Category Archives: love attraction

Factors of attraction in love

What’s an Ideal Age Difference in Dating?

Posted on by

What age of a prospective partner do you consider preferable? Would you prefer a partner of the same age as yours? Or would you prefer a partner with an age difference in dating?

According to evolutionary views, men and women differ in this regard. Across many cultures, men prefer to marry younger women, while women prefer to marry older men, according to studies (Buss, 1989, 1994/2003).

There are three explanations for this common tendency: evolutionary, psychological, and cultural.

Evolutionary Explanations of Age Difference in Dating

According to the early evolutionary interpretation, men and women have different mating strategies, and therefore, they have different mating preferences: the men’s preference for appearance and the women’s preference for the economic resources of their prospective mates. These gender differences were found in 37 cultures (Buss, 1989).

Men prefer relationships with a younger woman with an attractive appearance, with the implicit assumption of her good fertility prospects. Women, on the other hand, prefer an older man, implying a desire for a good resource prospect.

This preference for age differences in dating also influences their actual marriage choices. Men prefer younger women, with an average age difference of three years, according to research on actual marriages from 29 cultures. Older men and men who were divorced tended to remarry women who were younger. These age differences were three years at the first marriage, five years at the second marriage, and eight years at the third marriage. The data were similar in many societies (Buss, 1989; Buss, 1994/2003).

In some societies, however, cultural attitudes toward divorce and the possibility of a second marriage are negative. The study of mate preferences demonstrated that Jordanians are especially unwilling to marry those who are divorced. Men had a social aversion to engaging in a relationship with such women, while women were more tolerant in this regard (Khallad, 2005).

Psychological Explanations of Age Difference in Dating

This preferred age difference in dating also has psychological implications. A possible psychological explanation of the typical age difference in dating might be that girls mature earlier than boys. Studies in developmental psychology have revealed that teenage girls develop and mature faster than boys (e.g., Lim et al., 2015; Marceau et al., 2011; Tanner, 1971).

Because of this, adolescent girls are often more interested in boys and young men of an older age than of their own age. They perceive their peer boys as too childish to love, so they show little romantic interest in them.

In cases of big age differences, an older man can be a more resourceful partner than a younger one. However, much older men can be less attractive in their physical appearance and less enjoyable in their sexual lives. They may also have interests and attitudes different from those of their young wife. Therefore, social exchange, rather than love attraction, frequently motivates “sugar daddy” and “trophy wife” relationships.

Cultural Explanations of Age Difference in Dating

Cultural interpretation of the age difference in dating between an older man and a younger woman in a relationship is also possible. Many traditional societies have cultural stereotypes that encourage men to be dominant and women to be submissive. For a man who is older or taller than a woman, it is easier to make an impression of dominance. Likewise, a young woman looks more submissive than the older one. Therefore, the older man would feel more authority to protect his young wife.

The increasing gender equality in modern societies and the devaluation of these gender stereotypes lead to smaller age differences between mating partners, which are often around 2-4 years. Much younger women can still be attractive to many older men. The old men may believe that they are younger when they are with such a young, “loving girl”—a feeling that can be a self-deceptive impression. The substantial age differences can hide some problems for both men and women.

What Is the Age Difference in Dating in Modern Societies?

Nowadays, the age differences between partners tend to be smaller than in earlier times. The cross-cultural findings from several studies in the 1990s showed that women of all ages consistently preferred men of their own age or just a few years older. The men’s preferences for the age of a potential female mate, however, depend on their own age. Young men are interested in a relationship with either younger or older women; however, men of an older age become more interested in relationships with younger women (see for review, Kenrick & Keefe, 1992; Kenrick et al., 1995).

Why Are Some Men Interested in Relationships with Older Women?

Can some men prefer older women? Yes, some men prefer a relationship with women who are slightly older than they are.

According to some studies (for a review, see Kenrick, Keefe, Gabrielidis, & Cornelius, 1996), teenage boys are open to dating a girl a few years younger. However, they find women a few years older to be the most attractive. For them, communication with the women, who have more advanced interests and experiences, can be appealing. Younger men experience romantic interest in older women even when these older women do not express their interest in dating younger men.

Modern Egalitarian Tendencies in Dating Preferences

The old evolutionary preferences for young, fertile women and resourceful men are less important in modern societies with egalitarian values and advanced reproductive medicine. According to some data, more couples in modern societies than before do not want to have many children, if any (Kamble et al., 2014). So, the fertility of a woman is not a big factor in a relationship anymore. Modern gender equality gives women better access to resources than before. So, the resources of a man are also not a big factor anymore.

Other Articles of Interest on This Topic

Our Predisposition to Homogamy in Love

Posted on by

Genetic similarity and social homogamy play important roles in our interpersonal attraction and love.

As I showed elsewhere, genetic resemblance between individuals predisposes them to fall in love. Partners in a couple share more genetic traits than random strangers. Nonetheless, it may be misleading to conclude that people fall in love solely due to their genetic similarity.

Many other life circumstances, individual preferences, and socio-cultural characteristics also play an important role. Besides, social and cultural predispositions to homogamy increase the similarity of loving partners even more.

Assortative mating, or homogamy, as a predisposition to choose a similar partner for a relationship, is evident in many social, economic, and cultural characteristics. Among those are social class, socioeconomic status, education, religion, ethnicity, caste, gender, and age. They can have a significant impact on who men and women select to love and marry. Let us consider some of them.

The Interpersonal Attraction of Social and Economic Homogamy

In many societies, homogamy and endogamy in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status are especially important for marriage. Generally, people prefer relationships with individuals of similar social and economic groups, ethnicity, religion, age, and educational level (Kalmijn, 1994, 1998).

The principles of homogamy intentionally or unintentionally motivate men and women to select partners from similar social, economic, or cultural backgrounds. They tend to date and mate with those who are similar to them in social and economic status and belong to the same cultural group. At the early stages of a relationship, men and women often pay less attention to this homogamy with a prospective mate. They tend to rely on their immediate emotions. Nonetheless, as the relationship progresses, they certainly take these factors into consideration.

However, in some traditional cultures, such as India, the economic exchange often takes place in marriage arrangements. In some cases, when a person marries a spouse from a higher social stratum, sociologists call such a marriage hypergamy—“marrying up.” In this type of mating relationship, women often marry men of a slightly higher social class than their own (Van Den Berghe, 1960).

This is also considered “upward mobility,” when women or men from low socio-economic classes prefer to date a potential partner of high economic status. This relationship would advance their status in society (Blossfeld & Timm, 2003).

Nonetheless, in many modern societies, there is a tendency toward homogamy in mating based on economic status. The plots in which a rich prince accidentally meets and marries a poor girl are good for fairy tales and modern romantic movies. However, they are far from the reality of life.

A good financial prospect in a prospective mate is important for both women’s and, surprisingly, for men’s preferences (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008).

Interpersonal Attraction of Religious Homogamy

According to surveys, people consider similar faith and affiliation to be a very important factor in their marriage choice. Their religious families often care about this even more (see for review, Karandashev, 2017, 2019).

For instance, in Jordanian traditional conservative culture, people expect as their top preference that a prospective mating partner should be of the same religion (Khallad, 2005).

In modern Western European societies, many people do not consider religious beliefs important for love. For example, many American university students do NOT rate the religious affiliation of a prospective partner as an important quality.

However, in the seemingly modern society of the USA, where religion has historically played an important role in societal life and politics, the value of religiosity for mating varies across states and cultural groups. For example, American respondents from Texas, a conservative state, rated a similar religious background as essential in prospective mates (Buss et al., 2001).

Some cultural groups in America also place a high value on the religiosity of a prospective mating partner. For instance, modern Muslim women living in the United States prefer and seek a religious marriage partner (Badahdah & Tiemann, 2005).

Interpersonal Attraction of Educational Homogamy

Across many societies throughout history, husbands were usually more educated than their wives. Husbands might need education for their breadwinner’s work, while wives working in the household and taking care of children presumably did not need education.

In recent decades, women have received more opportunities for education and have expressed an interest in studying. Gender educational equality has substantially increased, providing more opportunities for contact and communication between educated men and women. Because of this, they frequently preferred relationships with equal partners. Colleges and universities have become the places where men and women have the opportunity to meet and marry (Blossfeld, 2009; Blossfeld & Timm, 2003).

Educational homogamy between men and women in dating relationships has increased in many modern societies. Marriage partners become homogamous couples in terms of education in such countries as

However, in many countries, another trend occurs. College education became more prevalent among women than among men. Women with higher education outnumbered men. Therefore, the number of women who marry downward has increased (De Rose & Fraboni, 2016; Esteve, García‐Román, & Permanyer, 2012).

Interpersonal Attraction and Love in Egalitarian Societies

Nowadays, in modern egalitarian societies, many men and women usually have equal access to financial, social, and educational resources. That means better chances for equal relationships and marriage. All these societal factors reflect on the ways young people form relationships (see for review, Karandashev, 2023).

The other articles of interest on this topic are

Physical Beauty of Men and Women Across Cultures

Posted on by

Physical beauty characterizes attractive facial features, facial expressions, physical qualities of the body, bodily expressions, and grooming. These are the major groups of appearances that people pay attention to while they are communicating with others. Physical beauty is not only aesthetically pleasing. It can also be a signal of other qualities in a mating partner.

Universal Standards of Physical Beauty

The physical beauty of a person’s appearance is an objective reality that artists and scholars have explored for centuries. Among those qualities are symmetry, proportion, balance, and others. Artistic and literary works have depicted many cultural traditions of beauty across times and cultures (e.g., Ahmad, 1994; Feldman & Gordon, eds, 2006; Ishigami & Buckland, 2013; Prettejohn, 2005).

The physical beauty of some qualities of appearance is universal. People of different races, nationalities, ethnicities, and ages consistently perceive some faces as more attractive than others. Cross-cultural studies have revealed that people recognize such attributes as symmetry, facial averageness, sexual dimorphism, and skin homogeneity as universally attractive (see for review, Fink & Neave, 2005; Vashi, 2015).

Do People Perceive Physical Beauty Similarly Across Cultures?

Researchers found substantial cross-cultural consistencies in the perception of facial attractiveness in many studies. Multiple studies found that the cultural ideas of an attractive face vary relatively little across such cultural samples as African Americans and European Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and Taiwanese (Cunningham et al., 1995).

It seems like the ideal of a pretty woman’s face is quite similar across cultures. For example, people perceive the faces of women as attractive when they have

“high eyebrows, widely spaced large eyes with dilated pupils, high cheekbones, small nose, a narrow face with thin cheeks, large smile, full lower lip, small chin, and fuller hairstyle.”

(Cunningham et al., 1995, p. 275).

People across many societies mostly agree on who is attractive and who is not. For instance, neonate qualities, raised eyebrows, and a big smile are attractive across many cultures.

Many societies place especially high expectations on female physical beauty. According to evolutionary studies, attractive appearance indicates health, youth, and thus female fertility. Among those qualities of appearance are such cues to health as symmetrical features, a low ratio of hips to waist, clear and smooth skin, the absence of sores, full lips, white teeth, and lustrous hair (e.g., Langlois et al. 2000; Sugiyama, 2005).

Is Physical Beauty the Same All over the World?

Similarities in the qualities of face and body attractiveness across cultures seem surprising because different racial and ethnic typologies of facial and body features are quite distinct. Despite their obvious physical differences, Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, and Whites have similar physical beauty standards. It is difficult to believe, isn’t it? These questions still await deeper and more detailed exploration.

However, other attributes and standards of physical attractiveness vary across cultures and across time. For example, the appearance of sexual maturity and expressive qualities varies to some degree, while hairstyle, weight, and grooming vary highly across cultures, depending on local ecology and fashion (Cunningham et al., 1995; Fallon, 1990; Langlois et al. 2000).

How Does Physical Beauty Look Across Cultures?

The stereotypes of attractiveness differ across societies and times (see for review, e.g., DeMello, M. (2007, 2013).

The prototypes of attractive appearances evolve depending on ecological, social, and cultural contexts. Therefore, men and women look good in a particular society if they fit the relevant cultural prototypes of what types of body, posture, and adornment are beautiful (Osborn, 1996).

What is beautiful is culturally good

Thus, cultural stereotypes of beauty really do make differences. As noted elsewhere, “what is beautiful is culturally good” (Wheeler & Kim, 1997). For example, the ideals of certain patterns of body size vary.

It is worth noting that ideal body sizes differ less between Western and non-Western societies than between socioeconomic groups (Swami, 2015).

The Cultural Ideal of a Thin Body

In recent decades, modernization—often equated with westernization—has affected the cultural evolution of the ideal body size. Cultural shifts in the minds of urban populations of middle and upper socioeconomic status have resulted in the prevalence of the thin ideal (Swami, 2015). Modernization and westernization promote a thin ideal in many countries.

The Cultural Ideal of Skin Beauty

The cultural stereotypes of skin beauty also vary in different parts of the world. For example, in America, many people see tanned skin as beautiful. The images of bronzed celebrities are common.

Different from this cultural stereotype, people in many parts of East Asia, such as Japan and South Korea, perceive white skin and a milky, smooth complexion as beautiful and associate these qualities with youthfulness. A milky and smooth complexion is perceived as attractive.

In India, fair skin and a lighter complexion are considered significant signs of beauty. The association between fair skin and beauty is definite in that culture.

The Cultural Ideal of Facial Beauty

Despite the cross-cultural similarity in the qualities of facial beauty, which I noted above, in some societies, men may perceive women with a large chin, a large nose, and small eyes as attractive, while in others, they may be considered unattractive. For example, people on Mangaia, the island in the South Pacific Ocean, think that attractive Mangaian girls have:

“a smiling face, shiny black hair, small eyes ‘like those of a pigeon,’ with small breasts, large hips and round cheeks; her lips should be neither too everted nor too thin, and she should have skin that is neither black nor white”

(Marshall, 1971, p. 124)

Who Is Attractive and Who Is Not? It Depends…

Beautiful women are physically attractive and have desirable bodies and faces. Do men always want them for mating and dating? Do they always love them? Yes, objectively, they may rate them attractive but select another one that is more beloved to them.

“Genetic factors cause sugar to be highly palatable but that does not prevent individuals from controlling their sugar intake.”

(Cunningham et al., 2002, p. 276).

“Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”

We certainly like beautiful people, but we don’t necessarily love them. We love someone, not because he or she is beautiful. We rather see him or her as beautiful because we love him or her. In many cases, it is true that “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.”

How we perceive people—attractive or not—depends on our moods (see for review, Cunningham et al., 1995).

Being in an optimistic, neutral, or pessimistic mood, we can see others in positive or negative ways. A passionate lover sees the world brighter, while he or she perceives the loved one more romantically and idealistically than they actually are. The lover looks at the beloved and the relationship through “rosy filters.” The perception of shortcomings and flaws fades.

When we are in love, we are selective; we do not perceive other individuals of opposite sexes as beautiful as our beloved. We do not see other possible mates as attractive because we unintentionally downplay their beauty. They are good-looking but not beautiful.

According to studies, a lover who is in a romantic relationship evaluates highly attractive people of the opposite sex as less attractive. Such a lower rating works as a defensive mechanism that helps the lover guard his or her love for the current partner from other possible rivals (Simpson, Gangestad, & Lerma, 1990).

You can also be interested in the articles:

Genetic secrets of love attraction

Genetic diversity and love attraction

Why do we love good-looking people?

To males and females, how important is a mate’s physical attractiveness?

Sexual Preferences for Physical Attractiveness

Posted on by

To what extent do men and women place different values on different aspects of physical attractiveness when trying to mate?

Evolutionary science gives us important keys for better understanding the mating value of physical attractiveness. However, despite the general universality of evolution, its specific evolutionary principles and mechanisms vary across species and cultures. Many of them refer to sex differences.

Let us consider sexual differences in the value of physical attractiveness in mating.

Why Do Male and Female Animals and Birds Look Different?

Physical appearance helps sexually dimorphic animals and humans select a mate. Many species, including mammals and birds, have their own mate preferences and focus their courtship energy on those favorites (see e.g., Andersson 1994; Fisher, 1998).

When it comes to mating and sexual relations, they are not promiscuous. They are picky and won’t mate with just anyone. They communicate their love and attraction.

“They stroke, kiss, nip, nuzzle, pat, tap, lick, tug, or playfully chase this chosen one. Some sing. Some whinny. Some squeak, croak, or bark. Some dance. Some strut. Some preen. Some chase. Most play”

(Fisher, 2004, p.27).

Males and females differ in appearance and behavior. As I noted elsewhere, in some species, like birds, evolutionary mechanisms tend to beautify males, making their appearance attractive for female mates. They need to be distinctive and attract a potential female for mating. On the other hand, the appearance of females is less appealing among those species. It seems they are on demand anyway (Prum, 2017).

How Women and Men Appreciate their Partners’ Physical Attractiveness: Evolutionary Explanation

People are different in this respect. According to presumed human evolutionary mechanisms, women are more frequently concerned about their appearance and beauty compared to men, who care about this much less (see for review, e.g. Buss, 1994; Feingold, 1990).

These sex differences might be due to human evolutionary roots, which determine the different mating strategies of males and females. Here is an evolutionary interpretation of sex differences in mating. Since women and men have different contributions to the reproduction of offspring, they have different mating strategies and different parental investments (Buss 1989, Trivers, 1972).

Cross-cultural consistencies of these sex differences support such an evolutionary interpretation. Men place a higher value on their female partner’s physical attractiveness in mating relationships. Studies have shown such evidence across many cultural samples worldwide (e.g., Buss, 1989, 1994; Buss et al., 1990; Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, & Larsen, 2001; Feingold, 1992; Fletcher, Tither, O’Loughlin, Friesen, & Overall, 2004; Langlois et al. 2000; Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss, 2005; Sugiyama, 2005; Townsend & Wasserman, 1998, see for review, Karandashev, 2022a,).

Here are some cultural examples. In Arab Jordanian society, men prefer young and attractive prospective female mates for long-term relationships. On the other hand, Jordanian women place less value on these characteristics in men when mating (Khallad, 2005).

Another study of Muslims living in the United States found that in their personal advertisements on a matrimonial Web site, women more often described their physical attractiveness compared to men’s self-descriptions. However, these gender differences in preferences for a physically attractive mate are not significant. Nonetheless, men are more interested in their younger and more attractive mates than women are (Badahdah & Tiemann, 2005). 

How Men and Women Value their Partners’ Physical Attractiveness: Cultural Explanation

Cultural interpretation of sex differences in the value they place on physical appearance in mating and dating is also possible. These differences might be due to cultural gender stereotypes. Patriarchal cultures, which have been prevalent in many societies for centuries, encouraged men to rely on their wealth as a mating value. So their appearance was of less mating value. On the other hand, women’s cultural roles left them dependent on men for their survival and wealth. Therefore, they could rely largely on their appearance and ability to reproduce.

History, however, has demonstrated much more diversity in gender roles, which did not necessarily follow these cultural patterns. In some societies and social circles, women might play different roles. For example, in many agrarian societies, women’s abilities to cook and work hard were more important than their beauty (Karandashev, 2017).

The current reality of social life across cultures, however, presents a diversity of gender differences and similarities that may go beyond the simple evolutionary explanation. Many modern men love to beautify themselves, while many modern women do not care about this.

Other Articles of Interest on This Topic Tell Us

Why Do We Love Good-Looking People?

Posted on by

The good-looking people are likable. No doubt. They entice us with their physically attractive appearance. We also tend to fall in love with beautiful women and handsome men. They look cool and perfect in everything.

A Stereotype of Beauty

Our initial perception of others and interaction with them substantially rely on their appearance (e.g., Berscheid & Walster, 1974; Li et al., 2013). We hold a pervasive and influential stereotype: “What is beautiful is good” (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972; Hatfield & Rapson, 2000; Lemay et al., 2010; Lorenzo et al., 2010).

However, studies have shown that this stereotype is less powerful and less general than we are used to thinking (Eagly, Makhijani, et al., 1991). It is also culturally specific (for a review, see Swami & Furnham, 2008). The stereotype is present in many cultures, yet its content varies according to their cultural values (e.g., in individualistic and collectivistic cultures). What is beautiful is culturally good (Wheeler & Kim, 1997).

Mating and Dating Value of Beauty

Physical attractiveness has great mating value. Studies have shown that it significantly predicts dating and romantic relationships (Poulsen, et al., 2013; Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966). Good-looking people are more confident in romantic situations (Hatfield & Rapson, 2000).

A study with a large national sample in Spain (Sangrador & Yela, 2000) showed that the beauty of a potential partner strongly motivates a person to engage in sporadic as well as long-term relationships. Partners with attractive physical appearances prompt not only our sexual attraction but also passion, intimacy, commitment, and idealization. Thus, falling in love occurs due to the idealization of the loved one, which involves many positive and negative emotions and favorable subjective associations.

Is Physical Appearance Important for the Young or for the Old People?

Another study of two samples in the Netherlands and Germany (De Raad & Doddema-Winsemius, 1992) found that young and single people especially value the physical attractiveness and good looks of a prospective partner. Older people are more motivated by a desire for home and children, chastity, and ambition.

Is Physical Appearance Important For Women or For Men?

Many studies have found that men consider the physical attractiveness of their mates to be of greater value than women do (see, for review, e.g., Buss, 1994; Feingold, 1990). It sounds like common sense. Women know this very well and tend to beautify themselves. The women strive to make a good impression on men as well as on other women.

While among humans, women tend to care more about their beautiful appearance compared to men, these sex differences are just opposite in some other species (Prum, 2017). Among birds, for instance, Mother Nature encourages males to beautify themselves more than females do.

Evolutionary psychology tends to contend that these sex differences are cross-culturally universal (e.g., Buss et al., 1990; Buss, 1994; Buss & Barnes, 1986). The findings, however, did not always consistently support this implication.

Multiple findings across many studies (Langlois et al. 2000) have shown no gender differences in the importance of attractiveness. Women favor attractive men, not less than those with resources.

Besides, situations of real interaction with potential mates, such as speed dating, showed that men and women value a partner’s good looks equally highly (Eastwick, Eagly, Finkel, & Johnson, 2011).

Moreover, species and cultures differ in this respect, which can have different effects on mating relations depending on ecological, social, and cultural contexts (Karandashev, 2017). Local ecological conditions may also play their roles (Cunningham & Barbee, 1991).

Among the Other Topics of Interest in this Regard Are:

The “Mere Exposure Effect” and Love Attraction

Posted on by

Familiarity and similarity are powerful forces in our love attraction that can be influenced by genetic predisposition, imprinting, or by the “mere exposure effect.”

They all have the same psychological mechanism of prototypicality. Despite our interest in novelty, we are more likely to find a prototypical person more attractive than others. We generally tend to like something familiar in our lives. Novelty may have an unpredictable effect.

The “mere exposure effect” explains why social propinquity and residential proximity lead to positive attitudes in relationships, love, and marriage.

What Is the “Mere Exposure Effect”?

How frequently and for how long we perceive something determines our liking. We tend to like any object or person after repeated exposure. The more we see, the more we like. Such a “mere exposure effect” is well documented in social psychology (e.g., Bornstein, 1989, 1993; Harmon-Jones & Allen, 2001; Moreland & Zajonc, 1982; Saegert, Swap, & Zajonc, 1973; Zajonc, 1968).

Do Our Aesthetic Preferences Depend on Mere Exposure Effects?

The effect of “familiarity leads to liking” determines our preferences in music, films, body and facial appearance, and fashion. Complexity and novelty can be aversive. In many things, mere exposure and typicality shape our aesthetic preferences (e.g., Cutting, 2006; Martindale, Moore, & West, 1988).

This is why many people like pop music more than classical music. The pop songs are simple and, therefore, easy to love. Listening to complex and unfamiliar classical music may be aversive. Novelty and complexity can be appealing. When people listen to complex music more, they tend to understand and like it more. 

The “Mere Exposure Effect” and Interpersonal Attraction

The same way the “mere exposure effect” works in our communication, affecting our interpersonal attraction (e.g., Brockner & Swap, 1976; Harrison, 1977; Moreland & Beach, 1992; Saegert, Swap, & Zajonc, 1973).

The more frequently we see (listen to, smell, or touch) a woman or man, the more we perceive them as pleasing and likeable. The “mere exposure effect” influences our favorable perception of them. However, when we see someone we dislike again and again, we dislike them even more.

The “Mere Exposure Effect” Is Ubiquitous and Pervasive yet Multifaceted

This effect works in visual, auditory, and olfactory perception (e.g., Delplanque et, 2015; Heingartner & Hall, 1974; Montoya et al., 2017).

The more we see, listen, taste, smell, and touch, the more we like—to some extent. It is also evident regardless of race and gender (Hamm, Baum, & Nikels, 1975).

The effect of exposure on liking, however, is not straight but rather curvilinear. The more we see, the more we like—up to a point. The increasing liking then reaches a plateau and then declines, giving way to disliking. When we see something or someone for a prolonged period of time, the impression can become dull, boring, and even aversive.

Here Are Some Key Practical Takeaways

Let’s also keep in mind:

The more we see, the more we love, but only if we are initially neutral or slightly positive towards him or her.

However, if we dislike him or her at first, the opposite effect occurs: the more we see, the more we dislike. 

The Implications of the “Mere Exposure Effect” for Love Attraction

The “mere exposure effect” has important implications for intergroup and intercultural relations. The diverse and mixed cultural environment, rather than spatial segregation, is favorable for inter-racial, inter-ethnic, and inter-faith liking and attraction.

The “mere exposure effect” is also applicable for a better understanding of the presumed opposition between free-choice and arranged marriages. Do free-choice marriages rely on love more than arranged marriages? Not necessarily.

Proponents of free-choice marriage believe that love attraction is a prerequisite for loving relations in family, while supporters of arranged marriage think that love attraction is rather a consequence of positive relations in family. The question remains: “What is more important, initial impressions of “wow” in love, or the development of love over time as a result of the positive “mere exposure effect” of living with someone?

The “mere exposure effect” can also explain so-called “progression bias.” The psychological phenomenon of “progression bias” is a tendency of single men and women in sexual and romantic relationships to favor staying in a relationship over the course of the relationship’s progression. The longer they are in a relationship, the more they prefer to stay in that relationship.

Among the Other Topics of Interest in this Regard Are:

Sexual Imprinting of Attraction and Love

Posted on by

The mechanism of imprinting plays an important role in shaping our sexual attraction and love preferences. I explain what “imprinting” is elsewhere.

Early works by Konrad Lorenz (Lorenz, 1935) demonstrated that the early experiences of birds and animals could affect their mating preferences. Sexual imprinting can play an important role in adult life.

Positive Sexual Imprinting in Childhood

Our early childhood attachments to an opposite-sex parent or peer have a significant impact on the type of person we will perceive as attractive to us in adult life. Due to imprinting, early experience with kin boosts sexual attraction when a person is unaware of the incest taboo. However, such an experience reduces sexual attraction when the person is aware of the culturally imposed taboo (Fraley & Marks, 2010).

Imprinting of Love in Adolescence

Researchers and practitioners believe that adolescence is a particularly sensitive period when “imprinting” shapes our romantic preferences. In this regard, first love plays a strikingly memorable role. Across many cultures, this period—between the ages of 13 and 14—provides adolescents with the first and most substantial time that determines the qualities and types of subsequent romantic attachments.

According to the imprinting theory, adolescence is a sensitive period for romantic relationships, and experiences during this period can be imprinted for life (Brain, 2010; Braams, 2013).

Negative Sexual Imprinting

In other cases, negative imprinting may have the opposite effect. A child may develop a sexual aversion to the phenotype of a person with whom the child spent a significant amount of time in infancy and childhood. This way, imprinting leads to sexual aversion rather than sexual attraction. Those with whom animals or human individuals spent their early years in childhood can be sexually unattractive to them. They are negatively imprinted (see for review, Lampert 1997, p.15).

Here are two case studies from Israel and Taiwan from earlier times that present examples of such negative imprinting.

Two Case Studies of Negative Sexual Imprinting

In the old Taiwanese culture, the parents of a boy often adopted a baby girl from another family for matchmaking in the future. This way, the parents of the girl saved on her upbringing costs, whereas the parents of the boy saved on the high bride price.

Thus, the girl and boy grew up together as siblings. It turned out that when parents expected their children’s marriage in early adulthood, the boy and girl were not sexually attracted to each other and preferred to avoid this kind of relationship. When they chose to be obedient and agreed to marry, they did not enjoy their marital life. And their sexual life was unpleasant (Wolf, 1995).

Traditionally, children in Israeli kibbutz communities spent a significant amount of time in communal houses for children. Due to this, they spent far more time with their peers than with their families.

These boys and girls, who grew up together in early childhood, were often not attracted to their peers when it came to mating. And they usually did not marry each other (Shepher, 1971, 1983).

The Effect of Positive and Negative Imprinting Is Not Simple and Not Always Consistent

These two practices from the past illustrate how negative imprinting can affect sexual attraction. Besides such case studies, however, the systematic review of publications has shown that the effects of positive and negative imprinting on human mate preferences and sexual attraction can vary.

In humans, researchers found little evidence in support of positive imprinting, whereas natural observations provided support for the effect of negative sexual imprinting. Men and women are not sexually attracted and prefer to avoid mating with those with whom they were close in infancy and early childhood. However, such experiences do not cause strong aversions. Such experience also does not completely suppress or exclude sexual desire.

In the studies of humans, relatively weak evidence was generally found for both positive and negative imprinting. Men and women are less likely to fall in love with those with whom they were close in infancy and early childhood. Nevertheless, they do not experience strong aversiveness toward them and can feel sexual desire (Rantala & Marcinkowska, 2011).

Thus, imprinting can have a significant impact on our attractions or aversions in love. Nevertheless, the effects of imprinting do not shape our “destiny” in love. We still have some relative leeway in terms of who we love.

Among the Other Topics of Interest in this Regard Are:

References

Bateson, P. (1978). Sexual imprinting and optimal outbreeding. Nature, 273(5664), 659-660.

Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P., Koves, P., & Bernath, L. (2002). Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting; parental influence on mate choice preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 677-690.

Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P., & Weisfeld, G. E. (2004). Sexual imprinting in human mate choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 271, 1129-1134.

Brain, A. (2010). Attraction: First Love – The Imprint. Blog of Ageless Brain.

Braams, B. (2013). Adolescents in love: What makes a first love special? Leidenpsychologyblog. Leiden University.

Fraley, R. C., & Marks, M. J. (2010). Westermarck, Freud, and the incest taboo: Does familial resemblance activate sexual attraction?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1202-1212.

Immelmann, K. (1969). über den Einfluß frühkindlicher Erfahrungen auf die geschlechtliche Objektfixierung bei Estrildiden 1. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 26(6), 677-691.

Immelmann, K. (1972). Sexual and other long-term aspects of imprinting in birds and other species. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 4, 147-174

. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(08)60009-1

Lampert, A. (1997). The evolution of love. Praeger.

Lorenz, K. (1935). Der kumpan in der umwelt des vogels. Journal für Ornithologie, 83(2), 137-213.

Moltz, H. (1960). Imprinting: Empirical basis and theoretical significance. Psychological Bulletin, 57(4), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041214

Rantala, M. J., & Marcinkowska, U. M. (2011). The role of sexual imprinting and the Westermarck effect in mate choice in humans. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(5), 859-873.

Schutz, F. (1965). Sexuelle Prägung bei Anatiden 2, 3. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 22(1), 50-103.

Shepher, J. (1971). Mate selection among second generation kibbutz adolescents and adults: Incest avoidance and negative imprinting. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1, 293-307.

Shepher, J. (1983) Incest: A biosocial view. New York, NY: Academic Press

Ten Cate, C., & Vos, D. R. (1999). Sexual imprinting and evolutionary processes. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 28, 1-31.

Vicedo, M. (2013). The nature and nurture of love. University of Chicago Press.

Wolf, A. P. (1995). Sexual attraction and childhood association: A Chinese brief for Edward Westermarck. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Imprinting of Love Attachment

Posted on by

We tend to perceive people who look familiar to us as more attractive than those who look unfamiliar. This is the familiarity principle that also guides our mating, sexual preferences, and love. The phenomenon of imprinting is at the root of this basic psychological mechanism of attachment development in childhood.

The love attraction to familiar people also stems from the familiarity principle, grounded in both imprinting and mere exposure effects

Imprinting as an Attachment

Since early studies, researchers have more likely attributed imprinting to animals than to human infants, and more likely to early periods of development than to the later years of life.

Studies of infants replaced imprinting with the concept of attachment, which has been considered the foundation of love. Initially, it is the love of an infant for a caregiver, while later in life, it is the sexual (often romantic) love of a man or woman for their beloved ones.

Classical Studies of Love Attachment

Among the pioneers of these studies of love attachment were

Harlow along with his colleagues who studied infant monkeys (e.g., Harlow, 1959; Harlow & Zimmerman, 1959; Suomi et al., 2008) and Bowlby along with his colleagues who studies human babies (e.g., Ainsworth, 1989; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1988/2008)

(see for detailed review, Karandashev, 2022a, Ch 3 and 7).

Modern Research of Love Attachment

Further progress in human attachment theory and research on love continued in the works of Shaver, Mikulincer, and Hazan, along with their colleagues. They developed the model of attachment based on the individualistic, middle-class concept of psychological autonomy as a cultural value (e.g., Shaver & Mikulincer , 2006; Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw 1988).

Heidi Keller, professor at the University of Osnabrueck, Germany, along with her colleagues, developed a new culture-sensitive model of attachment that characterized culturally different models of attachment (Keller, 2013, 2018).

Imprinting of Sexual Attraction

The studies have shown that imprinting can be associated with optimal breeding (Bateson, 1978).

However, imprinting can be both positive and negative in terms of the role such experiences play in sexual attraction.

Researchers have shown the role of early imprinting in attraction, suggesting that childhood experiences can influence sexual attraction in adulthood. The studies have demonstrated effects of imprinting on attraction

Early Love Attachment of Infants

Infants are generally open to attachment to any kind of figure in their early lives. They don’t have cultural prejudice in their attachment and love if they are exposed to racial, ethnic, and religious diversity in childhood.

Genetic similaritiy and genetic diversity also play role in love attraction and love attachment.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infan­cy. American Psychologist, 44, 709-716.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bateson, P. (1978). Sexual imprinting and optimal outbreeding. Nature, 273(5664), 659-660.

Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P., Koves, P., & Bernath, L. (2002). Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting; parental influence on mate choice preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 677-690.

Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P., & Weisfeld, G. E. (2004). Sexual imprinting in human mate choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 271, 1129-1134.

Bowlby, J. (1988/2008). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic books. (Originally published in 1988).

Harlow, H. F. (1959). Love in infant monkeys. Scientific American, 200(6), 68-75.

Harlow, H. F., & Zimmermann, R. R. (1959). Affectional responses in the infant monkey. Science, 130(3373), 421-432.

Hess, E. H. (1958). ” Imprinting” in animals. Scientific American, 198(3), 81-93.

Immelmann, K. (1972). Sexual and other long-term aspects of imprinting in birds and other species. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 4, 147-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-3454(08)60009-1

Keller, H. (2013). Attachment and culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(2), 175–194.

Keller, H. (2018). Universality claim of attachment theory: Children’s socioemotional development across cultures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11414–11419.

Lorenz, K. (1935). Der kumpan in der umwelt des vogels. Journal für Ornithologie, 83(2), 137-213.

Moltz, H. (1960). Imprinting: Empirical basis and theoretical significance. Psychological Bulletin, 57(4), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041214

Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer , M. ( 2006). Attachment theory, individual psychodynamics, and relationship functioning. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 251–272). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Shaver, P., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (p. 68–99). Yale University Press.

Suomi, S. J., Van der Horst, F. C., & Van der Veer, R. (2008). Rigorous experiments on monkey love: An account of Harry F. Harlow’s role in the history of attachment theory. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42(4), 354-369.

Tzschentke, B., & Plagemann, A. (2006). Imprinting and critical periods in early development. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 62(4), 626-637.

Vicedo, M. (2013). The nature and nurture of love. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226020693

Attraction to Familiar Others

Posted on by

Something familiar is frequently attractive to us, despite our interest in novelty. It is a persistent pattern of human perception and behavior, which is called the familiarity principle (Reis & Sprecher, 2009).

The principle is rooted in the mere exposure effect. We consider familiar situations, objects, actions, and people to be safe and unlikely to be harmful. People commonly like safe environments.

The Familiarity Principle in Relationships

The familiarity principle is important in interpersonal attraction to another person. “Birds of a feather tend to flock together.”

Imprinting, familiarity, and similarity use the same psychological mechanism as prototypicality. The perception of familiarity in the appearance of another person emerges due to the perception of his or her prototypicality. A prototypical person triggers attraction and desire for a relationship.

Many studies have shown that people tend to like others who look and behave familiar (e.g., Moreland & Zajonc, 1982; Peskin & Newell, 2004; Reis et all, 2011).

Familiarity breeds attraction. In general, we like the types of people who appear familiar to us. We have frequently seen them before. They have familiar physical appearances, personalities, and behavioral patterns.

This is one of the major obstacles to interracial and intercultural communication and relationships. So, men and women generally prefer to mingle among those of the same race, ethnicity, faith, and cultural background (Brooks & Neville, 2017).

Early Development of Attraction Preferences

The development of attraction preferences begins in early childhood and takes place on a subconscious level. The environment in which we grew up and the people with whom we spent a lot of time essentially affect our future preferences for boyfriends, girlfriends, and other partners in relationships. Our mother (or grandmother), father (or grandfather), and other close relatives frequently serve as templates for such preferences. The positive imprinting and repeated exposure to these people increase our attraction to them.

Sexual Imprinting in Children

The phenotype of the opposite-sex caregiver, with whom a child spent much of his or her early years, serves as a prototype for his or her future mate preference. The appearance of any person (a parent, stepparent, or another person) who raised a child for the majority of their formative years plays this role. This is called positive sexual imprinting (Bereczkei et al., 2002, 2004).

For example, researchers found that women tend to choose spouses that resemble their adoptive fathers. These findings exclude the factor of genetic similarity in favor of imprinting (Bereczkei et al., 2004).

Therefore, our early life experiences can set our mating preferences. In the future, if a man or woman resembles that prototypical person imprinted in childhood, for example, a mother or father, then this person may have a better chance of being sexually appealing. Thus, early childhood experience can shape mate preferences, even without being noticed.

As Fraley and Marks (2010, p. 1210) argued,

“beneath the surface, those early experiences are setting the stage for a set of preferences that essentially co-opt early attachment and caregiving experiences in the service of sexuality, leading people to find attractive in others features that are shared by their family members.”

Conscious and Unconscious Effects of Familiarity in Attraction

Three experimental studies have shown that the effects of familiarity and novelty on sexual attraction have different directions depending on whether the feeling of familiarity appears from conscious or unconscious sources. Their results showed that when participants were unaware of repeated exposure, the mere exposure effect increased attraction to a target person. However, when participants were aware of the repeated exposure, their attraction to the target person weakened (Fraley & Marks, 2010).

Thus, familiarity inspires sexual attraction when an individual is not aware of the origins of why another seems familiar. This potential partner may appear novel. However, this novelty is intriguing because the individual perceives in the partner something familiar that is difficult to explain.

You can also be interested in the articles:

References

Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P., Koves, P., & Bernath, L. (2002). Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting; parental influence on mate choice preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 677-690.

Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P., & Weisfeld, G. E. (2004). Sexual imprinting in human mate choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 271, 1129-1134.

Brooks, J. E., & Neville, H. A. (2017). Interracial attraction among college men: The influence of ideologies, familiarity, and similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(2), 166-183.

Fraley, R. C., & Marks, M. J. (2010). Westermarck, Freud, and the incest taboo: Does familial resemblance activate sexual attraction?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1202-1212.

Moreland, R. L., & Zajonc, R. B. (1982). Exposure effects in person perception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18(5), 395-415.

Peskin, M., & Newell, F. N. (2004). Familiarity breeds attraction: Effects of exposure on the attractiveness of typical and distinctive faces. Perception, 33(2), 147-157.

Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022885

Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2009). Familiarity principle of attraction. In Encyclopedia of human relationships (Vol. 1, pp. 597-597). SAGE. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412958479.n194

Genetic Diversity and Genetic Sexual Attraction

Posted on by

Despite the importance of similarity in genetic sexual attraction, genetic diversity is equally important in love. It appears that both similarities and differences between love partners play important roles.

Evolutionary Value of Genetic Diversity

Genetic sexual attraction plays an important role in triggering love between men and women. However, sexual attraction for sexual reproduction also strives to avoid the negative effect of excessive genetic similarity between loving partners. Inbreeding has a deleterious biological effect on the offspring in terms of health quality, the likelihood of diseases, disabilities, and mortality (see for review, Ceballos et all, 2021; Hasselgren & Norén, 2019).

Therefore, human evolution and population growth throughout history have promoted people to exclude mates with extreme genetic similarity from the pool of possible mating partners. Such mating increases the likelihood of harmful recessive genes and reduces offspring fitness (Ceballos et all, 2021).

Cultural Evolution Encourages Diversity in Genetic Sexual Attraction

Even though consanguineous marriages—mating relations with blood relatives—have been widespread throughout history, cultural norms of incest taboos have evolved in many societies to safeguard against this harmful effect of inbreeding. People likely became aware of the harmful effect of sexual relations between close relatives on the quality of their offspring. Incest, or sex between family members, became a cultural taboo in many societies. Evolving social norms and psychological experiences of love began to respect the principles of biological evolution. They were adjusted accordingly, encouraging the extended reproduction of offspring.

A Controversy over Genetic Sexual Attraction among Family Members

Although people perceive potential mates who resemble their kin as more sexually appealing, incest avoidance evolves from the development of taboos. When awareness of the kin relationship between self and other is bypassed, relatives often look sexually appealing to a person. So, by only consciously acknowledging incest taboos, people suppress their sexual attraction to kin (Fraley & Marks, 2010).

The Benefits of Diversity in Genetic Sexual Attraction Encourage Cultural Taboos against Incest

The difference between partners in their genetics leads to healthier offspring. Therefore, natural selection—and cultural norms accordingly—developed protective psychological mechanisms to decrease the sexual drive for similarity and allow only a suitable measure of variance between partners in love relationships. This evolutionary mechanism might be at the origin of the strong incest taboo among many populations of species and human societies (Lampert 1997, p.14).

Societies in history and modern times have respected the incest taboo, prohibiting sexual relations between females and males who are in kinship relationships. Many human societies have cultural norms prohibiting sexual relations among kin (Lampert, 1997; Murdock, 1949; Westermarck, 1891/1921).

You may also be interested in the articles:

References

Ceballos, F. C., Gürün, K., Altınışık, N. E., Gemici, H. C., Karamurat, C., Koptekin, D., … & Somel, M. (2021). Human inbreeding has decreased in time through the Holocene. Current Biology, 31(17), 3925-3934.

Hasselgren, M., & Norén, K. (2019). Inbreeding in natural mammal populations: historical perspectives and future challenges. Mammal Review, 49(4), 369-383.

Fraley, R. C., & Marks, M. J. (2010). Westermarck, Freud, and the incest taboo: Does familial resemblance activate sexual attraction?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(9), 1202-1212.

Lampert, A. (1997). The evolution of love. Praeger.

Murdock, G.P. (1949). Social structure. Macmillan.

Westermarck, E. (1921). The history of human marriage (5th ed.). London, UK: Allerton. (Original work published 1891).