Mate-by-Numbers: Budget, Mating Context, and Sex Predict Preferences for Facial and Bodily Traits
Unlike women, or men considering long-term mates, men pursuing short-term mating have shown a tendency to prioritize bodily information over facial information when assessing potential mates. Prior studies have documented this tendency across a variety of methods ranging from photograph ratings to forcing a choice between faces and bodies, but have yet to ask participants to prioritize individual traits in faces and bodies. The current study used a budget allocation method to do just that. We randomly assigned participants (N = 258) to a mating context (short-term or long-term) and a budget (high or low) and asked them to allocate points across 10 traits (five facial, five bodily) to design their ideal mate within their budget. As expected, men in the short-term mating context allocated more points to bodily traits, but only when in the low budget condition—in the high budget condition, men showed more interest in facial traits. Women, also as expected, and in contrast to men, showed a general trend toward favoring facial traits regardless of budget and condition. Overall, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that women’s bodies provide better information regarding immediate fertility and are thus more important for men to assess in short-term mating contexts.
KeywordsPhysical attractiveness Mate preferences Face Body Traits Evolution
We would like to thank Gregory Webster for statistical advice and Taylar Boyer, Kaylee DeBolt, Jacob Dougherty, Aliehs Lee, Helena Lorenz, Cody Welty, and Justin White for their assistance with pilot-testing and data collection.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Cloud, J. M., & Perilloux, C. (2014). Bodily attractiveness as a window to women's fertility and reproductive value. In V. A. Weekes-Shackelford & T. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Sexual Psychology and Behavior (pp. 135–152). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fales, M. R., Frederick, D. A., Garcia, J. R., Gildersleeve, K. A., Haselton, M. G., & Fisher, H. E. (2016). Mating markets and bargaining hands: Mate preferences for attractiveness and resources in two national US studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kirchengast, S., & Gartner, M. (2002). Changes in fat distribution (WHR) and body weight across the menstrual cycle. Collegium Antropologicum, 26, 47–57.Google Scholar
- Mogilski, J. K., & Welling, L. L. M. (2017). The relative importance of sexual dimorphism, fluctuating asymmetry, and color cues to health during evaluation of potential partners’ facial photographs: A conjoint analysis study. Human Nature, 28(1), 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-016-9277-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mogilski, J. K., & Welling, L. L. M. (2018). The relative contribution of jawbone and cheekbone prominence, eyebrow thickness, eye size, and face length to evaluations of facial masculinity and attractiveness: A conjoint data-driven approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02428.
- Roberts, S. C., Havlicek, J., Flegr, J., Hruskova, M., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., et al. (2004). Female facial attractiveness increases during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 271, S270–S272.Google Scholar
- Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rueden, C., & Guryen, M. (2009). Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1656), 575–584. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sugiyama, L. S. (2005). Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 292–343). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar