Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Attending to Social Information: What Makes Men Less Desirable

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Sexuality & Culture Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mate copying is a type of social influence whereby the desirability of a potential mate is modified as a result of being romantically chosen by an opposite-sex other. While research into mate copying typically focuses on how an individual’s desirability can be raised by having a previous partner, it can also be lowered. Here we present two studies that look at how a previous partner can influence how one is romantically perceived. Study 1 presented women (N = 103) with profiles of men alongside mate-relevant information offered by the former partners of the men, and had them rate the long-term desirability of the featured men. Using a similar methodology, Study 2 (N = 284) varied who was providing the information. Study 1 found that a man’s perceived desirability is lowered when a previous partner offers negative information about the relationship. Study 2 found that a man’s perceived romantic desirability can be lowered depending on who his previous partner was and how long they were romantically associated for. It was concluded that relationship decisions about a prospective romantic partner are influenced by both implicit and explicit information provided by their former partners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data for this research can be accessed at https://osf.io/rt29v/?view_only=b68108d6c99242e28fb782d5769bcd9b

References

  • Anderson, R. C., & Surbey, M. K. (2014). I want what she’s having: Evidence for human mate copying. Human Nature, 25(3), 342–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., & Surbey, M. K. (2020). Human mate copying as a form of nonindependent mate selection: Findings and considerations. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 14(2), 173–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(5), 395–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleske, A. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Poaching, promiscuity, and deceit: Combatting mating rivalry in same-sex friendships. Personal Relationships, 8(4), 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, C., Gruendl, M., Marberger, C. & Scherber, C. (2001). Beautycheck: causes and consequences of human facial attractiveness [Summary]. Available online at http://www.uniregensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_Fak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/zusammen/zusammen1.htm

  • Bressan, P., & Stranieri, D. (2008). The best men are (not always) already taken: Female preference for single versus attached males depends on conception risk. Psychological Science, 19(2), 145–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. R., & Fawcett, T. W. (2005). Sexual selection: Copycat mating in birds. Current Biology, 15(16), 626–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. . Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu, S. (2012). I like who you like, but only if I like you: Female character affects mate-choice copying. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(6), 691–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cioffi, J. (2000). Nurses’ experiences of making decisions to call emergency assistance to their patients. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(1), 108–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cubitt, R. P., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (1998). Dynamic choice and the common ratio effect: An experimental investigation. Economic Journal, 108(450), 1362–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGue, S., & DiLillo, D. (2004). Understanding perpetrators of nonphysical sexual coercion: Characteristics of those who cross the line. Violence and Victims, 19(6), 673–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Digelidis, N., Papaioannou, A., Laparidis, K., & Christodoulidis, T. (2003). A one-year intervention in 7th grade physical education classes aiming to change motivational climate and attitudes towards exercise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4(3), 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dines, G., & Humez, J. M. (Eds.). (2003). Gender, race and class in media: A text-reader. (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eva, K. W., & Wood, T. J. (2006). Are all the taken men good? An indirect examination of mate-choice copying in humans. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 175(12), 1573–1574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, M., Cox, A., Tran, U. S., Hoben, A., Geher, G., Arrabaca, A., Chaize, C., Dietrich, R., & Voracek, M. (2009). Impact of relational proximity on distress from infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(4), 560–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadoua, S. P., & Larson, V. (2014). The new I do: Reshaping marriage for skeptics, realists, and rebels. . Seal Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galef, B. G., & Laland, K. N. (2005). Social learning in animals: Empirical studies and theoretical models. BioScience, 55(6), 489–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(2), 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gangestad, S. W., & Scheyd, G. J. (2005). The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 523–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 499–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grob, B., Knapp, L. A., Martin, R. D., & Anzenberger, G. (1998). The major histocompatibility complex and mate choice: Inbreeding avoidance and selection of good genes. Experimental and Clinical Immunogenetics, 15(3), 119–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R. (2001). Problems for judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 653–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horne, C. (2001). The enforcement of norms: Group cohesion and meta-norms. Social Psychology Quarterly, 64(3), 253–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonason, P. K., Raulston, T., & Rotolo, A. (2012). More than just a pretty face and a hot body: Multiple cues in mate-choice. Journal of Social Psychology, 152(2), 174–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinley, T. R., Josiam, B. M., & Lockett, F. (2010). Shopping behavior and the involvement construct. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 14(4), 562–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koranyi, N., Gast, A., & Rothermund, K. (2013). “Although quite nice, i was somehow not attracted by that person”: Attitudes toward romantically committed opposite-sex others are immune to positive evaluative conditioning. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(4), 403–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 468–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Caldwell, C. A. (2008). Social influence in human face preference: Men and women are influenced more for long-term than short-term attractiveness decisions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(2), 140–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, A. C., Caldwell, C. A., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Effects of partner beauty on opposite-sex attractiveness judgments. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 1119–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, A., Jones, B., Penton-Voak, I., Burt, D., & Perrett, D. (2002). Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 269(1496), 1095–1100.

  • Lundqvist, D., Flykt, A., & Öhman, A. (1998). The Karolinska directed emotional faces—KDEF. . CD ROM from Department of Clinical Neuroscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Delton, A. W., Hofer, B., Wilbur, C. J., & Neuberg, S. L. (2003). Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marti, S., & Garcia-Molina, H. (2006). Taxonomy of trust: Categorizing P2P reputation systems. Computer Networks, 50(4), 472–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, K. L., Putallaz, M., Grimes, C. L., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Coie, J. D. (2007). Girl talk: Gossip, friendship, and sociometric status. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 53(3), 381–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muir, E. H., & Ogden, J. (2001). Consultations involving people with congenital disabilities: Factors that help or hinder giving care. Family Practice, 18(4), 419–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hagen, S., Johnson, A., Lardi, G., & Keenan, J. P. (2003). The effect of relationship status on perceived attractiveness. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 31(3), 291–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ober, C., Weitkamp, L. R., Cox, N., Dytch, H., Kostyu, D., & Elias, S. (1997). HLA and mate choice in humans. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 61(3), 497–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostaszewski, P., & Osiński, J. T. (2011). Social discounting of monetary rewards. European Psychologist, 16(3), 220–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J., & Burkley, M. (2009). Who’s chasing whom? The impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 1016–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlowski, B., & Jasienska, G. (2005). Women’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in height depend on menstrual cycle phase and expected duration of relationship. Biological Psychology, 70(1), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penton-Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Burt, D. M., Tiddeman, B. P., & Perrett, D. I. (2003). Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117(3), 264–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Place, S. S., Todd, P. M., Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2010). Humans show mate copying after observing real mate choices. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 320–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polikar, R. (2006). Ensemble based systems in decision making. Circuits and Systems Magazine, IEEE, 6(3), 21–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 918–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2012). When family considerations influence work decisions: Decision-making processes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(3), 322–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodeheffer, C. D., Proffitt Leyva, R. P., & Hill, S. E. (2016). Attractive female romantic partners provide a proxy for unobservable male qualities: The when and why behind human female mate choice copying. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(2), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and social psychology review, 5(4), 296–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scammell, E., & Anderson, R. C. (2020). Female mate copying: Measuring the effect of mate-relevant information provided by former partners. Evolutionary Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-020-00239-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheib, J. E. (2001). Context-specific mate choice criteria: Women’s trade-offs in the context of long-term and extra-pair mateships. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 8(4), 371–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 894–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepher, J. (1971). Mate selection among second generation kibbutz adolescents and adults: Incest avoidance and negative imprinting. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1(4), 293–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, D. (2002). Female mate value at a glance: Relationship of waist-to-hip ratio to health, fecundity and attractiveness. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23(Suppl. 4), 81–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, A., & Townsend, E. (2006). Examining consumer behavior toward genetically modified (GM) food in Britain. Risk Analysis, 26(3), 657–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugiyama, L. S. (2004). Is beauty in the context-sensitive adaptations of the beholder? Shiwiar use of waist-to-hip ratio in assessments of female mate value. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(1), 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In P. R. Abramson & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual nature, sexual culture. (pp. 80–118). University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R., & Grammer, K. (1999). The body and face of woman: One ornament that signals quality? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(2), 105–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thye, S. R., Yoon, J., & Lawler, E. J. (2002). The theory of relational cohesion: Review of a research program. In S. R. Thye & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Advances in group processes. (pp. 217–244). Emerald Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971. (pp. 136–207). Aldine Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uller, T., & Johansson, C. (2003). Human mate choice and the wedding ring effect: Are married men more attractive? Human Nature, 14(3), 267–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakirtzis, A. (2011). Mate choice copying and nonindependent mate choice: A critical review. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 48(2), 91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakirtzis, A., & Roberts, S. C. (2009). Mate choice copying and mate quality bias: Different processes, different species. Behavioral Ecology, 20(4), 908–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakirtzis, A., & Roberts, S. C. (2010). Mate quality bias: Sex differences in humans. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 47(2), 149–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vakirtzis, A., & Roberts, S. C. (2012). Do women really like taken men? Results from a large questionnaire study. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6(1), 50–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waynforth, D. (2007). Mate choice copying in humans. Human Nature, 18(3), 264–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W. (1993). Evolved gender differences in mate preferences: Evidence from personal advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(5), 331–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yorzinski, J. L., & Platt, M. L. (2010). Same-sex gaze attraction influences mate-choice copying in humans. PlosOne, 5(2), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Dr. Michele Surbey for her efforts in assisting with this study. I would like to acknowledge, and dedicate this paper to the late David Mitchell. This research would not have been possible without his exceptional support. His wisdom, understanding, and prudent advice encouraged the genesis of this study and allowed for the ultimate completion of the final draft of this manuscript some time later. His efforts have inspired generations of investigative minds, and we are all better scientists for it.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, College of Healthcare Sciences, James Cook University, 1 University Drive, Douglas, QLD, 4814, Australia

    Ryan C. Anderson

Authors
  1. Ryan C. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by RA. The first draft of the manuscript was written by RA and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan C. Anderson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The studies described herein each received ethical approval from the James Cook University Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number H5858 (Study 1), and H7320 (Study 2)).

Consent to Participate

All participants in these studies willingly consented to participate in this research (see above).

Consent for Publication

As the sole author of this manuscript I hereby consent for it to be published.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anderson, R.C. Attending to Social Information: What Makes Men Less Desirable. Sexuality & Culture 25, 1946–1965 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09858-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09858-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation