physical Attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:293–307.
1995 Female Health, Attractiveness, and Desirability for Relationships: The Role of Breast Asymmetry and Waist-to-hip Ratio. Ethology and Sociobiology 16:465–481.
Smith, E. A. 1991 Inujjuamiut Foraging Strategies: Evolutionary Ecology of an Arctic Hunting Economy. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Symons, D. 1979 The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thornhill, R., and S. Gangestad 1993 Human Fluctuating Asymmetry and Sexual Behavior. Psychological Science 5:297–302.
1999a Facial Attractiveness. Trends in the Cognitive Sciences 3:449–490.
1999b The Scent of Symmetry: A Human Sex Pheromone That Signals Fitness? Evolution and Human Behavior 20:175–201.
Waynforth, D. 1998 Fluctuating Asymmetry and Human Male Life History Traits in Rural Belize. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 265:1497–1501.
1999 Differences in Time Use for Mating and Nepotistic Effort as a Function of Male Attractiveness in Rural Belize. Evolution and Human Behavior 20:19–28.
Waynforth, D., and R. I. M. Dunbar 1995 Conditional Mate Choice Strategies in Humans: Evidence from Lonely Hearts Advertisements. Behaviour 132:755–779.
Weiderman, M. W. 1994 Evolved Gender Differences in Mate Preferences: Evidence from Personal Advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology 14:331–352.
Weiderman, M. W., and E. R. Allgeier 1992 Gender Differences in Mate Selection Criteria: Sociobiological or Socioeconomic Explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology 13:115–124.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
David Waynforth studies the evolution of mate choice, parental investment patterns, and mating strategies in humans. He received his Ph.D. in anthropology in 1999 from the Human Evolutionary Ecology Program at the University of New Mexico. He is presently an adjunct assistant professor of anthropology at the University of New Mexico, and a visiting professor for the 2000–2001 academic year at the International Research Center for Japanese Studies in Kyoto, Japan.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Waynforth, D. Mate choice trade-offs and women’s preference for physically attractive men. Hum Nat 12, 207–219 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-001-1007-9
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-001-1007-9