Women rated stronger men as more attractive than weaker men irrespective of the ecological condition, & had a relatively stronger preference for stronger men for short-term relationships in a resource scarce ecological condition

Women’s Preferences for Strong Men Under Perceived Harsh Versus Safe Ecological Conditions. Ray Garza, Farid Pazhoohi, Jennifer Byrd-Craven. Evolutionary Psychology, July 23, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049211032351

Abstract: Ecological conditions provide information about available resources for one’s environment. In humans, this has been shown to influence reproductive behavior, as individuals may engage in trade-offs between partner quality and investment. For instance, many women may trade-off preferences for men with physical features indicative of social dominance and health over physical features indicative of commitment and investment. The current study explored women’s preferences for formidable men under safe vs. harsh ecological conditions. Across three studies, U.S. university women (N = 1,098) were randomly assigned to a perceived harsh or safe ecological condition. They were asked to rate the attractiveness of men’s body types (i.e., muscular vs. less muscular). Findings revealed that in general, women rated stronger men as more attractive than weaker men irrespective of the ecological condition. Evidence for preference as a function of ecology appeared only when a two-alternative forced-choice task was used (Study 3), but not in rating tasks (Studies 1 and 2). Study 3 showed that women had a relatively stronger preference for stronger men for short-term relationships in a resource scarce ecological condition. This research provides some evidence that perceived ecological conditions can drive women’s preferences for men with enhanced secondary sex characteristics as a function of mating context. These findings are consistent with previous research indicating the importance of physical characteristics in men’s attractiveness, and it adds to the existing literature on ecological factors and mating preferences.

Keywords: formidability, short-term mating, attractiveness, evolutionary psychology, ecology

General Discussion

Results of the current investigation provides evidence for women’s overall preferences for strong men. Across three studies, women were more likely to find stronger men more attractive than weaker men. However, manipulating mating context and ecological conditions were only effective when participants viewed men in pairs using an alternative forced-choice task (2afc) in Study 3, as opposed to viewing men sequentially, in Studies 1 and 2. This discrepancy provides empirical evidence supporting the argument that the judgements of attractiveness might differ according to study task (Jones & Jaeger, 2019), as Likert-type scale responses may be measuring something different compared to forced-choice measures (Bartlett et al., 1960). Accordingly, results of this research suggest that women consider differences in men’s attractiveness under a short and long-term mating contexts and perceived harsh ecology (i.e., resource scarcity), only when making comparisons to other men. This might imply that the priming effect to harsh ecology is small and imaginative resource scarcity do not induce prolonged effects influencing mate preference in women. Such effects might be more meaningful and conspicuous while measuring mate preferences as the result of exposure to an actual ongoing environmental harshness.

Women’s preferences for strong men has been supported by previous research (Braun & Bryan, 2006; Buunk & Dijkstra, 2005; Pazhoohi et al., 2019; Provost et al., 2006, 2008; Sell et al., 2017). Men with strong body types are more likely to be successful in intrasexual competitions (Puts, 2010), secure access to resources (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Sell et al., 2017), and establish relationships with higher social status individuals (Lukaszewski et al., 2015). Additionally, strong body types are reflective of overcoming energetic demands to maintain strength and muscularity, and this may reflect putative good genes to women in mate choice (Sell et al., 2017).

Ecological conditions have been shown to be influential in women’s mate preferences, as women may trade-off indicators of investment for good genetics when in a safe versus harsh environments (Brooks et al., 2011; Dixson et al., 2017; Little et al., 2013; Reeve et al., 2019; Sacco et al., 2015). Overall, the effects of ecological conditions on ratings of attractiveness to men across mating conditions were only significant in Study 3 when an alternative forced-choice task was used. Women were more likely to select stronger men for a short-term relationship under a resource scarce environment. Preferences for masculine men have been shown to be related to ecological harshness (Little et al., 2007, 2013). Others have demonstrated that preferences for good-dad traits (i.e., parental investment, commitment) and not good-genes are associated with resource scarce environments (Lee & Zietsch, 2011). We did not find that women preferred stronger men under a violent ecological condition, as women preferred stronger men in a safe and violent ecology more than in a resource scarce ecology. Research has suggested that women can significantly gain from indirect and direct benefits in violent ecologies through protection and resource acquisition (Puts, 2010). Traits associated with masculinity are beneficial in male hierarchies, particularly in environments with income inequality (Brooks et al., 2011).

The current studies suggest that female mate choice favored strength in males, as women considered strong men more attractive than weak men (Study 1 and 2), and more so when they were presented in pairs (Study 3). These findings are in line with sexual strategies (Buss & Schmitt, 1993) and strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). Mating strategies are highly context dependent, and women may evaluate potential partners for short- or long-term relationships. Additionally, when provided with different ecological scenarios and presented with men in pairs, women may make trade-offs in the evaluation of potential mates. According to this view, women’s mate preferences are contingent upon prevailing environments, such as environments with increased pathogen prevalence or resource scarcity that would have been recurrent in ancestral conditions. This suggests that women may trade off indicators of parental investment and good genetics contingent upon environmental conditions. For instance, in a resource scarce environment, women may prefer stronger men for long-term relationships due to their ability to acquire resources. In Study 3, we found that women preferred the opposite (i.e., masculine over good-dad traits) when considering men under a resource scarce ecology. Were resource scarcity to affect preferences, we would expect this to primarily apply to preferences for long-term, not short-term partners, therefore this finding may not prove robust to replication. It is possible that the current economic outlook (i.e., lockdowns, slow economic growth) during the pandemic may have made resource scarcity more salient in considering stronger men under different mating conditions. Indeed, the resource scarce condition was rated higher on emotional arousal, which warrants further investigation. Our findings are inconsistent with previous research where women considering masculine men in a safe ecology for short-term mating were rated as more attractive (Little et al., 2007, Marcinkowska et al., 2019), and depictions of violence influenced women’s preferences for masculine men (Little et al., 2013). Furthermore, our findings are in direct contrast to Lee and Zietsch (2011) who found that women preferred good-dad traits for a resource scarce environment. Moreover, in line with Snyder et al. (2011), violent manipulations did not affect women’s preferences for stronger men.

The discrepancy between our results and the previous research on facial preference may reflect differences in the way that women rate men’s facial compared to bodily traits. We suggest further research investigate the effect of women’s choice for men’s body form (in combination with and separate from faces) as a function of ecological environments. In our study, ecological vignettes and slides depicting safe and harsh ecologies were used. Although these methods have been effective in demonstrating ecological contingent responses in laboratory settings (Griskevicius et al., 2011; Hill et al., 2013; Little et al., 2007), they did not generate an effect when target stimuli were presented in a sequential format for attractiveness ratings (Studies 1 and 2). Our study also relied on a between-subjects design for mating strategy across ecological conditions. Previous studies (Al-Shawaf et al., 2019; Thomas & Stewart-Williams, 2018) have shown that ecological conditions can affect mating at the strategy level, such as using short- and long-term mating preferences as a within-subjects condition as opposed to a between-subjects condition. Future work may want to consider if women adjust their mating strategy preferences (short-term vs. long-term) when facing a harsh ecology. Furthermore, the reliance of a college-aged sample limits the generalizability of the findings. All women participants were in the age range of 18–20 attending a public state university and were mostly White, with the exception of Study 3 where the inclusion of a larger Hispanic population was used compared to Studies 1 and 2. Although participants did indicate that the ecological manipulations were considered violent, arousing, and influenced their likelihood of being a victim of a crime, they may not captured actual ecological harshness compared to populations living in harsh environments. In Study 2 & 3, the inclusion of an SES measure to capture childhood and adulthood resources availability was used to account for actual ecological harshness. Further, the lack of a control group could limit the interpretability of women in the safe condition. Safeness could have served as a prime to influence women’s mating psychology, and it was shown in Study 3 that women’s preferences for stronger men in a safe ecology was similar to a violent ecology. It is important to use a control group in future work to make more definitive conclusions on the comparison across ecological conditions. The study relied on women only, and the effects of perceived ecology may not reflect women’s mating psychology but human psychology in general. Future work would benefit from making comparisons to both men and women’s perceptions of men’s body types in order to make stronger conclusions on the role of perceived ecology on mate preferences. Finally, it is important to note that the ratings of attractiveness (Study 1 and 2) were at the low end of the spectrum (i.e., closer to unattractive). The results for these studies should be interpreted as differences in relative attractiveness and not an indication of the highest rating of attractiveness. Therefore, we suggest future research look at these effects using a control group examining difference in both men and women’s preferences for men’s body types across perceived ecology.

Conclusion

Men’s physical features connoting strength provides information relating to indirect (i.e., genetic) and direct (i.e., resource acquisition) benefits in mate preferences. Given these cues, women should be sensitive to these physical features and indicate preferences for them, and they should be influenced by their mating strategies and ecological cues. Consistent with the importance of physical cues in mate choice, women preferred strong over weak men, and their preferences for strong men were associated with ecological cues when using an alternative forced-choice task.