idk125
Paragon
★★★★★
- Joined
- May 26, 2022
- Posts
- 15,058
Years of attraction research have established several "principles" of attraction with robust evidence. However, a major limitation of previous attraction studies is that they have almost exclusively relied on well-controlled experiments, which are often criticized for lacking ecological validity. The current research was designed to examine initial attraction in a real-life setting-speed-dating. Social Relations Model analyses demonstrated that initial attraction was a function of the actor, the partner, and the unique dyadic relationship between these two. Meta-analyses showed intriguing sex differences and similarities. Self characteristics better predicted women's attraction than they did for men, whereas partner characteristics predicted men's attraction far better than they did for women. The strongest predictor of attraction for both sexes was partners' physical attractiveness. Finally, there was some support for the reciprocity principle but no evidence for the similarity principle.
It is remarkable that the strongest predictor of initial attraction in a speed-dating context was partner’s physical attractiveness, and, most importantly, men and women showed an extremely similar pattern. This finding was highly consistent with the results reported in several other speed-dating studies we mentioned earlier (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Fisman et al., 2006; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005, 2008; Todd et al., 2007). It therefore seems a very solid finding that men and women are equally strongly drawn to physically attractive partners. This finding, however, appears to be inconsistent with the widely accepted finding in evolutionary research indicating a fundamental sex difference in their preferences for long-term partners—whereas men prefer youth and physical attractiveness in their partners, women give more weight to partners’ earning potential and commitment to a relationship. Evolutionary research does suggest that these sex differences in mating preferences tend to diminish or even disappear when short-term mating contexts are primed (e.g., Li & Kenrick, 2006). One may argue that speed-dating fits better a short-term context rather than a long-term mating context. It is important to note that some of the published speed-dating studies (Kurzban & Weeden, 2005, 2008; Todd et al., 2007) were not based on college student samples but on community adult samples. These participants actually paid to participate in the commercial speed-dating service with the hope to find a life partner. This should be considered as more like a long-term context. Nevertheless, they yielded a similar pattern as found in the college student based samples in Eastwick and Finkel and the current research. Moreover, Eastwick and Finkel did an excellent job ruling out several potential alternative explanations for this finding. For example, even when explicitly asked to consider long-term partners, both sexes continued to favor physical attractiveness. Thus, the lack of sex difference on preference of Speed-Dating Attraction physical attractiveness does not seem to be due to differences in the mating strategy people are taking.
Then how do we reconcile these findings? We consider a fundamental difference between mating preference research and attraction research—whereas mate preference or ideal partner research focuses on conscious, rational cognitions about an ideal partner, attraction research studies less conscious and more spontaneous feelings and behaviors. The difference in findings from these two fields indicates that human beings’ rational, conscious mind can be independent from their behaviors in real-life encounters. In our particular case, it seems that women’s attraction feeling is dominated by partners’ physical attractiveness, just as their male counterparts, even though it is possible that when prompted to think about preferences for a potential mate, women would give priority considerations to characteristics like earning potential. Would that suggest that humans’ conscious, rational thoughts are more a product of evolutionary principles, whereas their actual behaviors can be irrational and not necessarily in their best interests (in terms of reproductive success)? This question warrants further examination.
It is remarkable that the strongest predictor of initial attraction in a speed-dating context was partner’s physical attractiveness, and, most importantly, men and women showed an extremely similar pattern. This finding was highly consistent with the results reported in several other speed-dating studies we mentioned earlier (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Fisman et al., 2006; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005, 2008; Todd et al., 2007). It therefore seems a very solid finding that men and women are equally strongly drawn to physically attractive partners. This finding, however, appears to be inconsistent with the widely accepted finding in evolutionary research indicating a fundamental sex difference in their preferences for long-term partners—whereas men prefer youth and physical attractiveness in their partners, women give more weight to partners’ earning potential and commitment to a relationship. Evolutionary research does suggest that these sex differences in mating preferences tend to diminish or even disappear when short-term mating contexts are primed (e.g., Li & Kenrick, 2006). One may argue that speed-dating fits better a short-term context rather than a long-term mating context. It is important to note that some of the published speed-dating studies (Kurzban & Weeden, 2005, 2008; Todd et al., 2007) were not based on college student samples but on community adult samples. These participants actually paid to participate in the commercial speed-dating service with the hope to find a life partner. This should be considered as more like a long-term context. Nevertheless, they yielded a similar pattern as found in the college student based samples in Eastwick and Finkel and the current research. Moreover, Eastwick and Finkel did an excellent job ruling out several potential alternative explanations for this finding. For example, even when explicitly asked to consider long-term partners, both sexes continued to favor physical attractiveness. Thus, the lack of sex difference on preference of Speed-Dating Attraction physical attractiveness does not seem to be due to differences in the mating strategy people are taking.
Then how do we reconcile these findings? We consider a fundamental difference between mating preference research and attraction research—whereas mate preference or ideal partner research focuses on conscious, rational cognitions about an ideal partner, attraction research studies less conscious and more spontaneous feelings and behaviors. The difference in findings from these two fields indicates that human beings’ rational, conscious mind can be independent from their behaviors in real-life encounters. In our particular case, it seems that women’s attraction feeling is dominated by partners’ physical attractiveness, just as their male counterparts, even though it is possible that when prompted to think about preferences for a potential mate, women would give priority considerations to characteristics like earning potential. Would that suggest that humans’ conscious, rational thoughts are more a product of evolutionary principles, whereas their actual behaviors can be irrational and not necessarily in their best interests (in terms of reproductive success)? This question warrants further examination.