Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • Free Essays • My Term Papers • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Psychology The Psycology of Attraction The Psycology of Attraction “Attraction: 1.n. the power or act of attracting; 2.a desirable or pleasant quality or thing” (Webster’s Dictionary, 1995). Taken directly from Webster’s Dictionary, this definition states in clear, scientific terms what attraction is. However, as every human knows, the power of attraction goes far beyond this cut and dried statement, reaching deep into our psyche, as well into our past. In this paper, the processes of attraction, its evolutionary roots and modern day implications are studied, in an attempt to answer the question “what causes us to be attracted to someone”? In the search for an answer, one must begin at the beginning- that is, at the beginning of the human race. At this time, life was merely the pursuit of survival and reproduction. Humans, like all other animals, struggled in competition for mates with the best genetic quality to pass on to their offspring. Females selected males that were healthy and strong, who could defend them and their young and who could provide food and shelter. Males sought out as many young, fertile women with whom to mate and pass on their genes as possible. Prehistoric man had no way of knowing whether or not a potential mate was in good health, so he learned to rely on cues embedded deep in recesses of his brain. Such preferences developed universally because these attributes provided signals as to the quality of genes, health or fertility of a mate. Over time, the people who had such preferences (and acted on them by mating with people possessing these attributes) left more surviving children. Three theories as to why these characteristics evolved as important signals exist. The first theory, the Runaway Selection model, credited to British geneticist Sir Roland Fisher, resembles the theorizing of Darwin (Diamond, 1996). In it, Fisher observes that all female animals (including humans) do best to mate with males bearing good genes to pass on to their offspring; however, females have no direct way to asses the quality of a male’s genes. He hypothesized that if a female somehow became genetically programmed to be sexually attracted to males with a certain structure, one that would give those males some advantage at surviving, they would thereby gain an additional advantage because they would now transmit their genes to more offspring, who would in turn survive better and also be chosen by a female with such a preference, and so on and so on. In the second theory, proposed by Israeli zoologist Amotz Zahavi, the fact many structures functioning as body sexual signals are “so big or conspicuous that they constitute a health hazard to their owner, and also cost a lot of biosynthetic energy to grow. As a result, any creature surviving such a handicap is, in effect, boasting that they must have terrific genes in other respects” (Diamond, 1996). The final theory, “Advertising”, is similar to Zahavi’s theory, and was proposed by American zoologists Astrid Kodric- Brown and James Brown. It states that costly body structures (such as muscles and breasts) represent a honest advertisement of quality because an inferior animal could not afford the cost (Diamond, 1996 p.79). All three theories provide some insight as to why these preferences evolved. There are two main components to physical cues, faces and bodies. Males and females exhibit very different structure in both aspects, due to the presence of the hormones testosterone and estrogen. Humans are not indifferent to the effects of these chemicals. Like many other animal species, humans have evolved these tactics of signaling age, sex, reproductive status and individual quality as well as programmed responses to these traits. For examples, one may consciously admire Kate Moss’s legs or Arnold’s biceps, but humans are also “viscerally attuned to small variations in size and symmetry of facial bones and the placement of weight on the body (Cowley, Geofrey and Karen Spriger, 1996 p.68).” Adult male and female faces are different in shape, with most of the shape differences developing at puberty in response to the sex hormones testosterone and estrogen. In general, males have relatively high testosterone levels and females have relatively high estrogen levels. High testosterone at puberty results in specific bone growth causing growth of the lower face and jaw, growth of the cheekbones, growth of the brow ridges and projection of the central face between the brow and the bottom of the nose. Other effects of testosterone on the face are: growth of facial hair, bushier eyebrows set closer to the eyes, a wider nose and mouth and a change in voice pitch (Turner, 1999). “The hormone also aids muscle deposition and aggression, which are both useful for competing in male hierarchies. Testosterone also has the negative effect of inhibiting the immune system” (Hotenski, 1999 p.57). Therefore, anyone who shows high levels of testosterone and is also in good health demonstrates superior gene quality. It would follow that females would prefer such males as mates; however, recent studies by researchers at the University St. Andrews in Scotland, and the University of Tokyo indicates that females prefer more ‘baby faced’ men as long term partners, but show a preference for more masculine faces while ovulating. This would suggest that females have evolved a mating strategy that says ‘marry a nice guy who will invest into you and your offspring- but be interested in having affairs with better quality men at the time you are most likely to conceive’. Female faces change much less during puberty because high estrogen concentration prevents growth, especially in the chin area (Turner, 1999; Cowley and Spriger, 1998). The major changes in the female face are a thinning of the cheeks and growth in lip size, which reaches a maximum at about 14.5 years of age (Turner, 1999). As females age, the concentration of estrogen decreases and the higher testosterone/estrogen ration causes the older female face to become masculinated. In addition, during pregnancy maternal bone formation rates are elevated which can cause permanent facial lengthening, the effect of which may be greater from carrying a male child due to the testosterone released by the fetus (Mestel, 1999) A female face that has not shown this bone growth and therefore retains many childlike features is indicating youth and/or a good estrogen/ testosterone balance, also signifying perhaps she has not yet borne many/any children. Males preferring such faces and mating with women with such faces would have left more offspring than males that preferred masculinated, older female faces. In this way, the preference for very young looking female faces would have spread through the population, resulting in it becoming a universal male preference (even in cultures that do not have a media saturated with images of young female faces!). Turner (1999) states that a study of female models showed that they had facial proportions typical of a 7-year-old girls, and that another study showed the most attractive faces created by males on the computer had facial proportions more typical of 11 year olds. Highly symmetrical faces (which are difficult to develop and maintain, therefore showing good genetic quality) are desirable in both sexes (Kalick, 1998). There are three important factors in creating a physically attractive body from a psychological and evolutionary standpoint: breasts, waist to hip ratio and muscle/fat placement. The development of breasts by sexually mature females is the most striking difference between male and female bodies. It is a unique feature to humans- other animals do not develop breasts until pregnancy. Human breasts appear to act as a sexual signal, and also as commercials for high milk production capacity (Diamond, 1996, Turner, 1999). They have a high mechanical cost and the ability to grow large, symmetrical breasts is probably an honest signal of gene quality. The supposed male obsession with large breasts therefore makes sense. This is a good point to discuss the importance of penis size, as well. The supposed preference for large penises developed, unlike breasts, in connection to its signal of virility and also in its ability to establish dominance over others of the same sex, (Diamond, 1996) and not as an sincere advertisement of good genes. Until puberty, male and female children have similar waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). At puberty, under the influence of sex hormones, females lose fat from the stomach and put it on the hips, giving them a WHR typically between .67- .80 compared with a male figure of .85- .95 (Turner, 1999). This difference is maintained until menopause, when female WHRs again change towards the male figure. Therefore, one reason males are interested in female shape is that it gives an indication whether or not the female is of childbearing age. At good waist- hip ratio (around 0.7) shows that the female in question is not too young, not too old, and not pregnant (it certainly would not have been adaptive to be attractive to women who are already pregnant!). It is also a signal of good health, because “estrogen causes fat to be laid down on the hips and thighs, not the waist” (Mestel, 1999 p. 85) Related to this is the idea of body weight. An unfakeable sign of fitness is muscles or fat concentrated in readily visible parts. Muscles in men show their ability to gather food, build houses and defeat rivals. Both males and females have learned to respond to muscles as truthful signals. On women, fat in the butt, breasts and hips attract attention (hopefully of a high quality male!). These are spots where fat can safely be stored because it will not impede movement and is also visible. Cross- culturally, men prefer women with a “feminine” body shape to those who are obviously over or under weight. However, “the preference for heavier women in some cultures can be explained by socio- ecological features that have an impact on fecundity” (Turner, 1999, p.4). For example, preferring a fatter to a normal weight wife in an area subject to food shortage might result in a mate with lower fertility, but this may be more than offset by having a greater chance of successful gestation and period of lactation. In this sort of case, such a choice would be adaptive. These sorts of inescapable biological preferences are more suited to the Stone Age than the Information Age. Moving past such basic instincts, there is more to attraction than just the bodily aspects. There are several factors to attraction that are unrelated to the physical. Although they play an important role- physical attributes are clearly not the only factor in creating attraction. The feeling of safety that comes from interaction and familiarity (proximity), shared interests and morals (similarity), the sense of genuine trust and closeness achieved in communication (intimacy), and the feeling of appreciation and value (exchange) help explain why 90% of the population gets married (Mestel, 1999), despite genetic imperfections. Today humans rely on other methods of assessing prospective partner’s relationship and parenting skills, as well as their genes. A man can’t just walk up to a woman and say: “not only am I extremely symmetrical and muscular, I also earn $200,000 a year and am the vice president of a multi-million dollar corporation”. This explains the process of dating, wherein two people who have mutual physically attraction create the opportunity to evaluate one another’s personalities, participating in exchange, gaining intimacy and determining similarity (Morris and Maisto, 1999). Although much literature exists on the subject of the evolutionary basis for attraction, it is difficult to locate sources discussing the importance of other factors. There are sources on interpersonal attraction, but many do not relate to this study, which is concerned with the reasons for romantic attraction. Of all the sources, PSY100’s textbook provided the most insight on that subject. Furthermore, sources discussing women’s selection of males are more difficult to locate than on male’s selection of females, indicating perhaps a gender bias in the field. All sources used concentrated primarily on the male aspects. The readings are very appealing because they relate to everyone universally in lend insight into humanity’s past. Another interesting thing to note is the high level of continuity between sources regarding the evolutionary aspects of attraction. Despite all our outward pretenses, I believe that deep down, humans still follow their primal instincts over all rational. Men still feel the urge to spread their genes over as large a group as possible (hence men who sleep around are culturally acceptable), and prefer youth and attractiveness over other traits, whereas women look for a high earning capacity, ambitiousness, industriousness (the ability to provide) in their long term mates. Our human weakness for biological quality causes no end of pain and injustice. We attribute good moral qualities and health to those we are attracted to, even though they may not deserve this credit. Even children show this biological preference for beauty; in a study done in the late 80’s, Judith Langlois found that babies would stare at pictures of highly symmetrical women longer than those of unsymmetrical ones (Cowley and Spriger, 1996). It is fascinating to research the reasons behind why we experience the reactions we do to people of the opposite sex; why when we walk into a party we immediately know to whom we are attracted. Attraction plays an enormous role throughout our lives, and is therefore an important subject to study. Ironically, although today we have the pretense of being politically correct (beauty is only skin deep), physical beauty has been raised to a level of idolatry by our media. We spend more money trying to make ourselves attractive to the opposite sex than ever. Although we have made many steps forward in science and technology, human obsession with attractiveness forever remains the same, through all cultures and all time. It is, however, reassuring to note that there are other factors that play in the process, although the importance of the physical remains lurking in the background. There is so much more to attraction than appears at first glance, every bit of it a part of us. I feel this paper is very useful and wish that I had more time to further research and experiment with it. There are many opportunities and ideas open to study in this area. I would like to become a part of such a captivating and eye- opening field, and hope that my paper will inspire others to as well. Bibliography: Works Cited Cowley, Geofery and Karen Spriger (6/03/1996). “The Biology of Beauty” Newsweek, Vol. 127, Issue 23, p. 60- 65 Diamond, Jared (12/1996). “The Best Ways to Sell Sex” Discover, , Vol.17, Issue 12, p. 78- 93 Hotenski, Roberta (07/05/1999). “Playing the Mating Game” US News and World Report, Vol. 127, Issue 1, p. 56 Kalick et. al (02/07/1998), “Blinded By Beauty” Science News, Vol. 153, Issue 6, p.91 Mestel, Rosie (Nov/Dec 1999). “What’s So Great About 36- 24- 66?” Health, Vol.13, Issue 9, p. 84-87 Morris, Charles G. and Albert A. Maisto (1999), Psychology, an Introduction (10th Edition), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, p.584- 586 Turner, Stuart (06- July-1999). “Physical Attractiveness Primer” Internet Source. (www.dur.ac.uk) Webster’s Dictionary (1995), Lexicon Publications, Inc. Danburry. Word Count: 2399
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests