WEATHER & EARTH SCIENCE RESOURCES |
|
OTHER ACADEMIC COURSES, STUDENT RESEARCH, OTHER STUFF
|
|
TEACHING TOOLS & OTHER STUFF
 |
The Nature of Human Attraction
This topic submitted by Maggie Perrino, Adam Naylor, Zoe Brickley, Lena Jaspers (perrinmr@muohio.edu) at 3:21 pm on 10/9/01. Additions were last made on 10/17/01. Section: Myers
Draft 1: The Nature Of Human Attraction
Natural Systems
Student Generated Lab Proposal
Maggie Perrino, Adam Naylor, Zoe Brickley, and Lena Jasper
Abstract:
This experiment is designed to find out whether people are inherently attracted to people
with similar physical attributes or largely differing physical attributes. This experiment uses a
survey asks participants about the physical characteristics of past partners and preferred
physical characteristics of future partners and compares them to self-selected characteristics they
themselves exhibit. The questionnaire is left vague as to the gender or sexuality of the participant/partners in question, thereby deliberately leaving no room for ethical or political arguments. This study is based on physical aspects alone, due to the fact that sexuality and personality are in the grayer areas of the scale, practically unmeasurable. Other questions to be asked are: Is there a tendency for males to put more of an emphasis on physical characteristics? Is this true instead for females? Or perhaps both sexes place an equal emphasis of physical traits. Also, is there any relevance to the "Ideal-Self" argument? By asking what physical attributes the participants prefer in their partners, we hope to observe an emerging trend.
Introduction:
The nature of human attraction is a highly debatable and varied field of opinions. Theories range
from liking the same traits in others, liking opposite traits in others, melding both likes and
opposites into a search for an ideal mate, health, and cultural predispositions. Our group, while
only looking at physical properties and specifics as to the attraction process, realizes that it is
more than superficial and primary features that are the basis for attraction. However, a great deal
of research and testing has been done into the why and how of human desire and initial chemistry,
suggesting that we really are almost no better than the animals from which we evolved. Much of the
research also states that approaches to attraction differ significantly by gender. Whether any or
all of these suggestions or even perhaps plain old destiny are the answer to why we are attracted
to certain people and not others is purely speculatory, but one thing is for sure there is quite a
psychological attraction to studying the nature of attraction.
There are two popular and divergent theories subscribed to by the general public about
attraction. The first being, similar attracts similar. This basically is to say that those people
owning certain traits will seek out and be attracted to those carrying those same traits. The other
widely excepted theory is the almost clichŽ, ñopposites attractî. Within this concept one is
expected to find qualities in opposition to their own because of the mystery of these foreign
traits. However, there are thoughts in the scientific community as to how these two ideas are
interwoven in the actual attraction experienced by people (Lilienthal, 1998). Scott Gustafson a
clinical researcher tested this idea in 1989. His hypothesis was that humans are attracted to those
who are akin to our ideal selves. In this way we are attracted to those we are alike to, being that
our ideal selves will contain many aspects of our current self, while we will also be attracted to
our opposites due to the fact that our ideal self is on many ways very different than the one we
occupy presently.( Lilienthal, 1998) These two explanations of attraction are very popular and
generally believed, yet there are many other theories as to why humans find one another desirable.
Health and fertility issues also reside on the attraction scene. Much of the attraction
research suggests that many are looking for someone with which their offspring would be given the
best advantage. Men seem to be looking for birthing hips and an hourglass figure that suggests a
good womanly instinct and perhaps gives insight into motherly intuitions. (Traflinger, 1996)This is
not to say that men are looking for ñfatî women, but a ñcurvaceousî body is regarded as attractive
and in fact healthier than many thin women. Likewise a healthy looking person, good complexion,
energetic eyes, and a seemingly optimistic mental state, is also to be considered greatly
attractive. Those who remain in good health are more like to either bare/ conceive healthy, well-
balanced, attractive children and are looked at as able to care more adequately for the children
for many years before any complications arise. These indications to oneÍs progeny and the eventual
care provided for it tends to be more of a male consideration while women look to other things for
an attraction basis.(Traflinger, 1996)
Men and women also have extremely different criteria when it comes to mate selection. The old ideas
of women looking for stability and security are still very much a part of our society, even with
the new found independence enjoyed by woman today who are more than capable of providing for
themselves. Men on the other hand are looking for physical beauty and desirable qualities. Men tend
to rate the physical above all other points of criteria. And these stereotypical approached to
attraction are not just in America but seemingly occur across the board and into many different
cultures. In fact it can be this unchecked partnership between physical beauty and a fat pocketbook
that can lead to the most dreadful pairings and relationships based on attraction alone. (Norman,
1998) In a study presented by Jan Norman in her article ñ The Evolutionary Theory of Attractionî
the cross-cultural implications of attraction are astoundingly similar:
ñOf 10,000 individuals from 37 different cultures and six continents, the results appear amazing similar to those gathered from US college students. In all cultures studied, females rated men with greater earning potential higher on the mate choice scale. Men in all 37 cultures consistently valued physical attractiveness in potential mates significantly more than did their female counterparts in the study. While women preferred males slightly older than themselves, men state that their ideal mate would be younger than themselves. Although the possibility cannot be dismissed, such extensive global similarities are unlikely to be the result of learned patterns. It seems likely that such natural preferences have evolved to give our- hunter-gatherer ancestors a reproductive advantage.î
James L. Gould an author and the researcher who executed this study found attraction to be
veritably the same among all humans. Preferences will of course vary but there is still a
resounding connection to these two prominent stereotypes throughout human nature.(Gould, 1989)
Obviously the realm of attraction is not a matter of simple science and easy logic. The
subject encompasses a huge expanse of preferences and tastes, while also acknowledging the
stereotypes and norms within its reaches. There are straightforward theories such as ñBirds of a
Feather,î the attraction of two very similar people, or ñOpposites Attract,î the attraction of two
people who are quite different from one another, as well as slightly more abstract ideas about what
we humans are really looking for in a mate. It is said in one such theory that we are looking for
our ideal selves in our mate and this way humans may entertain both the idea of attraction to a
like being, being that our ideal self must contain at least some remnants of the self we are now,
and the attraction to our opposite, who in turn possesses those qualities we ourselves are lacking
to become that ideal self. The nature of attraction also extends and transgresses gender and
cultural barriers. While both sexes and all cultures do not share the exact attractions of the
others there are many connections and correlations between them. However, no matter what the theory
or stereotype behind the chemical connection, what brings all men and women or every color and
background together is attraction.
Works Cited
1.Gould, James L. & Gould, Carol Grant. (1989). Sexual selection. New York: Scientific American Library.
2. Lilienthal, Helen. ñDo Opposites Really Attract?î Mental Health Net 23 Feb. 1998. 7 Oct. 2001.
3. Norman, Jan. ñ The Evolutionary Theory of Attractionî The Human Sexuality Web 21 April 1998. 8 Oct. 2001.
4.Traflinger, Richard F. ñReproduction and Societyî Social Basis of Human Sexual Behavior 28 May 1996. 7 Oct. 2001. http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~taflinge/socsex.html
Methods:
We will use a survey to find out information concerning the participants physical
attributes and the physical attributes of their past partners. This survey will also ask questions
about the preferred physical attributes of future partners. We will distribute 120 surveys. Each
survey will read as follows:
Describe Yourself (circle one in each category)
Gender: male, female
Age: under 18 18-19 20-24 25+
Eye Color: BROWN BLUE GREEN HAZEL
Hair Color: RED BROWN BLOND BLACK
Height: under five feet 5Í-5.5Í 5.5Í-6Í 6Í-6.5Í 6.5Í-7Í 7Í-7.5Í
Physical Build: thin stocky athletic, average
Any Additional Physical Attribute(s) (such as piercings, etc.):
Most Recent Partner (circle one in each category):
Age: under 18 18-19 20-24 25+
Eye Color: BROWN BLUE GREEN HAZEL
Hair Color: RED BROWN BLOND BLACK
Height: under five feet 5Í-5.5Í 5.5Í-6Í 6Í-6.5Í 6.5Í-7Í 7Í-7.5Í
Physical Build: thin stocky athletic, average
Any Additional Physical Attribute(s) (such as piercings, etc.):
Preferred Future Partner:
Age: under 18 18-19 20-24 25+
Eye Color: BROWN BLUE GREEN HAZEL
Hair Color: RED BROWN BLOND BLACK
Height: under five feet 5Í-5.5Í 5.5Í-6Í 6Í-6.5Í 6.5Í-7Í 7Í-7.5Í
Physical Build: thin stocky athletic, average
Any Additional Physical Attribute(s) (such as piercings, etc.):
Additional Information:
On a scale of one to ten rate how attractive you are as perceived by others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Did your last several romantic interests match up with what you find most attractive?
On a scale of one to ten, how important are a partnerÍs physical attributes? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Do you usually end up with someone that you think is relatively more or less attractive than yourself?
Do you think that someoneÍs allure is primarily determined by physical attributes?
Do you find yourself more attracted to others of the same ethnic background?
What physical trait of your own do you dislike the most?
What physical trait of others do you dislike the most?
What physical trait of your own do you like the most?
What physical trait of others do you like the most?
In what [physical] ways are your past partners most different from you? Or most similar to you?
**Are there any non-physical traits that make a person more attractive to you? If so, please specify.
We will also hand out these surveys to our Natural Systems I class at Miami University and
hold a discussion on the results from that class. We will use this discussion to gain additional
insight into our question and hopefully explore the issue in greater depth than is allowed by use
of a survey alone.
Results:
Using the survey responses, we will determine whether there is a positive correlation, a
negative correlation, or no correlation between a personÍs physical attributes and the physical
attributes that they find attractive in past and future partners. We will also use to
the ñAdditional Informationî section to determine whether the participant is conscious of any
correlation indicated by their responses.
Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu
IMPORTANT: For each Response, make sure the title of the response is different than previous titles shown above!
WEATHER & EARTH SCIENCE RESOURCES |
|
OTHER ACADEMIC COURSES, STUDENT RESEARCH, OTHER STUFF
|
|
TEACHING TOOLS & OTHER STUFF
|
Listen to a "Voice Navigation" Intro!
(Quicktime or