The Role of Gender and Culture in Romantic Attraction
Abstract
Evolutionary theory views gender differences in romantic attraction as large, biologically based, and caused by evolutionary forces. The greatest differences lie in men's attraction to appearance and women's attraction to status. Social construction theory, on the other hand, views gender differences in attraction as minor and as being caused primarily by social forces such as norms and stereotypes. Ninety-three American and 89 Israeli young men and women were interviewed concerning their most significant intimate relationship, in order to test the contradictory predictions of these two theories. An analysis of the interviews provides partial support for both theories: As predicted by evolutionary theory, men were more attracted by appearance. Contrary to its prediction, however, there was no gender difference in status as a cause of attraction. Furthermore, gender differences were found where evolutionary theory does not predict them and not found where expected. As predicted by social construction theory, culture had an effect on attraction. These findings suggest a need for an integrated theory of romantic attraction that combines aspects of both theories.
References
(1986). Love and the expansion of self. . New York: Hemisphere..
(1992). Gender stereotypes and roles. . Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole..
(1995). The social construction of love.. Journal of Social and Personal relationships, 12, 417– 438.
(1983). Is hostility linked with affiliation among males and with achievement among females? A critique of Pollak and Gilligan.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1167– 1171.
(1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. . New York: Basic Books..
(1990). International preferences in mate selection: Evolutionary hypothesis tested in 37 cultures.. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1– 49.
(1986). Preference in human mate selection.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559– 570.
(1975). Masculine/Feminine or Human? . Itasca, IL: Peacock..
(1996). Timing of the first sexual intercourse in a relationship: Expectations, experiences and perceptions of others.. Journal of Sex Research, 33, 291– 299.
(1993). Male attractiveness: Masculinity with a feminine touch.. Current Psychology Development, Learning, Personality, Social, 12, 142– 150.
(1998). Schemas, sexuality and romantic attachment.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1364– 1379.
(1998). Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality.. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 10– 18.
(1998). Romantic love and sexual behavior: Perspective from the social sciences. . Westport, CT: Praeger..
(1992). Factors in the assortment of human mates: Differential preferences in Germany and the Netherlands.. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 103– 114.
(1995). What types of men are most attractive and most repulsive to women?. Sex Roles, 32, 375– 391.
(1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model.. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125– 139.
(1992). Attributions, accounts and close relationships: Close calls and relational resolutions. in J.H. Harvey, T.L. Orbuch, & A.L. Weber (Eds.) Attributions, accounts and close relationships. New York: Springer-Verlag..
(1990). Sex differences among partner preferences: Are the sexes really very similar?. Sex Roles, 23, 501– 513.
(1994). The attractiveness of gender-typed traits at different relationship levels: Androgynous characteristics may be desirable after all.. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 244– 253.
(1994). Sex and age differences in preferences and tactics of mate attraction: Analysis of published advertisements.. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 59– 72.
(1996). Integrative couple therapy. . New York: Norton..
(1998). The evolution of love. . New York: Pager..
(1987). A ratio measure of sex stereotyping.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 489– 499.
(1984). Sex differences in factors of romantic attraction.. Sex Roles, 11, 401– 411.
(1999). Culture, dialectic, and reasoning about contradiction.. American Psychologist, 54, 741– 754.
(1999). Falling in love. . New York: Routledge..
(1990). “Single male looking for thin, very attractive ...”. Sex Roles, 23, 675– 685.
(1994). Male selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074– 1080.
(1992). The mismeasure of women. . New York: Simon and Schuster..
(1998). Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment and criteria.. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171– 191.
(1975). Sex stereotypes revisited: Psychological approaches to women's studies. . New York: Harper and Row..
