Physical attractiveness from an evolutionary perspective is a chief indicator of genetic health. Current evolutionary theory asserts that attractiveness guides the search for a healthy mate. So, physical attractiveness is a driver for sexual selection. Sexual selection is the increased possibility of sex and reproduction with desired mates because the subject possesses characteristics that increase his or her own attractiveness. Darwin first introduced the concept in On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex by arguing that it is an important mechanism that shapes certain physical traits which have no other obvious value outside of their being attractive. His point was that mate choice provides one avenue for the operation of sexual selection: a male peacock’s tail plumage does not have any survival value except for attracting females (Jones, 1996a, 1996b).
Researchers have highlighted many sociocultural factors that influence body image which, in turn, determine appearance enhancement behaviors. These are media images of the thin-ideal standard (Barlett, Vowels, & Saucier, 2008; Stice, Spangler, & Agras, 2001), interpersonal pressure from family, friends and romantic partners regarding those standards (Webb et al., 2017), cultural social norms regarding beauty and gender (Randazzo & Solmon, 2018), pressure from patriarchal cultures (Leve, Rubin, & Pusic, 2012), various conceptions of beauty standards in both the culture and family (Grogan, 2008), sexual objectification (Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005), and the degree a person conforms to their gender role (Lennon & Rudd, 1994).
These are the forces and influences we deal with everyday in managing body image but what is often neglected in our thinking is that these factors all spring from a biological foundation. What we find sexually attractive is less a by-product of conditioning–although all of the Cartesian behaviorists and social constructionists will disagree–and more a matter of genetics and brain structure. So much of body image and its nature derives from evolutionary processes rather than social ones. Biology is the body and social conditioning is the clothing; the cake and the icing as it were.
Adherence to gender ideals of beauty and physical attractiveness drives reproduction. Physical attractiveness–based on biologically-determined drives and then shaped by social and cultures mores–leads to more sexual opportunities and the higher probability of offspring. Nature, as opposed to we humans, doesn’t care about anything but bottom-line results of more babies. There are several conclusions drawn from this Darwinian reality:
- a universal drive to physically embody what is desired by target mates
- various motivations and individual personal styles influence the alteration of physical appearance
- both genders approach appearance enhancement differently
- socioecological factors interact with evolved mating patterns such as relationship status, culture, resource scarcity, and level of physical health (Davis & Arnocky, 2020)
Individuals vary greatly in the degree to which they embody reproductive benefits which makes some members of a population more desirable than others (Buss & Schmitt, 2019; Miller, 1998). From the perspective of sexual selection theory (Darwin, 1871), adaptations such as body shape and decoration, physiological responses, and behavior patterns can be selected because their survival value benefits reproduction (Andersson, 1994; Barber, 1995; Clutton-Brock, 1991, 2007). These adaptations are selected through the interrelated action of intersexual selection (the choosing of preferred opposite-sex mates expressing desired body characteristics) and intrasexual competition (same-sex competition for access to opposite-sex mates) (Darwin, 1871).
Evolutionary scientists have had a difficult time determining the origins of sexual signals used in courtship (e.g., body ornamentation), if sexual signals are honest indicators of fitness, and whether these signals impose a cost on the body. Compounding this complexity is the observation that many animals use signals that do not signal body qualities when courting attractive mates (Buss, 2017; Cronk, 2005; Laidre & Johnstone, 2013). In fact, a humans employ a range of mating tactics to dishonestly render oneself more attractive relative to rivals (e.g., cosmetics, clothing, and cosmetic surgery). In other words, humans, more so than any other animal, tend to cheat in the mating game (DelPriore et al., 2017; Johnsen & Geher, 2017).
In the context of heterosexual mating, the preferences of one sex becomes what opposite-sex members compete to embody (Andersson, 1994; Arnocky & Vaillancourt, 2017; Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002; Symons, 1995). This behavior unconsciously reinforces the cultural ideals of body attractiveness. Competition for same-sex mates occurs among humans (i.e., bisexual and homosexual mating) and in other species as well, however, these dynamics differ in subtle ways which leads to some very odd hypotheses from the perspective of sexual selection theory (Brewer & Hamilton, 2014; VanderLaan & Vasey, 2008). There are two major intrasexual competition strategies (Buss & Dedden, 1990; Schmitt & Buss, 1996; Walters & Crawford, 1994). The first is self-promotion which involves enhancing or disguising facial and body features to increase one’s sex appeal. The second is competitor derogation in which a person attempts to denigrate the sexual rival in the mind of his target partner. In other words, character assassination. Enhancing appearance enhancement is self-promotion to make one’s self look more attractive than the competition (Buss & Dedden, 1990; DelPriore et al., 2017; Fisher & Cox, 2011; Schmitt & Buss, 1996; Varella, Valentova, & Fernández, 2017). People, according to evolutionary theory, will self-promote and do so in variable ways to be more attractive. They often use what is known as the Idol Effect in which boys and men try to emulate famous, attractive, or powerful males such as athletes and actors. Girls and women tend to imitate female teachers and celebrities such as pop stars and actresses (Read, 2011). Among the varied ways in which humans compete for mates, self-promotion appears to be the most common strategy (Fisher & Cox, 2011; Fisher, Cox, & Gordon, 2009). There is, however, a notable difference in the ways in which women and men self-promote (Buss & Dedden, 1990; Schmitt & Buss, 1996; Walters & Crawford, 1994).
Why Physical Attractiveness Generally Matters More for Females
Females across all species bear the responsibility of gestation, childbearing, and post-partum care (Trivers, 1972). The combination of pregnancy, a limited number of ova, and a limited fertility period means lower lifetime child-bearing for women compared to men (Arnocky, 2016; Arnocky & Vaillancourt, 2017; Clutton-Brock, 2007, 2009). Unlike women, men’s mating opportunities are limited by their ability to outcompete sexual rivals. Darwin (1871) noted that many of the male display features traits were produced over time by natural selection such as strong visual body signals (e.g., bright feathers, large head crests, and brightly colored markings in birds) or body parts used as both display and weapons such as antlers, horns, and large body size. Yes, both historically and culturally, women exert more energy in grooming their physical appearance than men (Buss, 1988; Buss & Dedden, 1990).
Our ancient male ancestors confronted the problem of finding a mate by solving basic problems of finding and wooing the optimal target female while warding off competitors (Buss & Schmitt, 2019). Around the world, men have consistently shown to prize physical attractiveness more than women in sexual relationships (Bech-Sørensen & Pollet, 2016; Buss, 1989; Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, & Larsen, 2001; Li et al., 2011, 2013; Lippa, 2007; Meltzer, McNulty, Jackson, & Karney, 2014; Thomas et al., 2020; Walter et al., 2020). Ancestral women faced the problems of finding and attracting mates with healthy genetic potential and resources for survival including loyalty to the family unit. Consequently, women evolved to compete over their physical appearance by signaling (truly or falsely) that they were young, feminine, healthy, and fertile. Men, to be attractive, had to signal resource potential such as money and status as well as physical power in size and strength (Buss, 1988; Buss & Dedden, 1990; Buunk et al., 2002; Fink, Klappauf, Brewer, & Shackelford, 2014; Symons, 1995).
Closing Thoughts
Evolution has programmed men and women to look and act in specific ways to attract mates and reproduce. This process is reflected in what each sex finds desirable in the other and these are then reinforced by social and cultural reinforcement. Further, men and women are under a variety of social stressors from their families and cultures regarding meeting a certain body-ideal to be desirable. Unfortunately, only a minority in any given group come near the sexual ideal. As a result, men and women often often disguise their physical deviations from the ideal norm by using a variety of camouflaging techniques. Darwin, from an evolutionary point of view, reasoned that the young and healthy (attractive) have the best options for reproducing and sexual selection over time reinforced these biological requirements which is why that today looking your best is always of utmost importance… assuming you are still in the mating game.
Paul Shane, Ph.D., LMT
Director, Academic Content
___________
References
Andersson, M. B. (1994). Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Arnocky, S. (2016). Intrasexual rivalry among women. In T. Shackelford & V. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science, Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 1–8.
Arnocky, S., & Vaillancourt, T. (2017). Sexual competition among women: A review of the theory and supporting evidence. In M. Fisher (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Women and Competition, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–39.
Barber, N. (2003). The sex ratio and female marital opportunity as historical predictors of violent crime in England, Scotland, and the United States. Cross-Cultural Research 37(4), p. 373–392.
Barlett, C., Vowels, C., & Saucier, D. (2008). Meta-analyses of the effects of media images on men’s body-image concerns. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 27(3), p. 279–310.
Bech-Sørensen, J., & Pollet, T. (2016). Sex differences in mate preferences: A replication study, 20 years later. Evolutionary Psychological Science 2(3), p. 171–176.
Brewer, G. & Hamilton, V. (2014). Female mate retention, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences 8, p. 12–19.
Buunk, B., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. (2002). Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships 9(3), p. 271-278.
Buss, D. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12(1), p. 1–49.
—– (2017). Sexual conflict in human mating. Current Directions in Psychological Science 26(4), p. 307–313.
Buss, D. & Dedden, L. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 7(3), p. 395–422.
Buss, D. & Schmitt, D. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology 70, p. 77–110.
Buss, D., Shackelford, T., Kirkpatrick, L., & Larsen, R. (2001). A half century of American mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and the Family 63(2), p. 491–503.
Cash, T., Dawson, K., Davis, P., Bowen, M., & Galumbeck, C. (2001). Effects of cosmetics use on the physical attractiveness and body image of American college women. The Journal of Social Psychology 129(3), p. 349-355.
Clutton-Brock, T. (2007). Sexual selection in males and females. Science 318(5858), p. 1882–1885.
—– (2009). Sexual selection in females. Animal Behaviour 77(1), p. 3–11.
Cronk, L. (2005). The application of animal signaling theory to human phenomena: Some thoughts and clarifications. Social Science Information, 44(4), p. 603–620.
Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London, UK: Murray.
Davis, A. & Arnocky, S. (2020). An evolutionary perspective on appearance enhancement behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior 51, p. 3-37.
DelPriore, D., Prokosch, M., & Hill, S. (2017). The causes and consequences of women’s competitive beautification. In M. Fisher (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Women and Competition, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 577–596.
Fink, B., Klappauf, D., Brewer, G., & Shackelford, T. (2014). Female physical characteristics and intra-sexual competition in women. Personality and Individual Differences 58, p. 138–141.
Fisher, M. & Cox, A. (2011). Four strategies used during intrasexual competition for mates. Personal Relationships 18, p. 20–38.
Fisher, M., Cox, A., & Gordon, F. (2009). Self-promotion versus competitor derogation: The influence of sex and romantic relationship status on intrasexual competition strategy selection. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 7(4), p. 287–308.
Grogan, S. (2008). Body image: Understanding Body Dissatisfaction in Men, Women, and Children. Milton Park, UK: Taylor and Francis.
Johnsen, L. & Geher, G. (2017). Fashion as a set of signals in female intrasexual competition. In M. Fisher (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Women and Competition, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, pp. 637–653.
Jones, D. (1996a). An evolutionary perspective on physical attractiveness. Evolutionary Anthropology 5(3), p. 97-109.
—– (1996b). Physical Attractiveness and the Theory of Sexual Selection: Results from Five Populations. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Jones, B., Little, A., Burt, D., & Perrett, D. (2004). When facial attractiveness is only skin deep. Perception 33, p. 569-576.
Komori, M., Kawamura, S., & Ishihari, S. (2009) Effect of averageness and sexual dimorphism on the judgement of facial attractiveness. Vision Research 49, p. 862-869.
Laidre, M. E., & Johnstone, R. A. (2013). Animal signals. Current Biology 23(18), p. 829–833.
Lennon, S. & Rudd, N. (1994). Linkages between attitudes toward gender roles, body satisfaction, self-esteem, and appearance management behaviors in women. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 23(2), p. 94–117.
Leve, M., Rubin, L., & Pusic, A. (2012). Cosmetic surgery and neoliberalisms: Managing risk and responsibility. Feminism & Psychology 22(1), p. 122–141.
Li, N., Valentine, K. A., & Patel, L. (2011). Mate preferences in the US and Singapore: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Personality and Individual Differences 50(2), p. 291–294.
Li, N., Yong, J., Tov, W., Sng, O., Fletcher, G., Valentine, K., Jiang, K., & Balliet, D. (2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 105(5), p. 757–776.
Lippa, R. (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(2), p.193–208.
Meltzer, A., McNulty, J., Jackson, G., & Karney, B. (2014). Men still value physical attractiveness in a long-term mate more than women: Rejoinder to Eastwick, Neff, Finkel, Luchies, and Hunt (2014). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106(3), p. 435–440.
Miller, G. (1998). How mate choice shaped human nature: A review of sexual selection and human evolution. In C. Crawford & D. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology: Ideas, Issues, and Applications. London, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 87–129.
Randazzo, K. & Solmon, M. (2018). Exploring social norms as a framework to understand decisions to be physically active. Quest 70(1), p. 64–80.
Read, B. (2011). Britney, Beyoncé, and me–primary school girls’ role models and constructions of the ‘popular’ girl. Gender and Education 23, p. 1–13.
Rudd, N. & Lennon, S. (1994). Aesthetics of the body and social identity. Aesthetics of Textiles and Clothing 1, p. 163-175.
—– (1997). Cosmetics consumption and use among women: Ritualized activities that construct and transform the self. Journal of Ritual Studies 11(2), p. 59-77.
Schmitt, D. & Buss, D. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: Sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70(6), p. 1185–1204.
Stice, E., Spangler, D., & Agras, W. (2001). Exposure to media-portrayed thin-ideal images adversely affects vulnerable girls: A longitudinal experiment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 20(3), p. 270–288.
Strelan, P. & Hargreaves, D. (2005). Reasons for exercise and body esteem: Men’s responses to self-objectification. Sex Roles 53(7), p. 495–503.
Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In P. Abramson & S. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual Nature, Sexual Culture, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 80–118.
Thomas, A., Jonason, P., Blackburn, J., Kennair, L., Lowe, R., Malouff, J., Stewart-Williams, S., Sulikowski, D., & Li, N. (2020). Mate preference priorities in the East and West: A cross-cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Journal of Personality 88, p. 606–620.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 136–179.
Valenzano, D., Mennucci, A., Tartarelli, G., & Cellerino, A. (2006). Shape analysis of female facial attractiveness. Vision Research 46, p. 1282-1291.
VanderLaan, D. & Vasey, P. (2008). Mate retention behavior of men and women in heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior 37(4), p. 572–585.
Varella, M., Valentova, J., & Fernández, A. (2017). Evolution of artistic and aesthetic propensities through female competitive ornamentation. In M. L. Fisher (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Women and Competition, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, (pp. 757–783).
Walter, K., Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., … Zupančič, M. (2020). Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication. Psychological Science 31(4), p. 408–423.
Walters, S. & Crawford, C. (1994). The importance of mate attraction for intrasexual competition in men and women. Ethology and Sociobiology 15, p. 5–30.
Webb, H., Zimmer-Gembeck, M., Waters, A., Farrell, L., Nesdale, D., & Downey, G. (2017). “Pretty pressure” from peers, parents, and the media: A longitudinal study of appearance-based rejection sensitivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence 27(4), p. 718–735.
Revised 05-03-24.