Sexual Psychology – Pop Culture Sexual Health Composition – Due Fri 12/3

175

The Psychology of Human Sexuality, Second Edition. Justin J. Lehmiller. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Companion Website: www.wiley.com\go\lehmiller2e

7

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Introduction, 176 What Attracts Us To Other People?, 176

Affective Influences, 177 Propinquity, 179 Similarity, 181 Scarcity, 183 Physiological Arousal, 184 Neurochemical Factors, 185 Physical Attractiveness, 185 Other Factors Involved in Attraction, 187

Attraction Processes among Gay Men and Lesbians, 188 Why Are Men and Women Attracted to Different Characteristics?, 189

Evolutionary Theory, 189 Social Structural Perspectives, 192

The Laws of Attraction

©vgstudio/123RF.COM.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

7 The Laws of Attraction176

Introduction

Every time I give a lecture on attraction, I begin by asking students to think about the most recent person they went on a date with. I then ask for a few volunteers to tell me where they first met that person and what their initial attraction was based on. A similar set of answers almost invariably emerges, with the most common meeting places being school, work, the gym, or one of the local bars. As for what stimulated the initial attraction, the responses usually fall along the lines of “she was good-looking,” “he was so nice and friendly,” and “we just had so much in common.” Sound familiar? It should. As you will see in this chapter, psychologists have identified a basic set of principles involved in sexual attraction. Although most of us tend to be drawn to the same set of things in our partners, there are some important differences based upon sexual orientation, not to mention notable differences between men and women. Sex dif- ferences in attraction have become one of the most contentious areas of research in psychology in recent years. As a result, we will spend some time exploring these differences and the theo- ries that have been proposed to account for them. Before we begin our review of the relevant research on attraction, please take a moment to reflect on some of the characteristics you find attractive in others by checking out the Your Sexuality 7.1 box.

What Attracts Us To Other People?

How much time do you need before you know whether you like someone? Social psychologists have discovered that we form first impressions very quickly. In fact, judgments of likeability and attractiveness can be formed in just a fraction of a second. For instance, in a study by Willis and Todorov (2006), participants were randomly assigned to view a photograph of another person for

Your Sexuality 7.1 What Characteristics are Important to You in a Potential Partner?

On a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 7 (very willing), please rate how willing you would be to marry someone under each of the following circumstances:

_____ the person is five or more years older than you. _____ the person is five or more years younger than you. _____ the person is more highly educated than you. _____ the person has a lower level of education than you. _____ the person is unlikely to keep a steady job. _____ the person is not good-looking. _____ the person earns more money than you. _____ the person earns less money than you.

Sprecher and colleagues (1994) administered these same questions to a nationally represent- ative sample of adults in the United States and found a number of important sex differences. Women were more willing than men to marry someone with the following characteristics: older, not good-looking, more highly educated, and higher earning potential. Men were more willing than women to marry someone with these characteristics: younger, less educated, less likely to hold a steady job, and lower earning potential. Did your responses follow the typical male pat- tern or the typical female pattern, or did you fall somewhere in between? What reasons can you think of for why men and women might value different characteristics in their partners?

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­hatAttracts sTo ther eoopee 177

less than a second or for as long as they wanted. Afterward, participants were asked to rate that person’s likeability, attractiveness, and personality. Results indicated that impressions formed from brief exposure to the target were highly correlated with impressions formed from unlimited exposure. Studies like this suggest that we may be able to tell almost immediately whether we are going to like someone. While fascinating, research of this nature provides an oversimplified view of how attraction works because when it comes to starting sexual and romantic relationships, we usually take into account more than what we learn at first glance. That first look is very important, but it is not everything. As you will see below, biological, psychological, and social factors each play a unique role in stimulating attraction. You will also see that attraction to another person is not always immediate and sometimes builds gradually over time.

Affective Influences

Our emotional states have both direct and indirect influences on who we are attracted to. In terms of direct effects, experiencing positive affect usually leads us to evaluate others posi- tively; experiencing negative affect typically leads to negative evaluations (Forgas & Bower, 1987). Thus, when someone makes us feel good or says something nice to us, we tend to like that per- son more, whereas when someone makes us feel bad or says something mean to us, we tend to like that person less. As a result, if you are looking for the right pick-up line to use the next time you meet someone attractive, it would be advisable to stick to compliments or things that will make the other person feel good and to avoid flippant remarks, crude jokes, negging (i.e., point- ing out something negative about another person as a means of catching that person’s attention), or any other lines that have the potential to generate negative affect. Although there are a lot of pick-up artists out there who swear by negging (some even offer workshops that teach others how to do it!), do not be fooled—the way to a person’s heart generally does not include saying anything that could be construed as belittlement. To learn more about research on effective opening lines and to see some specific examples, check out the Digging Deeper 7.1 box.

Figure 7.1 Psychologists have found that we form impressions of other people’s attractiveness and personality in a matter of seconds. ©gmast3r/123RF.COM.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

7 The Laws of Attraction178

Beyond the rather intuitive direct effects of affect on attraction, research has found that we indirectly transfer our existing emotional states onto new people we meet. Thus, if you already happen to be feeling good when you meet someone for the first time, you may like that per- son more even though they have absolutely nothing to do with your positive mood (Berry & Hansen, 1996). Consistent with this idea, priming studies have shown that when participants are subliminally exposed to a pleasant stimulus (e.g., a photo of an adorable kitten), they evalu- ate strangers more positively than when they are first exposed to an unpleasant stimulus (e.g., a picture featuring a bucket of snakes; Krosnick, Betz, Jussim, & Lynn, 1992). You can think of these effects as a form of classical conditioning. That is, when a neutral stimulus is paired with something positive, we like it more, but when that same neutral stimulus is paired with some- thing negative, we like it less.

Digging Deeper 7.1 “Is It Hot In Here, Or Is It Just You?” Do Pick-up Lines Work?

When you see someone attractive that you desperately want to meet, how do you break the ice? Many of us opt for a simple “hi” or “hello,” others offer a dance or a drink, and some choose to lead with an awesomely bad pick-up line (e.g., “Did you wash your pants with Windex? Because I can really see myself in them!”). Which of these approaches is most likely to succeed? Although no technique works 100% of the time, given that every person and situation is different, research suggests that your best bet is to be direct and be yourself, but steer clear of crude and sexually suggestive pick-up lines.

In one of my personal favorite psychological studies, heterosexual male and female college students were asked to generate some pick-up lines that the other sex might use on them and to evaluate which lines they thought would be most likely to succeed (Kleinke, Meeker, & Staneski,  1986). Three separate categories of pick-up lines emerged: cute/fpiooant (e.g., “Isn’t it cold? Let’s make some body heat”), innocuous aooroach (e.g., “Have you seen any good movies lately?”), and direct aooroach (e.g., “Hi. I like you.”). Overall, both men and women preferred the innocuous and direct lines over the cute/flippant lines. However, women disliked cute/flippant remarks significantly more than men. To give you a better sense of how participants perceived opening lines, see Table 7.1 for a sampling of some of the best and worst lines used by women and men, respectively.

If cute/flippant pick-up lines are perceived as so undesirable by women, why do so many men insist on using them? We cannot say for sure, but some researchers have suggested that this may be a strategy some men use to advertise their sexual interest or to zero in on women who are sexually available (Bale, Morrison, & Caryl, 2006). As you can see in Table 7.1, there was not 100% agreement on whether any of the lines were good or bad. In fact, there was a small but significant number of women who liked the cute/flippant lines. Thus, although men who use these lines will probably have a low hit rate overall, guys may still end up getting lucky if they use them enough. Think about it this way: flippant pick-up lines produce a variabpe ratio schedupe of reinforcement (i.e., the rewards are unpredictable), just like a slot machine in a casino. As some of you may know from personal experience, variable reinforcement schedules can be very effective at shap- ing behavior. Thus, even though cutesy pick-up lines may yield infrequent “jackpots,” that may be enough to keep some guys coming back for more.

What is the take-home message from all of this? If you are really interested in meeting some- one, a simple “hello” or a nice compliment is likely to open far more doors than some sexual innuendo.

Note: Reprinted with permission from Sex and sychopogy (www.lehmiller.com).

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­hatAttracts sTo ther eoopee 179

Propinquity

The propinquity effect (sometimes known as the proximity effect) refers to the fact that the closer two people are physically, the greater the odds that they will meet and an attraction will develop between them (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950). This means that people are more likely to start relationships with persons who are geographically near, including classmates, co-workers, and people who frequent the same businesses or belong to the same organizations.

The driving force behind the propinquity effect is repeated exposure. If you have ever taken a social psychology course, you probably learned about the mere exposure effect, which specifies that the more familiar we become with a given stimulus, the more we tend to like it (Zajonc, 1968). For example, perhaps you have had the experience where you heard a new

Table 7.1 Examples of best and worst pick-up lines.

Lines used by women on men Lines used by men on women

Best pick-up lines Best pick-up lines

Line Percentage of participants rating line as good

Line Percentage of participants rating line as good

“Since we’re both sitting alone, would you care to join me?”

71.6% “Do you want to dance?” 63.6%

“Hi.” 58.9% “Hi.” 60% “I’m having trouble getting my car started. Will you give me a hand?”

57.1% “I haven’t been here before. What’s good on the menu?”

58.2%

“I don’t have anyone to introduce me, but I’d really like to get to know you.”

54.6% “I’m a little embarrassed about this, but I’d really like to meet you.”

56.4%

“Can you give me directions to. . .” (anywhere)

47.8% “You have really nice. . .” (hair, eyes, etc.)

50.4%

Worst pick-up lines Worst pick-up lines

Line Percentage of participants rating line as bad

Line Percentage of participants rating line as bad

“It’s been a long time since I had a boyfriend.”

81.6% “Bet I can outdrink you.” 89.3%

“Didn’t we meet in a previous life?” 81.3% “Is that really your hair?” 89% “Hey baby, you’ve got a gorgeous chassis. Mind if I look under the hood?”

79.5% “Did you notice me throwing that football? Good arm, huh?”

88.2%

“I’m easy. Are you?” 79.2% “You remind me of a woman I used to date.”

86.8%

“What’s your sign?” 78.8% “I play the field and I think I just hit a home run with you.”

84.7%

Source: Kleinke, Meeker, and Staneski (1986).

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

7 The Laws of Attraction180

song for the first time and your immediate reaction was pretty ho-hum—no strong impression either way. However, after several more listens to that same song, perhaps you found that it grew on you and maybe it even became one of your favorites. The idea is the same with sexual and romantic attraction. That is, when we meet someone new, we may not be quite sure what to make of that person; however, the more we continue to see that person (whether it is over the course of a long evening or a more extended period of time), the more we come to like that individual. The one caveat to this idea is that for mere exposure to work, your initial impres- sion of another person must be close to neutral. If your initial reaction is strongly negative, repeated exposure will not necessarily improve that. In fact, it may make you like that person even less!

As some evidence of the effects of mere exposure, consider a study by Moreland and Beach (1992) in which female research assistants attended between 0 and 15 college lectures over the course of a semester, but did not interact with any students when they attended class. At the end of the semester, students were shown photos of the women and asked to rate their attractiveness. Those women who attended the most classes were rated as most attractive.

Repeated exposure increases liking in and of itself. However, it can have a couple of other effects on attraction. For one thing, when we see another person going to the same places we tend to frequent (assuming it is not in a creepy, stalker-like way), it suggests to us that they may have similar interests. In addition, our comfort with the other person also increases because repeated exposure tells us that this person is unlikely to represent any threat or danger to us.

Figure 7.2 Inducing positive affect is one of the keys to generating attraction. As such, it is a good idea to avoid raunchy jokes, flippant comments, and other remarks that have the potential to generate negative emotions. ©CREATISTA, 2016. Used under license from Shutterstock.com.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­hatAttracts sTo ther eoopee 181

Similarity

Most sexuality and relationships textbooks tout similarity as a driving force in romantic attrac- tion, claiming that “birds of a feather flock together.” Claims like this make a lot of intuitive sense from both an empirical and theoretical standpoint. For instance, we have a mountain of studies indicating that sexual and romantic partners are largely similar to one another on everything from their demographic profiles to their attitudes, and this holds regardless of whether we are talking about one-night stands or long-term lovers. This preference for simi- larity extends much further than you might imagine, though. In fact, we even appear to select partners who have similar intellectual capabilities and who are approximately of the same level of physical attractiveness (Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971). This tendency for people to match with partners who are similar to them on a variety of dimensions is known scientifi- cally as assortative mating. Table 7.2 summarizes some evidence of assortative mating.

Psychologists have proposed a number of explanations to account for this preference for similarity, such as social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), which holds that we are driven to obtain accurate evaluations of the self. As such, we constantly compare our attitudes and beliefs to other people in order to see how we stack up. However, we are biased to view the self positively, which means that we try to make comparisons that enhance our self-image. One consequence of this is that we actively seek to surround ourselves with people who hold similar beliefs and attitudes because it validates our own worldview and raises our self-esteem.

Given the prevalence of partner similarity across so many domains, many scientists have concluded that similarity is a necessary prerequisite for relationship success. A few psychologists have even tried to cash in on this conclusion. For instance, the online dating company eHarmony promises to match users based on the “29 Dimensions of Compatibility,” which their website claims is “proven to predict happier, healthier long-term relationships” (eHarmony, 2012). The basic premise of eHarmony and many other dating websites (e.g., PerfectMatch, Chemistry) is that given the strong tendency toward assortative mating, all you need to do is put together the most similar couples possible and everyone should live happily ever after. But are relationships really that simple? As it turns out, similarity is a very poor predictor of relationship success. For example, in a meta-analysis of 313 studies of similarity in partners’ personality, the researchers concluded that while actual similarity is indeed associated with attraction in lab-based studies,

Table 7.2 Evidence of assortative mating: percentage of partners across different relationship types displaying similarity in age, religious background, and education level.

Type of similarity

Relationship type

Married partners Cohabiting partners Short-term partners

Similarity in age (i.e., partners within 5 years of one another

78% 75% 83%

Similarity in religious background (i.e., having the same affiliation)

72% 53% 60%

Similarity in education level (i.e., being no more than one degree category apart)

82% 87% 87%

Note: Adapted with permission from Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels (1994).

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

7 The Laws of Attraction182

there is no significant link between actual similarity and satisfaction in existing relationships (Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008). Thus, while we do seem initially drawn to people who are similar to us, it turns out that the factors that initially attract us to someone are not neces- sarily the same factors that promote relationship stability and success. If this is the case, why are eHarmony and other such websites able to claim high success rates? Perhaps because there are inherent selection biases and expectancy effects in the world of online dating (e.g., maybe these websites attract people who are highly motivated to find a match, and who ultimately do so via a self-fulfilling prophecy).

One additional reason to be skeptical of the idea that simply putting similar people together will ensure a happy relationship is research demonstrating that we do not necessarily want part- ners who are similar to us in all ways. On some dimensions, we actually prefer complementarity rather than similarity. For instance Markey and Markey (2007) found that the happiest couples were those who were similar on the dimension of warmth and friendliness, but dissimilar on the dimension of dominance and submissiveness. Thus, “birds of a feather flock together” is a bit of an oversimplification—it turns out that “opposites attract,” too, at least in some ways.

Interracial and Interreligious Relationships Although there is a lot of evidence for assortative mating, it is clear that not everyone selects sexual and romantic partners who are similar to them in most ways. In fact, the tendency to pair with demographically dissimilar partners appears to have increased in recent years. For example, national US surveys and census data indicate that the rate of interracial marriage among heterosexuals is now at an all-time high of around 9%, a number that has almost tripled since the 1980s (Gates, 2012; Wang, 2012). Likewise, as seen in Table 7.2, the NHSLS (a study conducted in the early 1990s) found that 28% of heterosexual married couples were from dif- ferent religious backgrounds. In comparison, a more recent national US survey put that num- ber at 38% (Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012). Thus, it is clear that couples today are more likely to be marrying outside of their race and faith.

Figure 7.3 Internet dating companies often attempt to match people based solely on measures of similarity. Although we tend to be attracted to similar others, similarity does not guarantee relationship success. ©Gunnar Pippel/123RF.COM.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­hatAttracts sTo ther eoopee 183

There is likely a social psychological explanation behind these trends. For example, con- sider that in the United States, interracial marriage (also known as intermarriage) was illegal throughout much of the country until a landmark Supreme Court ruling in the case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967. At that point in time, just 20% of Americans approved of intermarriage, and it was not until 1991 that, for the first time, more Americans approved than disapproved of cou- ples marrying outside of their race (Carroll, 2007). Now, the vast majority of Americans approve of intermarriage, but some resistance remains. A review of public opinion polls has revealed similar trends in Americans’ attitudes toward interreligious marriages over time (Riley, 2013). Thus, historically, there has been a lot of normative pressure against becoming sexually and/ or romantically involved with outgroup members; however, as societal attitudes have changed and those pressures have lessened, certain forms of assortative mating have begun to dimin- ish. Of course, there are likely numerous factors contributing to this change, including the increased racial and ethnic diversity of the United States and a decline in Western religiosity. Although interracial and interreligious relationships are undeniably becoming more common, it remains more likely than not for people in the modern world to match with similar partners.

Scarcity

Ain’t it funny, ain’t it strange, the way a man’s opinions change when he starts to face that lonely night.

Lyrics from the song Don’t the Girls All Get Prettier at Closing Time by Mickey Gilley

People who work in marketing know that one of the keys to getting consumers to spend money on a product is to create an illusion of scarcity. In other words, if your product appears to be available in limited quantities or for a short time only, its desirability increases. A similar prin- ciple applies when it comes to finding sexual and romantic partners: when a person’s availabil- ity decreases, their attractiveness increases. As some evidence of this, consider a classic study conducted by Jamie Pennebaker and colleagues (1979) in which men and women in a bar were approached at different hours of the evening and asked to rate the attractiveness of patrons of the other sex. Specifically, the bar closed at 12:30 a.m. and participants were approached at 9:00 p.m., 10:30 p.m., or 12:00 midnight on the same evening. For both male and female par- ticipants, perceptions of attractiveness increased as the evening went on. Thus, as the window of opportunity for going home with someone narrowed, perceptions of others’ attractiveness went up. A subsequent study replicated this effect, but found that it only held for people who were single, not for people who were already in a committed relationship (Madey et al., 1996). Of course, these effects might also be partly a function of “beer goggles,” or the idea that as people get more intoxicated, their standards of attractiveness change. Indeed, research has also found that when heterosexual folks are approached at a bar or party, those who are the most intoxicated provide the highest attractiveness ratings when shown photos of strangers of the other sex (Lyvers, Cholakians, Puorro, & Sundram, 2011).

Perhaps more convincing evidence of the role of scarcity comes from research by Jonason and Li (2013), who found that “playing hard to get” increases one’s desirability as a potential roman- tic partner. In one of their studies, heterosexual college students were given a series of dating profiles that differed only in the likelihood that the person would go out with someone they had just met. Specifically, each dating target was described as having either low, intermediate, or high availability. Afterward, participants were asked what kind of restaurant they would con- sider taking this person to (fast food, casual, or fine dining), as well as the amount of money they would be willing to spend on that person’s dinner. Both men and women were willing to take the low-availability target to a fancier restaurant and spend more money on that person compared to the other targets. Specifically, the low-availability target was worth $44.45 (USD) on average,

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

7 The Laws of Attraction184

compared to $34.99 and $33.10 for the intermediate and high availability targets, respectively. These findings provide further support for the idea that scarcity increases perceived desirability of prospective partners and encourages people to expend more resources on them.

Physiological Arousal

There is a long-standing body of research in social psychology demonstrating that meeting a new person when one is already physiologically aroused increases the likelihood of developing an attrac- tion toward that person. For instance, in a famous study conducted by Donald Dutton and Art Aron (1974), an attractive female research assistant approached men who happened to be walking alone across either a high and shaky suspension bridge that was very anxiety-inducing or a much lower and more stable bridge that was not scary at all. The female assistant asked each man to fill out a questionnaire while on the middle of the bridge, which included writing a brief narrative about a picture. After completing the survey, the assistant provided her name and number to the partici- pant and told him to give her a call that evening if he wanted to learn more about the study.

Men who encountered the assistant on the shaky bridge included much more sexual and romantic content in the stories they wrote. In addition, they were significantly more likely to call the number they had been given. This is just one of many studies indicating a positive asso- ciation between generalized physiological arousal and attraction. For instance, another study found the same basic effect by having guys exercise for a few minutes prior to rating the attrac- tiveness of a female confederate (White & Knight,  1984). In that study, men who exercised found the woman more attractive than guys who did not get their heart rates up. Recall how at the beginning of this chapter, I mentioned that students often tell me that they first met their partner at the gym? Does it now make more sense why fitness clubs are a common meeting place? Physiological arousal plus propinquity can be a potent combination.

Figure 7.4 In the Dutton and Aron (1976) study, men who walked across a high and shaky suspension bridge misattributed their arousal to the attractive research assistant instead of the nature of the situation. ©Sergey Breev/123RF.COM.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­hatAttracts sTo ther eoopee 185

How do we explain this pattern of results? The likely mechanism is a misattribution of physi- ological arousal. For misattribution of arousal to take place, the true source of the arousal must be ambiguous, meaning it cannot be entirely clear to the individual what is responsible for it. Such ambiguity may lead the aroused person to incorrectly label the true source of their arousal (e.g., in the Dutton and Aron study, participants mistakenly attributed their arousal to the attrac- tive research assistant rather than a fear of heights). Of course, keep in mind that this effect only occurs when there are competing explanations for the arousal. If there is nobody else around (or if nobody around is even remotely attractive), the true source of arousal is likely to be identified.

If there is a take-home message from this line of research, it would be that dinner and a movie might not be the best recipe for a successful first date after all (unless you choose a particularly suspenseful movie!). Instead, you might suggest something more physically active (e.g., biking, ice-skating, rock-climbing, or for the extremely adventurous, skydiving).

Neurochemical Factors

Beyond physiological arousal, there are several other biological factors that play a role in initial attraction. One such factor is pheromones. As previously discussed in chapter 4, studies have found that participants assigned to wear synthetic pheromones subsequently engaged in more sexual activity than participants who wore a placebo solution (e.g., McCoy & Pitino, 2002). This suggests that sexual attraction and behavior are at least partly determined by our sense of smell.

Neurotransmitters and hormones may also impact perceptions of attractiveness. For instance, we know from our discussion of sexual arousal in chapter 4 that dopamine and serotonin have facilitating and inhibiting effects on sexual arousal, respectively. This tells us that the relative amount of each of these neurotransmitters in our brain when we meet someone new may have a profound impact on whether we develop an attraction toward that person. Another way to think about this is that your brain chemicals affect your general level of interest in sex at any given moment, which in turn affects whether you are actively looking for partners and how you evaluate new people you meet. The implications of this are vast for people who are taking anti- depressants or other drugs that affect these neurotransmitter levels.

With respect to hormones, there is a natural release of oxytocin during physical contact with another person, which may facilitate attraction toward a specific target by increasing feelings of bondedness. Research has also found that people in new romantic relationships (less than 6 months in duration) have higher levels of oxytocin than single people and, further, the higher the partners’ levels of oxytocin, the more positive and affectionate they are around one another (Schneiderman, Zagoory-Sharon, Leckman, & Feldman, 2012). Thus, not only does oxytocin contribute to initial attraction, but it may also help sustain attraction over time by promoting reciprocal positive interactions.

Physical Attractiveness

Finally, and perhaps not surprisingly, physical attractiveness (the degree to which we per- ceive another person as beautiful or handsome) plays an important role in initial attraction. Perceptions of physical attractiveness can be based upon multiple factors, such as a person’s age, height, eye color, hairstyle, manner of dress, and so on; however, different people may place more or less emphasis on each of these factors when it comes to making their own judg- ments of attractiveness as a result of personal preferences. In addition, the relative value indi- viduals ascribe to physical attractiveness overall varies according to personality. For example, people with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation think a partner’s physical beauty is more important than those with a restricted orientation (Wilbur & Campbell, 2010). Attractiveness

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

7 The Laws of Attraction186

judgments are not entirely a matter of personal preference and personality, though. Research indicates that perceptions of attractiveness are also subject to social influence (Lehmiller, Graziano, & VanderDrift, 2014; Sprecher, 1989). For instance, Lehmiller and colleagues (2014) found that the perceived desirability of a prospective romantic target was affected by how other people viewed that target. Specifically, White college students evaluated photos of both same- race and different-race targets as more attractive when participants’ peers had ostensibly rated those targets as more attractive.

Perceptions of attractiveness are also context-dependent, meaning that we evaluate a per- son’s beauty in reference to other nearby people. For instance, imagine a person of slightly above-average looks standing next to a group of supermodels. That person would prob- ably not appear to be very good looking because there is a major contrast effect happening. A contrast effect refers to the idea that perceptions of average can be thrown off by the pres- ence of a few outliers. Contrast effects have implications not only for initial attraction, but also for how we perceive our long-term partners. For instance, in a classic set of studies, some participants were shown photos or videos of highly attractive people prior to evaluating the attractiveness of a stranger (Kenrick & Gutierres, 1980). In one of these studies, researchers interrupted male college students in a dorm who either were or were not watching a TV pro- gram featuring several attractive women (“Charlie’s Angels”). These men were asked to rate the attractiveness of a woman in a photo. Participants who were watching this show rated the woman as less attractive than those who were watching something else. As you can see, attractiveness is a complex judgment that not only depends upon individual preferences and personality, but also social influence and social comparison processes.

Despite the old saying “don’t judge a book by its cover,” almost all of us forget this when it comes to starting relationships. There are several reasons for this. One is that attractive people are stereotyped very positively—specifically, we see them as being more likeable, interesting, competent, and successful (Dion, Pak, & Dion, 1990). In other words, most of us subscribe to the heuristic that “what is beautiful is good.” Another reason people place so much emphasis

Figure 7.5 Viewing pornography or other popular media featuring highly attractive people can potentially produce a contrast effect in which the attractiveness of the average person is distorted. ©scyther5/123RF.COM.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­hatAttracts sTo ther eoopee 187

on physical attractiveness is that it may be a potential indicator of a person’s health and fertility. We will come back to this idea in the next section when we discuss evolutionary theory.

Whatever the reason, attractiveness is usually most important early in a relationship and declines in importance over time. This is probably a good thing because not all of us are fortu- nate enough to get better looking with age! In addition, attractiveness is something that tends to be valued more by men than by women. This should not be taken to mean that attractiveness is unimportant to women: most women still care very much about finding an attractive partner. The difference is that women rate this characteristic as a little less important than do men. As some evidence of this, consider the results of an online study by Lippa (2007) of over 100,000 men and women representing 53 different countries around the world. Participants were given a list of 23 different traits in a potential relationship partner that they had to rank order in terms of desirability. Among men, the top three traits in order of importance were intelligence, “good looks,” and humor. Among women, the top three traits were humor, intelligence, and honesty. “Good looks” came in at number eight on the women’s list. Thus, good looks are certainly still important to women, but all else equal, there are a few other characteristics they value above it compared to men.

Physical attractiveness is just one of several characteristics that men and women evaluate differently in the area of attraction. Other studies have found that the sexes also differ in terms of preferences for partner age, earning potential, and educational background (Okami & Shackelford,  2001; Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield,  1994). Specifically, men tend to prefer younger partners and are more comfortable with a partner who has less earning potential and a lower level of education (although this does not mean men necessarily want partners with low education—just that men are more comfortable dating someone who has a little less education); in contrast, women tend to prefer older partners and desire someone with better financial prospects and a higher level of education. Thus, while there is a lot that the sexes have in common with regard to what drives attraction, they diverge in some important ways.

Other Factors Involved in Attraction

The factors identified above are far from being the only influences on attraction. In fact, psy- chologists have identified numerous other variables that can play a role here. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to address each and every factor that has been linked to attraction, but a few others that are likely to be of interest are addressed in this section.

In a classic experiment conducted by Aronson and Linder (1965), participants heard some- one else describe them in one of four ways: (1) uniformly positive, (2) uniformly negative, (3) initially negative, but transitioning into positive, or (4) initially positive, but transitioning into negative. Not surprisingly, people liked the person who described them in a uniformly positive way; however, they actually liked it the best when someone described them negatively at first before giving them a positive evaluation! The take-home message here is that we really seem to like the idea of “winning over” someone who did not like us at first.

In another classic study from the 1960s, researchers looked at the effect of a “benign prat- fall” such as spilling coffee on oneself on perceptions of attractiveness (Aronson, Willerman, & Floyd, 1966). People who committed such pratfalls were rated as more attractive, but only when that person was first presented as being very smart and successful—when presented as someone of very average or mediocre ability, pratfalls actually decreased attractiveness. Dif- ferent explanations have been offered for this effect, with one possibility being that pratfalls help to “humanize” someone who otherwise seems unapproachable, and another being that pratfalls create feelings of empathy.

For a summary of the major factors influencing who we find attractive, see Table 7.3.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

7 The Laws of Attraction188

Attraction Processes among Gay Men and Lesbians

Are the factors that influence sexual attraction different for gay men and lesbians than for heterosexual persons? Research suggests that there are many similarities. For example, when asked how important a partner’s physical appearance is, lesbian and heterosexual women do not differ from one another, nor do gay and heterosexual men (Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, & Gla- due, 1994). Likewise, gay and heterosexual men are very similar to one another in expressing a preference for younger sexual partners (Kenrick, Keefe, Bryan, Barr, & Brown, 1995). In addi- tion, there is no theoretical reason or empirical evidence to suggest that affective influences, scarcity, physiological arousal, and neurochemical processes would have different effects on attraction across persons of varying sexualities.

At the same time, however, there appear to be some important differences. For example, although there is a lot of evidence that heterosexual persons tend to be attracted to partners who are similar to them, this effect does not appear to be quite as strong among gays and lesbians. Kurdek and Schmitt (1987) found that relationship partners’ levels of education and income were positively correlated among heterosexual couples who were living together, but this was not the case for gay and lesbian partners. Likewise, 2010 US Census data revealed that 20.6% of same-sex couples were either interracial or interethnic, whereas only 9.5% of different- sex married couples were involved in such relationships (Gates,  2012). Other research has found that same-sex couples are more likely to come from different religious backgrounds than heterosexual married couples (Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012), and yet other research finds that gays and lesbians are willing to date partners within a wider age range than their heterosexual counterparts (Conway et al.,  2015). Together, all of these findings suggest that demographic

Table 7.3 Major variables in sexual attraction.

Variable Description

Affect/mood We like people who make us feel good. We like someone more when we are in a positive mood, even if the other person has nothing to do with our current mood state.

Propinquity We are more likely to develop an attraction to people in close geographic proximity. Similarity We tend to be attracted to persons who are similar to us.

Similarity is not a sufficient precondition for relationship success. Scarcity When the opportunity to meet partners is limited, others’ perceived

attractiveness increases. Potential romantic partners are more desirable when they are less available.

Physiological arousal Meeting someone new when we are already physiologically aroused increases the chances of attraction.

Neurotransmitters and hormones

Higher levels of dopamine and oxytocin enhance attraction.

Physical attractiveness We are more attracted to people we perceive as beautiful or handsome. Both men and women value attractiveness, but men report valuing this characteristic slightly more than women.

Other factors We are attracted to people who went from viewing us negatively to viewing us positively. We are attracted to appealing (but not mediocre) persons who commit benign pratfalls.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­hyAre enand­ooenAttractedto ifferent haracteristicse 189

differences appear to be more common among same-sex couples than among heterosexual couples. We cannot say for sure why this is the case, but it may be because people who are attracted to members of the same sex are working from a smaller field of eligibles (i.e., a smaller pool of potential dating prospects) than their heterosexual counterparts and, therefore, may not have as much choice when it comes to selecting partners based upon similarity or other characteristics.

Propinquity may also play a lesser role in attraction among gays and lesbians than among heterosexuals. A smaller dating pool combined with social stigma that causes many gays and lesbians to live their lives “in the closet” can make it more challenging for them to meet poten- tial sexual and romantic partners in day-to-day life. As a result, gays and lesbians are much more likely to search for partners online than are heterosexuals. As some evidence of this, data from a nationally representative US survey of how couples meet found that 41% of same-sex couples reported having met online, compared to 17% of different-sex couples (Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2012). This is not to say that propinquity plays no role in attraction for gays and les- bians, just that it may not have as many opportunities to do so.

Why Are Men and Women Attracted to Different Characteristics?

The above-noted sex differences in preferences for physical attractiveness, age, and social sta- tus have been documented repeatedly using different types of samples across diverse cultures. How do we explain these pervasive sex differences? The explanation that has received the most attention is evolutionary theory; however, it is also the most controversial. In this section, we will review the basics of evolutionary theory and the evidence supporting it, but we will also consider some alternative perspectives.

Evolutionary Theory

You may recall from chapter  1 that the main idea behind evolutionary theory is that many of our behavioral tendencies reflect evolved adaptations. In other words, we have tendencies to behave in very specific ways because those actions were adaptive for the survival of our ancestors. It is theorized that humans today have a number of these behavioral tendencies that are not necessarily relevant for survival in the modern world, but instead represent remnants of our evolved history. Many of these behavioral tendencies center around sexual behavior, because evolutionary psychologists believe that after basic survival, our next-strongest moti- vation is to reproduce as much as we can to ensure that our genetic material is carried on to future generations. To that end, humans are thought to have evolved preferences for certain characteristics in our partners that are ultimately designed to enhance reproductive success.

From the evolutionary perspective, the observed sex differences in partner preferences reflect strategies for coping with the reality of unequal parental investment (i.e., the fact that it does not take nearly as much effort for men as it does for women to make a baby; Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Men’s best strategy for passing along their genes is to have a lot of short-term sexual encounters with healthy and fertile women. But how can men tell which women are likely to be healthy and fertile? By paying attention to physical signs that indicate sexual matu- rity and good health. These include youth, a low waist-to-hip ratio (i.e., a waist that is smaller than the hips), facial and bodily symmetry (i.e., identical left and right sides), and long, shiny hair. Evolutionary psychologists argue that men have become attuned to focus on appearance more than anything else because it is the most useful cue for enhancing their reproductive success.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

7 The Laws of Attraction190

For a woman however, having a large number of short-term encounters is a riskier bet because she could potentially wind up pregnant by a man who turns out to be an absentee father. Wom- en’s best strategy is thus to pursue sex in the context of long-term relationships with men who are reliable and can provide protection and resources for her and any offspring produced. As a result, women should prefer somewhat older men, who have had the opportunity to acquire more resources. Physical appearance is presumably less important to women because most men are almost always fertile, producing sperm from puberty until the day they die. As a result, male appearance is not quite as informative for women in matters of reproduction. The one exception to this is that women show a preference for masculine-looking guys with chiseled faces when they are near ovulation (Jones et al., 2008). Masculine facial features are linked to having a stronger immune system. Thus, it may potentially confer evolutionary benefits on their offspring if women seek out more “manly” men when they are most fertile (see chapter 11 for more on this). On a side note, the fact that women’s mating preferences appear to change during ovulation is perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence in favor of evolutionary theory because such shifts are difficult to explain from any other theoretical perspective.

There is a significant amount of evidence indicating that, even in modern times, men seem oriented toward having numerous casual encounters with good-looking women, whereas women seem oriented toward long-term encounters with high status men. As some support for this idea, when men are asked how many sexual partners they would like to have in the future, they typically report much higher numbers than women, and this is true regardless of whether “the future” is specified as a month, a year, or their entire lifetime (Schmitt et al., 2003). To give you a sense of the magnitude of this difference and its seemingly universal nature across cultures, see Figure 7.7.

Figure 7.6 Heterosexual men tend to rate women with long hair and a low waist-to-hip ratio as optimally attractive. Evolutionary psychologists theorize that attending to such features was adaptive for our ancestors by promoting reproductive success. ©phartisan/123RF.COM.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­hyAre enand­ooenAttractedto ifferent haracteristicse 191

Likewise, consider a study by Clark and Hatfield (1989) in which male and female research assis- tants propositioned college undergraduates of the other sex who they deemed to be moderately attractive while walking around campus. The assistant would say to the student, “I have been notic- ing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive.” Afterward, they randomly asked one of the following three questions: “Will you go on a date with me tonight?” “Will you go back to my apart- ment with me tonight?” or “Will you go to bed with me tonight?” Once the participant provided an answer, he or she was debriefed and had no further contact with the research assistant. The results of this study are depicted in Table 7.4. As you can see in this table, men and women responded to these requests very differently. Specifically, when the question implied a higher likelihood of casual sex, men were more likely to accept the offer, whereas women were more likely to decline it.

0

1

No rth

A m

er ica

So ut

h Am

er ica

W es

te rn

E ur

op e

Ea st er

n Eu

ro pe

So ut

he rn

E ur

op e

M id dl e

Ea st

Af ric

a

O ce

an ia

So ut

h/ So

ut he

as t A

sia

Ea st A

sia

2

3

Men

Women

N u

m b

e r

o f p a rt

n e

rs d

e si

re d

“i n t h e n

e xt

m o

n th

”

Figure 7.7 Schmitt and colleagues’ (2003) research demonstrated a consistent sex difference across many different cultures in the number of sexual partners desired.

Table 7.4 Percentage of men and women accepting requests for offers of casual sex.

Study 1 Request type

Sex of person approached Date Apartment Bed Male 50% 69% 75% Female 56% 6% 0%

Study 2 Request type

Sex of person approached Date Apartment Bed Male 50% 69% 69% Female 50% 0% 0%

Source: Clark & Hatfield (1989).

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

7 The Laws of Attraction192

With that said, I want to be careful here not to give you the wrong impression of this theory. Indeed, a common misperception of it is that men’s mating mindset is short-term only, while women’s is long-term only. Evolutionary theorists actually believe that both men and women have evolved short- and long-term mating strategies (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Thus, it can be adaptive for men to pursue longer-term relationships, just as it can be adaptive for women to pursue casual sex. However, the strategy that people pursue depends upon the context. In other words, different situations and environments can activate different strategies. Thus, evolutionary theory does not claim that all men approach mating in one way and all women approach it in another.

Despite a rapidly growing body of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, not everyone is convinced of it. For instance, while a lot of research has found differences in men’s and women’s ideal mate preferences, what they actually do does not always match up with those preferences. In one study, participants completed a questionnaire about the traits desired in a romantic partner prior to going on a series of speed dates (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008). Although the expected sex differences in preferences for attractiveness and wealth were obtained on the pre-date questionnaire, it turned out that these stated preferences did not predict who partici- pants actually went for during the speed-dating event itself. In addition, there were no sex dif- ferences in the traits that appealed to men and women when confronted with real-life partners. If we assume that what people do in the real world is a more valid test of evolutionary theory’s predictions than survey studies inquiring about what people would do in hypothetical situa- tions, there are some legitimate questions to be raised about a lot of the evidence supporting this view. Another frequent criticism is that evolutionary theory has some difficulty explaining variations in sexual orientation. As discussed in chapter 6, some have argued that homosexual- ity may persist in the human population because it is adaptive in a nonobvious way. However, arguments such as this only serve to feed a broader criticism of evolutionary theory, which is that it is possible to develop theories to explain the adaptive nature of virtually every human trait, yet very challenging to conduct adequate tests of these theories.

Social Structural Perspectives

Of course, evolutionary theory is not the only perspective that offers an explanation for why men and women desire different features in their partners and display differences in their sex- ual behavior. In this section, we review two theories that distance themselves from the evolu- tionary account and instead emphasize the impact of the social structure.

Sociocultural Theory Many scholars argue that modern sex differences in attraction and mating strategies may have more to do with social and cultural conditioning than anything else (Eagly & Wood, 1999). The sociocultural perspective acknowledges that biological and evolved factors play some role (e.g., physical differences between men and women may influence the roles to which the sexes were initially assigned); however, these theorists hold that psychological sex differences are largely, if not exclusively, a response to the social structure. Thus, this theory holds that as the social structure changes, so should the magnitude and direction of sex differences. Consistent with this idea, research has found that in societies where there is more gender equality, men’s and women’s partner preferences are more similar (Zentner & Mitura, 2012). However, even in the most equal of countries, the traditionally observed sex differences still appear to some degree, perhaps because no country has yet to achieve full gender equality in all ways.

As additional evidence for the sociocultural view, several experimental studies have found that the typical sex differences in attraction and sexual behavior become much smaller or disappear entirely when social and cultural variables are manipulated. For instance, recall that Clark and Hatfield (1989) reported a huge difference between men and women in willingness to accept

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­hyAre enand­ooenAttractedto ifferent haracteristicse 193

an offer of casual sex. Two decades after this study, Conley (2011) asked male and female par- ticipants about their likelihood of accepting an offer of casual sex from a very attractive famous person and found no sex difference in likelihood of saying yes. Conley argues that Clark and Hatfield’s methods underestimated women’s interest in casual sex because male strangers who ask for sex are perceived as having low sexual capabilities and as a threat to personal safety. In contrast, women’s interest in casual sex is higher with a male celebrity because that person is more of a known quantity. Likewise, recall that several studies have found that men typically report desiring and having much higher numbers of sexual partners than women. Does this reflect a true sex difference in desires and behaviors, or is this simply an artifact of female under- reporting and male over-reporting of sexual behavior in an attempt to conform to traditional gender roles? Research has found some support for the latter explanation. In a classic study by Alexander and Fisher (2003) that employed the bogus pipeline technique, half of the partici- pants were hooked up to a lie-detector machine and falsely convinced that it could detect the truth in an attempt to ensure greater honesty in responding. Afterward, these participants were asked about their sexual history. The other half of the participants answered the same set of questions, but they were not attached to the machine. When participants were not hooked up to the lie-detector, men reported more partners than women; however, in the lie-detector condi- tion, there was no sex difference in number of partners reported. For more empirical evidence supporting the social structural account of sex differences, see the Digging Deeper 7.2 box.

Together, the results of all these studies provide a compelling alternative explanation as to why sex differences in attraction and sexual behavior exist. However, the sociocultural view is not without its limitations. For instance, while people who adopt this view do not dispute that evolution has created certain physical differences between the sexes, they simultaneously

Figures 7.8 and 7.9 When men and women imagine offers of casual sex from celebrities like Zac Efron and Mila Kunis, there is no sex difference in likelihood of accepting the offer. This suggests that women are actually just as interested in casual relationships as men in some cases. Zac Efron ©s_bukley, 2013. Used under license from Shutterstock.com. Mila Kunis ©Kathy Hutchins, 2013. Used under license from Shutterstock.com.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

7 The Laws of Attraction194

appear to argue that psychological characteristics are immune from evolutionary pressures. Given how fundamentally interconnected the mind and body are, some psychologists feel that such a view takes us backwards by essentially espousing a mind–body dualism a la René Descartes (Friedman, Bleske, & Scheyd,  2000). Another common criticism of sociocultural theory is that we already have fairly clear evidence that some psychological sex differences have a biological basis. For instance, recall our discussion of congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) in chapter  5. Genetic females with CAH typically develop more masculine interests (Meyer- Bahlburg, Dolezal, Baker, Ehrhardt, & New, 2006). If sex differences were purely a product of socialization factors, why would women with CAH have such different interests from women without CAH? Such findings suggest that it is certainly conceivable that evolution and biology could be contributing factors when it comes to psychological sex differences.

Digging Deeper 7.2 Are Women Really the Choosier Sex?

Conventional wisdom tells us that women tend to be “choosier” than men when it comes to selecting sexual and romantic partners, and there is plenty of scientific evidence to back up this idea. Evolutionary psychologists argue that because producing a child requires a significantly greater investment of one’s body and time for women than it does for men, it is in women’s best interests to be more selective about their partners to ensure they do not end up pregnant by someone who might skip town or settle down with a different mate (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). But is female choosiness an inevitable fact of life in the heterosexual mating marketplace?

The traditional heterosexual dating script dictates that men should approach women, not the other way around. As a result, women are approached more frequently than men. Thus, if women are the ones constantly being put in the position of having to choose, it should come as no surprise that they tend to be more selective. What would happen if the roles were reversed? If women were the ones doing the approaching, would men suddenly become choosier?

Figure 7.10 The traditional sex difference in selectivity disappears when women approached men instead of the reverse. ©wisiel/123RF.COM.

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

­hyAre enand­ooenAttractedto ifferent haracteristicse 195

Digging Deeper 7.2 (Continued)

This idea was tested in a speed-dating study by Finkel and Eastwick (2009). For those of you who are not familiar with speed-dating, the basic idea is that a large number of single people come together in one place and then proceed to pair off for several brief mini-dates. Specifically, people usually rotate from table to table for a series of short (i.e., 2- or 3-minute) conversations with complete strangers. In one speed-dating event, each person involved may have 20 or more of these brief “dates.” Based only upon these encounters, speed daters later decide who (if anyone) they would like to take on a real date afterward. In this particular study, the research- ers manipulated who got up at the end of each encounter to move to the next table (i.e., who was doing the approaching). Half of the time it was the men; the other half of the time it was the women.

When the men were approaching women, it was business as usual in the sense that women were significantly choosier than men. However, when wooen were the ones aooroaching oen, this sex difference in sepectivity disaooeared cooopetepy! The sex difference did not reverse itself (i.e., we did not see men become oore selective than women). Instead, men and women became equally selective.

These findings suggest that choosiness may not be an innate part of female psychology, but rather a product of a highly gendered society that dictates who should be the initiator of sexual and romantic encounters. Although these findings do not necessarily rule out the evolutionary explanation, they do suggest the provocative possibility that women may only be the choosier sex because that is the way we expect them to be, not because that is the way they are by nature.

Note: Reprinted with permission from Sex and sychopogy (www.lehmiller.com).

Other Views Another alternative to the evolutionary account is the perspective offered in the book Sex at Dawn (Ryan & Jetha,  2010), which suggests that evolution-based interpretations of human sexuality are fundamentally flawed and that our mating preferences have nothing to do with parental investment and a “selfish” drive to spread one’s genes. The primary argument in Sex at Dawn is that modern mating preferences and gender roles are a result of moving from hunter– gatherer societies to agricultural societies. In the days of hunter–gatherers, societies were com- munal, sharing food, childcare responsibilities, as well as sexual partners. When agriculture developed, however, personal property and political systems began to emerge. In addition, agriculture limited the food supply for the first time. As a result of these dramatic changes, human motivations and relationships are thought to have dramatically changed, resulting in the sex differences we see today. Although the narrative presented in Sex at Dawn is provoca- tive, the data upon which this book was based are primarily correlational and anecdotal, and in some cases, the strength of the data is over-stated. Thus, this view is not necessarily more conclusive than any others. In short, we lack a definitive explanation as to why men and women prefer different characteristics in their partners, and perhaps we always will.

Key Terms

negging propinquity effect mere exposure effect assortative mating

social comparison theory misattribution of

physiological arousal physical attractiveness

contrast effect parental investment sociocultural perspective bogus pipeline technique

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

7 The Laws of Attraction196

Discussion Questions: What is Your Perspective on Sex?

● What are the most and least effective pick-up lines you have ever heard? Do they fit with existing research on this topic?

● Have you ever tried online dating? If so, have you found that what attracts you to someone online is similar to or different from what attracts you to someone you meet in person?

● Which explanation for sex differences in attraction do you find more convincing: evolution- ary theory or the sociocultural perspective? Why?

References

Alexander, M.G., & Fisher, T.D. (2003). Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 27–35. doi:10.1080/00224490309552164

Aronson, E., & Linder, D. (1965). Gain and loss of esteem as determinants of interpersonal attractiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1(2), 156–171. doi:10.1016/0022- 1031(65)90043-0

Aronson, E., Willerman, B., & Floyd, J. (1966). The effect of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 4, 227–228. doi:10.3758/BF03342263

Bailey, J., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B.A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1081–1093. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1081

Bale, C., Morrison, R., & Caryl, P. (2006). Chat-up lines as male sexual displays. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 655–664. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.016

Berry, D.S., & Hansen, J. (1996). Positive affect, negative affect, and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 796–809. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.796

Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G.W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 173–189. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(71)90065-5

Buss, D.M., & Schmitt, D.P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204

Carroll, J. (2007). Most Americans approve of interracial marriages. Gallup. Retrieved from http:// www.gallup. com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx (accessed September 3, 2013).

Clark, R.D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55. doi:10.1300/J056v02n01_04

Conley, T.D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 309–329. doi:10.1037/a0022152

Conway, J.R., Noe, N., Stulp, G., & Pollet, T.V. (2015). Finding your Soulmate: Homosexual and heterosexual age preferences in online dating. Personal Relationships, 22(4), 666–678. doi:10.1111/pere.12102

Dion, K.K., Pak, A.W., & Dion, K.L. (1990). Stereotyping physical attractiveness: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 158–179. doi:10.1177/0022022190212002

Dutton, D.G., & Aron, A.P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 510–517. doi:10.1037/h0037031

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

References 197

Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408

Eastwick, P.W., & Finkel, E.J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245–264. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245

eHarmony (2012). eHarmony is more than traditional dating sites. Retrieved from http://www. eharmony. com/why/ (accessed September 3, 2013).

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. doi: 10.1177/001872675400700202

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). The spatial ecology of group formation. In L. Festinger, S. Schachter, & K. Back (Eds.), Social pressure in informal groups (pp. 41–161) Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Finkel, E.J., & Eastwick, P.W. (2009). Arbitrary social norms influence sex differences in romantic selectivity. Psychological Science, 20, 1290–1295. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02439.x

Forgas, J.P., & Bower, G.H. (1987). Mood effects on person-perception judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 53–60. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.53

Friedman, B.X., Bleske, A.L., & Scheyd, G.J. (2000). Incompatible with evolutionary theorizing. American Psychologist, 55, 1059–1060. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.9.1059

Gates, G. J. (2012). Same-sex couples in Census 2010: Race and ethnicity. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates- CouplesRaceEthnicity-April-2012.pdf (accessed September 3, 2013).

Jonason, P. K., & Li, N. P. (2013). Playing hard-to-get: Manipulating one’s perceived availability as a mate. European Journal of Personality, 27, 458–469. doi:10.1002/per.1881

Jones, B.C., DeBruine, L.M., Perrett, D.I., Little, A.C., Feinberg, D.R., & Smith, M. (2008). Effects of menstrual cycle phase on face preferences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 78–84. doi:10.1007/ s10508-007-9268-y

Kenrick, D.T., & Gutierres, S.E. (1980). Contrast effects and judgments of physical attractiveness: When beauty becomes a social problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 131–140. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.1.131

Kenrick, D.T., Keefe, R.C., Bryan, A., Barr, A., & Brown, S. (1995). Age preferences and mate choice among homosexuals and heterosexuals: A case for modular psychological mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1166–1172. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1166

Kleinke, C., Meeker, F., & Staneski, R. (1986). Preference for opening lines: Comparing ratings by men and women. Sex Roles, 15, 585–600. doi:10.1007/bf00288216

Krosnick, J.A., Betz, A.L., Jussim, L.J., & Lynn, A.R. (1992). Subliminal conditioning of attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 152–162. doi:10.1177/0146167292182006

Kurdek, L.A., & Schmitt, J.P. (1987). Partner homogamy in married, heterosexual cohabiting, gay, and lesbian couples. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 212–232. doi:10.1080/00224498709551358

Laumann, E.O., Gagnon, J., Michael, R., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lehmiller, J. J., Graziano, W. G., & VanderDrift, L. E. (2014). Peer influence and attraction to interracial romantic relationships. Social Sciences, 3, 115–127. doi:10.3390/socsci3010115

Lippa, R.A. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: An examination of biological and cultural influences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 193–208. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9151-2

Lyvers, M., Cholakians, E., Puorro, M., & Sundram, S. (2011). Beer goggles: Blood alcohol concentration in relation to attractiveness ratings for unfamiliar opposite sex faces in naturalistic settings. Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 105–112. doi:10.1080/00224540903366776

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

7 The Laws of Attraction198

Madey, S.F., Simo, M., Dillworth, D., Kemper, D., Toczynski, A., & Perella, A. (1996). They do get more attractive at closing time, but only when you are not in a relationship. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 18, 387–393.

Markey, P.M., & Markey, C.N. (2007). Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment, and relationship experiences: The complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 517–533. doi:10.1177/0265407507079241

McCoy, N.L, & Pitino, L. (2002). Pheromonal influences on sociosexual behaviour in young women. Physiological Behavior, 75, 367–375. doi:10.1016/S0031-9384(01)00675-8

Meyer-Bahlburg, H.F., Dolezal, C., Baker, S.W., Ehrhardt, A.A., & New, M.I. (2006). Gender development in women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia as a function of disorder severity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 667–684. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9068-9

Montoya, R., Horton, R.S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889–922. doi: 10.1177/0265407508096700

Moreland, R.L., & Beach. S.R. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 255–276. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(92)90055-O

Okami, P., & Schackelford, T.K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 186–241.

Pennebaker, J., Dyer, M., Caulkins, R., Litowitz, D., Ackreman, P.L., Anderson, D.B., & McGraw, K.M. (1979). Don’t the girls get prettier at closing time: A country and western application to psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 122–125. doi:10.1177/014616727900500127

Riley, N. S. (2013). ’Til faith do us part: The rise of interfaith marriage and the future of American religion, family, and society. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rosenfeld, M.J., & Thomas, R.J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77, 523–547. doi:10.1177/0003122412448050

Ryan, C., & Jetha, C. (2010). Sex at dawn: How we mate, why we stray, and what it means for modern relationships. New York: HarperCollins.

Schmitt, D.P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.85

Schneiderman, I., Zagoory-Sharon, O., Leckman, J.F., & Feldman, R. (2012). Oxytocin during the initial stages of romantic attachment: Relations to couples’ interactive reciprocity. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37, 1277–1285. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.12.021

Sprecher, S. (1989). The importance to males and females of physical attractiveness, earning potential and expressiveness in initial attraction. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 21, 591–607. doi:10.1007/BF00289173

Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074–1080. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1074

Wang, W. (2012). The rise of intermarriage: Rates, characteristics vary by race and gender. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/02/16/the-rise-of-intermarriage/?src=prc-headline (accessed September 3, 2013).

White, G.L., & Kight, T.D. (1984). Misattribution of arousal and attraction: Effects of salience of explanations for arousal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 55–64. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(84)90012-X

Wilbur, C.J., & Campbell, L. (2010). What do women want? An interactionist account of women’s mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 749–754. doi:10.1016/j. paid.2010.06.020

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

References 199

Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592–598. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.x

Zajonc, R.B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27. doi:10.1037/h0025848

Zentner, M., & Mitura, K. (2012). Stepping out of the caveman’s shadow: Nations’ gender gap predicts degree of sex differentiation in mate preferences. Psychological Science, 23, 1176–85. doi:10.1177/0956797612441004

Lehmiller, J. J. (2017). The psychology of human sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Created from umuc on 2021-11-17 20:15:54.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . Jo

h n W

ile y

& S

o n s,

I n co

rp o ra

te d . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .