Wang, G., Cao, M., Sauciuvenaite, J., Bissland, R., Hacker, M., Hambly, C. & Speakman, J. R.
(2018). Different impacts of resources on opposite sex ratings of physical attractiveness by males and females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(2), 220-225.
The authors of the article conduct primary research to assess the influence of resources on female and male attractiveness. The report builds on previous research that focuses on the evolution of human mating behavior. The paper begins by looking at the importance of an individual’s economic status and how people employ annual income to determine the suitability of a person as a potential reproductive partner. The paper asserts that throughout human history, female physical attractiveness is associated with traits, such as body shape, fertility, and age. Features including body mass index (BMI), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and body fat percentage play a critical role in determining the physical attractiveness of a female (Wang et al. 2018). Contrastingly, the economic status of man has more significant influence in determining their physical attractiveness. The impact is greater compared to body features, such as upper body muscularity, shoulder-to-weight ratio, and height. The hypothesis is that a higher economic status has a greater ability to offset reduced physical attractiveness in men compared to women.
The article employs the Mate Choice Theory to structure a quantitative analysis that assesses the relationship between annual income and physical attractiveness. One thousand participants were selected from four different cities, namely Austin, Beijing, Aberdeen, and Panevezys (Wang et al. 2018). According to the article, half the men ranked female attractiveness using images that did not contain salary information. The other half determined female attractiveness using images with salary information. The same approach is applied to women. The participants assigned simple weighted scores from 1 to 9 as per their perceptions of a person’s degree of physical attractiveness. It is evident from the start that the authors believe men and women have different approaches in determining and understanding physical attractiveness. Moreover, men and women have different priorities when it comes to a person’s suitability as a mating partner.
The development of the report using past studies increases the credibility of the study. The authors employ variables and assessment criteria that have already been validated by previous researches. One strategic aspect of the study was the random selection of participants from different corners of the globe. The selection process negates any cultural bias in the findings allowing the generalization of facts across all men and women. Another strategic approach was the division of each participant group into two. The differences in the weighted scores between participants whose images had financial information and those that did not have give a clear illustration of the impact of resources on mate suitability. However, the two-dimensional approach does not offer comprehensive information on how resources alter mating behaviors in males and females. Moreover, data such as the amount of annual income usually is not available for people to use in the determination of physical attractiveness.
The article helps streamline the aspects that men and women should focus on while seeking to improve their level of attractiveness. Females, unlike males, do not have to prioritize their economic status because men are not as sensitive to resources. The findings affirm the evolutionary disposition of women judging men on their ability to provide. Given that females are highly susceptible to features that signify the availability of resources, men can effectively increase their chances of mating by raising their annual income. The impact of resources applies even to men with body dissatisfaction. The article helps advance research on behavioral psychology as readers can use the report to help determine the exact areas they need to work on to improve their attractiveness. For instance, obese men do not have to prioritize weight loss compared to overweight women. On the other hand, overweight women do not need to prioritize annual income compared to obese men. The findings of the article underpin the significant behavioral differences associated with mating between men and women.