Selecting our romantic partner is one of the most important decisions we make in our lifetimes. Have you ever wondered whether a potential boyfriend or girlfriend would be a good lifetime partner in the long term? Underlying these types of decisions are psychological processes that have been studied. So, what are these processes, and can we understand them to make more informed decisions about our ideal partner?

Among psychologists, there are two contrasting schools of thought: evolutionary and sociocultural, but these are not necessarily either right or wrong. It varies case-by-case, and probably works together to determine our “mate preferences”.

Evolutionary and Sociocultural Hypotheses

Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection (Darwin, 1859) proposes that organisms with traits better adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing those advantageous traits to offspring. Over generations, this process causes beneficial traits to become more common, leading to the evolution of species; it has been theorised that mate selection is driven by the question, “Who will allow my species to reproduce best?” 

On the other hand, social context, such as valuing wealth or status in certain cultures; environmental signals, such as resource availability, population density, or environmental harshness; and cultural norms, such as traditions, beliefs, and values, also influence our mate selection decisions.

Best of Both Worlds: Integrating Evolutionary and Sociocultural Hypotheses

The evolutionary and sociocultural hypotheses are often contrasted but are not necessarily contradictory. It is now believed that mate preferences are driven by a combination of both sociocultural and evolutionary factors.

This is evident in three main areas:

Face. Studies have shown that facial features are clues to fertility, overall health, and the optimal mating age of an individual. To men, both youthful and mature features are attractive. Females prefer facial features that do not differ widely from the norm, are mature, and might indicate higher socioeconomic status or sociability. (Cunningham et al., 1990).

Body. In one study by Singh (1993), the “waist-to-hip” ratio has been studied, and it was found that there is an optimal middle ground that indicates better fertility. Higher body fat has been linked to an improved likelihood of surviving famine (historically) and higher chances of disease and poor health. Singh (1993) found that a waist-to-hip ratio of around 0.7 for women was rated as most attractive by men across cultures. This ratio is thought to indicate better fertility and overall health.

Resources. Individuals are attracted to people who have the required resources to reproduce successfully. Psychologists believe that women select men more based on sociability and social status, such as having greater access to wealth, power and influence. In human mating, women invest extensive physical resources in carrying and birthing offspring. Men, however, invest less in physiological resources beyond conception; instead, men invest in external resources such as financial resources, protection and security by providing income, shelter, and material resources, as well as ensuring the safety and well-being of the child and family to help rear the child. Under these conditions, it is more reproductively beneficial for women to be more selective and carefully allocate their limited reproductive resources (Trivers, 1972).

Mate preferences are influenced by sociocultural and evolutionary factors that overlap and often share root causes. This suggests the need for more integrated theories about how these hypotheses interact in real life. The selection of a romantic partner is multi-faceted, complex, and profound. Nonetheless, it has wide-reaching consequences for our lives, so it is crucial to understand the underlying psychological processes better.

 

Written by:

Andrea Seo

Murdoch University

 

References

Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 59(1), 61.

Darwin, C. & Kebler, L. (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or, The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: J. Murray. [Pdf] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/06017473/.

Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(2), 293.

Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection (Vol. 136, p. 179). Cambridge, MA: Biological Laboratories, Harvard University.