Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kl59c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T13:51:05.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Context matters for attractiveness bias

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2017

Juwon Lee ,
Glenn Adams ,
Yexin Jessica Li  and
Omri Gillath
Juwon Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045 lee@ku.edu adamsg@ku.edu ogillath@ku.edu https://psych.ku.edu/glenn-adams https://gillab.ku.edu/
Glenn Adams
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045 lee@ku.edu adamsg@ku.edu ogillath@ku.edu https://psych.ku.edu/glenn-adams https://gillab.ku.edu/
Yexin Jessica Li
Affiliation:
School of Business, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045 jessica.li@ku.edu
Omri Gillath
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045 lee@ku.edu adamsg@ku.edu ogillath@ku.edu https://psych.ku.edu/glenn-adams https://gillab.ku.edu/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To fully understand the attractiveness bias, we propose that contextual factors or affordances should be integrated into the mating-based evolutionary account of Maestripieri et al. We review examples highlighting the role of contextual factors in the perception of attractiveness and in attractiveness bias. These suggest contextual factors differentially afford the development of preference for attractive others into observed habits of mind.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e33
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, S. L., Adams, G. & Plaut, V. C. (2008) The cultural grounding of personal relationship: The importance of attractiveness in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95(2):352–68.Google Scholar
Ariely, D. & Loewenstein, G. (2006) The heat of the moment: The effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 19:87–98.Google Scholar
Baym, N. K. (2015) Personal connections in the digital age. Wiley.Google Scholar
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Crawford, J. R., Welling, L. L. M. & Little, A. C. (2010) The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: Cross-cultural variation in women's preferences for masculinized male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 277:2405–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Dutta, S., Geiger, T. & Lanvin, B. (2015) The global information technology report 2015. World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P. (1991) Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of social relations; Communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, market pricing. Free Press.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W. & Buss, D. M. (1993) Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology 14:89–96.Google Scholar
Lee, A. J. & Zietsch, B. P. (2011) Experimental evidence that women's mate preferences are directly influenced by cues of pathogen prevalence and resource scarcity. Biology Letters 7:892–95.Google Scholar
Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M. & Jones, B. C. (2010) Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 278:2032–39.Google Scholar
Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Rouby, D. A. & Miller, S. L. (2007b) Can't take my eyes off you: Attentional adhesion to mates and rivals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93(3):389–401.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. L., Berkman, E. T., Karremans, J. C. & Lieberman, M. D. (2011) Incidental regulation of attraction: The neural basis of the derogation of attractive alternatives in romantic relationships. Cognition and Emotion 25:490–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, S. L., Prokosch, M. L. & Maner, J. K. (2012) Relationship maintenance and biases on the line bisection task: Attractive alternatives, asymmetrical cortical activity, and approach–avoidance motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48:566–69.Google Scholar
Plaut, V. C., Adams, G. & Anderson, S. L. (2009) Does attractiveness buy happiness? “It depends on where you're from.” Personal Relationships 16:619–30.Google Scholar
Watkins, C. D., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M. & Feinberg, D. R. (2012) Cues to the sex ratio of the local population influence women's preferences for facial symmetry. Animal Behaviour 83:545–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar