Running head: FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS AND MATE SELECTION



Running head: FACIAL ATTRACTIVENESS AND MATE SELECTION

Ugly loves ugly:

Facial attractiveness and mate selection across ethnicities

Kayla B. Muennich

Minnesota State University Moorhead

Abstract

Researchers have determined a universal definition of attractiveness (Appicella, Little & Marlow, 2007). According to the stimulus-value-role theory of mate selection, individuals tend to choose partners of comparable physical attractiveness to themselves (Murstein, 1970). The purpose of the present study is to investigate how mate selection and facially attractiveness varies across ethnicities. Forty-four participants were asked to complete a self-inventory questionnaire (including a question on self-rated facial attractiveness), to choose an opposite gendered photograph from all three ethnic groups to go on a date with (Asian-American, African-American and Caucasian), and to complete a demographic survey. It was expected that participants would follow the stimulus-value-role theory when selecting a mate, by demonstrating a strong positive relationship between self-rated attractiveness and pre-rated attractiveness of viewed pictures, regardless of ethnicity. Results supported the stimulus-value-role theory.

Extensive research has been conducted in establishing the claim of a cross-cultural standard definition of attractiveness (Apicella, Little, & Marlow, 2007; Rhodes, Yoshikawa, Clark, Lee, McKay, & Akamatsu, 2001; Langlois, Kalakanis, Rubenstein, Larson, Hallam, & Smoot, 2000; Cunningham, Barbee, Druen, & Wu, 1995; Jones & Hill, 1993). Even though racial and ethnic groups vary in specific facial features, people from a wide range of cultures do agree on what is physically attractive in the human face. Viewing an attractive face can activate the reward centers of the brain, motivate sexual behavior and even initiate the development of same-sex friendships (Berscheid & Reis, 1998). When selecting a dating partner or marriage companion, facial attractiveness in particular (Furnham & Reeves, 2006), is an important pursued feature. Unlike evolutionary psychology theory, where individuals choose partners based reproductive successes (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2005), supporters of the stimulus-value-role theory maintain that individuals tend to choose partners of comparable physical attractiveness to them-selves (Murstein, 1970). In conducting the present research, I would like to further develop the idea of a universal definition of attractiveness in how it relates to mate selection. I propose that participants will follow the stimulus-value-role theory when selecting a mate, by demonstrating a strong positive relationship between self-rated attractiveness and pre-rated attractiveness of viewed pictures, regardless of ethnicity.

A person’s overall attractiveness can be determined using different characteristics; facial attractiveness, physical stature, waist-to-hip ratio. However, the present paper will focus mainly on facial attractiveness. General agreement on facial attractiveness assessment has been verified cross-culturally (Apicella, et al., 2007; Langlois, et al., 2000; Cunningham, et al., 1995). Highly attractive female faces are associated with high eyebrows, large eyes, large pupils, prominent cheekbones, narrow cheeks, a small nose, a small chin, and a big smile (Cunningham, 1986). Highly attractive male faces are linked to large eyes, prominent cheekbones, a big smile and a large chin (Cunningham, Barbee, & Pike, 1990). It can be noted that there is some overlap in the definitions of facial attractiveness for males and females. Both sexes admire large eyes, which is to be considered a “baby-face” feature. Baby-face features are thought to be attractive because they elicit feelings of warmth and nurturance in perceivers (McArthur & Berry, 1987). However, both sexes also admire prominent cheekbones, which is an adult feature only found in sexually mature faces. Also, a female face labeled “beautiful” has more baby-face features (i.e. small nose, small chin) than a labeled “handsome” male face.

In developing the establishment of facial attractiveness, three additional biological standards can be investigated: sexual dimorphism, familiarity, and averageness (Rhodes, 2006). First, sexual dimorphism is the tendency for feminine traits in female faces and masculine traits in male faces. Femininity is attractive in female faces regardless if the traits are measured, rate or manipulated (Rhodes, 2006). Exaggeration of feminine features further increases attractiveness, e.g. prominent cheekbones vs. average cheekbones (Grammer & Thornhill, 1994). Further, women rated with attractive faces would also be rated as sexier, healthier and more fertile (Furnham, Lavanchy, & McClelland, 2006). When investigating masculine facial traits, extreme attributes were preferred; e.g. a large jaw and wide mouth are viewed as more attractive (Grammer & Thornhill, 1994). A broad male face is also viewed as attractive, sexy, healthy and dominant (Boothroyd, Jones, Burt, & Perrett, 2007). Sexual dimorphism can help to explain the aforementioned “baby-faced” features versus sexually mature features. Features such as a small nose and chin are more “baby-faced” and therefore more feminine. Features such as prominent cheekbones and a large jaw are only in the sexually mature and therefore more masculine.

Second, when participants rated the attractiveness of faces, they preferred faces that most resembled their own (Little & Perrett, 2002), enhancing the notion of familiarity. Unknowingly a photo of the participant was morphed with that of a person of the opposite sex. When presented with this morphed photo, the “opposite-sex clone” was given an even higher rating.

Last, facial averageness is the proximity to a spatially average face for a population and reflects developmental stability, i.e. ability to endure stress during development (e.g. Thornhill & Moller, 1997). Langlois and Roggman (1990) has conducted a number of studies with digital composite faces, find a preference for composite photographs as opposed to individual photos. This result does not mean that the “average” composite faces have all the physical qualities that people cross-culturally agree to be highly attractive. Perret, May and Yoshikawa (1994) found that a composite of the 15 most attractive faces (“highly attractive”) was preferred over an average of 60 faces (“average attractive”). Thus, the “average” composite face is attractive because it has lost some of the atypical and unfamiliar variation (i.e. skin blemishes) that makes up individual faces. Nonetheless, the most attractive composite face is one that started out above average and only became more so as variation was smoothed over. Even when altering image resolution (pixels per inch), what was viewed as attractive with poor resolution remained attractive with higher resolution (Bachmann, 2007). Averageness in female faces is more attractive than averageness in male faces (Thornhill & Moeller, 1997).

Other studied variables attributing to physical attractiveness are physical stature and waist-to-hip ration. Physical stature can signal dominance, high status, access to resources and more generally, underlying heritable qualities (Salska, Frederick, Pawlowski, Reilly, Laird, & Rudd, 2008). Non-facial (body) symmetry correlates with facial attractiveness. This is certification of high quality development and overall healthiness (Grammer & Thornhill, 1994). Ideally, an attractive male mate would be tall (Li & Kenrick, 2006), preferably taller than a female counterpart (Salska, et al., 2008; Li & Kenrick, 2006).

The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) has been investigated among both females and males. A high female WHR is more unattractive, whereas a low female WHR is more attractive. As female WHR increases (i.e. becomes more unattractive), other rated facial attractiveness decreases. A stronger preference, by female raters, for feminine “male” faces also became more pronounced as WHR increased for men (Penton-Voak, Little, Jones, Burt, Tiddeman, & Perret, 2003). This could reflect the diverse tactics of female mate choice. Alternatively, male WHR must remain within the typical range to be rated as more favorable and attractive (Singh, 1995).

Facial attractiveness is an important characteristic in choosing a mate (Furnham & Reeves, 2006). How people perceive themselves can affect how they define what is or is not attractive. Individuals with stigmatized body types (e.g. thin males, overweight persons) have self-perceptions of being less attractive (Kallen & Doughty, 1984). Even when being exposed to an attractive stimulus (person or picture), females consequently give lower self-ratings of attractiveness (Little & Mannion, 2006; Thorton & Maurice, 1999; Cash, Cash & Butters, 1983). An attractive stimulus can negatively affect social physique anxiety and social self-esteem (Thorton & Maurice, 1999) and as a result, a lower preference for male facial masculinity (Little & Mannion, 2006). However, women will engage in mate choice copying (i.e. observing and subsequently copying the mating preferences of men) when a man has a female companion that is attractive (Waynforth, 2007).

Mate choice copying can be explained using the social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954). This theory holds that people learn about their own abilities and attitudes by comparing themselves to others (Aronson, Wilson & Akert, 2007). People socially compare when there is no objective standard to measure themselves against and when they experience uncertainty about themselves in certain areas. People prefer to compare themselves to others who have a similar background in the area of question (Feldman & Ruble, 1981).

The comparison of ourselves to others can also be understood using the stimulus-value-role theory, where individuals tend to choose partners of comparable physical attractiveness to themselves (Murstein, 1972). This can be understood two different ways. First, the rating of ourselves is based on a continuum (i.e. 1: unattractive – 10: attractive). The ratings given are based on relation to numbers given to other individuals. A person chooses someone with an overall rating of 7 because they deem themselves overall to be a number 7 compared to other number 7’s. Alternatively, the ratings are based on specific facial traits (i.e. 1: narrow eyes, 5: average eyes, 10: big eyes). An individual with the rating of a 7 may choose a fellow number 7 because they have similar, and therefore familiar, facial traits.

Evolutionary theory hypothesizes mate selection and preference quite differently. Accordingly to evolutionary theory men and women possess both long-term and short-term mating strategies. Men’s short-term strategy is universally rooted in the desire for sexual variety (Schmitt, 2003) whereas women select partners on the basis of cues to genetic quality and/or ability to contribute resources to childcare (Chu, Hardaker & Lycett, 2007).

Three main sets of criteria have been found for mate selection: warmth and trustworthiness, attractiveness and vitality, and resources (Fletcher, Tither & O’Loughlin, 2004). Gender differences surface when exploring these three categories. When forced to make trade offs, women prefer warmth/trustworthiness and status/resources that support the social exchange theory (Fletcher, et al., 2004). Typically men place more importance on attractiveness (Beaulieu, 2007). Short-term partners are based on attractiveness and a “good genes” idea (Gagestad & Simpson, 2000). This means that both sexes value all traits, however, more priority is on physical attractiveness (Li & Kenrick, 2007). Men high in facial masculinity are preferred more as short-term partners (Luevano & Zebrowitz, 2007; Boothroyd, Jones, Burt & Perrett, 2007). Ideal standards of warmth/trustworthiness and status/resources increase when transitioning from short-term to long-term (Fletcher, et al., 2007). Alternatively, Li and Kenrick (2007) found that both sexes are similarly selective for long-term partners, where as women are more selective for short-term partners. Men high in warmth (mediated by facial expressions) are preferred more as long-term partners (Luevano & Zebrowitz, 2007; Boothroyd, et al., 2007). Although, women rated low in their own facial attractiveness and high in a waist-to-hip ratio preferred more feminine male faces for long-term partners (Penton-Voak, et al., 2003). Socioeconomic status can factor into what is perceived as attractive also. Higher ratings were given to attractive males of medium status than attractive males of high status. This is due to women perceiving male of high status being more likely to pursue a mating strategy (i.e. attractiveness) than a parenting strategy (i.e. resources) (Chu, et al., 2007). Although with enough freedom of choice, both men and women alike will go for well-rounded mates.

A universal definition of attractiveness does exist cross-culturally (Apicella, et al., 2007). Facial attractiveness, including characteristics of sexual dimorphism, familiarity and averageness, is a strong predictor of mate value and therefore mate preference (Furnham & Reeves, 2006). Mate preference can be dependent on an individual’s ideas of their own perceived attractiveness. Individuals choose partners of comparable physical attractiveness to themselves, according to the stimulus-value-role theory. Thus, the purpose of my study is to further develop the idea of a universal agreement on attractiveness and how it relates to mate selection. I propose that participants will follow the stimulus-value-role theory when making mate selections, by demonstrating a strong positive relationship between their own self-rated facial attractiveness and pre-rated attractiveness of photographs from the three ethnic groups represented in this study (Asian-American, African-American and Caucasian).

Methods

Participants: A convenience sample of students (N = 44) in lower level psychology classes from a small, public liberal arts college in the upper Midwest participated in this study. Participant ages ranged from 18-40 (M = 21.1) and were predominantly Caucasian female young adults, all of whom earned extra credit for their participation. All participants were treated according to APA ethical guidelines.

Materials: A ten question self-inventory measure (see Appendix A) was given with differing personality and physical dimensions based on a 10 point likert-type scale

(e.g. Introvert/Extrovert: very introverted, somewhat introverted, neutral, somewhat extroverted, very extroverted). Among the ten inquiries was a question on facial attractiveness (i.e. Facially Unattractive/Facially Attractive: very unattractive, somewhat unattractive, neutral, somewhat attractive, very attractive). Pictures of neutral faces differing in ethnicity (Asian-American, African-American, and Caucasian) were presented with varying degrees of pre-rated attractiveness (see Appendix B). There were five pictures total for each ethnicity and gender. Finally, a demographic survey was given to better understand the statistics of the population sampled (see Appendix C).

Procedure and design: Participants were seated in a room and given the self-inventory questionnaire first. After completion of the questionnaire, participants were given a packet with opposite gendered pictures of all three ethnic groups and told to choose one from each ethnicity to be paired up with on a date. Participants choose one picture from each ethnicity. Last, participants filled out the demographic survey. The results were analyzed using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The difference between self-ratings of facial attractiveness and chosen pre-rated pictures was the dependent variable while the independent variable was the differing ethnic pictures.

Results and Discussion

Ratings for self versus ethnicities was significant, F(1,43) = 11.28, p = .002, r2 = .25 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Self-Rated Facial Attractiveness versus Ethnicity

[pic]

The results of this study supported the hypothesis that individuals would follow the stimulus-value-role theory when selecting a mate by choosing photographs from each ethnicity of comparable facial attractiveness ratings to themselves. Participants rated their own facial attractiveness with an average rating of 7.11, SD = 1.45. Participants also tended to choose the highest rated Asian-American photograph (M = 8.55, SD = 1.84) as opposed to the highest rated African-American photograph (M = 7.50, SD = 2.20) and the highest rated Caucasian photograph (M = 7.86, SD = 1.80).

The choosing of the highest rated Asian-American photograph could possibly be explained by the naïve assumption that individuals of one race all look the same (i.e. Caucasians may believe that all Asian individuals look the same and vice versa). The female Asian-American photograph may have been more distinct, because her portrait was the only photo in that category to include more dramatic makeup, hair and accessories. These more dramatic factors (makeup, hair and accessories) were also characteristics of the highest rated female African-American portrait.

There were minor limitations within this study. First, because all participants were given opposite gendered photographs, any effect of sexual orientation was not researched and evaluated. Second, all photographs used were not of the same pixel quality and size proportions. Last, there could have been potential bias from the participant when indicating their own facial attractiveness.

All three imitations could be addressed in future research. Inquiring of a participant’s sexual orientation introduces the ethical concern of harm. However, little to no research has been conducted regarding the stimulus-value-role theory in relation to same sex attractions. An experiment investigating the role of sexual orientation could provide greater understand and further information about the idea of a universal agreement on attractiveness. The photograph pixel quality and identical size proportions would be easier to address and change for future research. However, this does bring up a good point to discuss: photographs of differing ethnicities. “Asian / Asian-American” is a large category encompassing more than 30 different countries with a wide variety of physical looks other than the stereotypical narrow eyes, dark hair, etc. It could be of interest to research the broad range within the Asian-American category (i.e. Chinese-American, Nepali-American, Pilipino-American, etc.). The ranges could also be researched within the African-American category (i.e. Egyptian-American, Sudanese-American, Kenyan-American, etc.) as well as the Caucasian category (Spanish-American, Swedish-American, French-American, etc.). Finally, taking a picture of each participant could eliminate the potential bias of self-reported facial attractiveness. The original group who rated the different ethnic photographs (see Appendix B) would then rate the participant’s picture allowing for a more consistent, and therefore reliable, measurement system. Similar to the inquiry of sexual orientation, this limitation brings into question the ethical concern of harm. Some participants could be uncomfortable by having a group of students they may know judge and rate their photograph.

Altogether, the question, “does ugly love ugly” arises. Maybe it would be better phrased as, “does beautiful love beautiful?” Beauty has been quoted many times as being “in the eye of the beholder.” Well, if we like what we see when we look in the mirror, chances are there is a similarly attractive partner by our side or and idea of them in our minds.

References

Apicella, C. L., Little, A. C., & Marlowe, F. W. (2007). Facial averageness and attractiveness in an isolated population of hunter-gatherers. [Electronic version]. Perception, 36 (12), 1813-1820.

Apostolu, M. (2007). Sexual selection under parental choice: The role of parents in the evolution of human mating. [Electronic version]. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 403-409.

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2007). Social Psychology. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Bachmann, T. (2007). When beauty breaks down: Investigation of the effect of spatial quantization on aesthetic evaluation of facial images. [Electronic version]. Perception, 36 (6), 840-849.

Berschieid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Linkzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193-281). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Boothroyd, L. G., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2007). Partner characteristics associated with masculinity, health and maturity in male faces. [Electronic version]. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1161-1173.

Cash, T. F., Cash, D. W., & Butters, J. W. (1983). “Mirror, mirror, on the wall…?”: Contrast effects and self-evaluations of physical attractiveness. [Electronic version]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9 (3), 351-358.

Chu, S., Hardaker, R., & Lycett, J. E. (2007). Too good to be ‘true’? The handicap of high socio-economic status in attractive males. [Electronic version]. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1291-1300.

Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261-279.

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

Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., & Wu, C. H. (1995). “Their ideas of beauty are, all the while, the same as ours”: Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261-279.

Feldman, N. S., & Ruble, D. N. (1981). Social comparison strategies: Dimensions offered and options taken. [Electronic version]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7 (1), 11-16.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Tither, J. M., O’Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. [Electronic version]. PSPB, 30 (6), 659-672.

Furnham, A., Lavanchy, M., & McClelland, A. (2006). “Waist to hip ratio and facial attractiveness: A pilot study”: Erratum. [Electronic version]. Personality and Individual Differences, 40 (1).

Furnham, A., & Reeves, E. (2006). The relative influence of facial neoteny and waist-to-hip ratio on judgments of female attractiveness and fecundity. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 11 (2), 129-141.

Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23 573-644.

Grammer, K., & Thornill, R. (1994). Human (homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. [Electronic version]. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108 (3), 233-242.

Gunes, H., & Massimo, P. (2006). Assessing facial beauty through proportion analysis by image processing and supervised learning. [Electronic version]. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64 (12), 1184-1199.

Jones, D., & Hill, K. (1993). Criteria of facial attractiveness in five populations. Human Nature, 4, 271-296.

Kallen, D. J., & Doughty, A. (1984). The relationship of weight, the self perception of weight and self esteem with courtship behavior. [Electronic version]. Marriage & Family Review, 7 (1-2), 93-114.

Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoo, M. (2000). Maxims or myth of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. [Electronic version]. Psychology Bulletin, 126, 390-423.

Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. [Electronic version]. Psychological Science, 1, 115-121.

Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, (3), 468-489.

Little, A. C., & Mannion, H. (2006). Viewing attractive or unattractive same-sex individuals changes self-rated attractiveness and face preferences in women. [Electronic version]. Animal Behaviour, 72, (5), 981-987.

Little, A. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2003). Putting beauty back in the eye of the beholder. [Electronic version]. The Psychologist, 15 (1), 28-32.

Luevano, V. X., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (2007). Do impressions of health, dominance, and warmth explain why masculine faces are preferred more in a short-term mate? [Electronic version]. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 15-27.

McArthur, L. Z., Berry, D. S. (1987). Cross cultural agreement in perceptions of babyfaced adults. [Electronic version]. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 165-192.

Murstein, B. I. (1972). Physical attractiveness and marital choice. [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 8-12.

Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial shape and judgments of female attractiveness. [Electronic version]. Nature, 368, 239-242.

Penton-Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., Tiddeman, B. P., & Perrett, D. I. (2003). Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (homo sapiens). [Electronic version]. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117 (3), 264-271.

Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. [Electronic version]. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 1999-2126.

Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Clarck, A., Lee, K., McKay, R., & Akamatsu, S. (2001). Attractivenss of facial averageness and symmetry in non-Western cultures: In search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perceptions, 30, 611-625.

Salska, I., Frederick, D. A., Pawlowski, B., Reilly, A. H., Laird, K. T., & Rudd, N. T. (2008). Conditional matter preferences: Factors influencing preferences for height. [Electronic version]. Personality and Individual Differences, 44 (1), 203-215.

Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (1), 85-104.

Singh, D. (1995). Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: Role of waist-to-hip ratio and financial status. [Electronic version]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (6), 1089-1101.

South, S. J. (1991). Sociodemographic differentials in mate selections preferences. [Electronic version]. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 (3), 928-940.

Thornhil, R., & Moller, A. P., (1997). Developmental stability, disease and medicine. [Electronic version]. Biological Reviews, 72, 497-548.

Thornton, B., & Maurice, J. K. (1999). Physical attractiveness contrast effect and the moderating influence of self-consciousness. [Electronic version]. Sex Roles, 40 (5), 379-392.

Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. [Electronic version]. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104 (38), 15011-15016.

Waynforth, D. (2007). Mate choice copying in humans. [Electronic version]. Human Nature. Special Issue: The human behavioral ecology of contemporary world issues: Applications to public policy and international development, 18 (3), 264-271.

Zander, A., Havelin, A. (1960). Social comparison and interpersonal attraction. [Electronic version]. Human Relations, 13, 21-32.

Appendix A

Self-Inventory Questionnaire

Rate yourself on the following dimensions:

1. Introvert / Extrovert

Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very

Introverted Introverted Extroverted Extroverted

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2. Imaginative / Unimaginative

Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very

Imaginative Imaginative Unimaginative Unimaginative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3. Insincere / Sincere

Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very

Insincere Insincere Sincere Sincere

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4. Intelligent / Unintelligent

Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very

Intelligent Intelligent Unintelligent Unintelligent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5. Facially Unattractive / Facially Attractive

Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very

Unattractive Unattractive Attractive Attractive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6. Forgiving / Unforgiving

Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very

Forgiving Forgiving Unforgiving Unforgiving

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7. Honest / Dishonest

Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very

Honest Honest Dishonest Dishonest

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8. Loyal / Unloyal

Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very

Loyal Loyal Unloyal Unloyal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

9. Unpleasant / Pleasant

Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very

Unpleasant Unpleasant Pleasant Pleasant

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10. Athletic / Non-athletic

Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very

Athletic Athletic Non-athletic Non-athletic

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Appendix B (Male Participants)

Mate Selection

Please circle one female portrait from each ethnicity that you would prefer to go on a date with.

Appendix B (Female Participants)

Mate Selection

Please circle one male portrait from each ethnicity that you would prefer to go on a date with.

Appendix C

Demographic Survey

1. Gender: [ ] Male [ ] Female

2. Age: [ ] 18-20 [ ] 21-23 [ ] 24-26 [ ] 27-29

[ ] 30-33 [ ] 34-36 [ ] 37-39 [ ] 40+

3. Ethnicity: [ ] Asian

[ ] Black

[ ] Latino

[ ] Mexican

[ ] Native-American

[ ] White

[ ] Other: _______________

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download