DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
Discoblog
« NCBI ROFL: How touching gets people to do your bidding.
Weird App Morphs Music to Match the Picture on Your iPhone »

NCBI ROFL: Germans prefer looks over wallet size.

Results of an explorative empirical study on human mating in Germany: handsome men, not high-status men, succeed in courtship.

“Recent research on human mating depicts men as searching for physical attractiveness (PA) and women as searching for status. To identify the mechanisms which lead to universal, biologically interpretable structures in social processes, we focused on the proximate causes for inter- and intrasexual differences in human mating preferences, attraction, and tactics.We collected data on 180 young singles (mean age 26.9 years) without a steady relationship. A questionnaire and a video sequence (20-30 seconds) of each subject was taken. Next, each video sequence was rated by approximately 20 individuals of the opposite sex, who also participated in this study. Surprisingly, the answers given by male and female subjects regarding sociosexual behaviour and mating preferences are predominantly congruent. Sex differences among preferences for good looking and high-status partners were small or even insignificant. Lower educated subjects had considerably higher status preferences than higher educated individuals. In both sexes, PA was much more preferred in a potential partner than status. For both sexes, physical appearance was decisive for the subject’s dating attractiveness. Male, but not female dating attractiveness also correlates with a kind and charismatic appearance. Furthermore, there was a positive linear relationship between men’s PA and their number of sexual partners within the last year. Men with more than four sexual partners were all above-average in PA, while the most attractive women had a medium number of sexual partners. However, in this respect, status had no influence. The results show that sex differences in mating are more complex than hitherto assumed.”

Photo: flickr/momentcaptured1

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Surprise! Men vote for the hotter female candidate.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership on both sex attractiveness ratings.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Beauty week: Do hotter men have better semen?

WTF is NCBI ROFL? Read our FAQ!

Share

March 17th, 2011 7:00 PM by ncbi rofl in analysis taken too far, holy correlation batman!, NCBI ROFL | 0 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >





    • About the Blog

      Discoblog is DISCOVER's compendium of quirky, funny, and surprising science news from the edge of the known universe. It's written by Veronique Greenwood and Valerie Ross. Email tips and suggestions to vgreenwood [at] discovermagazine [dot] com.

      Discoblog also includes the daily feature NCBI ROFL, in which two prone-to-distraction grad students post real scientific articles with funny subjects. Email your tips to ncbirofl [at] gmail.com. Follow the ROFL feed here.

    • Twitter

      Follow @discovermag
    • Facebook

    • Twidget

      Add Tweets
    • Archives

      Archives

      • May 2012
      • April 2012
      • March 2012
      • February 2012
      • January 2012
      • December 2011
      • November 2011
      • October 2011
      • September 2011
      • August 2011
      • July 2011
      • June 2011
      • May 2011
      • April 2011
      • March 2011
      • February 2011
      • January 2011
      • December 2010
      • November 2010
      • October 2010
      • September 2010
      • August 2010
      • July 2010
      • June 2010
      • May 2010
      • April 2010
      • March 2010
      • February 2010
      • January 2010
      • December 2009
      • November 2009
      • October 2009
      • September 2009
      • August 2009
      • July 2009
      • June 2009
      • May 2009
      • April 2009
      • March 2009
      • February 2009
      • January 2009
      • December 2008
      • November 2008
      • October 2008
      • September 2008
      • August 2008
      • July 2008
      • June 2008
      • May 2008
      • April 2008
      • March 2008
      • February 2008
      • January 2008
      • December 2007
      • November 2007
      • October 2007
      • September 2007
      • August 2007
      • July 2007
      • June 2007
      • May 2007
      • April 2007
      • February 2007
      • January 2007
      • December 2006
      • November 2006
      • October 2006
      • September 2006


  • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

    Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us