24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

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

      ,
      Archives of Sexual Behavior
      Springer Science and Business Media LLC

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferences in human mate selection.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The evolution of human intrasexual competition: tactics of mate attraction.

            David Buss (1988)
            Darwin's theory of sexual selection suggests that individuals compete with members of their own sex for reproductively relevant resources held by members of the opposite sex. Four empirical studies were conducted to identify tactics of intrasexual mate competition and to test four evolution-based hypotheses. A preliminary study yielded a taxonomy of tactics. Study 1 used close-friend observers to report performance frequencies of 23 tactics to test the hypotheses. Study 2 replicated Study 1's results by using a different data source and subject population. Study 3 provided an independent test of the hypotheses in assessing the perceived effectiveness of each tactic for male and female actors. Although the basic hypotheses were supported across all three studies, there were several predictive failures and unanticipated findings. Discussion centers on the heuristic as well as predictive role of evolutionary theory, and on implications for other arenas of intrasexual competition.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Archives of Sexual Behavior
                Arch Sex Behav
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                0004-0002
                1573-2800
                April 1990
                April 1990
                : 19
                : 2
                : 149-164
                Article
                10.1007/BF01542229
                2337380
                2821980b-8fa0-4449-a3f2-02be9062d8ee
                © 1990

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article