Abstract
Sexual selection processes have received much attention in recent years, attention reflected in interest in human mate preferences. Among these mate preferences are preferences for physical attractiveness. Preferences in and of themselves, however, do not fully explain the nature of the relationships that individuals attain. A tacit negotiation process underlies relationship formation and maintenance. The notion that preferences for physical attractiveness evolved under parasite-driven “good genes” sexual selection leads to predictions about the nature of trade-offs that individuals make between mates’ physical attractiveness and investment potential. These predictions and relevant data are explored, with a primary emphasis on women’s preferences for men’s qualities. In addition, further implications of trade-offs are examined, most notably (a) the impact of environmental variations on the nature of mating and (b) some effects of trade-offs on infidelity and male attempts to control women.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, R. M., and R. M. May 1978 Regulation and Stability of Host-parasite Population Interactions, I: Regulatory Processes.Journal of Animal Ecology 47:219–247.
1982 Coevolution of Hosts and Parasites.Parasitology 85:411–426.
Becker, G. S. 1981A Treatise on the Family. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bernstein, I. H., T. Lin, and P. McClelland 1982 Cross-and Within-racial Judgments of Attractiveness.Perception and Psychophysics 32:495–503.
Berscheid, E., and E. Walster 1974 Physical Attractiveness. InAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 7, L. Berkowitz, ed. Pp. 157–215. New York: Academic Press.
Blau, P. M. 1964Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.
Bloom, B. L., S. J. Asher, and S. W. White 1978 Marital Disruption as a Stressor: A Review and Analysis.Psychological Bulletin 85:867–894.
Bradbury, J. W., and M. B. Andersson, eds. 1987Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Brislin, R. W., and S. A. Lewis 1968 Dating and Physical Attractiveness: A Replication.Psychological Reports 22:976.
Burley, N. 1977 Parental Investment, Mate Choice, and Mate Quality.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 74:3476–3479.
1981 Sex-ratio Manipulation and Selection for Attractiveness.Science 211:721–722.
1986a Sex-ratio Manipulation in Color-banded Populations of Zebra Finches.Evolution 40:1191–1206.
1986b Sexual Selection for Aesthetic Traits in Species with Biparental Care.American Naturalist 127:415–445.
Buss, D. M. 1988 From Vigilance to Violence: Mate-guarding Tactics.Ethology and Sociobiology 9:291–317.
1989 Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures.Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:1–49.
Buss, D. M., and D. P. Schmitt 1993 Sexual Strategies Theory: A Contextual Evolutionary Analysis of Human Mating.Psychological Review 100:204–232.
Buss, D. M., et al. 1990 International Preferences in Selecting Mates: A Study of 37 Cultures.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 21:5–47.
Campbell, A., P. E. Converse, and W. L. Rodgers 1976The Quality of American Life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Cashdan, E. 1993 Attracting Mates: Effects of Paternal Investment on Mate Attraction Strategies.Ethology and Sociobiology 14:1–24.
Critelli, J. W., and L. R. Waid 1980 Physical Attractiveness, Romantic Love, and Equity Restoration in Dating Relationships.Journal of Personality Assessment 44:624–629.
Cunningham, M. R., A. P. Barbee, and C. L. Pike 1990 What Do Women Want? Facialmetric Assessment of Multiple Motives in the Perception of Male Facial Physical Attractiveness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:61–72.
Daitzman, R. J., and M. Zuckerman 1980 Disinhibitory Sensation Seeking, Personality, and Gonadal Hormones.Personality and Individual Differences 1:103–110.
Daly, M., and M. Wilson 1983Sex, Evolution, and Behavior. Boston: Willard Grant Press.
1988Homicide. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Daly, M., M. Wilson, and S. J. Weghorst 1982 Male Sexual Jealousy.Ethology and Sociobiology 3:11–27.
Darwin, C. 1859The Origin of the Species. London: Murray.
1871The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. New York: Appleton.
de Lope, F., and A. P. Møller In press Female Reproductive Effort Depends upon the Degree of Ornamentation of Their Mates.Evolution.
Demarest, J., and L. Schoch-Ciuffreda 1992 Sex Differences in Mate Preferences across the Lifespan. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, July 22–26, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Feingold, A. 1990 Gender Differences in Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Romantic Attraction: A Comparison across Five Research Paradigms.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:981–993.
Fisher, R. A. 1930The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon.
Frank, R. H. 1988Passions within Reason. New York: Norton.
Gangestad, S. W., and D. M. Buss In press Pathogen Prevalence and Human Mate Preferences.Ethology and Sociobiology.
Gangestad, S. W., and J. A. Simpson 1990 Toward an Evolutionary History of Female Sociosexual Variation.Journal of Personality 58:69–96.
1992 On Human Sociosexual Variation: An Evolutionary View of Female Mating Propensities. Unpublished manuscript in authors’ possession. Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
Gangestad, S. W., R. Thornhill, and R. A. Yeo In press Facial Attractiveness, Developmental Stability, and Fluctuating Asymmetry.Ethology and Sociobiology.
Gowaty, P. 1992 Evolutionary Biology and Feminism.Human Nature 3:217–249.
Grafen, A. 1990 Biological Signals as Handicaps.Journal of Theoretical Biology 144:517–546.
Haldane, J. B. S. 1949 Disease and Evolution.La Ricerca Scientifica (Supplement) 19:68–75.
Hamilton, W. D. 1980 Sex versus Non-sex versus Parasite.Oikos 35:282–290.
1982 Pathogen as Causes of Genetic Diversity in Their Host Populations. InPopulation Biology of Infectious Diseases, R. M. Anderson and R. M. May, eds. Pp. 269–296. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hamilton, W. D., and M. Zuk 1982 Heritable True Fitness and Bright Birds: A Role for Parasites?Science 218:384–387.
Hatfield, E., and S. Sprecher 1986Mirror, Mirror: The Importance of Looks in Everyday Life. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.
Heywood, J. S. 1989 Sexual Selection by the Handicap Principle.Evolution 43:1387–1397.
Hite, S. 1987Women and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress. New York: Knopf.
Iwasa, Y., A. Pomiankowski, and S. Nee 1991 The Evolution of Costly Mate Preferences, II: The “Handicap” Principle.Evolution 45:1431–1442.
Kenrick, D. T., E. K. Sadalla, G. Groth, and M. Trost 1990 Evolution, Traits, and the Stages of Human Courtship: Qualifying the Parental Investment Model.Journal of Personality 58:97–116.
Kinsey, A. C., W. B. Pomeroy, and C. E. Martin 1948Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Kinsey, A. C., W. B. Pomeroy, C. E. Martin, and P. H. Gebhard 1953Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Kirkpatrick, M. 1982 Sexual Selection and the Evolution of Female Choice.Evolution 36:1–12.
1985 Evolution of Female Choice and Male Parental Investment in Polygynous Species: The Demise of the “Sexy Son”.American Naturalist 125:788–810.
1986 Sexual Selection and Cycling Parasites: A Simulation Study of Hamilton’s Hypothesis.Journal of Theoretical Biology 119:263–271.
Kirkpatrick, M., and M. J. Ryan 1991 The Evolution of Mating Preferences and the Paradox of the Lek.Nature 350:33–38.
Lande, R. 1981 Models of Speciation by Sexual Selection on Polygenic Characters.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 70:3721–3725.
Low, B. S. 1988 Pathogen Stress and Polygyny in Humans. InHuman Reproductive Behavior: A Darwinian Perspective, L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, and P. Turke, eds. Pp. 115–127. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1990a Marriage Systems and Pathogen Stress in Human Societies.American Zoologist 30:325–339.
1990b Sex, Power, and Resources: Male and Female Strategies of Resource Acquisition.International Journal of Contemporary Sociology 27:49–73.
Maret, S. M. 1983 Attractiveness Ratings of Photographs of Blacks by Cruzans and Americans.Journal of Psychology 115:113–116.
Maret, S. M., and G. A. Harling 1985 Cross-cultural Perceptions of Physical Attractiveness: Ratings of Photos of Whites by Cruzans and Americans.Perceptual and Motor Skills 60:163–166.
Mathes, E. W. 1975 The Effects of Physical Attractiveness and Anxiety on Heterosexual Attraction over a Series of Five Encounters.Journal of Marriage and the Family 37:769–773.
Møller, A. P. 1988a Female Choice Selects for Male Sexual Tail Ornaments in the Monogamous Swallow.Nature 332:640–642.
1988b Paternity and Paternal Care in the Swallow,Hirundo rustica.Animal Behaviour 36:996–1005.
1990a Effects of a Haematophagus Mite on the Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica): A Test of the Hamilton and Zuk Hypothesis.Evolution 44:771–784.
1990b Fluctuating Asymmetry in Male Sexual Ornaments May Reliably Reveal Male Quality.Animal Behaviour 40:1185–1187.
1990c Male Tail Length and Female Mate Choice in the Monogamous SwallowHirundo rustica.Animal Behaviour 39:458–465.
1990d Parasites and Sexual Selection: Current Status of the Hamilton and Zuk Hypothesis.Journal of Evolutionary Biology 3:319–328.
1992a Female Swallow Preference for Symmetrical Male Sexual Ornaments.Nature 357:238–240.
1992b Parasites Differentially Increase the Degree of Fluctuating Asymmetry in Secondary Sexual Characters.Journal of Evolutionary Biology 5:691–700.
1992c Sexual Selection in the Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), II: Mechanisms of Intersexual Selection.Journal of Evolutionary Biology 5:603–624.
In press Patterns of Fluctuating Asymmetry in Sexual Ornaments Predict Female Choice.Journal of Evolutionary Biology.
Møller, A. P., and J. Höglund 1991 Patterns of Fluctuating Asymmetry in Avian Feather Ornaments: Implications for Models of Sexual Selection.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 245:1–5.
Murdock, G. P, and D. R. White 1969 Standard Cross-cultural Sample.Ethnology 8:329–369.
Murstein, B. I. 1976Who Will Marry Whom? Theories and Research in Marital Choice. New York: Springer.
O’Donald, P. 1962 The Theory of Sexual Selection.Heredity 17:541–552.
Perusse, D. 1993 Cultural and Reproductive Success in Industrial Societies: Testing the Relationship at Proximate and Ultimate Levels.Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16:267–322.
Pomiankowski, A. 1987 Sexual Selection: The Handicap Principle Does Work—Sometimes.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 231:123–145.
Read, A. F. 1990 Parasites and the Evolution of Host Sexual Behaviour. InParasitism and Host Behaviour, C. J. Barnard and J. M. Behnke, eds. Pp. 117–157. London: Taylor and Francis.
Rogers, A. R., and A. Mukherjee 1992 Quantitative Genetics of Sexual Dimorphism in Human Body Size.Evolution 46:226–234.
Rohwer, S. 1982 The Evolution of Reliable and Unreliable Badges of Fighting Ability.American Zoologist 22:531–546.
Rohwer, S., and P. W. Ewald 1981 The Cost of Dominance and Advantages of Subordination in a Badge Signalling System.Evolution 35:441–454.
Simpson, J. A., and S. W. Gangestad 1991a Individual Differences in Sociosexuality: Convergent and Discriminant Validity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60:870–883.
1991b Personality and Sexuality: Empirical Relations and an Integrative Theoretical Model. InSexuality in Close Relationships, K. McKinney and S. Sprecher, eds. Pp. 71–92. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
1992 Sociosexuality and Romantic Partner Choice.Journal of Personality 60:31–51.
Smith, H. G., and R. D. Montgomerie 1991 Sexual Selection and the Tail Ornaments of North American Barn Swallows.Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 28:195–201.
Smith, R. L. 1984 Human Sperm Competition. InSperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems, R. L. Smith, ed. Pp. 601–659. New York: Academic Press.
Sullivan, M. S., P. A. Robertson, and N. A. Aebischer 1993 Fluctuating Asymmetry Measurement.Nature 361:409–410.
Symons, D. 1979The Evolution of Human Sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tesser, A., and M. Brodie 1971 A Note on the Evaluation of a “Computer Date.”Psychonomic Science 23:300.
Thanakar, J. N., and S. Iwakawi 1979 Cross-cultural Comparisons in Interpersonal Attraction of Females Toward Males.Journal of Social Psychology 108:121–122.
Thornhill, R. 1979 Male and Female Sexual Selection and the Evolution of Mating Strategies in Insects. InSexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects, M. S. Blum and N. A. Blum, eds. Pp. 81–122. New York: Academic.
Townsend, J. M. 1989 Mate Selection Criteria: A Pilot Study.Ethology and Sociobiology 10:241–253.
Trivers, R. L. 1972 Parental Investment and Sexual Selection. InSexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871–1971, B. Campbell, ed. Pp. 136–179. Chicago: Aldine.
1985Social Evolution. Menlo Park, California: Benjamin/Cummings.
United Nations 1991Compendium of Social Statistics and Indicators 1991. New York: United Nations.
Walster, E., V. Aronson, P. Abrahams, and L. Rottman 1966 Importance of Physical Attractiveness in Dating Behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4:508–516.
Weatherhead, P. J., and R. J. Robertson 1979 Offspring Quality and the Polygyny Threshold: The “Sexy Son” Hypothesis.American Naturalist 113:201–208.
Weiderman, M. W., and E. R. Allgeier 1993 Gender Differences in Mate Selection Criteria: Sociobiological or Socioeconomic Explanation?Ethology and Sociobiology 13:115–124.
White, G. L. 1980 Physical Attractiveness and Courtship Progress.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39:660–668.
Williams, G. C. 1966Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Wilson, E. O. 1978On Human Nature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Zuk, M. 1992 The Role of Parasites in Sexual Selection: Current Evidence and Future Directions.Advances in the Study of Behavior 21:39–68.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The ideas in this paper were substantially influenced by discussions with Kim Hill and Hilly Kaplan following a preliminary presentation of work contained herein at a UNM Human Evolutionary Ecology Program colloquium.
Steven W. Gangestad is an associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico. His recent research includes work focused on sexual selection in humans and its implications for general relationship phenomena. His other recent research concerns the impact of developmental instability on functional asymmetries, interpersonal orientations, and individual differences in the control of emotional expression.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gangestad, S.W. Sexual selection and physical attractiveness. Human Nature 4, 205–235 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692200
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692200