A relatively new theory of motivation posits that purposeful human behavior may be partly explained by multidimensional individual differences “traits of action” (motives). Its 15 motives can be characterized according to their purpose: individual integrity, competitiveness, and cooperativeness. Existing evidence supports the model on which the motives are based and the reliability and validity of strategies to assess them. This experiment tested whether the hypothetical results of consistent, motivated cooperative and competitive behavior could affect ratings of attractiveness. Male and female participants (N = 98; M age = 18.8, SD = 1.4) were shown 24 opposite-sex facial photos ranging in attractiveness. The photos were paired with one of three conditions representing theoretical outcomes that would result from low, control, and high levels of cooperative and competitive motives. As predicted, outcome descriptions representing high motive strength of six motives statistically significantly affected ratings of attractiveness. This result was independent of sex of participant and consistent with the theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BernardL. C. (2007a) Assessing individual differences in motivation: convergent validity of the Assessment of Individual Motives–Questionnaire (AIM–Q) and measures of aggression, cognition, playfulness, and sexuality. Individual Differences Research, 5, 158–174.
2.
BernardL. C. (2007b) Sex and motivation: differences in evolutionary psychology-based motives. In O'NealP. W. (Ed.), Motivation of health behavior. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Pp. 65–84.
3.
BernardL. C. (2009) Consensual and behavioral validity of a measure of adaptive individual differences dimensions in human motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 303–319.
4.
BernardL. C. (2012) Evolved individual differences in human motivation. In RyanR. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of motivation. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer. Press.
5.
BernardL. C. (2013) Manual for the Assessment of Individual Motives–Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Loyola Marymount Univer., Los Angeles, CA.
6.
BernardL. C.LacA. (2014) Testing a multidimensional model of putative evolved human motives. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 47–64.
7.
BernardL. C.LacA. (in press) The incremental validity of motive “traits of action:” predicting behavior longitudinally. Individual Differences Research.
8.
BernardL. C.MillsM.SwensonL.WalshR. P. (2005) An evolutionary theory of human motivation. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131, 129–184.
9.
DunnM. J.SearleR. (2010) Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership on both sex attractiveness ratings. Journal of Psychology, 10, 69–80.
10.
FinkB.Penton-VoakI. (2002) Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 154–158.
11.
FiskeS. T. (2008) Core social motivations: views from the couch, consciousness, classroom, computers, and collectives. In ShahJ. Y.GardnerW. I. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science. New York: Guilford Press. Pp. 3–22.
12.
GallupG. G.Jr.FrederickD. A. (2010) The science of sex appeal: an evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 14, 240–250.
13.
GrammarK.ThornhillR. (1994) Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: the role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233–242.
14.
GrillotR. L.SimmonsZ. L.LukaszewskiA. W.RoneyJ. R. (2014) Hormonal and morphological predictors of women's body attractiveness. Evolution & Human Behavior, 35, 176–183.
15.
HalberstadtJ.RhodesG. (2000) The attractiveness of nonface averages: implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science, 11, 285–289.
16.
HarrimanP. L. (1975) Handbook of psychological terms. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams.
17.
HoganR. (1996) A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In WigginsJ. S. (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: theoretical perspectives. New York: Guilford Press. Pp. 163–179.
18.
HoltE. B. (1931) Animal drive and the learning process. New York: Holt.
19.
JokelaM. (2009) Physical attractiveness and reproductive success in humans: evidence from the late 20th century United States. Evolution & Human Behavior, 30, 342–350.
20.
KuoZ. Y. (1921) Giving up instincts in psychology. Journal of Philosophy, 17, 645–664.
21.
LangloisJ. H.KalakanisL.RubensteinA. J.LarsonA.HallamM.SmootM. (2000) Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.
22.
LangloisJ. H.RoggmanL. A. (1990) Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115–121.
23.
LeeK.AshtonM. C. (2004) Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358.
24.
LukaszewskiA. W.LarsonC. M.GildersleeveK. A.RoneyJ. R.HaseltonM. G. (2014) Condition-dependent calibration of men's uncommitted mating orientation: evidence from multiple samples. Evolution & Human Behavior, 35, 319–326.
25.
LyversM.CholakiansE.PuorroM.SundramS. (2011) Beer goggles: blood alcohol concentration in relation to attractiveness ratings for unfamiliar opposite sex faces in naturalistic settings. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 105–112.
26.
OlsonI. R.MarshuetzC. (2005) Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion, 5, 498–502.
27.
PflügerL. S.OberzaucherE.KatinaS.HolzleitnerI. J.GrammarK. (2012) Cues to fertility: perceived attractiveness and facial shape predict reproductive success. Evolution & Human Behavior, 33, 708–714.
28.
RevelleW. (2007) Experimental approaches to the study of personality. In RobinsR. W.FarleyR. C.KruegerR. F. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology. New York: Guilford Press. Pp. 37–61.
29.
RobertsS. C.LittleA. C.GoslingL. M.PerrettD. I.CarterV.JonesB. C.Penton-VoakI.PetrieM. (2005) MHC-heterozygosity and human facial attractiveness. Evolution & Human Behavior, 26, 213–216.
30.
RubensteinA. J.KalakanisL.LangloisJ. H. (1999) Infant preferences for attractive faces: a cognitive explanation. Developmental Psychology, 35, 848–855.
31.
SolerC.NúñezM.GuitiérrezR.NúñezJ.MedinaP.SanchoM.ÁlvarezJ.NúñezA. (2003) Facial attractiveness in men provides clues to semen quality. Evolution & Human Behavior, 24, 199–207.
32.
StrahanR.GerbasiK. C. (1972) Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193.
33.
SugiyamaL. S. (2005) Physical attractiveness in adaptationist perspective. In BussD. M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Pp. 292–343.
34.
ThornhillR.GangestadS. W. (1999) Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 452–460.
35.
TolmanE. C. (1923) The nature of instinct. Psychological Bulletin, 20, 200–218.
36.
VartanianO.GoelV.LamE.FisherM.GranicJ. (2013) Middle temporal gyrus encodes individual differences in perceived facial attractiveness. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 38–47.
37.
WeedenJ.SabiniJ. (2005) Physical attractiveness and health in western societies: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 635–653.
