The authors conducted four studies (total N = 292) about character and mate desirability. In Study 1, undergraduates judged stimuli for attractiveness—physically and as a casual or longterm date. The target was described as faithful, having cheated but stayed with mates, or having cheated and left. Contrary to the hypothesis, men and women were equally affected by both kinds of cheaters. Study 2 replicated Study 1 with nonstudent adults. In Study 3, undergraduates rated a stimulus on the same attractiveness variables. This target had $14 million from winning a lottery or selling a dot-com company. Women, but not men, found the dot-com creator to be more physically attractive than the lottery winner. In Study 4, undergraduates rated someone who sold a cookie-making company or profited from a lucky real estate transaction. Both men and women preferred the cookie-company seller on all three measures of attractiveness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1081-1093 .
2.
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive . Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347-374 .
3.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures . Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49 .
4.
Buss, D. M. (1991). Do women have evolved mate preferences for men with resources? A reply to Smuts . Ethology & Sociobiology, 12, 401-408 .
5.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire. New York: Basis Books .
6.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570 .
7.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., & Westen, D. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy: Not gone, not forgotten, and not easily explained by alternative hypotheses . Psychological Science, 7, 373-375 .
8.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology . Psychological Science, 3, 251-255 .
9.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating . Psychological Review, 100, 204-232 .
10.
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Choe, J. C., Lim, H. K., Hasegawa, M., et al. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan . Personal Relationships, 6, 125-150 .
11.
Buunk, B. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States . Psychological Science, 7, 359-363 .
12.
Reported in Cunningham, M. R., Druin, R. B., & Barbee, A. P. (1989). Angels, mentors, and friends: Trade-offs among evolutionary, social, and individual variables in physical appearance. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 109-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
13.
DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy? Questioning the “fitness” of the model . Psychological Science, 7, 367-372 .
14.
Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill .
15.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation . Journal of Personality, 58, 69-96 .
16.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism . Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573-644 .
17.
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). Human sexual selection and developmental stability. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
18.
Grice, J. W., & Seely, E. (2000). The evolution of sex differences in jealousy: Failure to replicate previous results . Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 348-356 .
19.
Harris, C. R. (2000). Psychophysiological responses to imagined infidelity: The specific innate modular view of jealousy reconsidered . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1082-1091 .
20.
Harris, C. R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual adults . Psychological Science, 13, 7-12 .
21.
Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy . Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 102-128 .
22.
Harris, C. R., & Christenfeld, N. (1996). Gender, jealousy, and reason . Psychological Science, 7, 364-366 .
23.
Hull, J. G., Tedlie, J. C., & Lehn, D. A. (1992). Moderator variables in personality research: The problem of controlling for plausible alternatives . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 105-117 .
24.
Hupka, R. B., & Bank, A. L. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution or social construction? Cross-cultural research . Journal of Comparative Social Science, 30, 24-59 .
25.
Pietrzak, R. H., Laird, J. D., Stevens, D. A., & Thompson, N. S. (2002). Sex differences in human jealousy: A coordinated study of forced-choice, continuous rating-scale, and physiological responses on the same subjects . Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 83-94 .
26.
Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: Norton .
27.
Sabini, J., & Green, M. (in press). Emotional responses to sexual and emotional infidelity: Constants and differences across genders, samples, and methods. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
28.
Sheets, V. L., & Wolfe, M. D. (2001). Sexual jealousy in heterosexuals, lesbians, and gays . Sex Roles, 44, 255-276 .
29.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870-883 .
30.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice . Journal of Personality, 60, 31-51 .
31.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press .
32.
Townsend, J. M. (1987). Sex differences in sexuality among medical students: Effects of increasing socioeconomic status . Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 425-444 .
33.
Townsend, J. M. (1989). Mate selection criteria: A pilot study . Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 241-253 .
34.
Townsend, J. M. (1993). Sexuality and partner selection: Sex differences among college students . Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 305-329 .
35.
Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990a). Effects of potential partners’ costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection . Journal of Psychology, 124, 371-389 .
36.
Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990b). Effects of potential partners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection . Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 149-164 .
37.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine .
38.
Wiederman, M. W., & Kendall, E. (1999). Evolution, sex, and jealousy: Investigation with a sample from Sweden . Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 121-128 .
