Sensory Values in Romantic Attraction in Four Europeans Countries

Abstract

The series of studies explored the role of visual, auditory, tactile-kinesthetic, and olfactory modalities in physical attraction toward a romantic partner in four cultures. Participants (N = 1,330) from four European countries, Russia (n = 433), Portugal (n = 248), Georgia (n = 436), and France (n = 213) completed the surveys rating the degree of their physical attraction and how important the various sensory modalities are in their romantic attraction to a partner. Factor analysis revealed 13 sensory factors, among those are expressive behavior, dancing, singing, facial structure, body characteristics, hair and eye features, voice, expressive manner of speaking, skin, dressing, and lips. ANOVA showed cross-culturally common and most prevalent sensory factors of romantic attraction as well as differences among cultures. These differences are explained by climate variations, cultural values, and traditions.

Keywords

romantic love romantic physical attraction interpersonal perception sensory preferences culture

Introduction

Attraction is a positive attitude displayed by the desire to approach and be closer to another person. Physical attraction is based on their physical characteristics. Physical attraction plays a key role in passionate love. What is this subjective experience, and does it differ cross-culturally?

The purpose of the study was to explore the role of visual, auditory, tactile-kinesthetic, olfactory modalities in determining physical attraction to another person in romantic relationships. The visual modality of attraction is based on the physical characteristics of a partner that are visually appealing. This includes, but is not limited to, body type, shape, face, how appealing the eyes are, and the shape of the partner’s lips. The auditory modality of attraction, then, is the attraction to a partner most prominently through the sense of audition. The particular characteristics are the tone of the partner’s voice, the pitch in which they speak, the sound of their laugh, and the voice in which they sing. The tactile-kinesthetic modality of attraction includes the way in which a person feels the partner’s body moves, the way their hands feel and touch, or performing physical activities with the partner. The olfactory modality of attraction consists of the smell of the partner’s breath, the taste of their lips, the smell of their perfume or cologne and skin.

Given the importance of vision for human beings, the main sensory stimuli that affect falling in love are visual. After the first processing in the thalamus, these stimuli are split into two main bundles: one is a short pathway—directed to the amygdala—whereas the other is a longer way—from the thalamus goes to the cortex and then to the amygdala (Marazziti & Baroni, 2012). Visual senses yield an abundance of research data about various aspects of the body and face that people find attractive in a partner. Many studies have revealed the value of facial symmetry, a low hip-to-waist ratio, long hair, clear skin, muscular builds (see a review by Miller & Perlman, 2009). These senses are the most important to males when referring to physical attractiveness. Research on sexual attraction showed that males are most affected by visual senses (Buss, 1989, 1994; Ellis & Symons, 1990; Feingold, 1990, 1992; Greenlees & McGrew, 1994; Landolt, Lalumiere, & Quinsey, 1995). Males place a great emphasis on the physical characteristics of their prospective female partners, such as body shape, weight, and hair length (Nevid, 1984), and physical fitness determines perceptions of physical attractiveness (Hönekopp, Rudolph, Beier, Liebert, & Müller, 2007). It seems that people are predisposed to be attracted to people with facial symmetry and certain body types even before an initial meeting takes place (Patzer, 1985) and this effect of symmetry on sexual attractiveness is stronger in men than in women (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997).

Humans and other primates have been viewed as primarily “optical animals” highly relying on vision in their interpersonal perception (Grammer, Fink, & Neave, 2005), nevertheless, audition as a social tool holds great importance for people. It is evident that verbal and nonverbal channels are the core in romantic relationships. In this regard, not only the content of communication, which has been extensively investigated over the years, but also auditory perception of voice and other sounds of a partner should play an important role in attraction.

For example, concerning attractiveness of male voice, several correlational studies revealed interesting facts. Zuckerman and Miyake (1993) found that male voices high in vocal attractiveness are less monotonous, lower in average fundamental frequency, and medium to higher in variance of the fundamental frequency. Attractive male voices sound mature (Zuckerman, Miyake, & Elkin, 1995), submissive (Raines, Hechtman, & Rosenthal, 1990), and have high or medium pitch variation (Ray, Ray, & Zahn, 1991). Women, overall, display general masculinity preferences for men’s voices (Feinberg et al., 2006).

Several experimental studies added to these findings. Addington (1968) revealed that increased variance of the fundamental frequency gave the impression that a male is more dynamic, feminine, and aesthetically inclined. This, however, did not fully agree with Brown, Strong, and Rencher’s (1973, 1974) findings that medium variance of the fundamental frequency was rated more positively than increased variance of the fundamental frequency. In Tuomi and Fischer’s (1979) study, both males and females lowered their voices an average of 20 to 25 Hz when asked to simulate a “sexy” voice, thus demonstrating the perception that low voices are sexy. In accord with these findings, in other study (Hughes, Farley, & Rhodes, 2010), both sexes used a lower pitched voice when speaking to the more attractive, opposite-sex target. Furthermore, the voice samples directed toward the attractive target (vs. the unattractive target) sounded more pleasant when the two voice samples from the same person presented had a reasonably perceptually noticeable difference in pitch.

Studies also revealed that male voices that are medium or low in average fundamental frequency are more attractive to women than those that are high in average fundamental frequency (Riding, Lonsdale, & Brown, 2006). The evolutionary theory of attraction (Barber, 1995; Buss, 1989) brings a theoretical rationale to these data maintaining that women are attracted to strong, dominant men, thus enhancing their genetic survival. Lower average fundamental frequency is associated with judgments of greater male dominance (Collins, 2000; Dabbs & Mallinger, 1999).

Herz and Cahill (1997) found that auditory stimuli play an important role in sexual attraction for both men and women, but in various contexts. The study of Hughes, Dispenza, and Gallup (2004) showed the relationship between having an attractive voice and number of sexual encounters. The multiple studies of Hughes with collaborators convincingly demonstrated the numerous effects of attractive voice on romantic attraction and mating value. People with attractive voices have more bilateral body symmetry, which is a trait linked to fitness and genetic quality (Hughes, Harrison, & Gallup, 2002; Hughes, Pastizzo, & Gallup, 2008). Attractive voices of women usually correlate their lower waist-to-hip ratios, and men’s attractive voices correlate with broader shoulders relative to their hips (Hughes et al., 2004). These sex-specific body configurations signal the reproductive maturity and potential. They also have a higher number of sexual encounters.

Voices are also related to mating success and sexual behavior. In particular, those with attractive voices have first sexual intercourse at an earlier age and a greater number of affairs and sexual partners (Hughes et al., 2004). Men with attractive lower pitched voices have higher reproductive success (Apicella, Feinberg, & Marlowe, 2007).

Tactile senses and kinesics also play an important role in romantic attraction. Kissing, hugging, touching, holding one another, and having sexual interaction are all considered as typical tactile and kinesthetic expressions of passion (Marston, Hecht, Manke, McDanield, & Reeder, 1998; Sternberg, 1986). Male and female college students frequently report (Gulledge, Gulledge, & Stahmann, 2003) the expression of their physical affection in tactile and kinesthetic way: backrubs/massages, caressing/stroking, cuddling/holding, holding hands, hugging, kissing on the lips, and kissing on the face.

Early research reported that women are usually most aroused by tactile stimulation during sexual activity (Ellis & Symons, 1990; Symons, 1979); the further studies supported these findings that females are more affected by tactile stimuli than any other sensory experience (Herz & Cahill, 1997). In the context of sexual attraction, for males, visual and tactile stimuli play the most important role.

Roberts et al. (2011) demonstrated the correlation between nonverbal kinesic cues and mate quality. Kinesics is often used as nonverbal idioms (Hopper, Knapp, & Scott, 1981) and includes such messages as gestures, posture, body movement, facial expressions, eye contact, and eye movement. Kinesics communicates love nonverbally. Hopper et al. provided examples of idiosyncratic behaviors: twitching the nose might mean “You’re special,” or pulling on the right earlobe might mean, “I love you.” This way couples express affection for one another.

Humans and other primates often have been viewed as having undeveloped sense of smell (cited in Grammer et al., 2005), even though such bodily experiences as olfaction, taste, and tactile sensation constitute important human perceptual process, at some point, they were overlooked and underestimated in the romantic attraction literature. It is understandable because olfaction is a primal sense that is not often used in social interaction.

Recent studies showed the effect of biological factors that influence our olfaction, thus affecting our attraction toward others (Pazzaglia, 2015; Singh & Bronstad, 2001). Several studies demonstrated that people produce and perceive certain pheromones (Pause, 2012; Wysocki & Preti, 2004), and these chemical substances play an important role in human sexual behavior (Grammer et al., 2005), even though the results concerning the role of pheromones in attraction still seem controversial (Simard, 2014). The pheromone androstenol contributes to body odor (Gower & Ruperelia, 1993). Because its production is sexually dimorphic, this implicates sexual selection. Its possible function is to motivate mating with a male who possess good genes. For example, women use olfaction to choose mates whose genes, combined with theirs, provide more variety for their offspring (Wedekind & Füri, 1997; Wedekind, Seebeck, Bettens, & Paepke, 1995).

In several studies, men and women stated that body scents of others affect their sexual interest, whereas women showed a stronger effect than men (Herz & Cahill, 1997; Regan & Berscheid, 1995). Women reported that olfactory impression is the most important sensory information for sexual interest and arousal, while men regarded visual and olfactory signals as about equally important (Herz & Cahill, 1997). Experimental studies also supported the important role of odors in attraction. Pierce, Cohen, and Ulrich (2004) used two kinds of chemicals on two separate subject groups, one being pleasant and one being noxious. Results showed that people generally judge others to be more attractive in the presence of a pleasant scent than in the presence of a noxious one. The similar results were obtained in the study of Sodavari et al. (2014). Pleasant odor increased interpersonal attraction, whereas unpleasant odor decreased it. In addition, attraction reduced more due to unpleasant odors than attraction increased while pleasant odors were presented. The effects of unpleasant odors were the same for both sexes, but pleasant odors had more effect on women.

In the study of Mogilina et al. (2013), males evaluated natural smells of women, and the results showed that artificial odorants essentially changed men’s preferences, increasing the attractiveness of female smells. In addition, Cupchik, Phillips, and Truong (2005) convincingly presented the data that suggested a sexual/affective role of bodily odors.

Some studies demonstrated the relationship between the romantic/sensual/sexual emotions and the taste/smell images in the prose and poems (Shaw, 2008). When people bring to mind a meaningful, vivid, mental image, visual images are most likely to be the trigger that accesses information about a specific episode, with tactile and auditory images next in order of importance. Correlational analysis using the categories of sensory imagery and emotion found that romantic/sensual/sexual emotions were strongly linked to olfactory and taste sensory images. Embarrassment was significantly correlated with tactile imagery (Shaw, 2008).

One could expect that various senses work in complex informing romantic attractiveness. In particular, the researchers (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999) proposed that the scent of symmetry is an honest signal of phenotypic and genetic quality in the human male. They found that in both sexes, facial attractiveness (as judged from photos) predicted body scent attractiveness to the opposite sex. However, they found no evidence that men prefer the scent of symmetric women.

Gustation, as well as olfaction, should play an important role in romantic attraction because there are correlations between the chemical senses of olfaction (smell) and gustation (taste; Pinel, 1997). The frequent use of such words as “sweetie,” “honey,” and “hot” in romantic relationship is well known. Are these metaphors associated with real involvement of gustation? Some studies have revealed the role of gustatory experience in attraction. In the study of Saegert, Swap, and Zajonc (1983), subjects were given a pleasant or noxious taste just before having an encounter with a person of the opposite sex. Results demonstrated that pleasant taste exposure determines positive attraction. Another similar study (Ren, Tan, Arriaga, & Chan, 2015) found that taste sensations might influence romantic perceptions of a nonestablished relationship. Results showed that participants evaluated a hypothetical relationship, but not an existing relationship, more favorably when exposed to sweet taste compared with nonsweet taste. Participants indicated greater interest in initiating a relationship with a potential partner when exposed to sweet taste. The authors (Ren et al., 2015) propose a possible explanation of the effect of taste experience on romantic attraction. Since sweet food taste increases dopamine level (Hajnal, Smith, & Norgren, 2004), a key biological substrate of passionate love (Fisher, Aron, & Brown, 2005), such a dopamine transfer may link taste with romantic attraction.

The purpose of our research was to explore the comparative role of various senses and sensory factors in physical attraction to a romantic partner in different European cultural contexts. Despite the plethora of studies that examined characteristics of physical appearance affecting attractiveness, the importance of other sensory experiences in this regard was explored much less. Therefore, we intended to go beyond the traditional visual appearance paradigm in the research of attraction. The current study is the first that comprehensively reviews the sensory preferences of people in romantic relationships in cross-cultural perspective. We assumed that various sensory impressions work not independently, but in complex combinations creating an attractive image of a partner. The purpose of this study was to reveal these multisensory factors.

We performed cross-cultural comparisons based on the assumption that some sensory factors of attraction may be universal, yet others are culturally specific. In particular, we predicted that expressive behavior, better than just physical appearance, inform about personality traits of a partner and therefore affects the attractiveness. We also expected that the role of these senses may differ among cultures because of their climate location and cultural traditions. Other than that we did not assume any general theoretical cultural explanatory framework, but rather focused on comparison between these cultures. In particular, we hypothesized that people in a warmer climate (Portugal and Georgia) put more value on olfactory senses since perspiration there is naturally more intensive. Due to different historical traditions of romantic love in Eastern (Georgia and Russia) and Western (Portugal and France) European cultures, we expected that they should influence their sensory preferences in attraction. The role of dressing was expected to be higher in France as it is a well-known center of fashion.

Method

Participants

A quantitative survey design was utilized in this research with college students (N = 1,330) of similar age and social status, but various ethnic and cultural backgrounds. The participants were from four European countries: Russia (n = 433; age M = 19.4, SD = 1.2 years), Portugal (n = 248; age M = 25.5, SD = 9.7 years), Georgia (n = 436; age M = 20.8, SD = 2.2 years), and France (n = 213; age M = 22.7, SD = 4.2 years)—females (786) and males (533). Only men and women who were engaged in heterosexual romantic relationships (now, in the past, or interested in the future) participated in the survey. Thus, we had comparable samples from different cultures.

Materials

The survey contained Physical Attraction Scale (PAS) consisting of eight items measuring emotional and behavioral aspects of romantic physical attraction to a partner and Sensory Experience Scale (SES), consisting of 54 questions pertaining to the role that various visual, auditory, tactile-kinesthetic, olfactory modalities play in romantic attraction to a partner. Those questions concerned expressive behavior, smile, a partner’s features of dancing and singing, his or her voice, facial structure, hair, body, way of dressing, eyes, skin, smell of a partner, and lips. These questions asked about the importance of those impressions for the physical attraction to a partner. The variables of interest were as follows:

If a participant is in a romantic relationship now, was in a relationship in the past, or rate their potential partner in the future.

Background information on the length and stage of relationships, age, gender, ethnicity, place where participants grew and spent most of their life, and education.

Degree of behavioral and emotional attraction: The question was “How physically attracted are you to your partner? Please use the following rating scale to rate your attraction toward your partner” (from disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5)

Examples of items for rating are

I want to hug this person often (behavioral) and

This person’s physical appearance makes me feel energetic (emotional).

4. Importance of visual, auditory, tactile, and olfactory impressions from a partner, as well as specific sensory characteristics within these modalities, for example, body, sound of voice, touch, and so on.

The question was, “Which impressions of the physical appearance of your romantic partner are important to you, and which impressions are less important? Your task is to rate how important each listed impression is for your physical attraction to your romantic partner from not important (1) to most important (5).”

Examples of items for rating are

This person has animated facial expression,

This person speaks emotionally,

This person has gratifying laughter,

This person’s breath smells good,

The dancing with this person is comfortable,

This person’s shape of nose,

This person’s hairstyle,

This person’s tone of voice,

How this person sings,

This person’s body is in shape, and

This person’s lips look nice.

Procedure

Upon invitation, participants completed the survey, consisting of PAS, SES, and several background and demographic questions. The study was conducted either online or in paper-pencil format, depending on specific institutional circumstances.

Results

Major Dimensions of Sensory Experiences

Principal component analysis (with Varimax rotation) and scale analysis allowed us to identify 13 major dimensions with good and excellent reliability (.7 ≤ α < .9). The factors brought together various sensory experiences: expressive behavior, dancing, singing, facial structure, body characteristics, hair and eye features, voice, expressive manner of speaking, skin, dressing, and lips are among those. Factor loading is distinctively different for majority of these sensory factors. The only hypothesized factors, which mixed into each other, were (a) expressive face and speaking and (b) smile and laughter, what is understandable since smile and laughter are the features, not easily distinguishable from general impression of expressive behavior.

Then, we ran MANOVA to see the main effects of country and if “you love someone right now,” as well as an interaction effect of those variables, on 13 sensory preference dependent variables. We ran these analyses separately for men and women because we did not want to average possible gender differences. For men, there was a significant main effect of country, F(39, 1241) = 3.765, p = .000; Wilks’s Δ = .718, and no main effect of “if you love right now”/“loved once”/“an expected romantic partner,” F(26, 838) = 1.060, p = .382; Wilks’s Δ = .937. There was no statistically significant interaction effect between variables of country and if “you love right now,” F(78, 3216) = 0.866, p = .792; Wilks’s Δ = .853. For women, there was a significant main effect of both country, F(39, 1904) = 7.136, p = .000; Wilks’s Δ = .668, and “if you love right now”/“loved once”/“an expected romantic partner,” F(26, 1286) = 2.559, p = .000; Wilks’s Δ = .904. There was no statistically significant interaction effect between variables of country and if “you love right now,” F(78, 3551) = 0.986, p = .513; Wilks’s Δ = .889. These findings mean that culture (country) has a significant effect on sensory preferences in romantic attraction in both men and women, while variable “if you love right now”/“loved once”/“an expected romantic partner” has a significant effect only in women (they have higher sensory preferences when they are in love now), but not in men. Since no significant interaction effect between variables of country and “if you love right now”/“loved once”/“an expected romantic partner” was found, therefore we ran the further analysis using one-way ANOVA of 13 sensory factors in romantic attraction depending on countries and aggregated the data for those participants who love someone right now, loved someone before, and rated their preferences for a prospective romantic partner. The results are represented separately for men and women in Tables 1 and 2 and reveal several preferences common for the participants of all four countries; cultural and gender similarities and differences across the dimensions of sensory factors.

Table 1.

Male Results of ANOVA on Sensory Preferences in Romantic Physical Attraction for Four Cultures.

Dimensions	Overall (ANOVA)		Mean scores
Dimensions	F	p	Portugal (n = 89)	Georgia (n = 181)	Russia (n = 169)	France (n = 94)
Expressive face and speaking	19.96	<.001	3.96_a	3.23_b,c	3.15_b,c	3.54_d
Smile and laughter	18.56	<.001	3.99_a	3.37_b	3.12_c	3.65_d
Smell	3.18	.024	3.76_a,b,c	3.71_a,b,c	3.59_a,b,c,d	3.38_d
Dancing	3.05	.028	2.69_a,b,c,d	2.93_a,b,c	2.71_a,b,c,d	2.58_d
Facial structure	3.94	.008	2.95_a,b,c,d	3.02_a,b,d	2.67_a,c,d	2.95_a,b,c,d
Hair	2.21	.086	2.71	2.99	2.76	2.81
Eyes	3.79	.010	3.12_a,b,c,d	3.27_a,b,d	2.9_a,c,d	3.23_a,b,c,d
Voice	8.25	<.001	3.32_a,b,d	3.08_a,b,d	2.75_c	3.20_a,b,d
Skin	2.67	.047	3.33_a,b,d	3.19_a,b,d	3.11_a,b,c	3.46_a,b,d
Body characteristics	0.63	.596	3.62	3.70	3.63	3.77
Dress	8.34	<.001	2.72_a,b,c	3.00_a,b	2.55_a,c	3.05_b,d
Singing	1.38	.248	1.97	2.23	2.15	2.32
Lips	4.18	.006	3.67_a,b,d	3.48_a,b,d	3.31_c	3.67_a,d

Note. Cultures with different subscripts in a column differ significantly from one another, p < .05, one tailed.

Table 2.

Female Results of ANOVA on Sensory Preferences in Romantic Physical Attraction for Four Cultures.

Dimensions	Overall (ANOVA)		M scores
Dimensions	F	p	Portugal (n = 159)	Georgia (n = 255)	Russia (n = 264)	France (n = 108)
Expressive face and speaking	40.33	<.001	3.87_a	3.18_b,c	3.05_b,c	3.58_d
Smile and laughter	19.04	<.001	3.85_a,d	3.40_b,d	3.16_c	3.59_a,b,d
Smell	2.92	.033	3.76	3.78	3.97	3.73
Dancing	1.67	.171	2.65	2.84	2.85	2.84
Facial structure	2.41	.065	2.35_a,b,c,d	2.40_a,b,c,d	2.27abc	2.54_a,b,d
Hair	0.80	.496	2.40	2.32	2.32	2.45
Eyes	11.15	<.001	3.03_a,b,d	3.04_a,b,d	2.63c	3.12_a,b,d
Voice	13.08	<.001	3.17_a,b,d	3.19_a,b,d	2.74c	3.29_a,b,d
Skin	7.54	<.001	2.95_a,b,d	2.94_a,b,d	2.56c	2.87_a,b,d
Body characteristics	9.06	<.001	3.08_a	3.52_b,c,d	3.49_b,c,d	3.41_b,c,d
Dress	3.72	.011	2.43_a,b,c,d	2.47_a,b,c,d	2.29_a,b,c	2.60_a,b,d
Singing	7.05	<.001	1.62_a,c,d	2.08_b,d	1.74_a,c,d	1.80_a,b,c,d
Lips	13.69	<.001	3.60_a,d	2.98_b,c	3.11_b,c,d	3.32_a,c,d

Note. Cultures with different subscripts in a column differ significantly from one another, p < .05, one tailed.

For both males and females in all four cultures (with certain cultural variations), the most valuable features of their romantic partner are the expressive face, speaking, and smile, including animated and smiley facial expression, the emotional and expressive way of speaking, and contagious and gratifying laughter. They pay attention to the partner’s eye color and size, but even more to the eyes being expressive and friendly. Besides, they highly value the auditory sensory features such as a partner’s pitch, tone, volume, and clear sounding voice. Such olfactory features as good smells of the partner’s breath, clothes, body, and perfume/cologne are among the priority in sensory romantic attraction to a partner. Both males and females in all four cultures value body characteristics of partner more than facial characteristics. A partner’s nicely looking lips, as well as their feelings of being smooth and soft, are among the favorite sensory features. Besides, males appreciate the feeling of their partners’ soft and smooth skin, including soft and smooth hands.

Among all specific sensory features, the most attractive are the following (with small gender and cross-cultural variations):

A partner’s smiley facial expression (M = 3.82, males; M = 3.74, females) and gratifying laughter (M = 3.78, males; M = 3.78, females);

A partner’s good smell of breath (M = 3.62, males; M = 3.74, females), clothes (M = 3.50, males; M = 3.76, females), and body (M = 3.74, males; M = 3.94, females);

A partner’s nice look of teeth (M = 3.61, males; M = 3.43, females), although the other aspects of lips are still important for romantic attraction;

A partner’s attractive body parts (M = 3.94, males; M = 3.50, females) are more important than having a proportionate body or to be in a good shape.

Gender Differences in the Value of Various Sensory Experiences Across Cultures

First, we analyzed the Tables 1 and 2 vertically comparing the importance which participants place on different sensory factors. In all cultural samples, men place high value in their romantic partners on expressive face and speaking, smile and laughter, eyes, voice, smell, skin, body characteristics, and lips, and less value on facial structure, hair, dress, dancing, and singing. Women in all cultures place high value in their romantic partners on many similar sensory characteristics as men do. They value expressive face and speaking, smile and laughter, eyes, voice, smell, body characteristics, and lips, and less value on facial structure, skin, hair, dress, dancing, and singing. Gender differences across cultures were analyzed with t test. Females value higher than males the smell of a romantic partner (females = 3.83, males = 3.62, t = 3.98, p = .00). However, males value higher than females the following characteristics of their romantic partner: facial structure (females = 2.37, males = 2.88, t = 9.68, p = .00), hair (females = 2.35, males = 2.84, t = 9.42, p = .00), eyes (females = 2.91, males = 3.13, t = 3.82, p = .00), skin (females = 2.80, males = 3.24, t = 7.36, p = .00), body (females = 2.41, males = 2.79, t = 5.20, p = .00), dress (females = 3.39, males = 3.67, t = 6.95, p = .00), singing (females = 1.81, males = 2.17, t = 5.58, p = .00), and lips (females = 3.20, males = 3.49, t = 5.23, p = .00). Thus, across four cultures, males hold higher expectations from their romantic female partner’s sensory characteristics than females from their male partner’s.

Cross-Cultural Differences in the Value of Various Sensory Experiences in Males and Females

Second, we analyzed the Tables 1 and 2 horizontally comparing the value which participants from different cultures place on the same sensory factors. How specific cultural characteristics of sensory experience affect romantic physical attraction and why?

The Tukey’s HSD (Honestly Significant Difference) post hoc tests were used for multiple comparisons among four countries. Tables 1 and 2 present more details on the significant cultural differences based on post hoc results for males and females, respectively. In the cases of no significant differences between all four countries, we omit the subscripts; the results look like this: 2.71 | 2.99 | 2.76 | 2.81. In the case of statistically significant differences among all four countries, the results look like this: 3.99 _a | 3.37 _b | 3.12 _c | 3.65 _d. In the case when the means in second and third position in the row are not statistically different, they have subscripts b, c and b, c in both columns. But if they are statistically different from the first and fourth columns, then they do not have the subscripts a and d. The scores in the first and fourth columns are statistically different from all others; therefore, they do not have any other subscripts. The results in the table look like this: 3.96 _a | 3.23 _bc | 3.15 _bc | 3.54 _d.

Generally, cultures with different subscripts in their columns along the rows differ significantly from one another; those cultures, which have the subscripts of each other, do not differ statistically from each other.

Role of Sensory Factors in Romantic Physical Attraction for Men and Women in Four Countries

The role of 13 sensory factors in romantic physical attraction was analyzed using linear regression, and the results are presented in Table 3. For males overall, that is, across all four countries, the regression of these factors on physical attraction toward a partner was significant (R = .50). With significant positive contributions of the dimensions of expressive face and speaking, smile, lips, and significant negative contributions of voice and dress. The former means that those men, who value in their partner the expressivity of face and speaking, the smile, and lips, feel more attracted to their partner. The latter means that men placing less value on the characteristics of voice and the way their female partner dresses have stronger physical attraction to the partner.

Table 3.

Regression Analysis of Sensory Preferences on Romantic Physical Attraction for Four Cultures, for Men and Women.

Dimensions	Overall		By country
	Overall		Portugal		Georgia		Russia		France
	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women	Men	Women
	R = .50, p < .001	R = .40,p < .001	R = .53, p = .016	R = .37, p = .047	R = .59, p < .001	R = .54, p < .001	R = .58, p < .001	R = .44, p < .001	R = .42, p = .213	R = .40, p = .157
Expressive face/Speaking (β)	.265	.184	.299	.188	.322	.188	.201	.215	.179	.198
Smile and Laughter (β)	.138	.146	−.095	−.010	.265	.264	.244	.167	−.029	.155
Smell (β)	.036	.078	−.031	.017	−.028	.068	.049	.007	.105	−.116
Dancing (β)	.075	.115	.254	.027	−.036	.080	.106	.197	.013	.045
Facial structure (β)	.077	−.022	.106	−.118	.264	.032	−.123	−.074	−.171	−.005
Hair (β)	−.112	.010	−.197	−.070	−.234	−.100	−.037	.124	−.025	−.011
Eyes (β)	.032	−.025	.023	.241	.041	−.066	−.036	−.085	−.181	−.071
Voice (β)	−.132	−.121	−.116	.003	−.036	−.084	−.022	−.132	−.068	.160
Skin (β)	.055	.008	.143	−.144	−.031	.305	.016	−.020	−.232	−.268
Body (β)	.002	.161	.067	.230	−.013	−.015	.056	.173	.379	.108
Dress (β)	−.125	−.098	−.100	−.188	−.138	−.008	−.059	−.106	−.220	.182
Singing (β)	−.067	−.057	−.142	−.027	.141	−.132	−.323	−.021	−.107	−.070
Lips (β)	.210	.005	.248	.032	.074	−.024	.325	−.035	.241	−.012

Note. Bolded βs are significant at the level of p < .05.

For females overall, the regression of those 13 factors on physical attraction toward a partner was also significant (R = .40) with significant positive contributions of the dimensions of expressive face and speaking, smile, body, dancing, and negative significant contributions of voice and dress. Thus, both men and women place great value on expressive face, speaking, and smile, and do not care about characteristics of voice and way of their partner’s dress. Many other sensory factors, not listed above, although contribute to an overall model of physical attraction to a partner, they probably work all together—in orchestra, not separate from each other. As for gender differences, for women, not for men, the body appearance and ability to dance of a partner are important in their attraction to a romantic partner. Lips of a partner are more important for men than for women across cultures.

Linear regression models for males and females in Portugal, Georgia, and Russia using the same 13 sensory characteristics of a partner were also statistically significant.

Expressive face and speaking is the most consistent factor across all four cultures; in fact, 10 of the 10 betas in Table 3 are positive (seven are significant), while singing at nine out of 10 is a negative factor as well as dress (9/10). In Portugal, for men, the expressive behavior of a partner is important for their romantic attraction. For Portuguese women, eyes of their partner is an important factor of their romantic attraction, as well as the partner’s body. The way how a man is dressed is less important for them.

For Georgian men, expressive behavior, smile, and facial structure of their female partner are important factors of romantic attraction. For Georgian women, it was found that expressive behavior, smile, and skin of their male partner are important factors of romantic attraction.

For Russian men, expressive behavior, smile, and lips of their female partner are important factors of romantic attraction, but they place little value on the way a woman sings when their female partner is romantically attractive to them. For Russian women, expressive behavior, smile, and dancing ability of their male partner are important factors of romantic attraction, as well as the partner’s body.

Linear regression model of physical attraction on sensory factors did not reach the level of statistical significance for males and females in France; therefore, we cannot draw definite conclusions, even though for males their female partner’s body is still important.

Discussion

Results of the study demonstrated large universality of sensory factors which participants evaluate as the most important for their romantic physical attraction in four countries, while gender and cultural differences were revealed. These results correspond with other studies investigated various parameters of appearance and their role in romantic context.

Expressive Face and Speaking, Smile, and Laughter

The results of this study showed that men and women from four countries pay the most attention to the characteristics of partner’s physical appearance that are connected with communication, especially with visual display of sympathy. Such parameters as expressive face, speaking, and smile may serve as signals of interest, sympathy, and pleasure. Display of feelings between romantic partners contributes to the stability of love relations (Gonzaga, Keltner, Londahl, & Smith, 2001). Expression of positive emotions helps to enhance and sustain the bonds between partners (Shiota, Campos, Keltner, & Hertenstein, 2004). Expression of positive affect predicts marital stability and marital happiness among stable couples (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998). All these studies support our interpretation of importance of expressive behavior in romantic attraction.

Yet, cultural differences are shown in our study even in this highly evaluated parameter: Portuguese participants value expressive face and speaking, and smile, higher than participants from other countries. These results may be explained through higher intensity of emotional expression in Portugal (Edelmann & Neto, 1989).

Smile

Our study shows that importance of smile and laughter in romantic attraction is universal in all four cultures. Often an expression of positive emotions, smile, and laugher are associated with many desirable qualities. Studies of Reis et al. (1990) demonstrated that smiling faces were evaluated as more sincere, sociable, and competent. Bachorowski and Owren (2001) pointed out that smile and laughter as the signals of positive affect help to form and provide cooperative relationships. González-Ibáñez, Shah, and Córdova-Rubio (2011) demonstrated that smile may serve as a positive indicator of team collaboration. Morrison, Morris, and Bard (2013) revealed that expression of happiness is evaluated as more attractive than expression of other basic emotions and explained it as a signal of positive intention and thus induce to interact with a person who is smiling at you. In love relationships, smile and other positive interactions such as laugh, approval, and assent enhance bonds between partners (Gottman et al., 1998). Grammer (1990) described the important role of laughing in flirting behavior; laughter is used as a metacommunicative safe signal of either aversion or excitement. Moore (1985) also indicated smile and laughing among the typical behaviors in courtship. Expression of positive emotions leads to building salutary context of life and correlates with satisfaction in spousal relationship (Harker & Keltner, 2001) and drive mate selection (Shiota et al., 2004). All these studies convincingly support our interpretation.

However, cultural differences are revealed in our study even in regard to this prevalent factor: Russian and Georgian participants value smile and laughter lower than participants from France and Portugal. These findings can be explained through ambiguous interpretation of smile in these cultures. For example, Russian people, especially men, prefer to appear seriously, since a smile can be perceived not only as evidence of personal well-being and good mood but also as a mark of mindlessness and lack of intelligence (Tokareva, 2007). The excessive expressiveness may often be perceived as unattractive.

Eyes

Our research showed the importance of eyes in romantic attraction in three cultures, in a lesser degree in Russia. Other studies evidenced that eyes are the important facial features in evaluation of attractiveness (Yuschenkova, 2011), and eyes play the most important role in communication and accumulate the effect of changing upper and lower parts of the face (Barabanshikov, 2009). It can be explained, first, through a context of communication. We may assume that different characteristics of physical appearance become more important in different situations of communication. In particular, Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1970) stressed the importance of eye area in courtship behavior. We should notice that Georgian men tend to evaluate characteristics of the eyes of their romantic partner higher than respondents from other countries. It may be supported by the previous studies, demonstrated that people from Eastern cultures tend to fixate longer on the eyes of their partner (Jack et al., 2009; Senju et al., 2013).¹ Besides, only Georgian men, not women, showed such a tendency. This could be explained due to historical Eastern cultural tradition of covering women’s face and body with cloth; so that eyes remained the main channel to make impression. Bereczkei and Mesko (2006) indicate that large eyes among the other babyish characteristic of female appearance are evaluated as attractive by male respondents. Neonate appearance is perceived as connected with youthful vivaciousness and submissiveness, and as such, appearance may induce a caretaking behavior in males (Bereczkei & Mesko, 2006), we can speculate that high attractiveness of women’s eyes among Georgian male respondents may be connected with an image of attractive woman as a “traditional” woman, which is perceived as decent and dependent on the “head” of a family (her father or husband).

Lips

Lips and eyes play the key role in emotion recognition (Barabanshikov, 2013). Numerous studies showed that lips play an important role in flirting and sexual behavior among humans and nonhuman primates (e.g., see Gonzaga et al., 2001). Moore (1985) described various signals connected with lips and mouth, which often appear in flirting female behavior, such as lip licks and lip pouts. Women use signals of interest that are not very obvious (Grammer, 1990), and lips play an important role in this behavior. The typical use of lip movements in flirting behavior of women explains why lips are more important for men when men evaluate female attractiveness.

The Way of Dressing

Dress may be evaluated as an additional source of information about personality characteristics of a partner. M.-A. Descamps (1979) commented that dress is a mute language by which everybody indicates his sex, age, nationality, profession, social class, and so on to other people. Previous studies indicated that dress has an impact on self-perception (Hannover & Kühnen, 2002), interpersonal perception (McDermott & Pettijohn, 2011), interactions with other people, and has an effect on wearer’s behavior (e.g., see a review of Johnson et al., 2014). Therefore, attention to partner’s clothes can provide cues for mutual understanding between romantic partners.

As for the cultural differences in this regard, French male and female participants value dress higher than participants from other countries. This may refer to cultural traditions because fashion plays an important role in French culture (Stoicescu, 2013).

Skin

Portuguese and Georgian females place higher value on skin characteristics. This partially confirms the theoretical assumptions that skin characteristics are more important in countries with hotter climate. Among respondents from the coldest country of which we studied, Russia, skin characteristics have the lowest scores both among men and women.

Hair

Georgian males evaluate hair characteristics of their partner higher than men from other countries. Women’s hair length and quality play an important role in mate selection, providing signals about qualities connected to reproductive potential, such as health and youth (Hinsz, Matz, & Patience, 2001). It is also shown that women’s hair length is perceived as connected with health and maturity—the latter means the quality of parental care (Bereczkei & Mesko, 2006). We suppose that characteristics that signal about how good a woman will be as a parent are sufficient in cultures where the most important woman’s role is a role of mother, and that role is inherent for Georgian culture (Javakhadze, 2006).

Body Characteristics

Russian females value body characteristics in their romantic partners much higher compared to other sensory parameters. That can be explained through a concept of attractive men described by Russian female respondents as enchanting, athletic, and strong (Varlashkina & Kozubenko, 2011), “handsome man” is also described as a man in good shape (Milbret, 2014).

Dancing and Singing

Georgian males value dancing, and Georgian females value singing higher in their partner than respondents from other countries. It may be explained with a traditionally high role of singing and dancing in Georgian culture (see also Tsuladze, 2009; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2008).

Thus, besides the universal and gender-specific features of sensory attraction, there are several cultural differences in sensory factors that affect romantic physical attraction. They can be interpreted by climate variations, cultural values, and traditions of specific regions historically acquired.

Universal Gender Differences in Importance of Sensory Factors

Our study demonstrates that males and females tend to give an overall great deal of importance to physical traits/characteristics of their partner, yet, men more than women appreciate physical appearance when looking for a romantic partner. Men thus have higher expectations from their partners’ appearance. These findings correspond with other studies showing that physical attractiveness and visual appearance of their romantic partner are more important for men than for women when they look for a long-term mate (Buss & Barnes, 1986; Neto, Pinto, & Furnham, 2012), while smell is more important modality for females in their attraction to a male partner.

Limitations and Perspectives

As a limitation of the study, it should be noted that the results are based only on self-report measures. People may not be fully aware of the importance of their romantic preferences. As recent research demonstrated (Eastwick, Eagly, Finkel, & Johnson, 2011; Eastwick & Finkel, 2008), people often make their real choice different from what they explicitly state. So, investigation of implicit preferences in future research would add to the results’ validity.

We took into account only some background information about participants that is listed in the “Method” section. The samples of participants from four cultures are comparable, yet it should be admitted that various other demographic differences between groups in these countries, which we did not control, could contribute to the results.

Our interest in this study was to reveal what aspects of sensory appearance (body parts, expressive behavior, voice, hair, skin, smell, etc.) are important for people in their consideration of romantic partners. However, we did not target to study what specific aspects of these sensory appearances people prefer. We did not attempt to investigate which body parts, which type of expressive behavior, what type of voice, hair, skin, smell, and so on, they prefer. For example, perception of extreme expressive behavior may look less attractive than that of moderate; a smiling woman can make different impression than a giggling one. Some people may prefer a certain appearance of some body parts and proportions, others—different, some like long or short hair, and different styles. There might be a variety of cultural, typological, or individual preferences, and they can also depend of the types of relationships: short-term and long-term. The investigation of these details and specifics would be an interesting further direction of this study.

Another limitation of the study is that we cannot draw a confident conclusion about causation from regression analysis. However, we imply that reported importance of various partner’s characteristics influences romantic attraction, yet, it is likely that romantic attraction and relationship satisfaction can also cause one to value the characteristics of one’s partner.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Victor Karandashev, PhD, graduated from Saint Petersburg State University and taught in Russian universities for many years. Since 2005, he works in the United States, and he is currently a professor of psychology at Aquinas College, Michigan. He is active in the study of romantic love and has many publications on the topic.

Elena Zarubko received her PhD from South Ural State University, Russia. She is currently an associate professor of the Department of General and Social Psychology at Tyumen State University. Her research interests are personality and cross-cultural psychology. She participates in cross-cultural studies of romantic love and presents at national and international conferences.

Veronika Artemeva graduated from Herzen State Pedagogical University, St. Petersburg, Russia, and then received her PhD from Saint Petersburg State University. She is currently an associate professor at Saint-Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Russia. Her areas of research interests are moral development in adulthood, creativity, and romantic love.

Félix Neto is professor of psychology at the University of Porto, Portugal. His research interests include cross-cultural psychology and social psychology (especially migration, subjective well-being, love, and forgiveness). He has published 18 books and about 250 scientific articles.

Lali Surmanidze received her PhD in psychology in the D. Uznadze Institute of Psychology of Georgian Academy of Science and then PhD in social philosophy in Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University (TSU), Georgia. She is currently a professor of psychology and educational sciences at TSU. Her research interests are in cultural research methodology and cross-cultural psychology.

Cyrille Feybesse received his PhD in psychology from the University Paris Descartes in Paris, France. He explored how love affects human creativity. His main research interest is the study of cross-cultural variation of passionate love.

References

Addington

D. W.

(1968). The relationship of selected vocal characteristics to personality perception. Speech Monographs, 35, 492-503.

Apicella

C. L.

Feinberg

D. R.

Marlowe

F. W.

(2007). Voice pitch predicts reproductive success in male hunter-gatherers. Biology Letters, 3, 682-684. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0410

Bachorowski

J. A.

Owren

M. J.

(2001). Not all laughs are alike: Voiced but not unvoiced laughter readily elicits positive affect. Psychological Science, 12, 252-257. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00346

Barabanshikov

V. A.

(2009). Восприятие выражений лица [Perception of facial expressions]. Moscow: Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Barabanshikov

V. A.

(2013). Регистрация и анализ направленности взора человека [Registration and analysis of human eye’s movement]. Moscow: Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Barber

(1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395-424.

Bereczkei

Mesko

(2006). Hair length, facial attractiveness, personality attribution: A multiple fitness model of hairdressing. Review of Psychology, 13, 35-42.

Brown

B. L.

Strong

W. J.

Rencher

A. C.

(1973). Perceptions of personality from speech: Effects of manipulations of acoustical parameters. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 54, 29-35.

Brown

B. L.

Strong

W. J.

Rencher

A. C.

(1974). Fifty-four voices from two: The effects of simultaneous manipulations of rate, mean fundamental frequency, and variance of fundamental frequency on ratings of personality from speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 55, 313-318.

10.

Buss

D. M.

(1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.

11.

Buss

D. M.

(1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York, NY: Basic Books.

12.

Buss

D. M.

Barnes

(1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559

13.

Collins

S. A.

(2000). Men’s voices and women’s choices. Animal Behaviour, 60, 773-780.

14.

Cupchik

G. C.

Phillips

Truong

(2005). Sensitivity to the cognitive and affective qualities of odours. Cognition & Emotion, 19, 121-131. doi:10.1080/0269993044100011

15.

Dabbs

J. M.

Jr. Mallinger

(1999). High testosterone levels predict low voice pitch among men. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 801-804.

16.

Descamps

M. A.

(1979) La psychologie de la mode. In Descamps

M. A.

(Ed.), Psychosociologie de la mode. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Retrieved from http://www.europsy.org/marc-alain/psymod.html

17.

Eastwick

Finkel

(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

18.

Eastwick

P. W.

Eagly

A. H.

Finkel

E. J.

Johnson

S. E.

(2011). Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: A double dissociation in predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 993-1011. doi:10.1037/a0024061

19.

Edelmann

Neto

(1989). Self-reported expression and consequences of embarrassment in Portugal and the U.K. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 351-366.

20.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt

(1970). Ethology. The biology of behavior. New York, NY: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.

21.

Ellis

B. J.

Symons

(1990). Sex differences in sexual fantasy: An evolutionary psychology approach. The Journal of Sex Research, 27, 527-555.

22.

Feinberg

D. R.

Jones

B. C.

Law Smith

M. J.

Moore

F. R.

DeBruine

L. M.

Cornwell

R. E.

… Perrett

D. I

. (2006). Menstrual cycle, trait estrogen level, and masculinity preferences in the human voice. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 215-222.

23.

Feingold

(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.

24.

Feingold

(1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125-139.

25.

Fisher

Aron

Brown

L. L.

(2005). Romantic love: An fMRI study of a neural mechanism for mate choice. The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 493, 58-62. doi:10.1002/cne.20772

26.

Gangestad

S. W.

Thornhill

(1997). Human sexual selection and developmental stability. In Simpson

J. A.

Kenrick

D. T.

(Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 169-195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

27.

Gonzaga

G. C.

Keltner

Londahl

E. A.

Smith

M. D.

(2001). Love and the commitment problem in romantic relations and friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 247-262. doi:10.I037//0022-3514.81.2.247

28.

González-Ibáñez

Shah

Córdova-Rubio

(2011). Smile! Studying expressivity of happiness as a synergic factor in collaborative information seeking. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 48, 1-10. doi:10.1002/meet.2011.14504801171

29.

Gottman

J. M.

Coan

Carrere

Swanson

(1998). Predicting martial happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 5-22. doi:10.2307/353438

30.

Gower

D. B.

Ruperelia

B. A.

(1993). Olfaction in humans with special reference to odorous 16-androstenes: Their occurrence, perception and possible social, psychological and sexual impact. Journal of Endocrinology, 137, 167-187.

31.

Grammer

(1990). Strangers meet: Laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 209-236.

32.

Grammer

Fink

Neave

(2005). Human pheromones and sexual attraction. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 118, 135-142. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.08.010

33.

Greenlees

I. A.

McGrew

W. C.

(1994). Sex and age differences in preferences and tactics of mate attraction: Analysis of published advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 59-72.

34.

Gulledge

A. K.

Gulledge

M. H.

Stahmann

R. F.

(2003). Romantic physical affection types and relationship satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 233-242.

35.

Hajnal

Smith

Norgren

(2004). Oral sucrose stimulation increases accumbens dopamine in the rat. American Journal of Physiology—Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 286, R31-R37. doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00282.2003

36.

Hannover

Kühnen

(2002). “The clothing makes the self” via knowledge activation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2513-2525.

37.

Harker

L. A.

Keltner

(2001). Expressions of positive emotions in women’s college yearbook pictures and their relationship to personality and life outcomes across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 112-124. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.1.112

38.

Herz

R. S.

Cahill

E. D.

(1997). Differential use of sensory information in sexual behavior as a function of gender. Human Nature, 8, 275-286.

39.

Hinsz

V. B.

Matz

D. C.

Patience

R. A.

(2001). Does women’s hair signal reproductive potential? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 166-172. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1450

40.

Hönekopp

Rudolph

Beier

Liebert

Müller

(2007). Physical attractiveness of face and body as indicators of physical fitness in men. Evolution & Human Behavior, 2, 106-111. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.09.001

41.

Hopper

Knapp

M. L.

Scott

(1981). Couples’ personal idioms: Exploring intimate talk. Journal of Communication, 31, 23-33.

42.

Hughes

S. M.

Dispenza

Gallup

G. G.

Jr. (2004). Ratings of voice attractiveness predict sexual behavior and body configuration. Evolution & Human Behavior, 25, 295-304. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.06.001

43.

Hughes

S. M.

Farley

S. D.

Rhodes

B. C.

(2010). Vocal and physiological changes in response to the physical attractiveness of conversational partners. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 155-167. doi:10.1007/s10919-010-0087-9

44.

Hughes

S. M.

Harrison

M. A.

Gallup

G. G.

Jr. (2002). The sound of symmetry: Voice as a marker of developmental instability. Evolution & Human Behavior, 23, 173-180. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00099-X

45.

Hughes

S. M.

Pastizzo

M. J.

Gallup

G. G.

Jr. (2008). The sound of symmetry revisited: Subjective and objective analyses of voice. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 93-108. doi:10.1007/s10919-007-0042-6

46.

Jack

R. E.

Blais

Scheepers

Schyns

P. G.

Caldara

(2009). Cultural confusions show that facial expressions are not universal. Current Biology, 19(18), 1543-1548. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.051

47.

Javakhadze

(2006). Gender balance and the Board of Trustees program in Georgia. In Saurer

Lanzinger

Frysak

(Eds.), Women’s movements: Networks and debates in post-communist countries in the 19th and 20th centuries (pp. 65-78). Böhlau Verlag Köln Weimar.

48.

Johnson

Lennon

S. J.

Rudd

(2014). Dress, body and self: Research in the social psychology of dress. Fashion and Textiles, 1(1), 1-20. doi:10.1186/s40691-014-0020-7

49.

Landolt

M. A.

Lalumiere

M. L.

Quinsey

V. L.

(1995). Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 3-23.

50.

Marazziti

Baroni

(2012). Romantic love: The mystery of its biological roots. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 9, 14-19.

51.

Marston

P. J.

Hecht

M. L.

Manke

McDanield

Reeder

(1998). The subjective experience of intimacy, passion, and commitment in heterosexual loving relationships. Personal Relationships, 5, 15-30.

52.

McDermott

L. A.

Pettijohn

T. F.

II . (2011). The influence of clothing fashion and race on the perceived socioeconomic status and person perception of college students. Psychology & Society, 4(2), 64-75.

53.

Milbret

A. A.

(2014). Привлекательность / непривлекательность внешнего облика человека в русской лингвокультуре [Attractiveness/unattractiveness of appearance in Russian linguoculture] (Doctoral thesis). Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia.

54.

Miller

R. S.

Perlman

(2009). Intimate relationships (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

55.

Mogilina

A. A.

Litvinova

N. A.

Shabaldin

A. V.

Kazin

E. M.

Zubrikova

K. U.

Bedareva

A. V.

Cepokina

A. V.

(2013). Влияние парфюмерных одорантов на запаховую привлекательность и репродуктивное поведение у молодых людей [Influence of perfumes on odor attractiveness and reproductive behavior in young people]. Валеология / Valeology, 2, 62-66.

56.

Moore

M. M.

(1985). Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: Context and consequences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 237-247. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(85)90016-0

57.

Morrison

E. R.

Morris

P. H.

Bard

K. A.

(2013). The stability of facial attractiveness: Is it what you’ve got or what you do with it? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 37, 59-67. doi:10.1007/s10919-013-0145-1

58.

Neto

Pinto

M. C.

Furnham

(2012). Sex and culture similarities and differences in long-term partner preferences. Journal of Relationships Research, 3, 57-66.

59.

Nevid

J. S.

(1984). Sex differences in factors of romantic attraction. Sex Roles, 11, 401-411. doi:10.1007/BF00287468

60.

Patzer

G. L.

(1985). The physical attractiveness phenomenon. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

61.

Pause

B. M.

(2012). Processing of body odor signals by the human brain. Chemosensory Perception, 5, 55-63. doi:10.1007/s12078-011-9108-2

62.

Pazzaglia

(2015). Body and odors: Not just molecules, after all. Psychological Science, 24, 329-333.

63.

Pierce

J. D.

Cohen

A. B.

Ulrich

P. M.

(2004). Responsivity to two odorants, androstenone and amyl acetate, and the affective impact of odors on interpersonal relationships. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118, 14-19. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.118.1.14

64.

Pinel

J. P. J.

(1997). Biospychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

65.

Raines

R. S.

Hechtman

S. B.

Rosenthal

(1990). Physical attractiveness of face and voice: Effects of positivity, dominance, and sex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1558-1578.

66.

Ray

G. B.

Ray

E. B.

Zahn

C. J.

(1991). Speech behavior and social evaluation: An examination of medical messages. Communication Quarterly, 2, 47-57.

67.

Regan

P. C.

Berscheid

(1995). Gender differences in beliefs about the causes of male and female sexual desire. Personal Relations, 2, 345-358.

68.

Reis

H. T.

Wilson

I. M.

Monestere

Bernstein

Clark

Seidl

Radoane

(1990). What is smiling is beautiful and good. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(3), 259-267. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420200307

69.

Ren

Tan

Arriaga

X. B.

Chan

K. Q.

(2015). Sweet love: The effects of sweet taste experience on romantic perceptions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 905-921.

70.

Riding

Lonsdale

Brown

(2006). The effects of average fundamental frequency and variance of fundamental frequency on male vocal attractiveness to women. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 55-61. doi:10.1007/s10919-006-0005-3

71.

Roberts

S. C.

Kralevich

Ferdenzi

Saxton

T. K.

Jones

B. C.

DeBruine

L. M.

Little

A. C.

Havlicek

(2011). Body odor quality predicts behavioral attractiveness in humans. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1111-1117. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9803-8

72.

Saegert

Swap

Zajonc

R. B.

(1983). Exposure, context, and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 234-242. doi:10.1037/h0033965

73.

Senju

Vernetti

Kikuchi

Akechi

Hasegawa

Johnson

M. H.

(2013). Cultural background modulates how we look at other persons’ gaze. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37, 131-136. doi:10.1177/0165025412465360

74.

Shaw

(2008). The multisensory image and emotion in poetry. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 175-178. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.2.3.175

75.

Shiota

M. N.

Campos

Keltner

Hertenstein

M. J.

(2004). Positive emotion and the regulation of interpersonal relationships. In Philippot

Feldman

R. S.

(Eds.), The regulation of emotion (pp. 129-157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

76.

Simard

(2014). The controversy about the role of pheromones in sexual attraction between humans. Sexologies: European Journal of Sexology, 23, 23-28. doi:10.1016/j.sexol.2013.12.012

77.

Singh

Bronstad

(2001). Female body odour is a potential cue to ovulation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268, 797-801. doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1589

78.

Sodavari

Ansari Shahidi

Hosseini Almadani

S. A.

Moazedian

Sabet Imani

(2014). The role of pleasant and unpleasant odors in the individual and social attractiveness. Journal of Educational and Management Studies, 4, 311-315.

79.

Sternberg

(1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.

80.

Stoicescu

(2013). L’impact de la mode sur la vie sociale (Bulletin scientifique en langues étrangères appliquées, No. 1, Le français sur objectifs spécifiques). [The influence of fashion on social life (Scientific bulletin in applied foreign languages, No. 1, French on special goals). Retrieved from http://revues-eco.refer.org/BSLEA/index.php?id=237

81.

Symons

(1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

82.

Thornhill

Gangestad

S. W.

(1999). The scent of symmetry: A human sex pheromone that signals fitness? Evolution & Human Behavior, 20, 175-201. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00005-7

83.

Tokareva

M. A.

(2007). Феномен улыбки в русской, английской и американской культуре [Phenomenon of smile in Russian, English and American culture] (Doctoral thesis). Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia.

84.

Tsuladze

(2009, November). Youth culture in modern Georgia—A case of westernization or invention of a new tradition? Paper presented at 2nd International Symposium of Georgian Culture “The Caucasus: Georgia on the Crossroads. Cultural exchanges across the Europe and Beyond”. Florence, Italy. Retrieved from https://ru.scribd.com/document/56236075/2nd-International-SYMPOSIUM-of-GEORGIAN-CULTURE-The-Caucasus-Georgia-on-the-Crossroads-Cultural-Excanges-Across-the-Europe-and-Beyond-Proceedings

85.

Tuomi

S. K.

Fisher

J. E.

(1979). Characteristics of a simulated sexy voice. Folia Phoniatrica, 31, 242-249.

86.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2008). Georgian polyphonic singing. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/RL/georgian-polyphonic-singing-00008

87.

Varlashkina

E. A.

Kozubenko

S. V.

(2011). Внешняя привлекательность мужчины в массовом сознании: гендерный аспект [Male visual attractiveness in collective mentality: Gender aspect]. Вестник Омского университета / Omsk University Tribune, 2, 11-18.

88.

Wedekind

Füri

(1997). Body odour preferences in men and women: Do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 264, 1471-1479. doi:10.1098/rspb.1997.0204

89.

Wedekind

Seebeck

Bettens

Paepke

A. J.

(1995). MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 260, 245-249.

90.

Wysocki

C. J.

Preti

(2004). Facts, fallacies, fears, and frustrations with human pheromones. The Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology, 281, 1201-1211.

91.

Yuschenkova

D. V.

(2011). Опознание и оценка привлекательности человеческого лица на основе его частей [Identification and evaluation of attractiveness of human face based on its parts] (Doctoral thesis). Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow.

92.

Zuckerman

Miyake

(1993). The attractive voice: What makes it so? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 119-135.

93.

Zuckerman

Miyake

Elkin

C. S.

(1995). Effects of attractiveness and maturity of face and voice on interpersonal impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 253-272.