Andrea Doucet reviews the research on whether women should ‘go ugly,’ and draws a different set of conclusions than Vicky Larson.
I’m not an expert on beautiful women and “hot or not” men. And I don’t have much interest in the question Vicky Larson explored in The Huffington Post, which is, “how a smart, accomplished, beautiful woman like Huma Abedin got herself involved with a guy like Weiner.”
Yet the wide interest in this story made me take a second look; at last glance over 18,000 people seem to have “liked” it and even Whoopi Goldberg opened a discussion of it on The View. I agree that, as Larson said in her recent conversation with The Good Men Project’s Tom Matlack social media is spreading stories “faster, farther and wider than before.”
I am interested in how stories are created and spread. I am a social science researcher who writes about how knowledge is constructed and about gender relations (including issues of masculinities). Throughout her piece, Larson kept referring to “researchers” and “the research.” So I was keen to know what research evidence was being used to support this claim that “attractive women shouldn’t pick attractive husbands.”
Vicky Larson is a wonderful writer who addresses topics of particular importance to women, and her points on divorce in this piece are excellent. As for the issue of beautiful women and “hot or not men”, the evidence that allegedly supports this claim comes from selected branches of scientific knowledge, mainly evolutionary biology/psychology and experimental psychology. The evidence within and between these fields is complex, contradictory, and continually contested. Moreover, I would argue that Larson’s piece, which draws on a slim range of research, misrepresents many of the research findings she claims to use.
The end result? What Larson calls a “tongue-in-cheek” argument that women should “go ugly” when they look for a mate is a provocative, and personal, interpretation. But it is not an argument that is backed by sound scientific evidence. It is still a topic that is worthy of discussion, and kudos to Larson for putting it on the table. But, before this turns into a set of “truths,” I think we should be clear about the scientific research that presumably informs three key points in Larson’s piece.
Financially independent women prefer “hotties … making the big bucks”
Larson points out that, as a former Cosmo bachelor, Weiner “is the kind of man that many, many women are drawn to.” And then she says:
“And that’s where Abedin and other smart, beautiful, accomplished women often make their mistake. The more financially independent women become, the more they prefer good-looking men. But they don’t just want their partners to be hotties; they want them to be masculine, physically fit, loving, educated, a few years older and making the big bucks. Oh, and they also have to really want to be a hubby and daddy.”
For this point, on how women want macho men, she cites an article in the Wall Street Journal which is, ironically, titled “Why Women Don’t Want Macho Men” and, from what I can discern, three studies that are reported on in that article.
The first study mentioned in the Wall Street Journal is faceresearch.org, an ongoing study (composed of seven different sub-studies) run by two experimental psychologists at the University of Aberdeen, UK; its aim is to “carry out tests to assess the characteristics people find attractive in faces and voices.” This “face research,” which I actually tried out, is based on rating faces according to degrees of attractiveness (with attractiveness measured as both masculine and feminine).
Although Larson cites this study directly, it is not at all clear how it supports her arguments. For example, results from the most relevant sub-study, “masculinity techniques,” indicate that “women tend to prefer male faces that are less masculine than average, although there is a considerable amount of individual variation.”
Keep in mind that in this study masculinity is defined only in terms of facial features such as “shorter, broader faces and stronger eyebrows, cheekbones and jawlines.” Nevertheless, what seems clear is that women desire both feminine and masculine faces in their male partners.
The second relevant study cited by Larson (via her link to Pincott’s Wall Street Journal article) is by Professor Fhionna Moore and colleagues at the University of St Andrews, UK. In a nutshell, Moore argues that as women increased their financial independence, they also increased their preference for physical attractiveness in potential partners. On the other hand, women “who had low levels of control over their cash rated the financial status of a man over his looks.”
This study does not make the connection between beautiful women and hot men. But it does make the connection between women’s financial independence and hot men. That is, while Larson lumps together women’s preferences for, in her words, “hotties making the big bucks,” this study treats them as separate preferences by different groups of women. That is Moore’s research findings indicates that rich women choose “hotties,” while poorer women choose men “making the big bucks.”
It appears that the main evidence for Larson’s argument comes from a third study which is also mentioned in the Wall Street Journal. This is a study by researchers David M. Buss and Todd K. Shackleford in their 2008 peer-reviewed article in the journal Evolutionary Psychology. Once again, a central point is misconstrued.
What Buss and Shackleford argue, in a highly complex argument that tests several hypotheses with a small group of 107 American women, is that most women desire the following four characteristics in a male mate:
- good gene indicators (e.g. attractive and intelligent)
- good investment indicators (e.g. education and income)
- good parenting indicators (e.g. home and children)
- good partner indicators (e.g. loving and loyal)
There is nothing surprising about this. What women would not want all of those things?
Yet, while most women desire all four qualities, two points are clear. First, highly attractive women express higher standards on all four indicators; they do this because, according to the authors, their “high mate value” means that they have high choice options. Again, this makes sense. Think: Angelina Jolie.
Second, most women soon realize that they cannot get all four characteristics from one man and thus “they lower their standards across all four set of indicators” and seek to secure the best combination of characteristics from one man. Put simply, according to these authors, women learn to compromise. It is a not a matter of ‘going for ugly’ but of adjusting our expectations. That is, some choose a less attractive man who is a loyal partner; others choose a highly attractive man who also loves children but has low earning potential.
Does this apply to Abedin and the question of how she chose Weiner? I would say no. Larson’s point here is not only about beautiful women, but about financially independent women. This particular study, however, deals only with women’s attractiveness and not with financial independence.
Hot women and ugly guys
A second point jumps off the page for me in Larson’s article: “We’d be smarter if we sought out guys who are uglier than we are because researchers have found that couples in which the woman is hotter than the guy are happier than if this situation is reversed.”
Here Larson cites the NY Daily News, which in turn mentions a peer-reviewed article “Beyond Initial Attraction: Physical Attraction in Newlywed Marriage” by James K. McNulty, Lisa A. Neff, and Benjamin R. Karney in the Journal of Family Psychology. This study makes several arguments, including this one: “The relative difference between partner’s levels of attractiveness appeared to be the most important in predicting marital behaviour, such that both spouses behaved more positively in relationships in which wives were more attractive than their husbands.”
I contacted the authors of the study to see what they thought about their article being used as evidence (albeit in a roundabout way through referencing a newspaper that cites it).
They noted that their study looked at how attractive a man-woman couple is in relation to one another – not in absolute terms for other people. Thus the fact that, as Larson points out, “quite a few women have been telling Weiner how ‘hot’ he is,” is not important here. Rather, the issue is how ‘hot’ the couple is relative to one another. According to lead author McNulty, “In order for our study to be relevant here, there would need to be a reference to how attractive Abedin is” in relation to Weiner. That is an open question, at least for some.
McNulty also notes, “We also report in our paper that more attractive men were less satisfied with their relationships than were less attractive men. That could be relevant here, as it suggests Weiner may be relatively less likely to be happy in his relationships (if indeed he is attractive).”
My final point on hot women and ugly guys is that Larson contradicts herself when she makes the point that “hottie women can also optimize their looks to find other partners if she’s unhappy.” Here she cites the UK popular tabloid newspaper, The Mail Online,which actually says the opposite of what Larson is putting forth; that is, if women do “go ugly” in their mate selection, there can be a problem. According to the headline of this article, “If a woman’s more attractive than her man, the relationship may be doomed.”
Drawing on the work of Professor Rob Burriss at the University of Chester (UK), the Mail Online article argues: “We tend to pair up with people whose facial features have a similar level of symmetry – a sign of beauty – to our own.” In other words, “Our ideal partner is one on our own kind of level.”
“Attractive men don’t make the best husbands”
Perhaps the most controversial point, and the one that engaged a response from The Good Men Project is the one with sparse or negligible evidence for it. The only article cited, again, is Pincott’s Wall Street Journal article and a brief mention of one small study of only 29 women as well as a study of 2100 Air Force veterans. Apparently, the latter study argued that men with testosterone levels one standard deviation above the norm were 43% more likely to get divorced, 38% were more likely to cheat on their wives, and 13% admitted to partaking in domestic violence.
I am not sure what this has to do with the Weiner-Abedin case. There is no mention about attractiveness nor about being a good husband. Testosterone is viewed as synonymous with masculinity for a small group of men working in a male-dominated environment and connections are then drawn between military men, testosterone, and indices of divorce as well as violence.
How does one know (or measure) if their man has just a tad too much testosterone? And how does this link to the point that “more attractive men don’t make the best husbands”?
Widening the discussion
Vicky Larson’s provocative piece brings evolutionary biology/psychology and experimental psychology into popular debate. As an academic who likes to connect with the “real world,” I’m always glad to see journalists bringing scholarly research into popular debates. But her misuse of science backfires and in the end does not help her to answer her question of how Abedin ended up with a man like Weiner.
Even if this attempt at using scientific research had been well done, it is important to add that there are many other ways to understand human behavior and male-female relationships. In my world of social science scholarship, we make sense of human life not only in terms of biology, facial features, brains, hormones, and what Larson calls explanations from “caveman days.” Rather, we engage explanations that include family and cultural background, social class, ethnicity and race, sexuality, national contexts, changing ideologies, and a rich diversity of shifting gender expectations and preferences.
Moreover, the conceptions of masculinity which are central to this piece are drawn from studies that equate it mainly with a set of facial physical features and/or testosterone. There are wider definitions, including this one from a leading scholar of masculinities, Michael Kimmel.
“Masculinity… is not a constant, universal essence, but rather an ever-changing fluid assemblage of meanings and behaviors that vary dramatically. Thus we speak of masculinities, in recognition of the different definitions of manhood that we construct. By pluralizing the term, we acknowledge that masculinity means different things to different groups of men at different times.”
It is also worth noting that the main piece of evidence used for this piece, Pincott’s Wall Street Journal article, ultimately concludes in a way that contradicts Larson and in fact supports Tom Matlack’s point about broadening our definitions of manliness – and what it means to be a good man or a good woman. That is, Pincott cautions against relying too much on studies from evolutionary psychology: “No longer as reliant on men’s genes or jobs to ensure the health and wealth of their children, women may come to value other qualities in a mate. It may become evolutionarily adaptive to prefer men who are cooperative, communicative, caring and better parents over traditional ‘manly men.’ ”
The question of how and why Huma Abedin “got herself involved with a guy like Weiner” is clearly something that people are very interested in. When I look at Ms. Adebin, who is several months pregnant and seems to be a private, brilliant, accomplished, and, yes, beautiful woman, I remain uninterested in her choice of a “hot” or “ugly” mate. But I am interested in widening the debate about what 21st century women desire in men. And I also want to defend the time-consuming and rigorous work of research scientists from being misconstrued into sexy (pardon the pun) headlines.
About Andrea Doucet
I think there is some flaw in connecting marital infidelity with testosterone levels. There could be a correlation, but that does not mean there is only one causal explanation.
My understanding of human physiology is admittedly very limited, but from what I understand, testosterone levels fluctuate quite a bit depending on the circumstances, such that a high level of testosterone in a man can be both a cause and an effect of his behavior, his environment, and his social context. So, for example, it’s not surprising that men with relatively high testosterone seem to be having more sex with more women. It could be that the high testosterone is somehow attracting more women. BUT, it could be that it’s the other way round – women are attracted to these men for other reasons, and all that exciting sex they’re having is increasing their hormone levels. It could be that infidelity contributes to high testosterone, not testosterone contributes to infidelity. More likely there’s a kind of feedback loop with sex and hormones stimulating each other.
“There are lies, damned lies and statistics.” Psychology is no more a science than sociology. Flawed methodology, tiny samples, dubious sponsors abound, and time and again the media fail to follow through and analyze. Historically, Psychology also has a particularly tarnished reputation when it comes to it’s treatment of women. The recent Psychology Today article (pulled quickly from it’s website) on “research” about the “unattractiveness” of black women is a prime example of the racism, sexism and bigotry endemic to the field. And yet these studies continue to get millions of dollars of taxpayers money. Don’t get me started on the APA’s failure to condemn psychologist’s participation in and design of torture methods. For a great example of just how dubious the whole field is listen to/read this. http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/05/13/04
Some naturallistic observation suggests that independently affluent women, who may be in more of a position to actually choose freely, don’t like thuggish (overmasculinized) men. On average.
Current sociology (I’m a sociologist) may not be very scientific (and I’d agree about Psychology – Psychology Today is a pretty weak example of anything,) but it’s essentially social constructionism that’s held us back– not to mention the “curse” of postmodernism.
Andrea — I appreciate your exhaustive research deconstructing my article! I think you know I am a fan of your work.
I am not a researcher as you are, and when I write for the HuffPo, I’m not a journalist, either. I am just a person with curiosity who sees things and looks to see if anyone else sees what I see — and can back it up. My HuffPo articles are observations and often written tongue-in-cheek, but I do look for research or comments by others with authority. Still, I do not mean to take valid research and skew it my way. That would be dishonest, and I am not dishonest.
The WSJ article I referenced states: “(W)here does the U.S. stand in the masculinity ranking? The answer is fifth out of the 30 countries in the study, one of the highest. This is, after all, the home of James Dean and Clint Eastwood.” So although the title indicates women don’t prefer macho men, it’s clear that in the U.S. we do. But, I don’t need research to tell me that; I see it! For some it’s the “bad boy,” for others it’s the “tall, dark, handsome” type. When we started skewing toward “softer” men, well, let me just remind everyone of Alan Alda (and I actually think he’s hot; I love a man with a great sense of humor).
I referenced the Mail Online article not to back up my “go ugly” statement, but to back up my statement that Huma could move on. According to the article: “Researcher Rob Burriss said: ‘This would indicate it is the woman who is in control of whether the relationship continues. Beautiful women may realise they can afford to pick and choose, he suggests. They may also have the confidence to leave behind relationships that have run their course.’”
Honestly, I was blown away by the reaction it got and how seriously people took my “go ugly” comment because I would think (hope?) readers would know that picking a mate solely on looks is a very foolish idea. But, as I mention to Tom Matlack, people get married for far more foolish reasons.
I, too am interested in widening the debate about what women desire in men, and vice versa. I look forward to reading more about what you have to say.
Thanks!
Another thought, Andrea — While it may indeed be true that perhaps women may not be as reliant on men for their “good genes,” many more women aren’t relying on men at all. Just look at the growth of single moms by choice. And you can bet those single moms-to-be are absolutely looking at “good genes”!
Oh, dear, one more thought — I notice that in GMP, your article is filed under Ethics & Values. On HuffPo, it’s on the “Women” page (which I didn’t even realize HuffPo had until I saw your article!).
One wonders why there isn’t a HuffPo “Men” section.
Tom?
Thanks for the great and gracious comment Vicki!
As I said in my post and in our private e-mail exchange, I am also a fan of your writing. I think it was great that you got so much attention for the piece, which is a credit to your ability to zoom in on a timely topic and pull it together in such an interesting way.
Please know that I certainly did not mean to imply that you were “dishonest”. My concern was that the provocative arguments you made were not backed up enough to convince me as a reader and that made me go and look at the research. As a researcher, I am always looking for the “evidence” that the writer is using to make their claims. But I look for that as a reader too.
With excellent writers, such as yourself, I look for an experience, and insightful observations. But when columnists or bloggers mention that “research” supports what they are saying, then I feel compelled to look more closely (to re-search) what it is. And what I saw was that your three main points were highly provocative. But I also think that they needed some backing up.
I’ve seen too much academic work (including my own) get turned into headlines and once those headlines spin, it is then difficult to ever get at the “true” meaning of the research or reliable sources of evidence that gave rise to those ideas. My view is that one way of averting this issue is for journalists, and bloggers, to actually look at the studies and even try to connect to the researchers (if they are going to draw on them) so they can get a sense of what was actually being argued and what the limitations of the studies were. (For example, one limitation of several of the studies cited is that were with predominantly white samples).
As you have noted in your conversation with Tom Matlack, news now unfolds at great speed. I also know that it’s not always possible for journalists and bloggers to do thorough “re-search”. And journalists tell me that editors sometimes oversimplify a writer’s work for brevity. But when it’s a high profile, well-read writer like yourself, I think that readers assume that the information you’re presenting is as advertised. I also think that researchers like myself have a responsibility to work closely with the media to make sure research is properly understood and reported as accurately as possible in ways that are useful to the general public. It’s an ongoing challenge for all of us.
I look forward to staying in touch – and am pleased that we have already begun to connect on research issues.
Thanks Andrea and Vicki for continuing this fascinating discussion in ways that clearly I am not qualified as a hack writer/venture capitalist dude. I really love the definition you give from Kimmel of manhood Andrea, though the body of Kimmel’s work I would argue is pretty darned negative on guys in ways that aren’t helpful (and Michael Thompson another noted boy expert agrees with). I also think in the end the question you ask about what 21st women really want from men is really interesting because just as many men are conflicted in their lives by pulls to home and work, so too I think many women are conflicted in what they want of men. Finally, Andrea damn right. There should be a men’s section on HP. I would call that some sort of discrimination, though I suspect their demos skew somewhat female though I don’t know that for a fact. Who can we ask at HP to fix that problem?
More on Micael Kimmel from Good Men:
http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/the-valley-of-the-guys/
Tom,
Thanks for weighing in!
Three points (respectfully offered): I would defend Kimmell. When I taught my first courses on gender and masculinities fifteen years ago, I struggled to find male sociologists writing about gender and men’s lives; his work was and remains important to me. His books, and the journal he edits, Men and Masculinities, is a trusted source for good scholarship on men’s lives, with lots of attention to race and sexualities. I think his work is much wider than his last book Guyland would suggest; meanwhile he is building on that book to engage men on US campuses to talk about a lot of the same issues that are covered at GMP. I don’t agree with everything he writes, but I view him as an ally on gender issues.
I’m seeing him in November at a conference. Maybe, I’ll try to interview him/ have a conversation with him for GMP. Let me know if you have any questions you would like me to ask?
Hmmm “hack writer? Interesting way to describe your massive output of wonderful prose. You have been in that cave for way too long! :^)
As for the recent launch of Huff Post Women, I know this was important to Arianna Huffington; I also view it as a good move. For example, if you look at the Huff Post (or any major news site) on politics, sports, media, the photos and stories are largely about men. And we know (via the Op Ed Project and other sources) about the stats on women and op ed pieces: Only 24% of pieces on Huff Post are by women; less than 20% at other major US papers. Things are slowly changing. But I think this is a way of working toward some equity in media contributions.
All good points Andea. I am not as versed in Kimmel’s work nor broader masculinity academia as I should be. I was going on Guyland which I found negative. On HP I am fully in support of the women’s section. Just wish there was more content on guys that wasn’t celeb trash. I thenk HP has demeaned itself for page views in what it is willing to promote and cover (a/b questions about which half naked woman is hotter come to mind as particularly offensive).
Yes inam still inmmy cave….
Thanks Tom. Excellent point on page views, online media, and the demeaning of news.
Sadly, Tom, it isn’t just HuffPo demeaning itself — online “news” is over-sensationalized in general, just like the yellow journalism of days gone by. But, look at the covers of Us and People; look at the covers of men’s and women’s magazines — is the media giving the people what they want, or are the people driving what’s covered? I never even heard of Jon and Kate ( I don’t watch much TV, and never “reality” TV) until I was forced, after seeing their names everywhere online a few years ago, to finally read about them. I still don’t know why they were considered “news.”
From my 30 years in journalism, I always had a sense of what people like to read, and now that it can be tracked online, it’s proven — crime is almost almost the most-read story (even though everyone complains about all the “bad” news). Is that because it’s on Page 1, or is that because people want to read about it?
Online news sources are in such competition and everything is so fast (and our time is so limited, 140 characters tell us “all we need to know”) that everything is hyped. I don’t think it’s going to get better anytime soon. However, we can always chose not to read those sites.
Thank you for these excellent reflections, Ms Doucet.
As a young women, I’m tired of people and quote-unquote “evolutionary psychology” telling women in society what that they “should” go for.
For me physical attraction, is an essential part of any intimate relationship (not the sole part but an essential part) as such I’ve always been with very good looking (sometimes exceptionally so) men. I simply cannot be physically, emotionally intimate with someone that repulse me or that does not attract me. I think it’s very human at the end of the day.
Our ancestors living in harsh environments had natural avoidance towards individuals that exhibited traits (i.e: mutations) that were unusual, as such traits could be deleterious toward the hunter-gatherer group or the woman’s own reproduction. And so individuals as you noted that had more choice could select partners that were more genetically typical (more morphologically average -less unusual and/or deleterious mutations as evolution “favors” slow change over rapid generational change). More “mutazoid” individuals were more limited to other such individuals or maybe forced to develop mutanophilic preferences.