The current research tests the hypothesis that women have an evolved mate value calibration adaptation that functions to raise or lower their standards in a long-term mate according to their own mate value. A woman’s physical attractiveness is a cardinal component of women’s mate value.
We correlated observer-assessed physical attractiveness (face, body, and overall) with expressed preferences for 4 clusters of mate characteristics (n = 214): (1) hypothesized good-gene indicators (eg. masculinity, sexiness); (2) hypothesized good investment indicators (eg. potential income); (3) good parenting indicators (eg. desire for home and children), and (4) good partner indicators (eg. being a loving partner).
Results: supported the hypothesis that high mate value women, as indexed by observer-judged physical attractiveness, expressed elevated standards for all 4 clusters of mate characteristics.
Discussion: focuses on potential design features of the hypothesized mate-value calibration adaptation, and suggests an important modification of the trade-off model of women’s mating. A minority of women—notably those low in mate value who are able to escape male mate guarding and the manifold costs of an exposed infidelity—will pursue a mixed mating strategy, obtaining investment from one man and good genes from an extra-pair copulation partner (as the trade-off model predicts). Since the vast majority of women secure genes and direct benefits from the same man, however, most women will attempt to secure the best combination of all desired qualities from the same man.
…Participants were 214 individuals, 107 men and 107 women, who had been married less than one year at the time of testing.
…Table 1 shows the correlations between the 3 measures of physical attractiveness derived from the interviewers and the expressed mate preferences of the female participants. It is organized into the 4 clusters of a priori chosen hypothesized indicators: Traits hypothesized to be “good genes indicators” in the published literature such as masculinity, physical attractiveness, and intelligence; traits known to be “good investment ability indicators”, such as financial resources; traits hypothesized in the literature to be “good parenting indicators” (eg. kind and understanding) as well as those of high and obvious face-validity (eg. “raising children well” as a high goal priority); and “good partner indicators” of high and obvious face-validity (eg. “devoted to you”).
-
Hypothesized good genes indicators:
Physically attractive women expressed statistically-significantly stronger preferences for 5⁄6 hypothesized good genes indicators—mates who are more masculine, physically attractive, good looking, sex appeal, and physically fit. The sole exception was intelligence, which was not valued more by physically attractive than less attractive women. Men’s overall physical attractiveness, in contrast, was statistically-significantly correlated with only one hypothesized good genes indicator—physically fit (r = +0.24, p < 0.05).
-
Good investment ability indicators:
Women’s overall physical attractiveness was positively correlated with all 6 of the good investment abilities, in 4 cases statistically-significantly so—income potential, good earning capacity, college graduate, and older then self. In contrast, men’s overall physical attractiveness was correlated statistically-significantly only with a preference for a mate who is a college graduate (r = +0.21, p < 0.05).
-
Hypothesized good parenting indicators:
Women’s overall physical attractiveness was positively correlate with all 6 of the good parenting indicators, in 5 cases statistically-significantly so—desire for home and children, fond of children, likes children, and has raising children well as a goal priority. The correlations for kind and understanding were positive, but not statistically-significantly so. Men’s overall physical attractiveness, in contrast, correlated positively and statistically-significantly with only one good parenting indicator—raising children well as a goal priority (r = +0.19, p < 0.05).
-
Hypothesized good partner indicators:
Women’s physical attractiveness was positively correlated with higher standards expressed for all 3 good partner indicators. Only “being a loving partner” as a goal priority of the potential partner proved to be statistically-significant. In contrast, men’s physical attractiveness was not positively and statistically-significantly correlated with any of the good partner indicators (eg. where women’s overall physical attractiveness correlated with desire for the characteristic “being a loving partner” with an r = 0.24, p < 0.05, men’s attractiveness correlated with this desire with an r = 0.05, non-statistically-significant).
…With these limitations in mind, what are the potential implications of these findings? The most straightforward implication is that not all women must “trade off” when selecting a long-term mate. Women high in mate value need not sacrifice good genes in order to secure good investment ability or other indicators of direct benefits. Women high in mate value, as indicated by the fundamental trait of physical attractiveness, raise their standards for all 4 clusters of indicators. Conversely, those women lower in mate value relax their standards for all of the key clusters of mate traits. They relax the strength of their standards not just for hypothesized good-genes indicators, but also for indicators of investment ability, parenting, and partnering. Whereas high mate value women want it all, women lower in mate value adaptively reduce their standards. These individual differences support the hypothesis that women have an evolved self-assessment mechanism that calibrates their standards to their mate value…