Men still value physical attractiveness in a long-term mate more than women: Rejoinder to Eastwick, Neff, Finkel, Luchies, and Hunt (2014).

Abstract

Sexual selection theory and parental investment theory suggest that partner physical attractiveness should more strongly affect men's relationship outcomes than women's relationship outcomes. Nevertheless, the contextual nature of this prediction makes serious methodological demands on studies designed to evaluate it. Given these theories suggest that men value observable aspects of partner attractiveness more than women do only in the context of long-term and reproductively viable relationships, they require that studies testing this sex difference involve (a) participants in long-term relationships, (b) women of child-bearing age, and (c) measures of physical attractiveness that assess observable aspects of appearance. In our original article (Meltzer, McNulty, Jackson, & Karney, 2014), we applied 7 methodological standards that allowed us to meet these 3 criteria and demonstrated that partner physical attractiveness is more strongly associated with men's long-term relationship satisfaction than women's long-term relationship satisfaction. Eastwick, Neff, Finkel, Luchies, and Hunt (2014), in contrast, described an unfocused meta-analysis, a refocused meta-analysis, and new data that all failed to meet these criteria and, not surprisingly, failed to demonstrate such a sex difference. We continue to believe that men value physical attractiveness more than women do, that such preferences have implications for their evaluations of long-term relationships, and that studies properly calibrated to detect such differences will do so.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 40 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.