Identity, Social Connection, and Loneliness

By: Dr. Curtis Peterson

Attraction and mate selection are foundational concepts in the field of psychology, particularly within social and evolutionary psychology. While attraction refers to the general desire to form voluntary relationships with others, mate selection narrows that focus to choosing a specific individual for an intimate, often romantic and reproductive, partnership (Aronson, Wilson, Akert, & Sommers, 2022).

Biological, Genetic, and Evolutionary Influences

One of the primary forces influencing attraction is biological. Humans, like all species, are evolutionarily driven to reproduce and ensure the survival of their genes (Buss, 2019). From an evolutionary perspective, physical and behavioral traits signaling good health and fertility are highly attractive. Features such as facial symmetry, clear skin, and proportional body ratios are seen as indicators of genetic fitness (Little, Jones, & DeBruine, 2011).

However, if mate selection were solely based on biology, we would likely see a homogeneous population—everyone selecting the same “ideal” mates. Diversity, in contrast, allows populations to adapt to a variety of environmental pressures. Thus, evolution favors both the propagation of species and the maintenance of variability (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992).

Sociocultural Norms and Social Learning

Humans are also shaped by the sociocultural contexts in which they live. Our preferences for romantic partners are influenced by cultural norms, religious values, and social expectations. For instance, many cultures and religious groups encourage individuals to marry within their faith or ethnicity, which in turn shapes attraction by reinforcing group boundaries (Fiske, 2014).

These social norms vary by context. For example, in collectivist cultures such as Japan or India, family approval and cultural congruence are prioritized in mate selection. In contrast, individualistic cultures like the United States emphasize personal choice and romantic love (Dion & Dion, 1993).

Idiosyncratic Preferences

In addition to shared social norms, individuals develop personal preferences based on their life experiences. These idiosyncratic attractions may diverge from cultural expectations. For instance, someone socialized to prefer a certain racial or body type may ultimately be attracted to someone quite different due to personal experiences or meaningful emotional connections.

These individual differences make the study of attraction complex, as no single model can account for the entire range of human preferences (Eastwick, Luchies, Finkel, & Hunt, 2014).

The Three Principles of Attraction

Psychologists have identified three principles that appear to be cross-cultural in nature: familiarity, similarity, and reciprocity.

Familiarity

The familiarity principle suggests that repeated exposure to a person increases our liking of them. Known as the “mere exposure effect,” this phenomenon was first studied by Zajonc (1968), who found that people tend to prefer things simply because they are familiar. Familiarity lowers perceived threat and increases comfort, which facilitates attraction. Even in the age of globalization, attraction often builds through repeated virtual interactions (McIntyre, 2014).

Similarity

While the adage “opposites attract” is popular, research consistently supports the principle of similarity. Individuals with shared attitudes, values, socioeconomic status, education, religion, and cultural background are more likely to form lasting, satisfying relationships (Montoya, Horton, & Kirchner, 2008). Similarity reduces relational conflict and improves emotional understanding, decreasing the cognitive load needed to interpret a partner’s behavior (Aronson et al., 2022).

Reciprocity

The principle of reciprocity refers to our tendency to be attracted to people who express interest in us. Positive reinforcement from another person can enhance feelings of self-worth and intensify attraction (Regan, 1998). However, reciprocity must be perceived as authentic. Excessive or insincere compliments can backfire, leading to suspicion or discomfort. Reciprocity is most effective when it aligns with the recipient’s emotional state and experience.

Universal Markers of Physical Attraction

Cross-cultural studies have shown that certain physical traits are almost universally perceived as attractive. These include facial symmetry, clear skin, and proportional features. Symmetry, in particular, is associated with good genes, developmental stability, and reproductive fitness (Rhodes, 2006). Experimental studies where facial symmetry is digitally manipulated consistently find higher ratings of attractiveness for symmetrical faces (Perrett et al., 1999).

Preferences also include the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) in women, where a ratio of approximately 0.7 is correlated with perceptions of attractiveness, health, and fertility (Singh, 1993). This holds across many cultures and is independent of body size.

Gender-Based Attraction Preferences

Men and women often differ in what they find attractive, shaped by both biology and cultural norms. Men tend to prioritize physical indicators of fertility and health, such as youth, clear skin, and WHR (Buss, 1989). Women, on the other hand, tend to value cues of dominance, resource acquisition, and genetic quality.

For example, research has shown that women rate men with deeper voices, angular jawlines, and dominant facial features as more attractive (Puts, 2005). These features are associated with higher testosterone levels, which are linked to reproductive fitness.

Interestingly, preferences for dominant traits may vary across cultures. In some egalitarian societies, women may prioritize kindness and cooperative behavior over dominance (Lukaszewski et al., 2014).

Women are also more influenced by olfactory cues than men. Studies show that women prefer the scent of men with dissimilar immune system genes (MHC genes), which promotes healthier offspring (Wedekind et al., 1995). Moreover, the presence of testosterone in male sweat has been linked to increased female attraction, suggesting a biochemical component to romantic interest.

Cultural Variability in Attraction

While many attraction principles appear universal, cultural variation plays a substantial role. For example, in Western cultures, thinness may be idealized, whereas in some African and Polynesian cultures, fuller body types are considered attractive and desirable (Swami & Tovée, 2005).

In cultures with strong collectivist values, romantic relationships are often influenced by family reputation and social harmony rather than physical or emotional chemistry (Gupta, 1976). These findings underscore the need for cultural sensitivity when applying attraction theories globally.

Conclusion

Attraction and mate selection are complex, multifaceted processes shaped by biological imperatives, cultural norms, and individual experiences. While certain patterns, such as the preference for symmetry or the principle of familiarity, are broadly applicable, cultural context deeply influences how these factors play out in real-life relationships. A nuanced understanding of both universal and culture-specific elements is essential for studying human attraction.

---

References

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M., & Sommers, S. R. (2022). Social psychology (11th ed.). Pearson.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992

Buss, D. M. (2019). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (6th ed.). Routledge.

Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1993). Individualistic and collectivistic perspectives on gender and the cultural context of love and intimacy. Journal of Social Issues, 49(3), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb01168.x

Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 623–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032432

Fiske, A. P. (2014). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations. Free Press.

Gupta, G. R. (1976). Love, arranged marriage, and the Indian social structure. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 7(1), 75–85.

Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1571), 1638–1659. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0404

Lukaszewski, A. W., Simmons, Z. L., Anderson, C., & Roney, J. R. (2014). The role of physical formidability in human social status allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037107

McIntyre, M. H. (2014). The use of online social networks in mate selection. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(10), 664–668. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0202

Montoya, R. M., Horton, R. S., & Kirchner, J. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(6), 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407508096700

Perrett, D. I., May, K. A., & Yoshikawa, S. (1994). Facial symmetry and sexual dimorphism: Perceptions of attractiveness in human faces. Perception, 23(5), 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1068/p230529

Puts, D. A. (2005). Mating context and menstrual phase affect women’s preferences for male voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(5), 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.03.001

Regan, P. C. (1998). Altruism and sexual selection: Preferential mate choice for moral traits. Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208

Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.293

Swami, V., & Tovée, M. J. (2005). Female physical attractiveness in Britain and Malaysia: A cross-cultural study. Body Image, 2(2), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.02.002

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). Oxford University Press.

Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F., & Paepke, A. J. (1995). MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 260(1359), 245–249. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1995.0087

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848