Further support that Rules 1 & 2 do indeed narrowly refer to physical attractiveness, despite suggestions to the contrary.

Abstract link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19558447

J Pers. 2009 Aug;77(4):933-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x. Epub 2009 May 18.

What leads to romantic attraction: similarity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study.

Luo S, Zhang G.

Department of Psychology, Social Behavioral Science Building, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403, USA.

Abstract

Years of attraction research have established several "principles" of attraction with robust evidence. However, a major limitation of previous attraction studies is that they have almost exclusively relied on well-controlled experiments, which are often criticized for lacking ecological validity. The current research was designed to examine initial attraction in a real-life setting-speed-dating. Social Relations Model analyses demonstrated that initial attraction was a function of the actor, the partner, and the unique dyadic relationship between these two. Meta-analyses showed intriguing sex differences and similarities. Self characteristics better predicted women's attraction than they did for men, whereas partner characteristics predicted men's attraction far better than they did for women. The strongest predictor of attraction for both sexes was partners' physical attractiveness. Finally, there was some support for the reciprocity principle but no evidence for the similarity principle.

PMID: 19558447 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x

Find full-text via sci-hub (see sidebar).

MAJOR FINDINGS

MALE ATTRIBUTES THAT PREDICTED A WOMAN'S ROMANTIC INTEREST

  1. Physical attractiveness (rs = 0.88, p<0.01)
  2. Sport/Exercise involvement or interest (rs = 0.48, p<0.01)

THINGS THAT DIDN'T

  1. Big Five Personality Traits
  2. Affect
  3. Attachment Style
  4. Self-esteem
  5. Political leanings
  6. Values
  7. Social interest
  8. Similarity

Full comment on this finding by the authors:

It is remarkable that the strongest predictor of initial attraction in a speed-dating context was partner’s physical attractiveness, and, most importantly, men and women showed an extremely similar pattern. This finding was highly consistent with the results reported in several other speed-dating studies we mentioned earlier (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Fisman et al., 2006; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005, 2008; Todd et al., 2007). It therefore seems a very solid finding that men and women are equally strongly drawn to physically attractive partners. This finding, however, appears to be inconsistent with the widely accepted finding in evolutionary research indicating a fundamental sex difference in their preferences for long-term partners—whereas men prefer youth and physical attractiveness in their partners, women give more weight to partners’ earning potential and commitment to a relationship. Evolutionary research does suggest that these sex differences in mating preferences tend to diminish or even disappear when short-term mating contexts are primed (e.g., Li & Kenrick, 2006). One may argue that speed-dating fits better a short-term context rather than a long-term mating context. It is important to note that some of the published speed-dating studies (Kurzban & Weeden, 2005, 2008; Todd et al., 2007) were not based on college student samples but on community adult samples. These participants actually paid to participate in the commercial speed-dating service with the hope to find a life partner. This should be considered as more like a long-term context. Nevertheless, they yielded a similar pattern as found in the college student based samples in Eastwick and Finkel and the current research. Moreover, Eastwick and Finkel did an excellent job ruling out several potential alternative explanations for this finding. For example, even when explicitly asked to consider long-term partners, both sexes continued to favor physical attractiveness. Thus, the lack of sex difference on preference of Speed-Dating Attraction physical attractiveness does not seem to be due to differences in the mating strategy people are taking.

Then how do we reconcile these findings? We consider a fundamental difference between mating preference research and attraction research—whereas mate preference or ideal partner research focuses on conscious, rational cognitions about an ideal partner, attraction research studies less conscious and more spontaneous feelings and behaviors. The difference in findings from these two fields indicates that human beings’ rational, conscious mind can be independent from their behaviors in real-life encounters. In our particular case, it seems that women’s attraction feeling is dominated by partners’ physical attractiveness, just as their male counterparts, even though it is possible that when prompted to think about preferences for a potential mate, women would give priority considerations to characteristics like earning potential. Would that suggest that humans’ conscious, rational thoughts are more a product of evolutionary principles, whereas their actual behaviors can be irrational and not necessarily in their best interests (in terms of reproductive success)? This question warrants further examination.

SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY AND CAVEATS

PARTICIPANTS

  • N=108 college students; 54 men; 54 women
  • Mean age = 19.5 (range 17 to 26)
  • Ethnic breakdown not reported, but likely all white

PROCEDURE

  • 6 speed-dating events; each 1 hr long; max 10 women and 10 men at each event (group)
  • Each participant's photo was taken at the event and independently judged later for physical attractiveness (below)
  • duration of each speed-date: 5 min
  • men rotated; women stayed seated

Physical Attractiveness assessment

  • Eight research collaborators independently rated each participant's photo on a 1-7 scale, with 1 being "very unattractive", 4 being "average", and 7 being "very attractive"
  • interrater agreement was 0.86
  • Mean rating for a participant = their final attractiveness score

Romantic interest questionnaire

  • consisted of the following questions: "Would you be interested in seeing this partner again after the speed-date event?" (answer yes/no), "How much do you like this person as a potential date?" "How interested are you in getting to know this person better?" and "How comfortable do you feel being around this person?" (answer on a 5 pt scale)
  • filled out by participants at the event then again after the event (after it was revealed whether their date partner had romantic interest in them based on the at-event questionnaire, this was to test reciprocity, which turned out to be significant)

Other questionnaires

  • included a background questionnaire, inventories of political attitudes, personal values, interests, general personality, affectivity, attachment, and self-esteem
  • administered pre-event

Obvious caveat

  • This study only identifies predictors of initial romantic interest, and does not address which factors might predict a change in the magnitude and/or direction of romantic/sexual desirability over more prolonged or repeated interactions, via such processes as the propinquity effect and mere exposure effect (which would serve to increase romantic interest), or their antithesis, social allergy (which decreases romantic interest). Halo effects suggest physical attractiveness would probably hold primacy in predicting sexual/romantic receptiveness for a variable but limited period of time, after which, dyad-specific idiosyncrasies are likely to emerge (2). The salience of physical attractiveness in maintaining (as opposed to initiating) a long-term relationship, progression towards marriage, and subsequent marital satisfaction, may also differ.