Hot or not? Men agree on the answer. Women don’t.
There is much more consensus among men about whom they find attractive than there is among women, according to a new study by Wake Forest University psychologist Dustin Wood.
The study, co-authored by Claudia Brumbaugh of Queens College, appears in the June issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
“Men agree a lot more about who they find attractive and unattractive than women agree about who they find attractive and unattractive,” says Wood, assistant professor of psychology. “This study shows we can quantify the extent to which men agree about which women are attractive and vice versa.”
More than 4,000 participants in the study rated photographs of men and women (ages 18-25) for attractiveness on a 10-point scale ranging from “not at all” to “very.” In exchange for their participation, raters were told what characteristics they found attractive compared with the average person. The raters ranged in age from 18 to more than 70.
Before the participants judged the photographs for attractiveness, the members of the research team rated the images for how seductive, confident, thin, sensitive, stylish, curvaceous (women), muscular (men), traditional, masculine/feminine, classy, well-groomed, or upbeat the people looked.
Breaking out these factors helped the researchers figure out what common characteristics appealed most to women and men.
Men’s judgments of women’s attractiveness were based primarily around physical features and they rated highly those who looked thin and seductive. Most of the men in the study also rated photographs of women who looked confident as more attractive.
As a group, the women rating men showed some preference for thin, muscular subjects, but disagreed on how attractive many men in the study were. Some women gave high attractiveness ratings to the men other women said were not attractive at all.
“As far as we know, this is the first study to investigate whether there are differences in the level of consensus male and female raters have in their attractiveness judgments,” Wood says. “These differences have implications for the different experiences and strategies that could be expected for men and women in the dating marketplace.”
For example, women may encounter less competition from other women for the men they find attractive, he says. Men may need to invest more time and energy in attracting and then guarding their mates from other potential suitors, given that the mates they judge attractive are likely to be found attractive by many other men.
Wood says the study results have implications for eating disorders and how expectations regarding attractiveness affect behavior.
“The study helps explain why women experience stronger norms than men to obtain or maintain certain physical characteristics,” he says. “Women who are trying to impress men are likely to be found much more attractive if they meet certain physical standards, and much less if they don’t. Although men are rated as more attractive by women when they meet these physical appearance standards too, their overall judged attractiveness isn’t as tightly linked to their physical features.”
The age of the participants also played a role in attractiveness ratings. Older participants were more likely to find people attractive if they were smiling.
PDF 
I couldn’t agree more:
“Rating attractiveness: Study finds consensus among men, not women”
Take for instance the “No Such Couple Paradox” – try to find at least one man with effeminate facial features in the whole wide world, who conquered (I demand a long term commitment) a woman with very feminine faces traits. Women differ very much: being handsome is not enough to pick up any women you want. Whereas, in case of men the rule is much simplier: we generally agree on physical attractivenes of rated women. The differences between our opinions become visible when you ask a group of men about their choices for a long term relationship.
The works quoted in my ebook confirm it.
I only disagree with one statement: “… now they can be less choosy”
Nowadays women are exactly as choosy as they were centuries ago – since this attitude is caused by their preferences for certain genes. They disagree on attractiveness rating, because the genes one female is after depend on what genes she lacks herself.
If you are interested I can send a free copy for a review.
Nosuchcouple.com
An informative article but I’d have to disagree with the conclusions having spent some time studying this stuff. While there is general agreement among men on what is ugly most men also have a ‘type’ they like that is not necessarily perfect 10. For example for me, the overly thin blonde type rated a 10 by most is not my type.And the some women are turned off by muscles.
Really like your view. Some real matter’s are discuss in here. Thanks for sharing with us. The information which you have provided in here in utterly important.
__________________________
I agree, fellow human.
/fart
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 6/27/2009, at The Unreligious Right
As the first comment that I’ve read on this page…. I must say on behalf of every other commenter on this page…. touché.
No one reads internet comments except other commenters. You might as well be communicating to each other by scrawling on the inside of a bathroom stall every time you need to squeeze out your waste.
If there is a cute chick near a ugly cock blocker, your wasting your time hitting on the cute one. Some cock blockers condition cute girls to immediately reject a males advances or risk losing the emotional crutch that the cock blocker provides. So make friends with the cock blocker first, then sneak it in the cute one when you have won the cock blocker over. Just be aware the cock blocker will be fighting like hell to break you two up. BTW why isnt cock blocker a medical term? There is indisputable fact that females are cock blockers. How come there are never studies about cock blockers?
I think this goes to show that men have been thoroughly brainwashed by the media and the culture we live in. Thin and seductive? Isn’t that the “ideal” that is shoved down everyone’s throats, (including women which gives us low self esteem.)
On the other hand, women can think for themselves on what they find attractive because we haven’t had the same exposure to a “sexy” prototype chosen by Hollywood.
Or it could be evolutionary and have nothing all to do with Hollywood. Throughout history, a man’s ability to take care of a woman has been a stronger indicator of compatibility than a man’s looks. Men who wield power depend largely on their abilities to get there. The looks of powerful men vary widely, just like the paths to power vary widely. For most of history, however, women did not wield the necessary sorts of power. Thus, for them to get ahead, they had to make themselves desired by those with power (aka. males). Additionally, they had to be less picky about a male’s looks. Hollywood merely takes advantage of the ingrained societal norms already in place. Its “Sexy Prototype”, as you put it, is merely a representation of societal desires.
Too bad the reason anorexic women make up the overwhelming majority of the fashion world is because of women. Men have always asserted that a healthy curvy figure (but not flabby) is the most desirable form. The reason thin is the staple is because super skinny is what women find attractive.
As a guy, I admit, if you are unsure what your ideal weight should be as far as attractiveness to men goes, it’s best to be on the skinny side, than the fat side of things, but that’s because men naturally want a woman who is more petite that he is.
Another obvious point is, man’s overwhelming desire to mate is to reproduce with a physical specimen physical. A female’s overwhelming desire to mate is to find a loving caregiver.
In essence, what the male is attracted to is less complicated, than what a female is attracted to.
sounds like someone’s a fatty
Attractiveness is based upon symmetry. The more symmetrical a person is the healthier. Women’s health is much more important than men’s – they not only have to carry the child for nine months but also provide antibodies, etc. So men will, when not influenced by a negative society/cultural tend to, if they have a choice, select women for symmetry; extremes are shunned.
As for women thinking for themselves: who runs the modeling agencies and the fashion magazines that show the skinny models? Have you seen the reality modeling shows on television lately?
Think for yourself. Don’t just jump to the cliche answer that has been drilled into your head by that very same media you blame.
I think there are even studies that show how women use “peer review” to decide the attractiveness of man. If man has high social status, women agree that he is attractive.
Wow dude, spot on, spot on!
RT
is because the photographs didn’t show the characteristics women find attractive, namely wealth (power) and height.
There was an unscientific pole conducted by a magazine in Britain that I am now unable to find, that asked Men what the most ideal “size” of a women was. Size ranged in height, waist, breast, etc. They then asked Women what they thought was the ideal WOMAN. What they found was that (British) women thought the ideal woman was a lot skinnier than men did. the Man’s ideal was a bit far off from the hollywood “model”, while women were a bit more spot on.
So Men have a consensus… What is it? It’s certainly isn’t a skinny model though…
because women have penis in their heads!
so utterly off base—men are so stuck on the idea that anyone cares what their penis size is . . .
The research in evolutionary psychology goes a little deeper into it than power. The psychology of attractiveness is generally a direct result of the biology of the sexes. Women are the ones who get pregnant and bear children. This means that having a child is a huge investment for them, and they have a limited number of years of fertility, finite number of eggs, and can only (generally) bear one child at a time. They benefit (in the evolutionary sense of reproductive success) by being choosy — looking for a man who has the best indicators for both healthy genes and can acquire resources (wealth, status) to ensure the child will survive, grow up healthy, and reproduce. Thus looks are only a small component. Wealth and status indicators (confidence, talent) are indeed important for good reasons to women.
Since reproductive success drives which genes get passed on, sexual selection is also important. So, as some have pointed out, women also rely on other women to approve of who is attractive because that means any son he has will also be generally attractive to women, which exaggerates that feature until it begins to hinder reproductive success. (The peakcock’s tail is the standard example.)
Men don’t have the same evolutionary pressures. They can have hundreds of children by many different women with little to no investment, at least until the last few decades. They don’t need to get a woman with great genes or one who can acquire resources. If they impregnate a woman with poor genes and the child has little hope of successful reproduction, it only cost them the few minutes they invested. They can impregnate another woman the next night. Men are therefore much less choosy.
Of course there is some risk and costs of impregnating women, particularly health risks from sexual diseases (which is also a factor in the other direction). All other things being equal, men’s reproductive success is maximized by mating with women who appear to be healthy, young (better chance of child survival), don’t have other children (so they can focus on raising this child), and fertile (signs such as flushness and walking gait give such indicators). Or simply put, young, healthy, and clean skin.
That is the “is” side of why we find different things attractive. It’s not an “ought”. These attractions will probably change in coming centuries. Reproductive control is now in the hands of women so they can be less choosy. Child maintenance laws and genetic testing mean men make huge investments (and risks) when they have children now. Men have to be more choosy.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens, but unfortunately evolution occurs over generations so I don’t expect attractors to change much in my lifetime.
What the hell are “flushness” and “walking gait” (from the arrogantly titled “Close but not Quite” post)? The latter sounds more applicable to dog show judging standards.
A woman’s fertility is measured by her hip-to-waist ratio; the optimal ratio is 7 to 10, or 6 to 10.
The age at which a woman begins to menstruate plays a role as well; the later she reached menarche (the beginning of menstruation) the longer in life her eggs will remain fertile, as fertility has more to do with the age of her eggs than with her physical age.
Women gage Men by their Smell (Pheromones).
So early in life they are attracted to Alpha Males.
Once they have kids, they are attracted to Beta Males.
Things like hormones effect that as well as depression.
20 years old are attracted to 40 year old who spew
hormones that make them seem like they are Alpha males.
It is evolutionary.
So there is no mystery. It is just that women are not
going to tell men.
If you study evolution especially E.O. Wilson’s work.
most of these study would unnecessary.
RD