Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 243–268 | Cite as

The Perception of Sexual Attractiveness: Sex Differences in Variability

  • John Marshall Townsend
  • Timothy Wasserman
Article

Abstract

Results of three independent studies supported predictions derived from evolutionary theory: Men's assessments of sexual attractiveness are determined more by objectively assessable physical attributes; women's assessments are more influenced by perceived ability and willingness to invest (e.g., partners' social status, potential interest in them). Consequently, women's assessments of potential partners' sexual attractiveness and coital acceptability vary more than men's assessments. The proposition that polygamous women's assessments of men's sexual attractiveness vary less than those of monogamous women (because the former allegedly are more influenced by target persons' physical attributes) was also tested. In Study 1 male college students showed more agreement than females in their rankings of the sexual attractiveness of opposite-sex target persons. Target persons' flesh and bodily display enhanced this sex difference. In Study 2 men exhibited less variance than did women in their ratings of target persons' acceptability for dating and sexual relations. Women who viewed models described as having low status showed more variability than did women in the high-status condition. In Study 3 women showed more variability than men did in their ratings of 20 opposite-sex celebrities' sexual attractiveness. Studies 2 and 3 included the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI)—a measure of polygamous attitudes and behavior. Women's SOI scores did not affect the variability of their assessments in either Study 2 or 3. In Study 3 men with low SOI scores showed less variability than did men with high SOI scores. Alternative explanations of the findings are examined. Theoretical and empirical implications are discussed.

sexual attractiveness sex differences evolution sexuality perception 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Alzate, H. (1984). Sexual behavior of unmarried Colombian University Students: A five-year follow-up. Arch. Sex. Behav. 13: 121–132.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., and Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66: 1081–1093.Google Scholar
  3. Barlow, D., Reynolds, J., and Agras, S. (1973). Gender identity change in a transsexual. Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 28: 569–576.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, A. P., and Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities, Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Berscheid, E., and Walster, E. (1974). Physical Attractiveness. In Berklowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Blumstein, P., and Schwartz, P. (1983). American Couples, Morrow, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Bradley, J. V. (1968). Distribution-Free Statistical Tests, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  8. Buss, D. (1989a). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav. Brain Sci. 12: 1–49.Google Scholar
  9. Buss, D. (1989b). Conflict between the sexes: Strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56: 735–747.Google Scholar
  10. Buss, D., and Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50: 559–570.Google Scholar
  11. Buss, D. M., and Schmitt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol. Rev. 100: 204–232.Google Scholar
  12. Clement, U., Schmidt, G., and Kruse, M. (1984). Changes in sex differences in sexual behavior. Arch. Sex. Behav. 13: 99–120.Google Scholar
  13. Cunningham, M. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi experiments in the sociobiology of female facial beauty. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50: 925–935.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Edwards, J., and Booth, A. (1976). Sexual behavior in and out of marriage. J. Marr. Fam. 38: 73–81.Google Scholar
  16. Ellis, B., and Symons, D. (1990). Sex differences in sexual fantasy. J. Sex Res. 27: 527–555.Google Scholar
  17. Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychol. Bull. 112: 125–139.Google Scholar
  18. Gagnon, J., and Simon, W. (1973). Sexual Conduct, Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  19. Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Sexual selection and physical attractiveness: implications for mating dynamics. Hum. Nature 4: 205–235.Google Scholar
  20. Gangestad, S. W., and Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. J. Pers. 58: 69–96.Google Scholar
  21. Glenn, N. D. (1989). Intersocial variation in the mate preferences of males and females. Behav. Brain Sci. 12: 21–23.Google Scholar
  22. Graziano, W., Jensen-Campbell, L., Shebilske, L., and Lundgren, S. (1993). Social influence, sex differences, and judgments of beauty. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65: 522–531.Google Scholar
  23. Green, R. (1987). The “Sissy Boy Syndrome” and the Development of Homosexuality, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
  24. Hatfield, E., and Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, Mirror, State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar
  25. Houston, L. (1981). Romanticism and eroticism among black and white college students. Adolescence 16: 263–272.Google Scholar
  26. Irons, W. (1989). Mating preference surveys. Behav. Brain Sci. 12: 24.Google Scholar
  27. Jankowiak, W., Hill, E., and Donovan, J. (1992). The effects of gender and sexual orientation on attractiveness judgments. Ethnol. Sociobiol. 13: 73–85.Google Scholar
  28. Kenrick, D., and Keefe, R. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in reproductive strategies. Behav. Brain Sci. 15: 1–29.Google Scholar
  29. Kenrick, D., Sadalla, E., Groth, G., and Trost, M. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. J. Pers. 58: 97–116.Google Scholar
  30. Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., Martin, C., and Gebhard, P. (1953). Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  31. Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental Design, 2nd ed., Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.Google Scholar
  32. Kogan, N., and Mills, M. (1992). Gender influences on age cognitions and preferences. Psychol. Aging 7: 98–106.Google Scholar
  33. LaPlante, M., McCormick, N., and Brannigan, G. (1980). Living the sexual script. J. Sex Res. 16: 338–355.Google Scholar
  34. Lee, R. (1979). The !Kung San, Cambridge University, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Lee, R., and DeVore, I. (1976). Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  36. Lewin, B. (1982). The adolescent boy and girl: First and other early experiences with intercourse from a representative sample of Swedish school adolescents. Arch. Sex. Behav. 11: 417–428.Google Scholar
  37. Long Laws, J., and Schwartz, P. (1977). Sexual Scripts: The Social Construction of Female Sexuality, Dryden, Hinsdale, IL.Google Scholar
  38. Mead, M. (1928). Coming of Age in Samoa. Morrow, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Mead, M. (1935). Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. Morrow, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Morse, S., Gruzen, J., and Reis, H. (1976). The “eye of the beholder”: A neglected variable in the study of physical attractiveness. J. Pers. 44: 209–225.Google Scholar
  41. Morse, S., Reis, H., Gruzen, J., and Wolff, E. (1974). The “eye of the beholder”: Determinants of physical attractiveness judgments in the U.S. and South Africa. J. Pers. 42: 528–542.Google Scholar
  42. Pillard, R., and Weinrich, J. (1987). The periodic table model of the gender transpositions: Part I. A theory based on masculinization and defeminization of the brain. J. Sex Res. 23: 425–454.Google Scholar
  43. Reis, H., Nezlek, J., and Wheeler, L. (1980). Physical attractiveness in social interaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 38: 604–617.Google Scholar
  44. Roche, J. (1986). Premarital sex: attitudes and behavior by dating stage. Adolescence 2: 107–121.Google Scholar
  45. Sadalla, E., Kenrick, D., and Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 52: 730–738.Google Scholar
  46. Simpson, J., and Gangestad, S. (1991a). Personality and sexuality: Empirical relations and an integrative theoretical model. In McKinney, K., and Sprecher, S., (eds.), Sexuality in Close Relationships, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  47. Simpson, J., and Gangestad, S. (1991b). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60: 870–883.Google Scholar
  48. Simpson, J., and Gangestad, S. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. J. Pers. 60: 31–51.Google Scholar
  49. Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65: 293–307.Google Scholar
  50. Singh, D. (1995). Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: Role of waist-to-hip ratio and financial status. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69: 1089–1101.Google Scholar
  51. Spanier, G. (1976). Formal and informal sex education as determinants of premarital sexual behavior. Arch. Sex. Behav. 5: 39–67.Google Scholar
  52. Sprecher, S. (1989). Importance to males and females of physical attractiveness, earning potential, and expressiveness in initial attraction. Sex Roles 21: 591–607.Google Scholar
  53. Stoller, R. (1982). Transvestism in women. Arch. Sex. Behav. 11: 99–115.Google Scholar
  54. Symons, D. (1979). The Evolution of Human Sexuality, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  55. 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.), Theories of Human Sexuality, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  56. Symons, D. (1989). A critique of Darwinian anthropology. Ethnol. Sociobiol. 10: 131–144.Google Scholar
  57. Symons, D. (1992). What do men want? Behav. Brain Sci. 15: 115.Google Scholar
  58. Symons, D., and Ellis, B. (1989). Human male-female differences in sexual desire. In Rasa, A., Vogel, C., and Voland, E. (eds.), Sociobiology of Sexual and Reproductive Strategies, Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  59. Thornhill, R., and Gangestad, S.W. (1993). Human facial beauty: averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Hum. Nature 4: 237–269.Google Scholar
  60. Tooby, J., and Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (eds.), The Adapted Mind, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  61. Townsend, J. (1987). Sex differences in sexuality among medical students: Effects of increasing socioeconomic status. Arch. Sex. Behav. 16: 427–446.Google Scholar
  62. Townsend, J. (1989). Mate selection: A pilot study. Ethnol. Sociobiol. 10: 241–253.Google Scholar
  63. Townsend, J. (1992). Measuring the magnitude of sex differences. Behav. Brain Sci. 15: 115.Google Scholar
  64. Townsend, J. M. (1993). Sexuality and partner selection: Sex differences among college students. Ethnol. Sociobiol. 14: 305–330.Google Scholar
  65. Townsend, J. M. (1995). Sex without emotional involvement: An evolutionary interpretation of sex differences. Arch. Sex. Behav. 24: 171–204.Google Scholar
  66. Townsend, J., and Levy, G. (1990a). Effects of potential partners' costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection. J. Psychol. 124: 371–389.Google Scholar
  67. Townsend, J., and Levy, G. (1990b). Effects of potential partners' physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Arch. Sex. Behav. 19: 149–164.Google Scholar
  68. Townsend, J. M., and Roberts, L. W. (1993). Gender differences in mate preference among law students: Divergence and convergence of criteria. J. Psychol. 127: 507–528.Google Scholar
  69. Townsend, J. M., Kline, J., and Wasserman, T. (1995). Low-investment copulation: Sex differences in motivations and emotional reactions. Ethnol. Sociobiol. 16: 25–51.Google Scholar
  70. Townsend, J. M., and Wasserman, T. (n.d.). Sex differences in sexual emotions and sexual attractiveness. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  71. Udry, J. R., and Billy, J. O. G. (1987). Initiation of coitus in early adolescence. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52: 841–855.Google Scholar
  72. Useche, B., Villegas, M., and Alzate, H. (1990). Sexual behavior of Colombian high school students. Adolescence 25: 291–304.Google Scholar
  73. van den Berghe, P. (1979). Human Family Systems, Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
  74. Weinrich, J. (1977). Human sociobiology: Pair-bonding and resource predictability (effects of social class and race). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2: 91–118.Google Scholar
  75. Weinrich, J. (1988). The periodic table model of the gender transpositions: Part II. Limerant and lusty sexual attractions and the nature of bisexuality. J. Sex Res. 24: 113–129.Google Scholar
  76. Wiederman, W. W., and Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria. Ethnol. Sociobiol. 13: 115–124.Google Scholar
  77. Wilson, G. (1981). Cross-generational stability of gender differences in sexuality. Pers. Indiv. Diff. 2: 254–262.Google Scholar
  78. Wilson, G. (1987). Male-female differences in sexual activity, enjoyment, and fantasies. Pers. Indiv. Diff. 8: 125–135.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Marshall Townsend
    • 1
  • Timothy Wasserman
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologySyracuse UniversitySyracuse
  2. 2.Office of Evaluation and ResearchSyracuse UniversitySyracuse

Personalised recommendations