Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1990
Effects of Potential Partners' Physical Attractiveness and Socioeconomic Status on Sexuality and Partner Selection J o h n Marshall T o w n s e n d , Ph.D., 1 and Gary D. Levy, Ph.D. 2
Male (n = 170) and female (n = 212) college students viewed photographs, which had been prerated for physical attractiveness, o f 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 o f 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. KEY WORDS: sex differences; sexuality; partner selection; physical attractiveness; socioeconomic status.
INTRODUCTION
Researchers have consistently identified the following sex differences in sexuality and partner selection. Men are more willing than women to en~Department of Anthropology, 308 Bowne Hall, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-1200. ZDepartment of Psychology, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio. 149 0004-0002/90/0400-0149506.00/0 © 1990Plenum PublishingCorporation
150
Townsend and LeYy
gage in sexual relations in the absence of emotional involvement and marital potential and are more likely to seek sexual relations with a variety of partners for the sake of variety (Kinsey et al., 1953; Kanin et al., 1970; Wilson, 1981; Houston, 1981; Blumstein and Schwartz, 1983; Carroll et al., 1985; Roche, 1986; Symons and Ellis, 1989). Men are more readily aroused sexually than women by visual stimuli, e.g., the sight of a potential sex partner (Kinsey et al., 1953; Symons 1979, 1985, 1987). Men place more emphasis than women on physical attractiveness in choosing partners for sex or marriage, and women place more emphasis than men on partners' socioeconomic status (SES) (Berscheid and Walster, 1974; Dion, 1981; Buss and Barnes, 1986). These sex differences in sexuality and partner selection have shown a remarkable persistence over generations and a remarkable consistency crossculturally (Holmes and Hatch, 1938; Kinsey et al., 1953; Hudson and Henze, 1969; Symons, 1979, 1985, 1987; Blumstein and Schwartz, 1983; Davis, 1985; Mazur, 1986; Buss, 1989). Evolutionary biology explains these differences in terms of parental investment (Trivers, 1972; van den Berghe and Barash, 1977; Symons, 1979; Daly and Wilson, 1983; Buss and Barnes, 1986; Buss, 1987). An )tlternative explanation of these sex differences, viz., that they are caused by differential socialization and differential access to resources, is discussed later.
Parental I n v e s t m e n t
In most animal species the female typically invests more energy, time, and risk in each offspring than the male. Males can consequently produce more offspring by copulating with many mates whereas this is rarely true of females. Compared to males, females have little to gain reproductively and potentially much to lose by copulating with many partners, but females have a great deal to gain by choosing to mate with only the best males; hence, natural selection has favored the female tendencies to be more cautious and selective than males in choosing mates, and to discriminate male quality or the quality of male territories. The concept of parental investment predicts sex differences in sexuality and mate selection in an enormous variety of species (Trivets, 1972; Daly and Wilson, 1983). Evolutionary biologists use parental investment theory to explain sex differences in human sexuality and mate selection as follows (Symons, 1979; Singer 1985a, 1985b; Buss and Barnes, 1986; Buss, 1987). Women exchange sexual access for the maximal investment of a high-quality male, whereas men are more inclined to try to spread their investments among several women, thus reducing the average investment per partner and maximizing the number of partners. Because a woman's fertility is highly dependent on her age and health, when men choose
Effect of Physical Attractiveness and SES in Partner Selection
151
partners they tend to emphasize proximate cues to age and health, e.g., complexion, muscle tone, absence of wrinkles, and facial proportions (Symons, 1979; Buss and Barnes, 1986; Buss, 1987; Naficy, 1981; Mathes et al., 1985; Cunningham, 1986). A man's fertility is less dependent on his age and health, but his prowess and resources can greatly enhance a woman's reproductive success. Consequently, in choosing partners women place less emphasis than men on physical attributes, and more emphasis on status and resources. Although effective contraception, female economic independence, bottle feeding, and supplemental child care could obviate these sex differences, they persist because natural selection has caused the mechanisms that mediate sexual arousal and motivation to differ in men and women (Kinsey et al., 1953, pp. 690, 712; Symons, 1979 pp. 42-50; Singer, 1985a, 1985b). Hence, even if these sex differences no longer offer a reproductive advantage to particular individuals, evolutionary theory predicts that the evidence of females' greater caution, selectivity, and interest in quality of male investment will increase as the potential for copulation and fertilization increases. Sex differences in these characteristics should be relatively weak in nonsexual relationships and stronger in sexual relationships. Because a primary and universal function of marriage has been to legitimate and sanction copulation and procreation (Levi-Strauss, 1969; Davis, 1985), and because most women still enter marriage expecting to reproduce (Blake, 1979, 1982), sex differences in the effects of potential partners' resources on partner selection should be greatest for relationships that involve coitus and/or the possibility of marriage.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was threefold. First, we wanted to explore sex differences in willingness to enter into various kinds of relationships and the effects of different levels of potential partners' physical attractiveness and SES on this willingness. Second, we wanted to define more precisely than have previous researchers the relative effects of physical attractiveness and status in different types of relationships and the interactional effects of these factors on men's and women's partner selection. For example, a partner's high status may compensate for his/her low physical attractiveness, and high physical attractiveness may compensate for low status. These trade-offs may differ in different types of relationships and may differ for men and women. Third, we wanted to use these findings to test predictions generated by parental investment theory. The following hypotheses were posited: 1. Men report more willingness than women report to enter relationships that specifically involve sexual intercourse.
152
Townsend and Levy
2. Physical attractiveness of partners affects both sexes' reported willingness to enter into relationships of varying levels of sexual intimacy and marital potential, but physical attractiveness is a better predictor of men's willingness than of women's willingness to enter relationships that specifically involve sexual intercourse and/or marital potential. 3.Socioeconomic status of potential partners is a better predictor of women's reported willingness than of men's reported willingness to enter all proposed types of relationships. 4. Sex differences in the effects on partner selection of potential partners' status increase as the sexual involvement and/or marital potential of relationships increase.
METHOD Subjects
Subjects consisted of female (n = 212) and male (n = 170) college students in an introductory psychology class. All subjects were unmarried and between the ages of 18 and 21. Participation in the study partially fulfilled an experimental requirement for the class, and subjects did not know the nature of the study when they signed up for the experiment.
Instrument
One hundred black-and-white photographs were selected from a college yearbook and prerated for physical attractiveness by 20 ma!e and 20 female students who were not in the study sample. Three male and three female photographs were selected on the basis of their mean ratings to represent high, medium, and low levels of physical attractiveness. The male and female photographs representing each level of attractiveness had received virtually identical mean ratings from the male and female preraters and had relatively small standard deviations compared to the other 94 photographs. On the 6-point prerating scale, the means of the chosen photographs ranged from 1.85 to 5.55. A series of six questions was developed from open-ended interviews with 60 university students. These questions were designed to represent stages of increasing sexual involvement and marital potential from a casual conversation through dating, sex, relationships with marital potential, and marriage (Table I).
Effect of Physical Attractiveness and SES in Partner Selection
153
Table I. F Values for Overall Main and Interaction Effects (ANOVA) for Six Relationship Questions Effects Question
Sex of subject
Physical attractiveness
Status
Sex × Physical attractiveness
Sex × Status
1. I would have a cup of coffee and a casual conversation with a person like this
1.53 ns
16.92 c
6.88 c
7.06 ~
1.04 ns
2. I would go out on a date with a person like this.
3.00 ns
52.85 e
8.34 ~
8.77 e
1.10 ns
235.55 e
49.49 e
4.80 b
7.78 a
1.11 ns
4. I would be willing to have a serious relationship with a person like this, that could lead to marriage
14.85 e
27.79 e
32.29 ~
6.33 c
3.54 a
5. I would be willing to have a serious sexual relationship with a person like this, that could lead to marriage.
67.30 e
32.97 ~
18.83"
4.06 ~
1.70 ns
6. I would be willing to marry a person like this.
5.11 °
27.35 e
40.12 e
5.03 b
7.22 a
3. I would be willing to have sex with a person like this.
"p < 0.05. bp < 0.005. ~p < 0.001.
dp
Effects of Potential Partners' Physical Attractiveness and Socioeconomic Status on Sexuality and Partner Selection J o h n Marshall T o w n s e n d , Ph.D., 1 and Gary D. Levy, Ph.D. 2
Male (n = 170) and female (n = 212) college students viewed photographs, which had been prerated for physical attractiveness, o f 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 o f 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. KEY WORDS: sex differences; sexuality; partner selection; physical attractiveness; socioeconomic status.
INTRODUCTION
Researchers have consistently identified the following sex differences in sexuality and partner selection. Men are more willing than women to en~Department of Anthropology, 308 Bowne Hall, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244-1200. ZDepartment of Psychology, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio. 149 0004-0002/90/0400-0149506.00/0 © 1990Plenum PublishingCorporation
150
Townsend and LeYy
gage in sexual relations in the absence of emotional involvement and marital potential and are more likely to seek sexual relations with a variety of partners for the sake of variety (Kinsey et al., 1953; Kanin et al., 1970; Wilson, 1981; Houston, 1981; Blumstein and Schwartz, 1983; Carroll et al., 1985; Roche, 1986; Symons and Ellis, 1989). Men are more readily aroused sexually than women by visual stimuli, e.g., the sight of a potential sex partner (Kinsey et al., 1953; Symons 1979, 1985, 1987). Men place more emphasis than women on physical attractiveness in choosing partners for sex or marriage, and women place more emphasis than men on partners' socioeconomic status (SES) (Berscheid and Walster, 1974; Dion, 1981; Buss and Barnes, 1986). These sex differences in sexuality and partner selection have shown a remarkable persistence over generations and a remarkable consistency crossculturally (Holmes and Hatch, 1938; Kinsey et al., 1953; Hudson and Henze, 1969; Symons, 1979, 1985, 1987; Blumstein and Schwartz, 1983; Davis, 1985; Mazur, 1986; Buss, 1989). Evolutionary biology explains these differences in terms of parental investment (Trivers, 1972; van den Berghe and Barash, 1977; Symons, 1979; Daly and Wilson, 1983; Buss and Barnes, 1986; Buss, 1987). An )tlternative explanation of these sex differences, viz., that they are caused by differential socialization and differential access to resources, is discussed later.
Parental I n v e s t m e n t
In most animal species the female typically invests more energy, time, and risk in each offspring than the male. Males can consequently produce more offspring by copulating with many mates whereas this is rarely true of females. Compared to males, females have little to gain reproductively and potentially much to lose by copulating with many partners, but females have a great deal to gain by choosing to mate with only the best males; hence, natural selection has favored the female tendencies to be more cautious and selective than males in choosing mates, and to discriminate male quality or the quality of male territories. The concept of parental investment predicts sex differences in sexuality and mate selection in an enormous variety of species (Trivets, 1972; Daly and Wilson, 1983). Evolutionary biologists use parental investment theory to explain sex differences in human sexuality and mate selection as follows (Symons, 1979; Singer 1985a, 1985b; Buss and Barnes, 1986; Buss, 1987). Women exchange sexual access for the maximal investment of a high-quality male, whereas men are more inclined to try to spread their investments among several women, thus reducing the average investment per partner and maximizing the number of partners. Because a woman's fertility is highly dependent on her age and health, when men choose
Effect of Physical Attractiveness and SES in Partner Selection
151
partners they tend to emphasize proximate cues to age and health, e.g., complexion, muscle tone, absence of wrinkles, and facial proportions (Symons, 1979; Buss and Barnes, 1986; Buss, 1987; Naficy, 1981; Mathes et al., 1985; Cunningham, 1986). A man's fertility is less dependent on his age and health, but his prowess and resources can greatly enhance a woman's reproductive success. Consequently, in choosing partners women place less emphasis than men on physical attributes, and more emphasis on status and resources. Although effective contraception, female economic independence, bottle feeding, and supplemental child care could obviate these sex differences, they persist because natural selection has caused the mechanisms that mediate sexual arousal and motivation to differ in men and women (Kinsey et al., 1953, pp. 690, 712; Symons, 1979 pp. 42-50; Singer, 1985a, 1985b). Hence, even if these sex differences no longer offer a reproductive advantage to particular individuals, evolutionary theory predicts that the evidence of females' greater caution, selectivity, and interest in quality of male investment will increase as the potential for copulation and fertilization increases. Sex differences in these characteristics should be relatively weak in nonsexual relationships and stronger in sexual relationships. Because a primary and universal function of marriage has been to legitimate and sanction copulation and procreation (Levi-Strauss, 1969; Davis, 1985), and because most women still enter marriage expecting to reproduce (Blake, 1979, 1982), sex differences in the effects of potential partners' resources on partner selection should be greatest for relationships that involve coitus and/or the possibility of marriage.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was threefold. First, we wanted to explore sex differences in willingness to enter into various kinds of relationships and the effects of different levels of potential partners' physical attractiveness and SES on this willingness. Second, we wanted to define more precisely than have previous researchers the relative effects of physical attractiveness and status in different types of relationships and the interactional effects of these factors on men's and women's partner selection. For example, a partner's high status may compensate for his/her low physical attractiveness, and high physical attractiveness may compensate for low status. These trade-offs may differ in different types of relationships and may differ for men and women. Third, we wanted to use these findings to test predictions generated by parental investment theory. The following hypotheses were posited: 1. Men report more willingness than women report to enter relationships that specifically involve sexual intercourse.
152
Townsend and Levy
2. Physical attractiveness of partners affects both sexes' reported willingness to enter into relationships of varying levels of sexual intimacy and marital potential, but physical attractiveness is a better predictor of men's willingness than of women's willingness to enter relationships that specifically involve sexual intercourse and/or marital potential. 3.Socioeconomic status of potential partners is a better predictor of women's reported willingness than of men's reported willingness to enter all proposed types of relationships. 4. Sex differences in the effects on partner selection of potential partners' status increase as the sexual involvement and/or marital potential of relationships increase.
METHOD Subjects
Subjects consisted of female (n = 212) and male (n = 170) college students in an introductory psychology class. All subjects were unmarried and between the ages of 18 and 21. Participation in the study partially fulfilled an experimental requirement for the class, and subjects did not know the nature of the study when they signed up for the experiment.
Instrument
One hundred black-and-white photographs were selected from a college yearbook and prerated for physical attractiveness by 20 ma!e and 20 female students who were not in the study sample. Three male and three female photographs were selected on the basis of their mean ratings to represent high, medium, and low levels of physical attractiveness. The male and female photographs representing each level of attractiveness had received virtually identical mean ratings from the male and female preraters and had relatively small standard deviations compared to the other 94 photographs. On the 6-point prerating scale, the means of the chosen photographs ranged from 1.85 to 5.55. A series of six questions was developed from open-ended interviews with 60 university students. These questions were designed to represent stages of increasing sexual involvement and marital potential from a casual conversation through dating, sex, relationships with marital potential, and marriage (Table I).
Effect of Physical Attractiveness and SES in Partner Selection
153
Table I. F Values for Overall Main and Interaction Effects (ANOVA) for Six Relationship Questions Effects Question
Sex of subject
Physical attractiveness
Status
Sex × Physical attractiveness
Sex × Status
1. I would have a cup of coffee and a casual conversation with a person like this
1.53 ns
16.92 c
6.88 c
7.06 ~
1.04 ns
2. I would go out on a date with a person like this.
3.00 ns
52.85 e
8.34 ~
8.77 e
1.10 ns
235.55 e
49.49 e
4.80 b
7.78 a
1.11 ns
4. I would be willing to have a serious relationship with a person like this, that could lead to marriage
14.85 e
27.79 e
32.29 ~
6.33 c
3.54 a
5. I would be willing to have a serious sexual relationship with a person like this, that could lead to marriage.
67.30 e
32.97 ~
18.83"
4.06 ~
1.70 ns
6. I would be willing to marry a person like this.
5.11 °
27.35 e
40.12 e
5.03 b
7.22 a
3. I would be willing to have sex with a person like this.
"p < 0.05. bp < 0.005. ~p < 0.001.
dp
