Female Self-Sexualization Covaries with Mate Value but Not Mate Availability

Abstract

Objective

An array of literature spanning economics, sociology, biology, and psychology suggests that the availability of romantic partners has profound consequences for individuals and the societies in which they live. Here we build on this growing body of research to understand how variation in mate availability—operationalized via experimental imbalances in the ratio of men to women (the sex ratio)—affect women’s willingness to enhance their physical and sexual attractiveness to men.

Methods

Using a series of three treatments, with four replicate stimuli nested within each treatment conditions, we experimentally manipulated the sex ratio of the dating environment for 334 women, giving them the impression that romantic partners were either abundant, scarce, or balanced relative to competitors. We measured women’s satisfaction with their body image, their interest in enhancing their sexual attractiveness to men, their acceptance of cosmetic surgery, and their overall belief that they were a high-quality romantic partner (their mate value; a potential moderator of the sex ratio effect).

Results

Contrary to expectations, we found no evidence that sex ratios affected women’s enhancement of their physical and sexual attractiveness, but we did find that individual differences in mate value robustly covaried with all three outcome variables.

Conclusions

Results raise the possibility that female self-sexualization does not covary with the relative availability of mates, but that it is reliably associated with individual differences in mate value.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

References

  1. Adimora, A. A., Schoenbach, V. J., Taylor, E. M., Khan, M. R., Schwartz, R. J., & Miller, W. C. (2013). Sex ratio, poverty, and concurrent partnerships among men and women in the United States: A multilevel analysis. Annals of Epidemiology, 23(11), 716–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allen, J., & Gervais, S. . (2012). The drive to be sexy: Prejudice and core motivations in women’s self-sexualization. In Psychology of prejudice: Interdisciplinary perspectives on contemporary issues2 (pp. 77–112). Nova science publishers. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287367345_The_drive_to_be_sexy_Prejudice_and_core_motivations_in_women’s_self-sexualization

  3. Arnocky, S. (2018). Self-perceived mate value, facial attractiveness, and mate preferences: Do desirable men want it all? Evolutionary Psychology, 16(1), 147470491876327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704918763271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arnocky, S., & Piché, T. (2014). Cosmetic surgery as Intrasexual competition : The mediating role of social cosmetic surgery as Intrasexual competition : The mediating role of social comparison. Psychology, 5, 1197–1205. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.510132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Arnocky, S., Sunderani, S., Miller, J. L., & Vaillancourt, T. (2012). Jealousy mediates the relationship between attractiveness comparison and females’ indirect aggression. Personal Relationships, 19(2), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01362.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Arnocky, S., Ribout, A., Mirza, R. S., & Knack, J. M. (2014). Perceived mate availability influences intrasexual competition, jealousy and mate-guarding behavior. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.12.2014.1.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Arnocky, S., Perilloux, C., Cloud, J. M., Bird, B. M., & Thomas, K. (2016). Envy mediates the link between social comparison and appearance enhancement in women. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2(2), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-015-0037-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Atari, M., Barbaro, N., Sela, Y., Shackelford, T. K., & Chegeni, R. (2017). Consideration of cosmetic surgery as part of women’s benefit-provisioning mate retention strategy. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Attwood, F. (2006). Sexed up: Theorizing the Sexualization of culture. Sexualities, 9(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706053336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Balshine-Earn, S. (1996). Reproductive rates, operational sex ratios and mate choice in St. Peter’s fish. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 39(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Barber, N. (1999). Women’s dress fashions as a function of reproductive strategy. Sex Roles, 40(5–6), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018823727012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Baumgardner, J., & Richards, A. (2004). Feminism and femininity: Or how we learned to stop worrying and love the thong. In A. Harris (Ed.), e Girl: Culture, Power and Identity (pp. 59–67). Routledge.

  13. Berggren, N., Jordahl, H., & Poutvaara, P. (2017). The right look: Conservative politicians look better and voters reward it. Journal of Public Economics, 146(5383), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.12.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Blake, K. R., & Brooks, R. C. (2018). High mate value men become more accepting of intimate partner abuse when primed with gender equality. Frontiers in Sociology, 3, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2018.00028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Blake, K. R., Bastian, B., Denson, T. F., Grosjean, P., & Brooks, R. C. (2018). Income inequality not gender inequality positively covaries with female sexualization on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(35), 8722–8727. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1717959115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Brase, G. L., & Guy, E. C. (2004). The demographics of mate value and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(2), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00117-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Buss, D. M. (1988a). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 291–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Buss, D. M. (1988b). The evolution of human Intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 616–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cash, T. F., Fleming, E. C., Alindogan, J., Steadman, L. & Whitehead, A. (2002). Beyond body image as a trait: the development and validation of the body image states scale. Eating Disorders, 10(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10640260290081678.

  21. Campbell, A. (2006). Feminism and evolutionary psychology. In J. H. Barkow (Ed.), Missing the revolution: Darwinism for social scientists. Oxford University Press.

  22. Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S. C. (2019). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in Data Quality and the Impact on Study Results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149.

  23. Choi, D., & DeLong, M. (2019). Defining female self Sexualization for the twenty-first century. Sexuality & Culture., 23, 1350–1371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09617-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Cantú, S. M., & Tybur, J. M. (2012). Sex ratio and women’s career choice: Does a scarcity of men lead women to choose briefcase over baby? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2014). The mate value scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2014.02.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Emlen, S. T., & Oring, L. W. (1977). Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science (New York, N.Y.), 197(4300), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.327542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., & Matthews, J. (2007). Speed-dating as an invaluable tool for studying romantic attraction: A methodological primer. Personal Relationships, 14(1), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00146.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fisher, M., & Cox, A. (2011). Four strategies used during intrasexual competition for mates. Personal Relationships, 18(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01307.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fisher, M., Cox, A., Bennett, S., & Gavric, D. (2008). Components of self-perceived mate value. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding Women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fromhage, L., & Jennions, M. D. (2016). Coevolution of parental investment and sexually selected traits drives sex-role divergence. Nature Communications, 7(1), 12517. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fussell, N. J., & Stollery, B. T. (2012). Between-sex differences in romantic jealousy: Substance or spin? A qualitative analysis. Evolutionary Psychology: An International Journal of Evolutionary Approaches to Psychology and Behavior, 10(1), 136–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gill, R. (2012). The Sexualisation of culture? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(7), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00433.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Too many women? : The sex ratio question. Sage Publications.

  35. Gwynne, D. T., & Simmons, L. W. (1990). Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect. Nature, 346(6280), 172–174. https://doi.org/10.1038/346172a0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Henderson-King, D., & Henderson-King, E. (2005). Acceptance of cosmetic surgery: Scale development and validation. Body Image, 2(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hill, S. E., & Durante, K. M. (2011). Courtship, competition, and the pursuit of attractiveness: Mating goals facilitate health-related risk taking and strategic risk suppression in women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(3), 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210395603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kandrik, M., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2015). Scarcity of female mates predicts regional variation in men’s and women’s sociosexual orientation across US states. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(3), 206–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Karsay, K., Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2018). Sexualizing media use and self-objectification: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317743019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kokko, H., & Jennions, M. D. (2008). Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21(4), 919–948. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01540.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., & Ramsey, L. R. (2011). Empowering or oppressing? Development and exploration of the enjoyment of Sexualization scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210386119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Maestripieri, D., Henry, A., & Nickels, N. (2017). Explaining financial and prosocial biases in favor of attractive people: Interdisciplinary perspectives from economics, social psychology, and evolutionary psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40(19). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16000340.

  43. Mills, S. C., & Reynolds, J. D. (2003). Operational sex ratio and alternative reproductive behaviours in the European bitterling, Rhodeus sericeus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 54(2), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-003-0616-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ostroff, C. (1993). Comparing correlations based on individual-level and aggregated data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Peterson, Z. D. (2010). What is sexual empowerment? A multidimensional and process-oriented approach to adolescent girls’sexual empowerment. Sex Roles, 62(5–6), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9725-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pollet, T. V., & Nettle, D. (2009). Market forces affect patterns of polygyny in Uganda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(7), 2114–2117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810016106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Pollet, T. V., Tybur, J. M., Frankenhuis, W. E., & Rickard, I. J. (2014). What can cross-cultural correlations teach us about human nature? Human Nature, 25(3), 410–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-014-9206-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pröhl, H. (2005). Clutch loss affects the operational sex ratio in the strawberry poison frog Dendrobates pumilio. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 58(3), 310–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-005-0915-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ramsey, L. R., & Marotta, J. A. (2017). Sexualized, objectified, but not satisfied. Enjoying sexualization relates to lower relationship satisfaction through perceived partner-objectification., 34(2), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516631157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rosvall, K. A. (2011). Intrasexual competition in females: Evidence for sexual selection? Behavioral Ecology : Official Journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology, 22(6), 1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Santelli, J. S., Lowry, R., Brener, N. D., & Robin, L. (2000). The association of sexual behaviors with socioeconomic status, family structure, and race/ethnicity among US adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 90(10), 1582–1588. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.90.10.1582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sarwer, D. B., Wadden, T. A., Pertschuk, M. J., & Whitaker, L. A. (1998). Body image dissatisfaction and body dysmorphic disorder in 100 cosmetic surgery patients. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 101(6), 1644–1649. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199805000-00035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Schacht, R., & Mulder, M. B. (2015). Sex ratio effects on reproductive strategies in humans. Royal Society Open Science, 2. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.140402.

  54. Schacht, R., Kramer, K. L., Székely, T., & Kappeler, P. M. (2017). Adult sex ratios and reproductive strategies: A critical re-examination of sex differences in human and animal societies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 372(1729), 20160309. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Angleitner, A., Ault, L., Austers, I., Bennett, K. L., Bianchi, G., Boholst, F., Borg Cunen, M. A., Braeckman, J., Brainerd, E. G., Caral, L. G. A., Caron, G., Martina Casullo, M., Cunningham, M., Daibo, I., De Backer, C., De Souza, E., et al. (2004). Patterns and universals of mate poaching across 53 nations: The effects of sex, culture, and personality on romantically attracting another Person’s partner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 560–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Smolak, L., Murnen, S. K., & Myers, T. A. (2014). Sexualizing the self: What college women and men think about and do to be sexy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314524168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Stone, E. (2017). Do women compete for mates when men are scarce ?: Sex ratio imbalances and Women’s mate competition. The Oxford Handbook of Women and Competition, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199376377.013.16.

  58. Uecker, J. E., & Regnerus, M. D. (2010). Bare market: Campus sex ratios, romantic relationships, and sexual behavior. The Sociological Quarterly, 51(3), 408–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2010.01177.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Weir, L. K., Grant, J. W. A., & Hutchings, J. A. (2011). The influence of operational sex ratio on the intensity of competition for mates. The American Naturalist, 177(2), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1086/657918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wolff, H., Chong, H., & Auffhammer, M. (2011). Classification, detection and consequences of data error: Evidence from the human development index. Economic Journal, 121(553), 843–870. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2010.02408.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Yatsenko, B. O. (2014). How do I look ? The impact of compliments on self-perceived attractiveness. Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse, 5(2013), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Yost, M. R., & McCarthy, L. (2012). Girls Gone Wild? Heterosexual women’s Same-Sex Encounters at College Parties. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684311414818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Anish Sharma and Gabriela Cavaler da Silva for help with methods and data collection.

Funding

This study was funded by in part by Australian Research Council Discovery Grant (DP160100459).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lindsie C. Arthur.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Lindsie Arthur declares that she has no conflict of interest. Robert Brooks declares that he has no conflict of interest. Khandis Blake declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Open Source Framework – Data Repository Link https://osf.io/px9q2/

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 185 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arthur, L.C., Brooks, R.C. & Blake, K.R. Female Self-Sexualization Covaries with Mate Value but Not Mate Availability. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology 6, 277–291 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-020-00133-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Sex ratios
  • Mating competition
  • Mate vale
  • Self-sexualization