This research is an investigation into the cognitive aspects of mate attraction in human males. Two experiments demonstrate that visual exposure to women (in person or within photographs) can prime large changes in the attitudes, mood states, and personality trait descriptions of male participants. These changes, furthermore, are such that participants show greater conformity to female mate preferences as described in the extant literature: In particular, men exposed to potential mates reported higher valuations of material wealth, greater momentary feelings of ambition, higher valuations of other indicators of social status, and personality trait descriptions indicative of high surgency/extraversion. All such effects occurred without participants’ awareness that their responses had been affected by the experimental manipulations. These findings suggest a model of mate attraction mechanisms in which input cues from potential mates can prime those psychological representations that facilitate the behavioral expression of courtship tactics.
Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
Bargh, J.A., Chaiken, S., Govender, R., & Pratto, F. (1992). The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 893-912.
3.
Bargh, J.A., & Chartrand, T.L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54, 462-479.
4.
Bargh, J.A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.
5.
Baum, M.J. (1992). Neuroendocrinology of sexual behavior in the male. In J.B. Becker, S.M. Breedlove, & D. Crews (Eds.), Behavioral endocrinology (pp. 97-131). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
Berry, D.S., & Miller, K.M. (2001). When boy meets girl: Attractiveness and the five-factor model in opposite-sex interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 62-77.
7.
Buss, D.M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616-628.
8.
Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-14.
9.
Buss, D.M. (1994). The evolution of desire. New York: Basic Books.
10.
Buss, D.M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
11.
Buss, D.M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
12.
Buss, D.M., & Schmitt, D.P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
13.
Chartrand, T.L., & Bargh, J.A. (1996). Automatic activation of impression formation and memorization goals: Nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects of explicit task instruction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 464-478.
14.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
15.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Schneider, B. (2000). Becoming adult: How teenagers prepare for the world of work. New York: Basic Books.
16.
Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origin of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.
17.
Elder, G.H. (1969). Appearance and education in marriage mobility. American Sociological Review, 34, 519-532.
18.
Fazio, R.H., Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Powell, M.C., & Kardes, F.R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229-238.
19.
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125-139.
20.
Gangestad, S.W., & Simpson, J.A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 573-644.
21.
Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
22.
Green, P. (1993). High school seniors look to the future, 1972 and 1992. Statistics in brief (NCES No. 93-473). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
23.
Gutierres, S.E., Kenrick, D.T., & Partch, J.J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game: Contrast effects in self-assessment reflect gender differences in mate selection. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1126-1134.
24.
Harding, C.F. (1981). Social modulation of circulating hormone levels in the male. American Zoologist, 21, 223-231.
25.
Higgins, E.T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York: Guilford.
26.
Higgins, E.T., Rholes, W.S., & Jones, C.R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141-154.
27.
Jameson, E.W. (1988). Vertebrate reproduction. New York: John Wiley.
28.
Kenrick, D.T., Groth, G.E., Trost, M.R., & Sadalla, E.K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951-969.
29.
Kenrick, D.T., & Keefe, R.C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 15, 75-133.
30.
Kenrick, D.T., Neuberg, S.L., Zierk, K.L., & Krones, J.M. (1994). Evolution and social cognition: Contrast effects as a function of sex, dominance, and physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 210-217.
31.
Kenrick, D.T., Sadalla, E.K., Groth, G., & Trost, M.R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 98-116.
32.
Kunda, Z. (2000). The case for motivated reasoning. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Motivational science: Social and personality perspectives (pp. 313-335). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
33.
Kunda, Z., & Sanitioso, R. (1989). Motivated changes in the self-concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 272-285.
34.
Li, N.P., Bailey, J.M., Kenrick, D.T., & Linsenmeier, J.A.W. (in press). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
35.
Macrides, F., Bartke, A., & Dalterio, S. (1975). Strange females increase plasma testosterone levels in male mice. Science, 189, 1104-1106.
36.
Mendoza, S.P., & Mason, W.A. (1989). Behavioral and endocrine consequences of heterosexual pair formation in squirrel monkeys. Physiology and Behavior, 46, 597-603.
37.
Morier, D., & Seroy, C. (1994). The effect of interpersonal expectancies on men’s self-presentation of gender role attitudes to women. Sex Roles, 31, 493-504.
38.
Roney, J.R. (1999). Distinguishing adaptations from by-products. American Psychologist, 54, 435-436.
39.
Schmitt, D.P., & Buss, D.M. (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, 1185-1204.
40.
Simpson, J.A., Gangestad, S.W., Christensen, P., & Leck, K. (1999). Fluctuating asymmetry, sociosexuality, and intrasexual competitive tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 159-172.
41.
Speed, A., & Gangestad, S.W. (1997). Romantic popularity and mate preferences: A peer-nomination study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 928-935.
42.
Srull, T.K., & Wyer, R.S., Jr. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1660-1672.
43.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 19-136). New York: Oxford University Press.
44.
Townsend, J.M. (1998). What women want—What men want: Why the sexes still see love and commitment so differently. New York: Oxford University Press.
45.
Townsend, J.M., & Levy, G.D. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection. Journal of Psychology, 124, 371-389.
46.
Townsend, J.M., & Wasserman, T. (1998). Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment and criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171-191.
47.
Trivers, R.L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.
48.
Trivers, R. (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
49.
Udry, J.R., & Eckland, B.K. (1984). Benefits of being attractive: Differential pay-offs for men and women. Psychological Reports, 54, 47-56.
50.
Zanna, M.P., & Pack, S.J. (1975). On the self-fulfilling nature of apparent sex differences in behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 583-591.
