A Contemporary Study on Heterosexual Attraction

This topic submitted by Denise Kwan and Megan Ansley ( ansleymh@muohio.edu ) on 4/28/06. [ Human Nature Team: Denise Kwan and Megan Ansley-Section: Blaisdell/Feister]

Chapter I

Introduction

Attraction has been around for as long as there has been reproduction and is still completely relevant to todayÕs American society. It is everywhere you look such as magazines, marketing, movies, and everyday life. Although attraction is a predecessor to mating it is an integral part of the process and without it mating would not happen. We hope through this contemporary study of attraction we will be able to understand the Miami student population better. If we study a randomly selected part of Miami students through theory, survey, and video survey, then it will bring us closer to understanding the ethics of American attraction in a collegiate setting.
Attractions between people of the opposite sex have many simple, separate definitions. It can be considered a personal charm, the action or power of drawing forth a response; or, it can also mean the relationship existing between things or persons that are naturally, involuntarily or unconsciously drawn together. Attraction implies the possession of a characteristic that draws the other in. The definitions also imply that attraction could be several various things, but we believe it to be different. Attraction is the combination of all of these theories into one collective definition and more. It is not something simple that can be seen only on the surface or Òdrawing forth a responseÓ, it is deeper than that. It depends on the individuals, circumstances, what people prefer and are looking for in a sexual partner.
It is for this reason we define attraction as always being an initial response. True attraction cannot be developed over time; therefore we claim that it must always be initial attraction. Also, true attraction immediately elicits the want of time with that person and thus inevitably leads to a dating relationship. If this is not the intention, then it is not true human attraction. One of our goals in this project is to test whether the data that we collect agrees with our new definition. Does the data collected show that there is a different definition than what we think?
In order to better understand attraction we also wanted to look at the age old question Òdo opposites attract?Ó Although men and women are already different, they seek Òcounter-partsÓ or someone truly different and distinct from themselves. Some people are attracted to those who possess different qualities from themselves. Others look for those who are more similar to themselves. This question has intrigued people for so long. We hope to gain a better understanding on the topic of attraction and also this important aspect.
For our study we decided to examine the statements Òdo Miami students value relationships where their counterpart is more similar in personality, characteristics, and beliefs or more different?Ó and Òwill the results agree with the age-old thought that opposites attract or will they declare something different?Ó Not only will we examine these questions, we will also search a little deeper into the subject. We want to examine if people choose friends that have similar characteristics to themselves. Do they choose the same way that they do for their relationship counterpart? If they choose similar partners do they choose opposite friends or vice versa?
Along with the original exploration of attraction, we will look at what attracts people to each other in this study. Attraction is present in males and females but it is possible that their opinions on what exactly is attractive differ. An important part of assessing attractiveness is in the facial features. But which part exactly is the most attractive? Do the sexes agree?
As a more specific example of attraction in our society, we will use a special theory that only applies to attractions and friend/sexual relationships. This has been deemed the Ladder Theory and is an interesting look at how relationships function in the American society. The Ladder Theory examines these things in a contemporary manner and allows the two subjects to be examined in the same context (see Chapter II).
In order to make conclusions about the Miami studentsÕ relationships we decided to take our own data. This was completed through a survey that we designed to evaluate our questions (see Methods section and Appendix A). Through our study we hope to be able to better understand the Miami student population. We will examine their regards to attraction in general and what exactly they find attractive about the opposite sex. Also the type of people that they find attractive (similar or opposite) will be considered and whether our definition of attraction holds true. If we are able to better understand this population then maybe eventually we will be able to apply it to other similar society situations and perhaps other Americans in the same age bracket.

Chapter II

Background Information

ÒPhysical attractiveness is the most visible and most easily accessible trait of a person. Physical attractiveness is also a consistently and frequently used informational cue. These facts may be the reason physical attractiveness is so important and its influence so pervasive in the lives of almost every person in todayÕs societyÓ (Patzer, 1985, p. 1). Physical attraction is used to find a mate. Mate preferences are apparent in males and females based upon physical attraction, but is there a difference?
ÒSociobiologists argue that, in humans, physical appearance is more important to the mate preferences of males then to femalesÕ preferences because appearance is a stronger cue to the reproductive potential of males then females. In particular, a femaleÕs reproductive potential is more closely tied to her age and health than is a maleÕs. Therefore, aspects of physical appearance that convey information about age and health- smooth skin, muscle tone, lustrous hair and the like- provide stronger proximate cues to femaleÕs reproductive potential than is the case for malesÓ (Jackson, p. 23). According to Jackson it seems that males prefers females who are physical attractive to them. He does not state whether itÕs an immediate attraction or if this attraction could develop over time.
Agreeing with Jackson, Frumkin says, ÒIt has been suggested that in a wide variety of cultural contexts, physical attractiveness is more critical for females than for males as a determinant of perceived sexuality. Ford and Beach (1951), in their classic cross-cultural study of sexual behaviour, stated that a manÕs sexual attractiveness was largely attributable to Òhis skills and prowessÓ, instead of his appearance per se (p.86), while for a woman sexual attractiveness seemed to be to be defined in terms of physical characteristics, though the particular features valued varied across cultures. Frumkin (1961) too stated that Òstrength and healthÓ rather than Òhandsome featuresÓ seemed to be more important for assessing malesÕ sexual attractiveness (p. 218). Presumably Òmale beauty or handsomeness must be translated into function;Ó i.e. qualities such as courage or strength (Frumkin, 1961, p.218)Ó (Cook, p. 14). This shows that females must be more physically attractive to males in order to attract a mate. However, it is important for males to be sexual attractive in order to attract a mate. They are able to make up what they lack in physical attraction with skills and prowess.
Of all of our research we have found that it is important for males and females to be physically attractive in order to attract mates for sexual selection. We have also found that it is more important for females to be more attractive than males. Much of physical attraction is present in the face. ÒWith rare exceptions has the face not been the primary, if not the only, factor representing physical attractiveness or lack thereofÉThe face is the most frequently used component in the physical attractiveness researchÓ (Patzer, 1985, p. 145). SociobiologyÕs best claim that, Òfrom the time of DarwinÉ sociobiologists have argued that sexual selection is responsible for the greater importance of facial appearance for females than malesÓ (Jackson, p. 121). Part of this is also imbedded in cultural acceptance. People who are more physically attractive have positive results from society. ÒAccording to the sociocultural perspective, the culture values facial attractiveness, and stigmatizes unattractiveness, and even more so for females than for males. Therefore, unattractiveness should have negative societal implications, and attractiveness should have positive societal implications, both of which should be stronger for females than for malesÓ (Jackson, 1992, p. 106). Jackson also points out that those who are not physically attractive will not gain as much from society as someone who is physically attractive. This not only happens in adults but also in children. ÒFacially unattractive adults and children are perceived by others as being more poorly adjusted than are their attractive age matesÓ (Jackson, 1992, p. 121).
There is proof of this in society because Òthere is now considerable support for the matching hypothesis which suggests that, for the most part, both young men and young women choose a heterosexual partner whose level of physical attractiveness is similar to their ownÓ (Cook, 1981, p. 4). So it is favorable for people to find someone who is as equally attractive as them in order for them to be selected as a mate.
The Ladder Theory is based upon many years of sociological field testing. It was first theorized in 1994 in Exeter, CA by Dallas Lynn recognizing Jared Whitson for his active work in developing the theory. The first part of the theory discusses the initial mental rating someone gives a person they meet. Shown in Figure 1, women and men break down their initial mental rating of a person into different categories.

Figure 1. The MenÕs and WomenÕs Rating System of the Ladder Theory

According to the ladder theory women rate men on money and power, attraction, and things women say they care about but donÕt such as intelligence or personality. Men on the other hand are attracted to looks, estimated chance sheÕll put out quickly (or willingness to have sex early in their relationship), and other things such as intelligence, money and power, or personality. As seen in the womenÕs pie chart above, attraction can be broken down into four other categories which can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The WomenÕs Attraction Breakdown

As seen above in the graph the theory suggests that women break down their attraction into further categories of physical attraction, competition, novelty, and other. Physical attraction is the outer appearance of a man, competition is the amount of other women she has to compete with over him, and novelty is things that a man has done in his life to show that he is different from every other guy. Although this is not a scientific study and it is merely a personÕs social observations, there is much evidence to back this up from other researchers.
Women were found to look for money and power in a counter-part. To show this we look to Hamon and Ingoldsby (2003), who say that Òthere is also a tendency for women to marry up and for men to marry down. That is, women seek mates who are a little older, better educated, and of equal or higher social status, where as men prefer companions who are younger, shorter, and of equal or lower social statusÓ (p.12). Women look for men that are generally Òmore,Ó meaning better educated, richer, older, and more experienced in life in general. For men however it appears that they look for the opposite. They want a woman who is Òless,Ó meaning less educated, shorter, younger, less wealthy, and less experienced in life in general.
According to Hamon and Ingoldsby (2003) Ònearly all Americans want to date people who are physically attractive, and so they attempt to make themselves more attractive so as to better competeÓ (p.10). We assume that most of the people both in our study and in the Ladder Theory study were raised in the American culture or have at least had the opportunity to experience it. This can be specifically seen in women in the Ladder Theory. As seen in Figure 2 women value competition and this can be seen an aspect of attraction. Women want what they cannot have and are willing to pursue it. The idea of competition is also shown in Robert WrightÕs The Moral Animal, ÒÉa femaleÕs ideal is to monopolize her dream mateÑsteer his social and material resources towards her offspringÑcompetition with other females is inevitable. (Wright, 1995, p. 63) Wright is stating that in human nature women tend to find men that have money and resources to provide for her offspring. The idea of finding a man with money goes along with the ladder theory portion, where the pie chart shows that fifty percent of attraction for women is money and power. He also talks about competition between women for a man, saying that itÕs human nature for women to compete in order to find the dream mate.
Also it can be noted that women sometimes compete for a man, not for personal gain but to keep other women from obtaining that man. This way they can gain resources such as money and security and also keep these resources from other women. This competition is apparent and according to Jackson (1992) Òintersexual competition involves preferential choices exerted by members of one sex for members of the other sex who possess certain resources, whether material or physicalÓ (p. 27). This competition between women is to gain resources for the individual and possibly for offspring in the long run.
In the observational study (the Ladder Theory) it was seen that men mostly use looks to judge and rate women. This has also been seen in other studies. ÒThis differential emphasis on the significance of physical attractiveness for young women compared to their male peers continues to appear in the literature concerning development in late adolescence and early adulthoodÓ (Cook, 1981, p. 6). It seems that women are aware of this and know that they will get the best or most responses from highlighting their appearance. When placing personal ads ÒÉwomen tend to highlight their physical appearanceÓ (Hamon and Ingoldsby, 2003, p. 11). According to Robert Wright in The Moral Animal, ÒThe importance of youth in a female mate may help explain the extreme male concern with physical attractiveness in a spouseÉÓ (Wright, 1995, p. 65) This relates to the ladder theory, because in the attraction factor males typically rate women on looks. In Figure 1 it can be seen that sixty percent of menÕs ranting system of women is based on looks. ItÕs clear that according to Robert Wright, men typically look for younger women because itÕs deemed to be more physically attractive.
There is much evidence to back up the Ladder Theory and to explain attraction in general. Through a survey we will see if a sample of MiamiÕs student population agrees with the information that we have found. Our definition will be tested as well as the unavoidable issue of whether Òopposites attract.Ó

Chapter III

Methods

In order to understand heterosexual relationships better, we conducted both written surveys and video interviews. The questions in both the surveys and interviews were similar, only differing in the open-endedness of the video interviews. We wanted to investigate the students of Miami UniversityÕs Oxford campus and their views on their own heterosexual relationships. The written surveys were distributed on the Oxford campus in classrooms and dinning halls. We distinguished whether females or males took the surveys by color coding them. Although it might sound slightly clichŽ, we used pink colored paper to identify female responses and we used blue colored paper to identify male responses. We surveyed fifty-two Miami students: twenty-six females and twenty-six males. In the video interviews we interviewed ten Miami students. The survey can be found in Appendix A. In our research we neglected to factor in race but we tried to distribute the written surveys and video interviews as equally as possible. The reason we did not factor in race in this project is because we wanted to focus more on the sexes rather then dividing it into sexes as well as race.
The purpose for question number one and two is to find out whether friendship matters in a relationship, and whether attraction could grow over time. This question also allows us to know whether or not the answers would be different depending on the sex of the person. These questions allow us to assess our definition or attraction. The third question asks if after a dating relationship a friendship between the opposite sexes could exist. The forth, fifth, and sixth questions were asked to better understand whether or not the phrase Òopposite attractsÓ is true, and it also finds out whether it applies to friendships as well as dating relationships. The seventh question applies to the Ladder Theory and it finds out what is the most sexually attracting factor when selecting a member of the opposite sex. The eighth and final question we asked pertains to the importance of facial features and which part of the face appears to be the most important to each sex. It will be interesting to compare male and female responses and see how they differ.

Chapter IV

Results

Our survey yielded numerical results from the fifty-two people questioned. The survey can be found in Appendix A. In this section we will summarize the results and display them in charts and graphs. We also statistically evaluated some of the responses and those results will be discussed as well.

Figure 3. Female Results to Survey Question 1

Figure 3 shows how the females that were surveyed answered question one (Òwould you ever date a friend that you were not initially attracted to?Ó). In lavender/blue the ÒyesÓ responses are illustrated in the pie chart with a percentage of 65.4 percent who replied this way. In pink are the ÒnoÓ responses with 34.6 percent of the females responding this way. It is obvious that more than half of the females replied ÒyesÓ.

Figure 4. Male Results to Survey Question 1

Figure 4 illustrates how the male sample responded to question one. In blue are the ÒyesÓ responses showing that 80.8 percent responded this way. The green piece shows the ÒnoÓ responses that totaled 11.5 percent. Those who did not respond are shown in yellow (7.7 percent). Those who did not respond to this question did so because they have not been in a dating situation before and therefore do not have the knowledge to provide an answer.

Figure 5. Female Results to Survey Question 2
Figure 5 illustrates the female results of question two which was Òhave you ever had a dating relationship where a friend became your boyfriend?Ó In pink are the ÒnoÓ responses totaling 61.5 percent. In lavender/blue are the ÒyesÓ responses (38.5 percent).

Figure 6. Male Results to Survey Question 2

In Figure 6 are the results of question two when posed to the male participants. The majority (65.4 percent) of the males responded ÒyesÓ to the question Òhave you ever had a dating relationship where a friend became your girlfriend?Ó The rest of the males (34.6 percent) said Òno.Ó

Figure 7. Female Results to Survey Question 3

Figure 7 illustrates the female responses to question three: Òhave you ever stayed friends with an ex boyfriend?Ó More than half (61.5 percent) responded ÒyesÓ and only a little more than a quarter responded ÒnoÓ (30.8 percent). Only 7.7 percent did not answer this question due to the fact that they have not dated before and do not have the knowledge to respond.

Figure 8. Male Results to Survey Question 3
Figure 8 shows that an overwhelming amount of males responded ÒyesÓ to the survey question Òhave you ever stayed fiends with an ex girlfriend?Ó Almost three-quarters (73.1 percent) of the males answered Òyes.Ó Of those surveyed 19.2 percent responded ÒnoÓ and 7.7 percent did not answer because they had not had a girlfriend before and therefore had not had the opportunity to stay friends with said person.

Figure 9. Male and Female Results to Survey Question 4a

The results in Figure 9 illustrate the male and female responses to question four a Òare the people you usually date more similar to you (behavior, beliefs, and characteristics) or more opposite?Ó The male and female responses do not differ greatly with the majority answering that their significant other is more similar instead of opposite.

Figure 10. Male and Female Results to Survey Question 4b

Figure 10 shows that no one who participated in the survey answered the question Òare your friends more similar to you (behavior, belief, and characteristics) or more opposite?Ó chose ÒoppositeÓ as their response. The eleven people who did not answer said that they have equal amounts of similar and opposite characteristic possessing friends.

Figure 11. Male and Female Results to Survey Question 5a

Male and female responses are shown in Figure 11 and it is apparent that the answers did not differ significantly between the sexes when responding to the question Òdo you date people that share similar interests, personality traits, and beliefs with you or are they more contradictory?Ó Males and females chose the ÒsimilarÓ answer the most often. The people that were surveyed that did not choose either option do not date or have had relationships with people who were opposite and also with people who are similar.

Figure 12. Male and Female Results to Survey Question 5b

In Figure 12 it is obvious that there were no differences in the responses between males and females when answering the question Òdo your friends share similar interests, personality traits, beliefs with you or are they more contradictory?Ó A large majority of those surveyed answered that most of their friends are ÒsimilarÓ. Those who did not answer have equal amounts of ÒsimilarÓ and ÒoppositeÓ friends.

Figure 13: Male and Female Results to Survey Question 6a

Figure 13 is a combination of male and female responses when asked the question (number six part a) Òhow would you describe how similar your friends are to you?Ó This question was asked in order to compare with how similar or different their dating relationship counterpart was to them. From the figure it is easy to see the differences in male (blue/lavender) and female (pink) answers. Many of the students who were questioned answered that their friends were more similar to themselves than different. Also, it is noticeable that there were not too many differences in the male and female results. They followed the same pattern that was slightly right skewed.

Figure 14: Male and Female Results to Question 6b

Figure 14 also shows the male and female answers side by side but this time the results are of the question (six b) Òhow would you describe how similar your boyfriend/girlfriend are to you?Ó Again the male and female results do not differ too greatly but this time the distribution is almost completely normal and in a bell-shaped curve. The responses are almost normal because the answers fell slightly more to the left then the right but over-all the distribution is nearly normal.

Figure 15: Male and Female Results to Survey Question 7

The results of question seven (Òwhat sexually attracts you most to a person of the opposite sexÓ) are shown in Figure 15. The male and female results again are shown side by side. This data appears to be left skewed with most of the responses falling on personality and physical attractiveness. Personality is highest for the males and females but there are a greater number of males who were not able to answer the question (n/a). During our surveying I found that some people could not answer the question because they could not decide on one thing that was particularly attractive to them. Money and power are definitely the lowest attractive quality to males and females.

Figure 16: Male and Female Results to Survey Question 8

Male and female responses to survey question eight (Òin regards to a person of the opposite sex, what is their most attractive physical facial feature to you?Ó) are displayed in Figure 16. Most people responded with answer ÒaÓ (eyes) or ÒeÓ (overall face). Few people (only three total) responded to the question with answer ÒbÓ (lips), ÒcÓ (bone structure), or ÒdÓ (hair). Those who did not answer the question claimed that they could not decide on one particular attractive feature.
Many of the responses to our questions could be analyzed simply by looking at the numbers expressed through graphs (see Chapter V). However, it was important to compare a few of our results when looking for a difference in male and female responses. The best way to see if there was a difference in male and female answers was to use Chi Squared Tests or Two-Way Contingency Tables. These tests would be able to tell is if there was an association between sex and the way that the person responded. All of the statistical testing was at an alpha level of 0.05 or ninety-five percent.
One of the questions that we wanted to see if a gender answered a particular way was question one or Òwould you ever date a friend that you were not initially attracted to?Ó The possible answers were ÒyesÓ or ÒnoÓ. The null hypothesis was that there is no association between gender and the answer given. The alternative hypothesis was that there is an association between gender and the answer given. The calculated test statistic was 2 = 3.3464. To compare this to, the critical value of 2 = 3.841 was found. Comparing the two, the test statistic was not greater than the critical value and therefore the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. There is insufficient evidence to prove that there is association between gender and the answer given.
Another question that we thought that the response might be gender associated is question number two or Òhave you ever had a dating relationship where your fiend became your boyfriend or girlfriend?Ó The possible answers were ÒyesÓ or ÒnoÓ. The null hypothesis was that there is no association between gender and the response given. The alternative hypothesis was that there is an association between gender and the response given. The calculated test statistic was 2 = 3.7748. To compare this to, the critical value was again 2 = 3.841. Comparing the two, the test statistic was not greater than the critical value and therefore the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. There is insufficient evidence to prove that there is association between gender and the response given.
The last question that we thought it important to analyze to see if there was an association between gender and response was question seven or Òwhat sexually attracts you most to a person of the opposite sex?Ó The possible answers were Òmoney/power,Ó Òintelligence,Ó Òpersonality,Ó or Òphysical attractivenessÓ. The null hypothesis was that there is no association between gender and the response given. The alternative hypothesis was that there is an association between gender and the response given. The calculated test statistic was 2 = 1.9983. To compare this to, the critical value was again 2 = 7.815. Comparing the two, the test statistic was definitely not greater than the critical value and therefore the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. There is insufficient evidence to prove that there is association between gender and the response given.

Although the raw numbers alone arranged into graphs could answer many of our questions that we posed originally, it was necessary to use Chi Squared Tests to compare male and female answers. In the following chapter we will use the statistical analyses to make inferences about the Miami student population. Also, using figures three through sixteen we will be able to make conclusions and analyze the Miami student population.

Chapter V

Discussion

Our survey provided us with data that allows us to answer some of our questions that we posed (see Chapter 1). We were interested in delving into our own definition of attraction (that it is always initial and with the intent of a dating relationship) to see if the Miami student population agrees with this stated definition. Also it is still impossible to avoid the age-old discussion of whether opposites attract and therefore we wish to see if it is found in the Miami students that opposites do attract. As a more specific example of human attraction, we used the Ladder Theory as a model. The rating system defined in the Ladder Theory of what males and females find attractive in the opposite sex was used to develop questions. These questions were used to explore whether Miami students agree with the Ladder Theory. Using the data presented in Chapter IV, we explore possible answers to these questions.
To question one, an overwhelming majority of males responded ÒyesÓ and more than half of the females answered the same way. Since they responded this way, it shows that they were not initially attracted to someone that they dated. This does not support our definition that true attraction is always initial and cannot be developed. Attraction was developed in a majority of the subjectÕs relationships. Along the same lines was question two of the survey. More than three-quarters of the males said that they would date a friend that they were not initially attracted to. This also does not support our definition of initial attraction. The females however mostly answered question two with a negative response. They said that they have not had a dating relationship where a friend became their boyfriend. This supports our definition because it shows that they were not initially attracted to a person and therefore will not date them in the long run. Since most of our data gathered does not support our definition, we believe that it is not correct. To continue this study, the definition should be tweaked and retested.
In our quest to answer the question are people more attracted by others who are more opposite or similar our survey included questions four a, four b, five a, and five b. These questions investigated peopleÕs sexual attraction and also compared this to their friendÕs characteristics. Question four a and five a showed that the people surveyed choose people that they date who are more similar to themselves. This is not in correlation with the age-old statement Òopposites attractÓ. In fact, it shows that opposites do not attract and our sample actually prefers people who are more similar to themselves. Question six b also demonstrates that people choose others who are not completely opposite from themselves. The responses either fell in the middle or slightly more towards similar characteristics. Questions four b and five b also show that people choose to be around other people with similar characteristics but this time they look for those characteristics in friends. Question six a also illustrates that people choose friends who are more similar to themselves instead of more opposite. It makes sense that people like to be around friends with similar characteristics as themselves and this wanting can also be transferred to the people that they are in relationships with. From our data it does not appear that our sample agrees, Òopposites attractÓ.
When we began to examine the Ladder Theory and the rating scale that goes with it, we thought that Miami students would agree with it and use the same points to rate the attractiveness of other people. The Ladder Theory says that males mostly think physical appearance is the most attractive aspect of females and that females think that money and power (same category) is the most attractive aspect of males. Our data does not support the ladder theory because both males and females said that personality is the most attractive aspect of the opposite sex.
Since facial features are most often used in attractiveness research, we asked our sample what they thought was the most prominent feature when regarding physical attractiveness. Overwhelmingly males regarded the overall face as being the most important facial feature when rating attraction. Their second choice was the eyes and some commented that this was the best way to judge how truthful a person is. The opposite was true for females because most regarded the eyes as the most attractive facial feature and the overall face placed second.
Through statistical testing, we did not find any differences between the responses given by males and females for questions one, two, and seven. In our sample we found that there was no association between males and females answering these questions with a certain response. This could be better analyzed we had a larger sample size.
It is possible that the data collected might have been flawed. Since it was a survey we do not know for sure that everyone was truthful. They might have answered certain questions (such as question seven) not truthfully with the hopes that they do not appear ÒshallowÓ or ÒconceitedÓ. If possible the sample should be expanded to make inferences about the Miami campus in general. It is hard to make assumptions about the entire student body with a sample that is only fifty-two. It would be best to at least double the sample size. Doubling the sample size would also ensure the results of the statistical tests.
There are many ways that this study could be continued. This study could be conducted again with alternative elaborations. It would be interesting to see if race plays a factor in regards to what people find attractive. You could question whether different races agree on what is physically attractive and if attractiveness even matters. Also it could be studied if similar or opposite characteristics are important to the mates of people of different races. These results could then be compared to each other and also to the data found in this study.
Another factor that could be investigated is social background. Is there still physical attraction in situations where there are arranged marriages? If it were still present, it would be interesting to find out if the attraction is to people who are more opposite or similar. Could this be due to what is withheld from them in a mate?
The age-old question Òdo opposites attract?Ó should also be investigated in different age groups. It would be interesting to see if other generations had different results that actually support the usual assumption that opposites attract. The results between age groups could also be compared to see if traditions and attractions are changing with different generations.
We learned several things about our sample Miami population in our quest to find answers about attraction questions. Our sample did not support our definition that attraction is initial and with the intent of a dating relationship. The sample also did not agree Òopposites attractÓ and this possibly could be due to social change and a changing world. This could properly be investigated in the above study. The contemporary study called the Ladder Theory also is not supported in our sample because they believe that the most important aspect of rating oneÕs attractiveness is through their personality.
On a larger scale, it is important to study attraction in humans. If it were properly assessed then it would be easier to make concrete matches between people. When this happens it is possible for there to be less divorce in the world and possibly even less domestic violence. Simply matching up the right people for each other maybe could cure these greater issues. The understanding of attraction could lead to a greater understanding of humans in this respect.

Appendix A

Survey

This is the survey that we used to conduct our experiment and collect our data. Males and females were given identical questions.

1. Would you ever date a friend that you were not initially attracted to?
Why or why not?

2. Have you ever had a dating relationship where a friend became your girlfriend/boyfriend?
a) no
b) yes If yes, how long was your friendship before it became a dating relationship?

3. Have you ever stayed friends with an ex boyfriend/girlfriend?
a) yes
b) no

4. a) Are the people that you usually date more similar to you (behavior, beliefs, and characteristics) or more opposite?
b) How about friends?

5. a) Do you date people that share similar interests, personality traits, beliefs with you or are they more contradictory?
b) Friends?

6. How would you describe how similar your friends are to you?
1 2 3 4 5
most similar most different
and
How would you describe how similar your boyfriend/girlfriend are to you?
1 2 3 4 5
most similar most different

7. What sexually attracts you most to a person of the opposite sex?
a) money/power
b) intelligence
c) personality
d) physical attractiveness

8. In regards to a person of the opposite sex, what is their most attractive physical facial features to you?
a) eyes
b) lips
c) bone structure
d) hair
e) overall face

References

Cook, Mark, and Robert McHenry. Sexual Attraction. Oxford, England: Pergamon
Press, 1978.

Ford, C.S. and Beach, F.A. Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: Harper, 1951.

Frumkin, R.M. Beauty. In Ellis, A. and Arbarbanel, A. (Eds), The Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior. Vol. 1. New York: Hawthorn Books, 1961.

Hamon, Raeann R., and Bron B. Ingoldsby. Mate Selection Across Cultures.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2003.

Jackson, Linda A. Physical Appearance And Gender. Albany, New York: State
University of New York Press, 1992.

Lynn, Dallas. Ladder Theory. Spring 2006. 27 Apr. 2006 .

Patzer, Gordon L. The Physical Attractiveness Penomena. New York: Plenum Press, 1985.

Wright, Robert. (1995). The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life. New York: Vintage Books.

Thanks

Thank you to all of our willing participants, particularly those who participated in the video interviews.

Special thank you to Muriel Blaisdell and Jesse Feister. We had a great semester and will take much away from the class with us. It makes us so happy that you both could be a part of our Western experience.

For Further Info on this Topic, Check out this WWW Site: www.laddertheory.com . Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu