Personal Relationships, 24 (2017), 146–161. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright © 2017 IARR; DOI: 10.1111/pere.12173

Attractiveness and relationship longevity: Beauty

is not what it is cracked up to be

CHRISTINE MA-KELLAMS,a,b MARGARET C. WANG,a,c

AND HANNAH CARDIEL
a

a Harvard University; b University of La Verne; and c Santa Clara University

Abstract
Across four studies, we examined the relational repercussions of physical attractiveness (PA). Study 1 (n = 238) found
that those rated as more attractive in high school yearbooks were married for shorter durations and more likely to
divorce. Study 2 (n = 130) replicated these effects using a different sample (high-profile celebrities). Study 3 (n = 134)
examined the link between PA and the derogation of attractive alternatives, a relationship maintenance strategy. Study 4
(n = 156) experimentally manipulated perceived PA and examined its relation with both derogation of attractive
alternatives and current relationship satisfaction. PA predicted likelihood of relationship dissolution and decreased
derogation of attractive alternatives. Furthermore, PA predicted greater vulnerability to relationship threats—in this
case, relationship alternatives—resulting from poor relationship satisfaction.

Research in social psychology has long sug-
gested that physical attractiveness (PA) is a
powerful motivator and potent predictor of pos-
itive outcomes across a variety of domains
(for review, see Langlois et al., 2000). In the
context of close relationships, PA consistently
emerges as a highly desirable partner trait
(e.g., Buss, 1989, 1992; Gallup & Freder-
ick, 2010; Swami & Furnham, 2008) over
which relationship partners strive to maintain
positive illusions (Barelds, Dijstra, Kouden-
brug, & Swami, 2011; Swami & Allum, 2012;
Swami, Stieger, Haubner, Voracek, & Furn-
ham, 2009). Nevertheless, a limited number of
existing studies have shown that being phys-
ically attractive is not without its liabilities.
Christine Ma-Kellams, Kennedy School, Harvard Univer-
sity; Department of Psychology, University of La Verne;
Department of Psychology, Harvard University; Margaret
C. Wang, Department of Psychology, Harvard University;
School of Education and Counseling Psychology, Santa
Clara University; Hannah Cardiel, Department of Psychol-
ogy, Harvard University.
Correspondence should be addressed to Christine
Ma-Kellams, University of La Verne, Department of Psy-
chology, 1950 Third Street, La Verne, CA 91750, e-mail:
cma-kellams@laverne.edu.
In the present work, we use a multimethod
approach—of longitudinal, archival, survey,
and lab studies—to examine the consequences
of PA in romantic relationships.
In a nonrelationship context, there is limited
evidence to suggest that PA does not always
confer benefits. Namely, physically attrac-
tive individuals are more likely to discount
praise from an opposite-sex evaluator (Major,
Carrington, & Carnevale, 1984). Moreover,
attractive women tend to be perceived less
positively in managerial contexts (Heilman
& Stopeck, 1985), be less trusting of the
opposite sex in social interactions (Reis et al.,
1982), and exhibit lower self-esteem during
puberty (Zakin, Blyth, & Simmons, 1984). In
a relationship context, studies on the impact of
PA on outcomes have been more inconsistent
in their findings. Here, we focus primarily
on actor effects, or the effects of a person’s
PA on his/her own relationship satisfaction.1
In some cases, no relations have emerged
1. For a review on partner effects of PA on relationship sat-
isfaction, see the meta-analysis by Eastwick, Luchies,
Finkel, and Hung (2014), which found strong effects
of PA on relationship evaluations for both sexes (but

146
Attractiveness and relationship outcomes
between PA and marital satisfaction (Murstein
& Christy, 1976), whereas in other cases, a
positive relation between husband’s PA and
marital satisfaction has emerged (Peterson &
Miller, 1980). In still other studies, the rela-
tion between attractiveness and relationship
outcomes depended on sex or relationship
type. Both husbands and wives were less
satisfied in relationships where the husband
was more physically attractive than the wife
(McNulty, Neff, & Karney, 2008). However, a
recent longitudinal study found that husbands’
PA only weakly predicted husbands’ initial
relationship satisfaction (i.e., more physically
attractive husbands were less satisfied with
their relationships initially, but that this pattern
did not emerge with wives); no changes in
satisfaction emerged as a function of actor
PA over time (Meltzer, McNulty, Jackson, &
Karney, 2014a). Furthermore, among men in
casual and serious dating relationships, those
who were more attractive exhibited increased
self-reported desire for sexual relations with
extra-relationship others (White, 1980). Thus,
the work that has examined the role of attrac-
tiveness in romantic relationships has largely
been equivocal on the precise nature of the link
between attractiveness, relationship outcomes,
and the conditions under which it emerges.2
Perspectives from fitness-related evolu-
tionary theories, models of socialization, and
social expectancy theories all suggest that
those greater in PA are likely to possess, either
naturally (i.e., by virtue of good genes) or over
time (i.e., by virtual of social forces), more
favorable traits (for review, see Gallup & Fred-
erick, 2010; Langlois et al., 2000). Although
empirical evidence for the strength of the
association between PA and positive traits
varies, among adults, attractiveness is reliably
see also Eastwick, Neff, Finkel, Luchies & Hunt, 2014;
Meltzer et al., 2014b).
2. Additional theories also can account for the link
between attractiveness and relationship outcomes—for
example, the matching hypothesis suggests that individ-
uals are likely to affiliate with those of similar levels
of physical attractiveness (e.g., Cash & Derlega, 1978;
Murstein, 1972; Murstein & Christy, 1976). However,
the recent work by McNulty et al. (2008) and Meltzer
et al. (2014a) suggest that matching attractiveness lev-
els may not be as important as having a physically
attractive partner, at least in certain contexts.
147
linked to popularity, dating, and sexual experi-
ence (Perilloux, Cloud, & Buss, 2013; Prokop
& Fedor, 2011, 2013; Rhodes, Simmons, &
Peters, 2005). Although these traits may serve
as resources in certain contexts, we anticipate
that they may also stand as relational liabilities
insofar as they promote greater likelihood
of interest in extra-relationship partners. It
may be the qualities that are associated with
being highly physically attractive (sociability,
popularity, dating, and sexual experience)
that promote initial mate appeal, but that also
subsequently threaten the long-term viability
of the ensuing relationship. Consistent with
this idea, existing studies have documented
that more physically attractive individuals
have more relationship partners (Jokela, 2009;
Langlois et al., 2000; Rhodes et al., 2005)
and attract more short-term mating interest
(Perilloux et al., 2013; van Straaten, Engles,
Finkenauer, & Holland, 2008), suggesting
higher rates of relationship dissolution. Other
studies have shown that being more physically
attractive correlates with having more poten-
tial relationship alternatives (Schmitt & Buss,
2001; White, 1980), which may also threaten
the current relationship.
Studies on cheating behavior provide
further evidence that PA can come with
relational costs. Hughes and Gallup (2003)
found that women with low waist-to-hip
ratios (WHR)—a paradigmatic feature of
female PA (Brooks, Jordan, Shelly, & Dixson,
2015; Singh, 1993; Singh, Dixson, Jessop,
Morgan, & Dixson, 2010; Streeter & McBur-
ney, 2003; but see also Simpson, Brewer,
& Hendrie, 2014)—reported having more
extra-relationship partners relative to women
with high WHR. Similarly, men with lower
levels of fluctuating asymmetry report having
more extra-relationship partners (Gangestad
& Thornhill, 1997; Thornhill & Gangestad,
1994). Consistent with these findings, mens’
facial and bodily attractiveness correlated with
their number of short-term partners (Rhodes
et al., 2005). Moreover, more physically
attractive individuals are more frequently the
target of poaching attempts (Schmitt & Buss,
2001), and perhaps not surprisingly, more
attractive (i.e., taller) men have higher divorce
rates (Mueller & Mazur, 2001). Although PA
148
is not the only factor involved in relation-
ship dissolution and cheating (other factors,
like sociosexual orientation and commitment
are also key determinants of infidelity; see
Mattingly et al., 2011), the aforementioned
studies suggest that PA plays a major role in
promoting extra-relationship interest.
In particular, PA may not only make individ-
uals the target of poaching attempts, but also
make such individuals more likely to respond
favorably to (appealing) extra-relationship
alternatives and derogate them less. The
aforementioned past research has suggested
that PA is linked to greater numbers of
extra-relationship pairings and attempts. How-
ever, the existing literature has not gone so far
as to demonstrate that highly attractive indi-
viduals are also more likely to be interested
in attractive relationship alternatives and less
likely to derogate them. We predict that this
crucial link—that more physically attractive
individuals are likely to positively perceive
attractive alternatives and less likely to dero-
gate them—is an important feature that can
play a critical role in relationship processes.
In sum, the present research aims to build
upon and expand the existing literature in
two ways. First, we aim to directly assess
the impact of PA on relationship outcomes.
Although the existing literature has com-
pellingly demonstrated that PA is linked to
extra-relationship pairing, it remains unclear
whether such behaviors necessarily lead to
relationship dissolution. A second goal is
to unpack the moderating factors involved
in the link between PA and relationship
processes—namely, to examine how relation-
ship satisfaction and attractiveness interact to
predict relationship maintenance behaviors
like the derogation of attractive alternatives.
At first glance, the prediction that PA leads
to worse relationship outcomes may appear to
be at odds with the vast body of studies show-
ing the universal desirability of PA in mates.
However, the present work does not focus
on individuals’ desires for physically attrac-
tiveness mates, but rather on the outcomes
that follow after a mate is already secured.
As with other features of the human psyche
that have evolved over time, desires and out-
comes can be dissociated (e.g., we evolved an
C. Ma-Kellams, M. C. Wang, and H. Cardiel
originally adaptive desire for foods high in fat
and sugar, but pursuing those desires can lead
to poor outcomes). The same may be true of
PA. Second, the desirability of an outcome may
vary depending on the perspective or goals.
Although relationship dissolution may be a
negative outcome associated with PA from the
perspective of the relationship, it may not nec-
essarily be a negative outcome from an evolu-
tionary perspective.
Furthermore, the aim of the present research
is not to compete with or replace other existing
models of close relationships. One of the most
robust models of relationship maintenance
is the investment model (Rusbult, Agnew,
& Arriaga, 2011; Rusbult, Martz, & Agnew,
1998). At its core, the investment model is a
theory of dyadic processes in close relation-
ships. The goal of the present studies is to
complement its findings by focusing on an
intrapersonal factor—in this case, PA—that
can influence perceptions of alternatives and
relationship satisfaction. Said differently, the
present aim is to build upon the investment
model by highlighting how an intrapersonal
force like PA can shape interpersonal forces
like extra-relationship interest and contentment
with the existing relationship.
Across four studies, we examined the role
of both actual and perceived PA in predict-
ing relationship outcomes (Studies 1 and
2) and the use of relationship-maintaining
strategies—namely, derogation of attractive
alternatives (Studies 3 and 4). Here, actual
PA refers to ratings by other individuals
whereas perceived PA refers to self-ratings.
We predicted that PA would exert a negative
effect on relationship outcomes and that this
relationship would relate to derogation of
attractive alternatives. We expected individ-
uals rated as more physically attractive to
be married for shorter periods of time and
more likely to be divorced (Studies 1 and 2).
Furthermore, we explored the possibility that
more physically attractive individuals are less
likely to derogate attractive alternatives, an
important relationship maintenance behavior
(Study 3). Finally, we tested whether PA inter-
acts with current relationship satisfaction to
predict extra-relationship interest to test the
prediction that relationship alternatives are
Attractiveness and relationship outcomes
only threatening when the person (the actor) is
attractive and dissatisfied (Study 4).
Study 1
To test the aforementioned hypotheses, we
examined the relation between individual dif-
ferences in PA and marriage outcomes col-
lected over a 30-year period of adulthood for
men3 from two disparate U.S. high schools.
Relying on archival analysis allowed us access
to a relatively large sample of real-world data
for which measures of PA and relationship out-
comes could be obtained. We predicted that
more physically attractive men would experi-
ence briefer marriages and be more likely to
divorce. Here, we focused on actual PA.
Method
Participants
Following procedures used previously by
Harker and Keltner (2001), 238 men from a
Catholic high school in New Philadelphia,
Ohio (n = 100), and a secular high school in
San Jose, California (n = 138), were randomly
selected to be included in the study. Both high
school rosters were taken from the list of avail-
able high schools available online (http://www.
classmates.com). The former is a private reli-
gious school located in a semirural, predomi-
nantly White, working-class county in central
Ohio. The latter is a public school in a subur-
ban, ethnically diverse, and socioeconomically
privileged southern region of Silicon Valley.
Procedure
The men were rated for (facial) PA using pho-
tographs from the high school yearbooks of
1977 to 1980 available online (http://www.
classmates.com). The men sampled were in
their senior year and, as such, were estimated
to be between 17 and 18 years of age when the
pictures were taken. Each of the photos was
3. Only men were included in Study 1 because women’s
marriage and divorce outcomes could not be reliably
tracked; some records listed maiden names while other
records listed married names.
149
rated by two independent female coders4 on
a scale from 1 (very unattractive) to 10 (very
attractive). Ratings were averaged to yield an
overall measure of PA (M = 3.52, SD = 1.52,
range = 1.00 to 9.50). Intercoder reliability was
high (r = .92, p < .001).
Marriage and divorce outcomes were
derived from publicly accessible state records
available online (http://www.ancestry.com);
men were matched based on name, loca-
tion, and age. Men were classified as either
divorced (scored as 1) or married (scored as
0); men for whom no marriage or divorce
records existed (n = 114 total: n = 38 for the
Ohio school, n = 86 for the California school)
were not included in the sample; this yielded
a final sample of 238 individuals that were
included. No men in the sample had more
than one divorce on record (n = 39 for number
of divorced participants). Numbers of years
married (as of 2013) was calculated from
date of marriage versus divorce certificate
(M years = 23.09, SD = 9.81).
Results and discussion
An independent samples t test revealed that the
divorced men were, on average, more attractive
(M = 4.41, SD = 1.90) than the married men
(M = 3.34, SD = 1.51), t(236) = 3.84, p < .001,
d = 0.62. Furthermore, averaged PA ratings
correlated with number of years married, Pear-
son’s r = −.23, p < .001; those rated as more
physically attractive were married for shorter
periods of time. One alternative explanation for
this effect could be that attractive men married
later in life and thus were not divorced because,
relative to less attractive men, they were mar-
ried more recently. To test this alternative
explanation, we examined the link between PA
and number of years married among the sam-
ple of married men; PA did not predict years
of marriage (age at which the men married),
r = −.04, p = .54.
In addition, we tested the predictive power
of both PA and type of school (coded as
0 for the Ohio school, 1 for the Califor-
nia school) when entered simultaneously
4. The coders were both female, aged 22 and 26 at the time
of coding.
150
to predict marital outcomes. Given that
the former was a religious school in the
Midwest whereas the latter was a secular
one in Silicon Valley, controlling for type of
school allowed us to test the potential role of
demographic factors in influencing the pattern
of results. Given the dichotomous and non-
normal nature of the outcome variable (i.e.,
marital outcomes—divorced vs. not), a binary
logistic regression analysis was conducted. A
test of the full model against a constant-only
model was statistically significant, indicating
that the predictors (in this case, PA and school)
reliably distinguished the married versus the
divorced, χ2 = 22.49, p < .001 with df = 2. The
Wald criterion demonstrated that PA made a
significant contribution to prediction, B = 0.30,
SE = 0.11, p = .004; an Exp(B) of 1.35 suggests
that more attractive men were more likely to
be divorced. Interestingly, type of school also
made a significant contribution to prediction,
B = −1.16, SE = 0.39, p = .003; thus, we reran
the logistic regression separately by school,
and the same pattern of results emerged for
both schools, although it was stronger for the
larger school (i.e., California school: B = 0.63,
SE = 0.21, p = .004, Exp(B) of 1.88) than the
smaller school (i.e., Ohio: B = 0.20, SE = 0.12,
p = .092, Exp(B) = 1.22).
By assessing marriage and divorce out-
comes over a 30-year period for men from
two different high schools, we found evidence
that those higher in PA experienced shorter
marriages and were more likely to be divorced.
Importantly, this effect held even when con-
trolling for the type of high school the men
attended. Given that the two schools sam-
pled were of disparate origins (secular, upper
middle class, and from the West Coast vs. reli-
gious, working class, and from the Midwest)
with divergent levels of socioeconomic status,
religiosity, and ethnic diversity, an alternative
explanation is that the effects of PA were
confounded with one of these other sociode-
mographic factors. However, the detrimental
relationship outcomes associated with being
highly physically attractive continued even
when the type of school was held constant,
suggesting that PA exerted unique predic-
tive power in predicting marital outcomes.
Although the predictive power of PA was
C. Ma-Kellams, M. C. Wang, and H. Cardiel
stronger for the larger school (i.e., the school
with more participants included in the sample),
this was likely attributed to power; importantly,
the same pattern of results held across the
two subsamples.
Study 1, however, was limited in that it
relied on publicly accessible state records; not
all records could be found for all the men
in both high schools, and no information is
available for the men for whom no state records
of marriage or divorce exist. Thus, the sample
may not have been representative of the greater
population, or of the two chosen high schools;
given the high rate of marriage in the United
States, it is likely that a larger proportion of
each sample was married in the past 30 years
than what could be included in the analyses. As
such, participants who were not included in the
sample could have varied systematically from
those who were included.
Second, Study 1 relied on attractiveness
ratings based on high school yearbook photos.
Although past studies have successfully relied
on the same stimuli to predict other important
life outcomes, including marriage (Harker &
Keltner, 2001), it is nevertheless possible that
relative levels of PA changed during adulthood,
and thus attractiveness in high school may not
be the best indicator of attractiveness later on
in life. A related point is that this study exam-
ined only facial attractiveness, which is merely
one component of PA (Jonason, Raulston, &
Rotolo, 2012; Rhodes et al., 2005). Moreover,
Study 1 used an all-male sample. Given that
past studies that have shown differences in
the impact male versus female attractiveness
has on relationship satisfaction (McNulty
et al., 2008; Meltzer et al., 2014a, 2014b), this
study does not address the possibility that the
findings were specific to male attractiveness.
Finally, the sample used in Study 1 was, on
average, of low to moderate attractiveness,
and it is unclear whether these effects would
extend to a more attractive sample. Thus, to
test our predictions in a sample not restricted
by these limitations, Study 2 was conducted.
Study 2
The aim of Study 2 was to replicate the find-
ings from Study 1 using a different sample
Attractiveness and relationship outcomes
that included both men and women for whom
PA, and not just facial attractiveness, could be
assessed, and for whom marriage data would
be consistently available across all participants
in the sample. Here, we examined marriage and
divorce outcomes among actors, actresses, and
celebrities because we wanted to test the effects
of PA on marriage outcomes in a sample that
was disparate from the one used in Study 1
to demonstrate that the aforementioned effects
were not specific to men, individuals for whom
public state marriage records were available,
or those particular cohorts. We chose to exam-
ine only high-profile individuals, as opposed
to a larger, more inclusive set of high- and
low-profile individuals, because of the wide
availability of data on their relationship history.
One potential concern with using this
select subsample is the popular notion that
celebrities possess “infinite” relationship
alternatives relative to the average person.
However, popular belief about celebrities’
alternatives may not be accurate—recent
research found that the wealthier the man,
the stronger his preferences for physically
attractive partners; wealthy women also had
stringent preferences—although in this case, it
was for wealthier partners (Fales et al., 2016).
Along similar lines, experimental manipula-
tions of wealth led men to have higher mating
standards (Yong & Li, 2012). Thus, similar to
the wealthy, celebrities may not have unlim-
ited relationship alternatives if their idea of a
viable relationship partner comes from a more
limited and selective pool.
Method
Participants
High-profile individuals from the follow-
ing sources were used: IMDb’s lists of the
top 20 actors and top 20 actresses in the
past 20 years (http://www.imdb.com/list/
4qTRP4Hj3xQ/ and http://www.imdb.com/
list/77pbwLyeM0U/), and Forbes’s list of the
100 most powerful celebrities (http://www.
forbes.com/celebrities/list/). Duplicates were
only included once. This yielded a total of 130
celebrities (M age = 45.29; 62% male). IMDb’s
and Forbes’s lists were used because they
151
represent two disparate but well-established
and widely respected third-party sources for
information on actors and other high-profile
individuals.
Procedure
The same two independent coders from Study
1 rated the PA of the celebrities on a scale from
1 (very unattractive) to 10 (very attractive).
Ratings were averaged to yield an overall mea-
sure of PA (M = 6.97, SD = 1.47, range = 3.00
to 10.00). Intercoder reliability was accept-
able (r = .61, p < .001). Relationship history
(number and duration of marriages; number
of divorces; identities of spouses) and other
details relating to actors’ and actresses’ pro-
fessional and personal lives (age; net worth)
were gathered from various established online
sources, including www.The-Numbers.com,
www.celebritynetworth.com, and www.imdb.
com; these websites were chosen because
of their comprehensive databases of infor-
mation related to celebrities’ personal and
professional histories. Marriage and divorce
data were available for all participants, but
number of responses varied by item for the
control variables included given that not all
information was available or applicable for
all individuals in the sample; as a result,
degrees of freedom will vary as a function
of which control variables were included.
The majority of individuals had been married
at least once (54% had been married only
once, M years = 11.28, SD = 8.89; 18% married
twice, M years = 9.90, SD = 8.49; 5% married
three times, M years = 6.57, SD = 3.40; and 1%
married four times).
Results and discussion
An independent samples t test revealed that a
main effect of sex emerged on PA, such that
female celebrities were rated as more attractive
(M = 7.45, SD = 1.37) than male celebrities
(M = 6.66, SD = 1.45), t(128) = 3.06, p = .003,
d = 0.56. However, there was no effect of sex
on the dependent variable of interest (e.g.,
duration of marriage, t <1). Thus, sex will no
longer be mentioned for the remainder of the
analyses.
152
First, we examined the link between PA
and duration of (first) marriages using linear
regression; for all subsequent analyses, linear
regression was used for all analyses involving
marriage duration. We opted to examine mar-
riage duration for first marriages because this
allowed us to examine the maximum possi-
ble number of individuals in our sample, given
that fewer numbers of individuals had sec-
ond, third, or fourth marriages. PA predicted
number of years married for first marriages,
β = −0.50, t(96) = 5.72, p < .001. Those rated
as more physically attractive were married for
shorter periods of time.
Second, we examined the link between
PA and marriage outcomes (i.e., among all
marriages). Given the count nature of marriage
outcomes (in this case, number of divorces) in
this sample and its nonnormal nature, Poisson
generalized linear models were fitted to predict
number of divorces using PA while controlling
for the number of marriages. (In all subsequent
analyses, this type of model was used for all
analyses involving number of divorces.) An
omnibus test of the fitted model against an
intercept-only model was statistically signif-
icant, χ2 = 6.51, p = .011 with df = 1, and PA
made a significant contribution to prediction,
B = 0.21, SE = 0.08, 95% Wald CI [0.047,
0.37].
As we did with Study 1, to account for
the alternative explanation that attractive peo-
ple married later in life and thus were not
divorced because, relative to the less attractive,
they were married more recently, we reran the
above analyses with age of first marriage as a
covariate. Doing so did not change the pattern
of findings, χ2 = 6.82, p = .009 with df = 1; PA
continued to make a significant contribution to
prediction, B = 0.21, SE = 0.08, 95% Wald CI
[0.05, 0.36]. Similarly, PA continued to predict
length of marriage controlling for age of first
marriage, β = −0.56, t(68) = 5.28, p < .001.
One additional alternative explanation for
these findings is that the poor marital out-
comes among particularly attractive actors
and actresses may be explained by other con-
founds that accompany celebrity—namely,
wealth. Thus, to demonstrate that the effects
of PA continue to predict marital dissolution
even when wealth is held constant, regression
C. Ma-Kellams, M. C. Wang, and H. Cardiel
analyses was conducted with PA and wealth
(operationalized as total net worth) predicting
marriage and divorce outcomes; in both cases,
number of times married was included as a
covariate. PA continued to significantly predict
marriage duration, β = −0.50, t(94) = 5.90,
p < .001, with more physically attractive
individuals experiencing briefer marriages.
As expected, number of times married was
also related to marriage duration, β = −0.29,
t(94) = 3.23, p = .002; briefer first marriages
were associated with more subsequent mar-
riages. No relation emerged between net worth
and marriage duration (t < 1, p = .94). The
same pattern emerged when number of times
divorced was the outcome of interest: PA
significantly predicted likelihood of divorce,
B = 0.21, SE = 0.08, 95% Wald CI [0.05, 0.37].
Study 2 replicated the findings from Study
1 and showed that among high-profile celebri-
ties, PA predicted marital outcomes. This find-
ing is notable because it demonstrates that the
link between attractiveness and relationship
dissolution is robust, not specific to the men
in Study 1, and occurred in a restricted sam-
ple of highly attractive, highly likely to divorce
individuals. Importantly, the link between a
celebrity’s PA and his or her likelihood of
divorce held even when important covariates
and confounds were held constant (includ-
ing net worth and age at which the celebrity
was first married). Together, Studies 1 and
2 demonstrated that across disparate samples,
those higher in PA were less likely to stay mar-
ried and experienced briefer marriages. How-
ever, marriage length may be an imperfect
proxy for relationship quality. Thus, to test the
effects of PA on other relationship outcomes
more directly related to relationship quality,
Study 3 was conducted.
Study 3
Why are the more physically attractive less
likely to maintain long-lasting relationships?
Relationship maintenance models posit that
one of the mechanisms involved in relation-
ship maintenance is perceptual derogation
of attractive, potential alternatives, which
has been shown to occur on a variety of
dimensions—including intelligence, humor,
Attractiveness and relationship outcomes
similarity, dependableness, and faithfulness
(Johnson & Rusbult, 1989). However, another
work has argued that derogation on the PA
dimension should be one of the most impor-
tant strategies to protect a relationship from
dissolution, because very physically attrac-
tive opposite-sex individuals can pose one
of the worst potential threats to an existing
relationship (Simpson, Gangestad, & Lerma,
1990). In line with this idea, Maner, Rouby,
and Gonzaga (2008) found that individuals
in relationships automatically paid less visual
attention to attractive alternatives when made
to think romantic thoughts about their current
relationship partner. Importantly, attractive
opposite-sex individuals do not need to be
actually viable alternative partners to threaten
existing relationships (Simpson et al., 1990),
given that the mere exposure to an attractive,
opposite-sex individual can cause current part-
ners to appear less attractive by comparison.
In support of their argument, Simpson et al.
(1990) noted past studies showing that even
viewing attractive television stars can nega-
tively impact men’s evaluations of a potential
date (Kenrick & Gutierres, 1980), and viewing
attractive pornographic targets can make men
less happy with their current relationship part-
ner (Kenrick, Gutierres, & Goldberg, 1989).
To test the link between PA and the dero-
gation of attractive alternatives, we asked
participants, both in exclusive romantic rela-
tionships and not, to rate the attractiveness of
opposite-sex targets. We predicted that among
those in exclusive romantic relationships,
greater PA of the participant would predict
less derogation of (or increased perceptions of
attraction toward) opposite-sex targets. Fur-
thermore, this effect should not be accounted
for by a general tendency for physically attrac-
tive individuals to perceive greater attractive-
ness in others; thus, among those not currently
involved in exclusive romantic relationships,
the relationship between PA and perceived
attractiveness of targets should not emerge.
Method
Participants
One hundred and thirty-four participants
(45% men) from the New England area were
153
recruited for this study. Fifty-four were volun-
tary undergraduate participants recruited from
a local university campus. Eighty were paid
community participants recruited from the
greater Boston area who participated as part
of a larger study. Of the sample, 41% were
involved in an exclusive romantic relationship
at the time of the study.
Procedure
All participants completed an initial question-
naire concerning their relationship history,
including sexual orientation, current rela-
tionship status, duration of their current
relationship, and number of past relation-
ships. Afterward, following the procedures
outlined by Simpson et al. (1990), participants
were shown a photograph of an attractive,
opposite-sex target and asked to rate the
target’s attractiveness on a scale from 1(not
at all attractive) to 7 (very attractive). Dur-
ing the study, the PA of the participants
was surreptitiously rated independently by
two experimenters, whose responses were
averaged to yield an overall measure of PA
(M = 5.95, SD = 1.65, range = 2.00 to 10.00),
r = .57, p < .001. The experimenters were not
blinded to the hypothesis of the study but were
blind to the participants’ relationship status,
history, and ratings. Number of participants’
responses varied by item because of omitted
responses; as a result of pairwise deletion,
only participants who completed all responses
were included in the analyses.
Results and discussion
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) with
sex, PA, and relationship status predicting
extra-relationship interest (or lack of dero-
gation of attractiveness alternatives) revealed
no main effects or interactions involving
sex, all ps > .19. Thus, sex will no longer be
discussed. To test the prediction that among
those currently in romantic relationships, more
physically attractive individuals would be more
likely to engage in relationship-threatening
behaviors (in this case, engage in less dero-
gation of an opposite-sex target), a linear
regression was conducted with relationship
154
status, participants’ PA, and the interaction
between the two predicting attractiveness
ratings of the opposite-sex target. There was
no main effect of PA, t <1, but a main effect
of relationship status emerged, t(124) = 2.00,
β = −0.70, p = .047. Consistent with past
studies, those in relationships, on average,
perceived the opposite-sex target to be less
physically attractive. However, this main
effect was qualified by a significant interaction
between relationship status and participants’
PA, β = 0.82, t(124) = 2.25, p = .026. Among
those in exclusive romantic relationships,
participants’ PA predicted attraction to the
opposite-sex target, with those higher in PA
reporting less derogation or greater attraction,
β = 0.37, t(50) = 2.78, p = .008. In contrast,
among those not currently involved in exclu-
sive relationships, no relationship emerged
between participants’ PA and attraction toward
the target, t < 1 (see Figure 1).5
Among those in exclusive romantic rela-
tionships, greater PA predicted less derogation
of attractive, opposite-sex alternatives. Impor-
tantly, this effect could not be accounted for
by a general tendency for physically attractive
individuals to perceive greater attractiveness in
others. The present findings suggest that PA
serves as a relational liability insofar as it pro-
motes perceived interest in alternative partners
and is linked with a lower likelihood of dero-
gating attractive alternatives. Previous research
suggested that partnered individuals may auto-
matically show inattention to attractive alterna-
tives (Maner et al., 2008), and the present find-
ings suggest that this relationship maintenance
strategy may be moderated by the attractive-
ness of the individual at hand.
One limitation of Study 3 was the use of
photographs, which does not allow for signs
of reciprocity. Thus, photographs may not ade-
quately reflect actual threats to a relationship.
5. We reran the analyses with only those who self-reported
as heterosexual (among those in a relationship, five
were excluded; among those not in a relationship, six
were excluded). This did not change the pattern of
results. In addition, we reran the analysis with relation-
ship length as a covariate (relationship length measured
from 1 to 6, with 1–5 reflecting number of months and
6 reflecting relationships that have been in effect for 6 or
more months); doing so also did not change the pattern
of results.
C. Ma-Kellams, M. C. Wang, and H. Cardiel
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
In a relationship
0.5
Not in a relationship
0
1 SD below 1 SD above
Attractiveness
Figure 1. Attraction to extrarelationship tar-
gets as a function of researcher-rated attractive-
ness and relationship status (i.e., for individu-
als in a relationship vs. not in a relationship;
Study 3).
A potential related concern is the fact that we
measured ratings of PA of the target rather than
explicit attraction to the target. However, pre-
vious studies (Simpson et al., 1990) have reli-
ably used photographs to measure derogation
of attractive alternatives among those in rela-
tionships and used attractiveness ratings as a
valid proxy for attraction.
The findings from Study 3 extended the
findings from Studies 1 and 2 by demon-
strating that PA not only predicts relationship
duration and likelihood of dissolution, but it
also predicts how individuals perceive rela-
tionship alternatives and derogate attractive
alternatives in particular. One possibility
is that being physically attractive leads to
increased interest in relationship alternatives,
and the latter predicts (worse) relationship
outcomes (i.e., a mediational path with PA
predicting extra-relationship interest, and
extra-relationship interest predicting relation-
ship dissolution). However, although previous
research (e.g., Mueller & Mazur, 2001) has
suggested that more physically attractive indi-
viduals may have increased opportunities for
extra-relationship pairings, there is little to
suggest that simply being attractive would
make someone more interested in a specific
extra-relationship target. Said differently, there
is little theoretical or empirical evidence that
Attractiveness and relationship outcomes
individual differences in PA reliably predicts
perceptions of attractiveness of opposite sex
targets. Another possibility is that PA and
interest in alternatives interact, such that alter-
natives only implicate relationship outcomes
when the person is physically attractive,
but does not negatively impact relationship
outcomes when the person is not (i.e., a mod-
eration relationship, with extra-relationship
interest moderating the link between PA and
relationship outcomes). However, previous
research has consistently demonstrated that
attractive, opposite-sex targets are one of the
most threatening risks in the context of a het-
erosexual relationship (Rusbult, 1983). Finally,
a third, more compelling possibility is that PA
and relationship satisfaction interact, such that
only dissatisfied, attractive people are likely
to be interested in relationship alternatives. To
test this possibility of a moderation relation-
ship with relationship satisfaction moderating
the link between PA and extra-relationship
interest, Study 4 was conducted.
Study 4
In Study 4, we experimentally manipulated
perceived PA among individuals currently
involved in a romantic relationship. We mod-
eled our PA manipulation on past research
that has shown reliable contrast effects to
emerge when comparing the self with physi-
cally attractive or unattractive targets. Viewing
highly physically attractive targets leads to
decreased levels of self-perceived PA, but
viewing physically unattractive targets leads
to increased levels of self-perceived PA (Agli-
ata & Tantleff-Dunn, 2004; Brown, Novick,
Lord, & Richards, 1992). We subsequently
examined the link between PA, perceptions
of relationship alternatives (i.e., derogation of
attractive alternatives), and current relationship
satisfaction.
Method
Participants
One hundred and fifty-six participants who
were currently involved in a romantic relation-
ship (59% men, M age = 31.17) were recruited
155
via Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). Past
research has shown that AMT stands as a
reliable source of data that is comparable to
samples obtained from more traditional meth-
ods (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011;
Horton, Rand, & Zeckhauser, 2011; Mason &
Suri, 2012).
Measures
Participants were randomly assigned to view
a series of five images containing either
physically attractive or unattractive same-sex
targets. Images were (predominantly color)
photographs taken from Google searches for
“attractive female,” “unattractive female,”
“attractive male,” and “unattractive male”
and contained both faces and bodies.6 To
ensure that participants successfully viewed
all images, they were asked to briefly describe
each image; no time limits were placed. After-
ward as a manipulation check, participants
rated their own attractiveness on a 1 (not at
all attractive) to 7 (very attractive) scale. As
an attentional check, participants were also
asked to rate the attractiveness of the pho-
tographs using two different questions: “The
individuals in the images were physically
attractive” and “The individuals in the images
were NOT physically attractive”; in both cases,
participants rated their agreement on a 1 to 7
scale.
Participants subsequently completed
the same task assessing their interest in
extra-relationship partners used in the previ-
ous study with one change: Instead of viewing
a single target, participants viewed a series of
three attractive, opposite-sex targets, which
allowed us to more stringently assess the
replicability of the previous finding with a
broader array of stimuli. As before, they rated
the degree to which they were attracted to each
one. Finally, participants evaluated their satis-
faction with their current romantic relationship
6. Only images that contained a single target were
included. Targets were predominantly White/
European American (9/10 of the men; 8/10 of the
women). Google images were used because Google
search represents an updated source of stimuli that
participants are unlikely to have been exposed to in the
context of previous psychological studies.
156
and partner by completing the satisfaction
subscale of the Investment Model Scale
(Rusbult et al., 1998).7 Number of responses
varied because of omitted responses.
Results and discussion
Prior to analyses, participants’ responses to
the attentional checks were examined and
those who failed attentional checks were not
included in the analysis. Namely, those who
provided identical ratings to the statements
“the individuals in the images were physi-
cally attractive” and “the individuals in the
images were NOT physically attractive” were
excluded, as were those who did not describe
the images (final N = 139). As a manipulation
check, an ANOVA with both condition and
sex predicting ratings of self-perceived PA and
perceived PA of the same-sex targets was con-
ducted. A main effect of condition emerged
on both self-rated PA, F(1, 135) = 4.02,
p = .047, and perceived PA of the targets,
F(1, 135) = 156.59, p < .001. As expected,
unattractive targets were rated as less attrac-
tive than attractive targets, Cohen’s d = 2.02,
and those exposed to unattractive same-sex
targets perceived themselves as more attractive
than those exposed to attractive same-sex
targets, d = 0.32; for full means and standard
deviations, see Table 1. In addition, a main
effect of sex emerged on target ratings, F(1,
135) = 4.68, p = .032, but not on self-ratings of
PA, F < 1. Men rated the targets overall as more
attractive (M = 4.99, SD = 1.86) than women
did (M = 4.26, SD = 2.22), d = 0.35. Finally, a
Sex × Condition interaction emerged on target
ratings, F(1, 135) = 7.16, p = .008, but not on
self-ratings, F(1, 135) = 2.47, p = .12. Pairwise
comparisons reveal that both men and women
7. We specifically examined responses to the satisfaction
subscale of the Rusbult et al. (1998) measure, which
has additional subscales that measure other relation-
ship features (quality of alternatives, investment size).
To avoid multicollinearity concerns with the interest in
extra-relationship partners measure, we did not include
the quality of alternatives subscale. The investment size
subscale was not relevant to our hypothesis. The Invest-
ment Model also contains a commitment scale, which
is the proposed outcome of these three aforementioned
factors (satisfaction, alternatives, investment), but we
did not include it in the interest of keeping the survey
brief.
C. Ma-Kellams, M. C. Wang, and H. Cardiel
Table 1. Study 4 manipulation check of attrac-
tiveness: Mean ratings (standard deviations in
parentheses) of targets’ ratings of the target
and self as a function of condition
Rating of Rating
Condition target of self
Attractive (i.e., 3.08 (1.73) 5.16 (1.19)
viewed unattractive
targets)
Unattractive (i.e., 6.03 (1.11) 4.72 (1.53)
viewed attractive
targets)
found the attractive targets more attractive than
the unattractive targets, but this discrepancy
was greater for women than for men (namely,
women found the unattractive targets less
attractive than men did, but the two groups did
not differ in their ratings of attractive targets):
M = 3.63, SE = 0.24, 95% CI [3.15, 4.11]
versus M = 5.97, SE = 0.21, 95% CI [5.56,
6.38] for men; M = 2.48, SE = 0.25, 95% CI
[1.99, 2.97] versus M = 6.10, SE = 0.25, 95%
CI [5.60, 6.60] for women. In sum, there was
no effect of sex and no Sex × Condition inter-
action on the effectiveness of the manipulation
(self-perceived PA). Moreover, sex did not
interact with condition to predict the dependent
variable of interest, relationship satisfaction
(namely, when sex was entered simulta-
neously with condition, extra-relationship
interest, and the interaction between sex and
condition to predict satisfaction, no inter-
action emerged); thus, sex will no longer
be discussed.
For the main analyses, responses to the sat-
isfaction scale were averaged to yield an over-
all measure of satisfaction with one’s current
relationship. In addition, attraction to all three
extra-relationship alternatives was also aver-
aged. We subsequently tested different mod-
els of the link between PA, extra-relationship
interest, and relationship satisfaction in sep-
arate linear regressions. To address potential
concerns about multicollinearity, we assessed
tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF);
extra-relationship interest and condition exhib-
ited high tolerance (0.89) and low VIF (1.12),
Attractiveness and relationship outcomes
suggesting that multicollinearity is not a con-
cern.
We subsequently tested our predicted
moderation model, which proposes that rela-
tionship satisfaction interacts with PA to
influence evaluation of relationship alter-
natives. In this case, the outcome variable
of interest is extra-relationship interest, and
the prediction is that PA and satisfaction
interact to determine evaluation of attractive,
opposite-sex targets. A regression with con-
dition, relationship satisfaction, and the
interaction between the two predicting
extra-relationship interests revealed that
all three factors were significant. Those
in the attractiveness condition (coded as
1 = attractive condition, where participants
viewed unattractive targets and thus were
made to feel attractive; 2 = unattractive con-
dition, where participants viewed attractive
targets and thus were made to feel unattractive)
showed increased extra-relationship interest,
β = −1.33, t(143) = 3.68, p < .001. In addition,
lower levels of relationship satisfaction also
predicted increased extra-relationship interest,
β = −0.76, t(143) = 2.51, p = .013. These main
effects were qualified by a condition by sat-
isfaction interaction, β = 1.23, t(143) = 2.85,
p = .005. Among those in the attractive con-
dition, current relationship satisfaction was
inversely related to extra-relationship interest,
β = −0.25, t(65) = 2.02, p = .048, whereas the
opposite pattern emerged among those in the
unattractive condition, β = 0.24, t(78) = 2.22,
p = .029. In other words, among individuals
made to feel attractive, those who were less
satisfied with their current relationship were
more interested in extra-relationship alterna-
tives. Those made to feel unattractive did not
exhibit this pattern.
Study 4 demonstrates that PA interacts with
other relationship features to predict relation-
ship outcomes. The findings support the idea
that PA is moderated by current relationship
satisfaction to predict extra-relationship inter-
est. That is, poor relationship satisfaction only
threatens relationships under conditions of
PA—in such cases, low levels of satisfaction
with one’s current relationship predicts greater
interest in extra-relationship partners, but only
among those who feel attractive. The findings
157
are noteworthy because they demonstrate that
PA predicts the likelihood of relationship being
threatened—in this case, by poor relationship
satisfaction.
General Discussion
Across four studies, being more attrac-
tive physically predicted greater likelihood
of relationship dissolution, briefer
relationships, and decreased engagement
in relationship-maintenance processes. In
Studies 1 and 2, more physically attractive
individuals were more likely to experience
shorter marriages and higher divorce rates. In
Study 3, more physically attractive individuals
involved in dating relationships expressed
less derogation of attractive alternatives. In
Study 4, PA hurt relationship processes by
predicting increased interest in attractive alter-
natives among those who were dissatisfied
with their relationship. Study 4 is impor-
tant in showing that being more physically
attractive makes one’s relationship more vul-
nerable to threats—namely, those stemming
from poor satisfaction with one’s existing
relationship.
PA and evolutionary perspectives
These findings suggest that the more favorable
traits possessed by physically attractive indi-
viduals (Gallup & Frederick, 2010; Langlois
et al., 2000) can stand as a relational liability
and thus may confer benefits to the individual
at hand (the physically attractive person), but
not the relationship at stake. Thus, from an
evolutionary perspective, PA remains a trait
that is highly selected for, but from a rela-
tionship maintenance perspective, this highly
desirable trait can come at a cost to the rela-
tionship itself. Moreover, the present studies
also offer one potential explanation for why
physically attractive individuals have more
relationship partners (Langlois et al., 2000;
Rhodes et al., 2005), more extra-relationship
pairings (Dijkstra & Buunk, 2001; Gangestad
& Thornhill, 1997; Singh, 1993; Streeter &
McBurney, 2003; Thornhill & Gangestad,
1994), and attract more short-term mating
interest (van Straaten et al., 2008). Although
158
past studies have shown that PA can make
individuals the target of poaching attempts
(Schmitt & Buss, 2001), the present studies
show that PA can also make such individuals
express more interest in and derogate less
(appealing) extra-relationship opportunities, at
least when the current relationship is less than
satisfying.
PA and the investment model of close
relationships
Taken together, Studies 3 and 4 highlight how
an intrapersonal force, PA, bears upon the
important interpersonal forces of relationship
alternatives and satisfaction in the reigning
model of close relationships, the investment
model (Rusbult et al., 1998). At its core,
the investment model is about how relation-
ship satisfaction and alternatives (along with
investment size) predict relationship outcomes
(the likelihood of persistence vs. dissolution;
Rusbult et al., 1998). The present findings
build upon this model by demonstrating that
relationship satisfaction and individual differ-
ences in PA can interact to shape maintenance
behavior—in this case, perceptions of attrac-
tive alternatives. Those who are dissatisfied
with their relationship partners are more likely
to positively perceive attractive alternatives,
but only if they are physically attractive.
These findings also contribute to the lit-
erature on the processes that contribute to
the derogation of attractive alternatives, and
whether they involve perceptual (Maner et al.,
2008) versus motivated (Johnson & Rusbult,
1989) mechanisms. Consistent with the more
recent studies, derogation oftentimes involves
automatic, perceptual processes (e.g., Maner
et al., 2008); however, these previous studies
have largely focused on derogation that serves
to maintain relationships. The present studies,
in contrast, highlight how the (lack of) dero-
gation can also serve to hinder relationship
maintenance, at least among the physically
attractive.
Limitations and future directions
An alternative explanation for the present
findings is that PA is confounded with other
C. Ma-Kellams, M. C. Wang, and H. Cardiel
important variables—for example, sociode-
mographic factors like class, or individuating
factors like earning power, confidence, overall
positivity of self-views or other views, and
so on—and that the effects of attractiveness
can by accounted for by its correlates. Two
considerations cast strong doubt on this expla-
nation. First, in Studies 1 and 2, we tested the
link between PA and marriage outcomes using
three disparate samples: two sociodemograph-
ically divergent high school samples (in which
case, after controlling for the sample demo-
graphic [high school attended], PA continued
to predict marital dissolution) and one sample
of high-profile celebrities. Second, in Study
3, those not currently involved in exclusive
romantic relationships did not show a relation
between PA and perceived attractiveness of
targets, suggesting that the effect of PA on
interest in extra-relationship partners could
not be accounted for by a general tendency for
physically attractive individuals to perceive
greater attractiveness in others.
Nevertheless, the present research is
not without limitations. All studies were
cross-sectional in nature insofar as their
assessment of attractiveness at a single point
in time and does not address the possibil-
ity that PA changes over the course of the
lifespan. More longitudinal data would be
necessary to demonstrate that PA at any given
point in time predicts subsequent relationship
satisfaction or outcomes, and that shifts in
PA over time is accompanied by shifts in
relationship-maintaining behaviors. Addi-
tionally, rather than manipulating perceived
PA (as we did in Study 4), future laboratory
studies can directly manipulate actual PA (e.g.,
through “makeovers”) and test its subsequent
effects on relationship-related behaviors.
An additional limitation is that the present
work does not examine idiosyncratic fea-
tures of the relationship, such as the role
of relationship-specific norms or commit-
ment. One possibility is that more physically
attractive individuals may be likely to pos-
sess different relationship norms about
extra-relationship pairing, and these norms
may influence responses to alternatives or
the likelihood of dissolution. A related pos-
sibility is the idea that level of commitment
Attractiveness and relationship outcomes
to a given relationship may also shape how
partners respond to alternatives (Lydon,
Meana, Sepinwall, Richards, & Mayman,
1999), given that finding extra-relationship tar-
gets attractive and acting upon those feelings
of attraction are not the same. In the current
studies, we only examined extra-relationship
interest and derogation; we did not test actual
cheating behaviors. Whether extra-relationship
interest versus derogation predicts actual
extra-relationship behavior and how addi-
tional relationship features stand as important
potential moderators of this link are topics that
future studies can investigate.
Future studies can also more closely exam-
ine the precise mechanisms involved in the
link between PA and relationship outcomes.
Extra-relationship interest may be one of mul-
tiple processes associated with PA in the con-
text of close relationships. Future work can
examine other possible models in order to
elucidate the underlying processes that can
account for the link between attractiveness and
relationship outcomes. For example, PA may
also influence relationship outcomes via per-
ceptions of others’ interest in the self or the
perceived likelihood of acquiring new relation-
ship partners. Additionally, concerns about the
liabilities of PA might increase the use of mal-
adaptive relationship processes such as jeal-
ousy or possessive behaviors among partners
of those who are highly physically attractive.
Future studies can also test the potentially
moderating role of partner attractiveness in
changing the relation between PA and rela-
tionship outcomes. Across the present stud-
ies, we focused exclusively on the attractive-
ness of participants but not the attractiveness
of their partners. Per the matching hypothe-
sis (Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971;
Cash & Derlega, 1978; Murstein, 1972), effects
of PA could be moderated by partner attrac-
tiveness (namely, physically attractive individ-
uals may not experience worse relationship
outcomes when their partners are also highly
physically attractive). Thus, one possibility is
that PA is only a liability in contexts where the
partner is equally or less attractive. Although
the fact that we found the same pattern of
results in Study 2 with a highly attractive
and wealthy subsample (who tends to attract
159
physically attractive partners) sheds doubt on
this possibility, future studies can directly the
role of partner attractiveness interacting with a
person’s own PA in predicting relationship out-
comes among a broader population.
In short, previous research has long estab-
lished PA as a powerful motivator and potent
predictor of positive outcomes across a variety
of domains, and a highly desirable attribute in
the context of romantic relationships (Langlois
et al., 2000). Despite the apparently universal
valuation of PA in prospective mates (Buss,
1989; Weeden & Sabini, 2005), the present
research shows that physically attractive rela-
tionship partners are less likely to derogate
extra-relationship partners and exhibit worse
relationship outcomes. These findings suggest
that being physically attractive is not without
its relational liabilities.
References
Agliata, D., & Tantleff-Dunn, S. (2004). The impact of
media exposure on males’ body image. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 7–22.
Barelds, D. P. H., Dijstra, P., Koudenbrug, N., & Swami,
V. (2011). An assessment of positive illusions of the
physical attractiveness of romantic partners. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 706–719.
Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W.
(1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A
test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimen-
tal Social Psychology, 7, 173–189.
Brooks, R. C., Jordan, A. L., Shelly, J., & Dixson, B.
J. (2015). The multivariate evolution of female body
shape in an artificial digital ecosystem. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 36, 351–358.
Brown, J. D., Novick, N. J., Lord, K. A., & Richards,
J. M. (1992). When Gulliver travels: Social context,
psychological closeness, and self-appraisals. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 717–727.
Buhrmester, M. D., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011).
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpen-
sive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psycholog-
ical Science, 6, 3–5.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate pref-
erences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.
Buss, D. M. (1992). International preferences in selecting
mates: A study of 37 societies. Journal of Cross Cul-
tural Psychology, 21, 5–47.
Cash, T. F., & Derlega, V. J. (1978). The matching
hypothesis: Physical attractiveness among same-sexed
friends. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4,
240–243.
Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B. P. (2001). Sex differences in
the jealousy-evoking nature of a rival’s body build.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 335–341.
160
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. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 140, 623–665.
Eastwick, P. W., Neff, L. A., Finkel, E. J., Luchies, L. B.,
& Hunt, L. L. (2014). Is a meta-analysis a foundation,
or just another brick? Comment on Meltzer, McNulty,
Jackson, and Karney (2014). Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 106, 429–434.
Fales, M. R., Frederick, D. A., Garcia, J. R., Gildersleeve,
K. A., Haselton, M. G., & Fisher, H. E. (2016). Mating
markets and bargaining hands: Mate preferences for
attractiveness and resources in two national US studies.
Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 78–87.
Gallup, G. G., & Frederick, D. A. (2010). The science
of sex appeal: An evolutionary perspective. Review of
General Psychology, 14, 240–250.
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). The evolution-
ary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuat-
ing asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18,
69–88.
Harker, L., & Keltner, D. (2001). Expressions of posi-
tive emotion in women’s college yearbook pictures
and their relationship to personality and life outcomes
across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 112–124.
Heilman, M. E., & Stopeck, M. H. (1985). Being attrac-
tive, advantage or disadvantage? Performance-based
evaluations and recommended personnel actions as a
function of appearance, sex, and job type. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35,
202–215.
Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). The
online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real
labor market. Experimental Economics, 4, 399–425.
Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G. (2003). Sex differences in
morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder
to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 24, 173–178.
Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temp-
tation: Devaluation of alternative partners as a means
of maintaining commitment in close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
967–980.
Jokela, M. (2009). Physical attractiveness and reproductive
success in humans: Evidence from the late 20th century
United States. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30,
342–350.
Jonason, P. K., Raulston, T., & Rotolo, A. (2012). More
than just a pretty face and a hot body: Multiple cues
in mate-choice. Journal of Social Psychology, 152,
174–184.
Kenrick, D. T., & Gutierres, S. E. (1980). Contrast effects
and judgments of physical attractiveness: When beauty
becomes a social problem. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 38, 131–140.
Kenrick, D. T., Gutierres, S. E., & Goldberg, L. L. (1989).
Influence of popular erotica on judgments of strangers
and mates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
25, 159–167.
C. Ma-Kellams, M. C. Wang, and H. Cardiel
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson,
A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths
of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review.
Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.
Lydon, J. E., Meana, M., Sepinwall, D., Richards, N.,
& Mayman, S. (1999). The commitment calibration
hypothesis: When do people devalue attractive alterna-
tives? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25,
152–161.
Major, B., Carrington, P. I., & Carnevale, P. J. (1984).
Physical attractiveness and self-esteem: Attributions
for praise from an other-sex evaluator. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 43–50.
Maner, J. K., Rouby, D. A., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2008).
Automatic inattention to attractive alternatives:
The evolved psychology of relationship main-
tenance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29,
343–349.
Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral
research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior
Research Methods, 44, 1–23.
Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., Weidler, D. J., Bullock, M.,
Hackathorn, J., & Blankmeyer, K. (2011). Sociosexual
orientation, commitment, and infidelity: A mediation
analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 222–226.
McNulty, J. K., Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2008).
Beyond initial attraction: Physical attractiveness in
newlywed marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 22,
135–143.
Meltzer, A. L., McNulty, J. K., Jackson, G. L., & Karney,
B. R. (2014a). Sex differences in the implications of
partner physical attractiveness for the trajectory of
marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 106, 418–428.
Meltzer, A. L., McNulty, J. K., Jackson, G. L., & Karney,
B. R. (2014b). Men still value physical attractiveness in
a long-term mate more than women: Rejoinder to East-
wick, Neff, Finkel, Luchies, and Hunt (2014). Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 435–440.
Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (2001). Evidence of uncon-
strained directional selection for male tallness. Behav-
ioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 50, 302–311.
Murstein, B. L. (1972). Physical attractiveness and marital
choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
22, 8–12.
Murstein, B. I., & Christy, P. (1976). Physical attractive-
ness and marriage adjustment in middle-aged couples.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 537.
Perilloux, C., Cloud, J. M., & Buss, D. M. (2013).
Women’s physical attractiveness and short-term mat-
ing strategies. Personality and Individual Differences,
54, 490–495.
Peterson, J. L., & Miller, C. (1980). Physical attractiveness
and marriage adjustment in older American couples.
Journal of Psychology, 105, 247–252.
Prokop, P., & Fedor, P. (2011). Physical attractiveness
influences reproductive success of modern men. Jour-
nal of Ethology, 29, 453–458.
Attractiveness and relationship outcomes
Prokop, P., & Fedor, P. (2013). Associations between
body morphology, mating success and mate prefer-
ences among Slovak males and females. Anthropolo-
gischer Anzeiger, 70, 121–135.
Reis, H. T., Wheeler, L., Spiegel, N., Kernis, M. H.,
Nezlek, J., & Perri, M. (1982). Physical attractiveness
in social interaction: II. Why does appearance affect
social experience? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 979–996.
Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attrac-
tiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness
enhance mating success? Evolution and Human
Behavior, 26, 186–201.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the invest-
ment model: The development (and deterioration) of
satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involve-
ments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45, 101–117.
Rusbult, C. E., Agnew, C., & Arriaga, X. B. (2011). The
investment model of commitment processes. In P. A.
Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),
Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2 pp.
218–232). London, England: Sage.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998).
The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment
level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and
investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, 357–387.
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poach-
ing: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing
mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 80, 894–917.
Simpson, V. J., Brewer, G., & Hendrie, C. A. (2014).
Evidence to suggest that women’s sexual behavior is
influenced by hip width rather than waist-to-hip ratio.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 1367–1371.
Simpson, G. A., Gangestad, S., & Lerma, M. (1990).
Perception of physical attractiveness: Mechanisms
involved in the maintenance of romantic relationship.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
1192–1201.
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical
attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 293–307.
161
Singh, D., Dixson, B. J., Jessop, T. S., Morgan, B., &
Dixson, A. F. (2010). Cross-cultural consensus for
waist-to-hip ratio and women’s attractiveness. Evolu-
tion and Human Behavior, 31, 176–181.
Streeter, S. A., & McBurney, D. H. (2003). Waist-hip
ratio and attractiveness: New evidence and a critique
of “a critical test.” Evolution and Human Behavior, 24,
88–98.
Swami, V., & Allum, L. (2012). Perceptions of the physical
attractiveness of the self, current romantic partners, and
former partners. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
53, 89–95.
Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2008). The psychology of
physical attraction. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor
& Francis.
Swami, V., Stieger, S., Haubner, T., Voracek, M., & Furn-
ham, A. (2009). Evaluating the physical attractiveness
of oneself and one’s romantic partner: Individual and
relationship correlates of the love-is-blind bias. Jour-
nal of Individual Differences, 30, 35–43.
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1994). Human fluctu-
ating asymmetry and sexual behavior. Psychological
Science, 5, 297–302.
van Straaten, I., Engles, R., Finkenauer, C., & Hol-
land, R. W. (2008). Sex differences in short-term
mate preferences and behavioral mimicry: A
semi-naturalistic experiment. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 37, 902–911.
Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005). Physical attractiveness and
health in Western societies: A review. Psychological
Bulletin, 131, 635–653.
White, G. L. (1980). Physical attractiveness and courtship
progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 39, 660–668.
Yong, J. C., & Li, N. P. (2012). Cash in hand, want
better looking mate: Significant resource cues raise
men’s mating standards. Personality and Individual
Differences, 53, 55–58.
Zakin, D. F., Blyth, D. A., & Simmons, R. G. (1984).
Physical attractiveness as a mediator of the impact of
early pubertal changes for girls. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 13, 439–450.