FPR
Status Preference
Class: II - Sexual Selection
EPA Total Score: 4 /100
Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partners' physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Journal of Interdisciplinary and Applied Psychology, 124(4), 371-389.
Abstract: Male and female college students in the United States (N = 224) viewed models who had been prerated for physical attractiveness and who were dressed in costumes representing one of three levels of socioeconomic status (SES). Subjects reported their willingness to engage with these stimulus persons in six relationships involving various levels of marital potential and sexual involvement. Models' costume status had greater effects on female subjects' willingness than on male subjects' willingness to enter all six relationships. This difference was larger when the physical attractiveness of models was low than when it was high. Costume status also affected female subjects' ratings of male models' attractiveness but did not affect male subjects' ratings of female models' attractiveness. Results supported eight hypotheses derived from evolutionary theory: In choosing partners, men and women weighed potential partners' SES and physical attractiveness differently, and these factors may have different behavioral implications depending on the degree to which sexual relations, or marital potential, or both, are involved.
Submitted by:
Supporting Evidence
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Theoretical evidence for this EPA.
10/100
Submitted by DJGlass
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Medical evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Physiological evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Cross-Cultural evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Genetic evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Phylogenetic evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Hunter-Gatherer evidence for this EPA.
Supporting Evidence is evidence that suggests that this trait is an Evolved Psychological Adaptation (EPA) - i.e., that it has been shaped by natural selection to solve a particular adaptive problem.
Challenging Evidence
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Theoretical evidence for this EPA.
0/100
Submitted by DJGlass
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Medical evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Physiological evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Cross-Cultural evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Genetic evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Phylogenetic evidence for this EPA.
No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Hunter-Gatherer evidence for this EPA.
Challenging Evidence is evidence that suggests that this trait is not an EPA - e.g., that it is a product of cultural learning or genetic drift, or maybe it does not exist at all. However over each line of evidence for a description.