Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Sexual Attraction & Sexual Jealousy - Coggle Diagram
Sexual Attraction & Sexual Jealousy
Parental Investment Theory (Trivers, 1972)
Theory
Applies to all male & females
Costs invest in mating that want to offset
Women reproductive success dependent on high-quality, long-term partner
Desire traits that suggest supportive partner, who are dependent & provide access to resources
Mean reproductive success depend on no. willing women
Desire traits that suggest fertile partner
Women Valuable
Eggs costly & limited
Born w. all them, 1/2 released in ovulation
Pregnancy & childbirth
Lactation
Modern Day
Can opt out of pregnancy, childbirth, & lactation
Theory based in historic
Biological cost not social cost
Men Not Valuable
Sperm cheap & replenishable
Study: Predict Attractive (Buss, 1989)
A: Predict what men & women find attractive
M: Rate what important traits for future spouse to have
R: Diff genders have diff cues that make them attractive
Women cues around youth & fertility
Men cues around resource holding potential
Features
Good financial prospects
In 36/37 cultures tested
Ambition & industriousness
29/37
Preferred age difference
37/37
Good looks
34/37
Chastity
23/37
Traits Important in Men
Age to be younger
Looks
Chastity
Traits Important to Women
Financial prospects
Older man
Ambition & industriousness
Stidy: Choy & Tan
A: When men pick mistresses, and women become mistresses
R: Men pick mistress for look, mistress pick men for look & social status
Study: (Scheller et al., 2023)
R: Typical gender preference still exist in ace community
Women want caring ambitious man
0 Men want conventioonally ood looking woman
Clark & Hatfield, 1989
P: Students
M: Attractive male/female confederate asked stranger is want to go on date/have sex later that night
50/50 women yes to date
Majority women no to sex
99% men yes to sex
Majority of 1% either in committed relationship or gay
Sexual Attraction
Cues That Make Women Attractive
Youth
Fertility
Youth & Fertility
Waist-to-hip ratio
Body mass index
WHR
Preference
Hormones
Health
Study: WHR Hormones (Singh, 1994)
Peak Oestrogen to Testosterone for fertility
Study: WHR & Health (Perilloux et al., 2010; Singh & Young, 1995)
Associated w. high fertility & less health problems
Study: WHR Preference (Singh, 1993)
R: .7 preference
BMI
Variation
Cross-cultural variation
Study: Variation (Tovee et al., 1999)
A: Weight or general women are attriactive
M: Men enter w. eye tracker, jusge WHR, BMI, and general attractive
R: BMI predict more variation than hourglass WHR when judging attractiveness
When judge WHR judge waist vs hips
When judge BMI look at belly fat
When judge attractiveness look at belly fat
Study: Cross-Cultural Variation (Kocszinski, 2013; Bateson & Pepper, 2023)
R: Variation depend on culture
High BMI preferred in countries w. food scarcity
Low BMI preferred in countries where wait-gain can be sign of resource invariability
Limitation (Bateson & Pepper, 2023)
Study on rats that resource invariable rats get fatter
Ideal BMI
Women about 25-ish
Men favourite is 18
Evaluation
Waist-to-hip ratio
BMI
WHR Evaluation
Averageness
Preference
Supernatural
Study: Cultural Preference (Furnham et al., 2002)
R: Uganda have .5 preference
Study: Supernatural (Lassek & Gaulin, 2016; 2018)
M: Supernatural stimuli
R: When men design ideal woman design women w. unrealistically small waist
Suggest ideal too low for fertility reasons when given free reign
Study: Averageness (Donohue et al., 2009)
R: Preference for averageness as most women go in at waist vs
More average are the more prepared to deal w. potential bio threat so is not the waist but the
BMI Evaluation
Fertility issues
Cross-cultural variation
Preference range
Study: Fertility Issues (Han et al., 2023)
R: Lower BMI not equal better
Reproductive potential vs fertility (how many fertile years if invest now vs peak fertility is 26)
Study: Western Variation (Swami et al., 2008)
R: Cross-cultural variation in West
British prefer BMI
Greek prefer BMI/WHR
Study: Preference Range (Wang et al., 2018)
M: Rate range of model photos in order of attractiveness
R: Range of weight preferences in one sample
Individually attractive who was most attractive in men & women
Cues that Make Men Attractive
Resource holding potential
Resource Holding Potential
Physical
Non-physical
Study: Physical Potential (Pawolowski & Jasinka, 2005)
R: Women prefer tall men w. larger shoulder-hip ratio
SHR .9
Explanation
Hormones
Symmetry
Dominance
Fighting ability
Study: Symmetry (Mautz et al., 2013)
R: Taller muscly men more syymetrical which more attractive
Non-symmetry is parasite/illness/standing out cue
Study: Dominance (Stulp et al., 2015)
R: Tall muscly more dominant
Who look at as centre of group (social dominance) as someone to be respected
Study: Fighting Ability (Pahoozie et al., 2023)
A: Hand to hand combat
R: Taller men w. muscles win most matches
Have ability to outcompete other men for resources (cue potential future resources)
Study: Hormones (Pahoozi et al., 2023)
A: Testosterone & immune functioning
R: To have testosterone & be healthy is sign have strong immune system
Testosterone can suppress immune system
Non-Physical Potential
End relationships
Form relationships
Study: End Relationships (Buss, 1989)
A: Cues to financial/potential success in men vs women
R: Women more likely to end relationships over this than men
Financial/Potential Success Cues
Ambition
Age
Study: Form Relationship (Lewis et al., 2011)
A: Preferences of women & men in friendships
M: Token & put tokens in for traits, suddenly more tokens so rate
R: Preference changes dependent on gender, but all had sensible choices to start which only add on when can choose little extra
Men prefer female friends w. good looks
Women prefer male friends w. physical strength/money
Evaluation
Physical
Non-physical
Physical Potential Evaluation
Literature
Observability
Replicability
Too much
Study: Literature (Mautz et al., 2013)
R: Differing importance in literature
SHR predict 70% variance in male attraction
Height predict 6% variance in male attraction
Study: Observability (Stulp et al., 2015)
R: Dominance by height hard to directly observe
Study: Replicability (Frederick & Jenkins, 2015)
A: Replication of dominance by height
M: Short & tall male & female confederate walk down hall & see how many move out of way
R: Everyone gets out of way so not ralways replicate
Men might have been dominance
Women may not have been dominance (chivalry?)
Study: Too much (Nakamura & Watanabe, 2020)
R: Too much is too far & some cultures prefer feminised faces (e.g. K-Pop)
Too much testosterone bad
Implications
Sexual dimorphism
Social norms
Study: Sexual Dimorphism (Arnocky et al., 2022)
M: Primed w. words around scarcity
R: Stronger sexual dimorphism in relationships in non-first-world countries (more pronouced when scarcity vs non-scarcity prime)
Women compete for mates when lack own resources
Social Norms
Child raising
Caveat
Study: Child Raising (Iredale et al., 2008; Sacco et al., 2020)
R: Men raise children as long-term monogamous bonds rare
Look for cues that men will stand up which why dad bods attractive because suggest man invested & care
Study: Caveat (Confer et al., 2010)
M: Naked attraction
R: Regardless of sex face more important for long-term relationship & body for short-term relationship
Finding someone like-minded, warm & caring important for long-term relationship
Body dimorphism important in one-night-stand
Sexual Jealousy
Sex Differences in Jealousy
Women
Men
Women
Threatened by lack of resources
Feel emotional jealousy if male partner forms another relationship w. woman
Fear may give more resources to the other women
Men
Threatened by paternal uncertainty
Feel sexual jealousy if female partner sleeps w. other man
Paternity uncertainty & risk of investing resources in child that not them (fear of being a cuck)
Sex Differences in Jealousy
Measures
Alternative evidence
Other Evidence for Sex Differences in Jealousy
Law
Arguments
Hormones
Study: Law (Daly et al., 1982)
B: 80% homicides by men in 1980s motivated by sexual jealousy, & seem to motivate domestic abuse
R: Crime rate tied to sexual jealousy
Study: Morbid Jealousy (Easton et al., 2007)
R: Men 2x more likely to have morbid jealousy compared with women
Study: Hormones (Lewis et al., 2018)
A: Testosterone in saliva
M: Woman start talking to man then slowly move away, man rank jealousy to conversation partner moving away, & spit into cup
R: Men w. higher testosterone had higher jealousy
Study: Measure of Sex Jealousy (Buss et al., 1992)
A:
M: Which worse, finding evidence of sexual or emotional affair
80% women pick emotional affair as worse
66.6% men picked sexual affair as worse
Study: Replication (; Buss, 2018; Dunn & Ward, 2020)
Issue
Forced choice methodology
Don't want either but forcing choice that not really exist in real life
When two things equally upsetting there is not really a choice
If in non-monogamous relationship neither mean that much to them so not really a choice
Study: Destano et al
R: Article of measurement
Evaluation of Sex Differences in Jealousy
Measures
Alternative evidence
Study: Evaluation of Measures of Jealousy (Harris, 2004; Carpenter et al., 2011)
A: Best evidence vs actual evidence
Actual Evidence
Men have high sexual jealousy & slightly lower emotional jealousy
Women have low sexual jealousy & high emotional jealousy
Best Evidence
Men have high sexual jealousy & low emotional jealousy
Women have low sexual jealousy & high emotional jealousy
Study: Evaluation of Alternative Evidence
Base rate fallacy
Other factors
Study: Base Rate Fallacy (Harris, 2004)
A: Analysis of homicide study
R: Men over-represented in many diff cases of crime & 20% of women also commiting crime was also sexual
Both genders have more concern of sexual infidelity
Other Factors
Threats
Self-esteem
Study: Threats (Pichon et al., 2020)
R: Jealousy tied to poor communication skills & threatened masculinity more likely to have morbid jealousy
Standards that can't live up to & poor communication
Study: Self-Esteem (Ahlen et al., 2020; Cristofaro et al., 2023)
R: Jealousy tied to lack of self-esteem but can be improved w. 20 minutes of mindfulness
Study: Mental Health (Ahlen et al., 2020)
M: Survey
R: Regardless of gender those w. neurodiversity reported higher levels of jealousy
Social isolation cause lower self-esteem
Double-Shot Hypothesis (DeStano & Salovey, 1996; Harris, 2004; Weiderman & Kendal, 1999)
Social stereotypes tie in to jealousy because they form assumptions
Women need to feel loved to have sex
Men need to have sex to feel love
Mean betrayal is double-shot
When woman have sex men see it as her being in love with him because sterotype is women love then sex
When man fallen in love, women see as already having slept with her because stereotype is men sleeping around
Study: Limitation (Edlund et al., 2018)
M: Collected data & sent off to social vs evolutionary psychologist to analyse
R: Sex differences in jealousy from evolutionary hypothesis replicated by both types researchers
Recent Evidence
For
Against
Evidence For
Replication
Attitudes to sexual infidelity
Emojis
Study: Replication (Buss, 2018)
M: Meta-analysis
R: Gender differences in jealousy are replicated
2/3 men still say sexual worse
1/3 women still say emotional worse
Limitation
Forced choice
Study: Attitude to Sexual Infidelity (Larsen et al., 2021)
P: Scandinavian country which gender-equal
R: Gender differences in distress
Men find more distressing even in gender egalitarian countries
Study: Emojis (Dunn & Ward, 2020)
A: Finding out cheating online
P: Straight men & women
M: Imagine partner phone find evidence of emotional/sexual cheating & rate jealousy
Evidence Against
Committed relationship
Hormones
Online
Study: Committed Relationship (Ventura-Leon et al., 2023)
R: Gender differences in sexual jealousy in committed relationship
Men feel more
Study: Hormones (Kato & Okabuko, 2023)
R: Higher 2D:4D not predict sexual jealousy & gender differences in jealousy disappear in committed relationship
Study: Online (Emond et al., 2023)
A: Monitoring of partner socials
R: Social media/online jealousy observed in women more than men
Alternative Relationship Dynamics
Polyamory
Other sexualities
Polyamory
For
Against
Study: For (Lecuona et al., 2019)
A: Gendered rates of jealousy in monogamous & non-monogamous couples
R: No diff between monogamous & non-monogamous couples
But may be better at hiding it
Study: Against (Mogilski et al., 2019)
R: Diff in sexual & emotional jealousy in partner's perceived infidelities
Jealousy not present in non-monogamous
Study: Replication (Valentova et al., 2020)
R: Replicated in Brazil
Study: Explanation (Balzarani et al., 2021)
R: Individuals in polyamorous relationships report less jealousy & more compersion
Feel happy for other person
Other Sexualities
Same-sex couples
Transgender
Bisexuality
Study: Same-Sex Couples (Valentova et al., 2020)
R: Same sex couples report less distinction in sexual/emotional jealousy than opposite-sex couples
Study: Transgender (Buunk & Massar, 2022)
R: Transgender individuals feel types of jealousy as expected for gender they identify as
Bisexuality
Bisexual individuals
Bisexual partner
Study: Bisexual Individuals (Scherer et al., 2013)
R: Bisexual men in monogamous relationships w. women report more jealousy for sexual than emotional infidelities
More than any other pairing
Study: Bisexual Partner (Valentova et al., 2022)
R: Straight/bi men and lesbian women feel more sexual jealousy over female partner having sexual affair with man
Maybe not to do w. who the father is, maybe to do w. fact of unexpected pregnancy in general
