Evolution and Social Cognition: Contrast Effects as a Function of Sex,Dominance,and Physical Attractiveness

Abstract

Previous research indicates that males, compared with females, evaluate their relationships less favorably after exposure to physically attractive members of the other sex. An evolutionary model predicts a converse effect after exposure to opposite-sex individuals high in dominance, which should lead females to evaluate their current relationships less favorably than males. Women and men rated their current relationships after being exposed to opposite-sex targets varying in both dominance and physical attractiveness. Consistent with earlier research, males exposed to physically attractive, as compared with average, targets rated their current relationships less favorably. Males' relationship evaluations were not directly influenced by the targets' dominance, although the effect of physical attractiveness was significant only for men exposed to women low in dominance. However; females' evaluations of their relationships were unaffected by exposure to physically attractive males but were lower after exposure to targets high in dominance. These data support predictions derived from an evolutionary model and suggest that such models can be used to generate testable hypotheses about ongoing social cognition.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baron, R. M. , & Boudreau, L. A. (1987). An ecological perspective on integrating personality and social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1222-1228.

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

Buss, D. M. , & Barnes, M. F. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.

Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 925-935.

Cunningham, M. R. , Barbee, A. P. , & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want? Facial metric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 61-72.

Daly, M. , & Wilson, M. (1983). Sex, evolution, and human behavior (2nd ed.). Boston: Willard Grant.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London: Murray.

Hansen, C. H. , & Hansen, R. D. (1988). Finding the face in the crowd: The anger superiority effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 917-924.

Hill, J. (1984). Prestige and reproductive success in man. Ethology and Sociobiology, 5, 77-95.

10.

Keating, C. F. (1985). Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 61-70.

11.

Kenrick, D. T. , Groth, G. R. , 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. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951-969.

12.

Kenrick, D. T. , & Gutierres, S. E. (1980). Contrast effects and judgments of physical attractiveness: When beauty becomes a social problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 131-140.

13.

Kenrick, D. T. , Gutierres, S. E. , & Goldberg, L. (1989). Influence of erotica on ratings of strangers and mates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 159-167.

14.

Kenrick, D. T. , & Hogan, R. (1991). Cognitive psychology. In M. Maxwell (Ed.), The sociobiological imagination. Albany: State University of New York.

15.

Kenrick, D. T. , & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75-133.

16.

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, 97-117.

17.

Kenrick, D. T. , & Trost, M. R. (1989). A reproductive exchange model of heterosexual relationships: Putting proximate economics in ultimate perspective. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 92-118.

18.

Kernis, M. H. , & Wheeler, L. (1981). Beautiful friends and ugly strangers: Radiation and contrast effects in perceptions of same-sex pairs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 617-620.

19.

Lumsden, C. J. , & Wilson, E. O. (1981). Genes, mind, and culture: The coevolutionary process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.

Mathes, E. W. , Brennan, S. M. , Haugen, P. M. , & Rice, H. B. (1985). Ratings of physical attractiveness as a function of age. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 157-168.

21.

McArthur, L. Z. , & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215-238.

22.

Mealey, L. (1985).The relationship between social status and biological success: A case study of the Mormon religious hierarchy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 249-257.

23.

Sadalla, E. K. , Kenrick, D. T. , & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730-738.

24.

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

25.

Tooby, J. , & Cosmides, L. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 29-49.

26.

Townsend, J. M. (1989). Mate-selection criteria: A pilot study. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 241-252.

27.

Townsend, J. M. , & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partner's costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection: Sex differences in reported preferences of university students. Journal of Psychology, 124, 371-376.

28.

Trivers, R. L. (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park, CA Benjamin/Cummings.

29.

Turke, P. W. , & Betzig, L. L. (1985). Those who can do: Wealth, status, and reproductive success on Ifaluk. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 79-87.

30.

Weaver, J. B. , Masland, J. L. , & Zillman, D. (1984). Effect of erotica on young men's aesthetic perception of their female sexual partners. Perceptual and Motor Shills, 58, 929-930.

31.

Wiederman, M. W. , & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 115-124.