0:01

BBC Sounds, music

0:03

radio podcasts. Welcome

0:06

to our bonus episode

0:08

with more for our

0:10

expert who's dedicated lots

0:12

of time to answering, why

0:14

do we do that? I'm

0:16

Ella Ashamahi, if you're after

0:18

more bad boys with Julia

0:21

Stern, you're in the right

0:23

place. Do check out our

0:25

main episode, if you haven't

0:27

already, all about a study

0:29

which started at a singles

0:31

night in a bowling club.

0:33

The study looked at people's

0:35

dating preferences over 13 years

0:37

and looked at how what

0:39

people are into changed as

0:41

they got older. People's preferences remained

0:43

relatively stable which did surprise me

0:46

given some of my friends track

0:48

records over the years and when

0:50

I say my friends I do

0:52

mean me. The stereotype may be

0:54

bad boys but it did make

0:56

me wonder about bad girls, although

0:59

admittedly it doesn't have quite the

1:01

same ring to it. We'll get

1:03

on to bad girls a bit

1:05

later, but first, the ovulatory shift

1:07

hypothesis that suggests that what women

1:09

want in terms of men actually

1:12

changes throughout their menstrual cycle. It

1:14

is a fascinating idea, but it

1:16

turns out this theory is controversial.

1:19

I'll let Dr Julius Stern, researcher

1:21

at the University of Bremen, explain,

1:23

given that she wrote her whole

1:26

dissertation on the topic. The

1:34

ovulatory shift hypothesis assumes that

1:36

when women are fertile, which

1:39

is just a couple of

1:41

days each month, if they

1:43

are not taking any hormonal

1:45

contraception, then they should prefer

1:47

a different kind of man

1:49

or short-term relationship than when

1:51

they are not fertile. The

1:53

idea is that, well, when

1:55

they are fertile, sex can

1:57

result in conception. And you

1:59

want... then a baby that

2:01

has the best genes that

2:04

you can give them. So

2:06

a really good immune system,

2:08

for example. And the idea

2:10

is that men who have

2:12

good genes may be the

2:14

people who are dominant, who

2:16

are looking very attractive, who

2:18

are masculine and have tight

2:20

testosterone levels, for example. But

2:22

these men are not really

2:24

good partners or not assumed

2:26

to be very good partners

2:28

because dominance may translate to

2:31

aggressiveness for example. And the

2:33

idea is then if you're

2:35

not fertile you should rather

2:37

prefer a person who will

2:39

be a good father for

2:41

your kids. So that this

2:43

shifts across your ovulatory cycle.

2:45

What were the conclusions over

2:47

time? Well... At the late

2:49

90s or early 2000s a

2:51

lot of studies came out

2:53

that supported the hypothesis. But

2:55

then at some point there

2:58

was a shift in about

3:00

2018 I would say in

3:02

all studies that came out

3:04

more recently didn't find any

3:06

compelling support for that, including

3:08

my studies. So I would

3:10

say I don't believe in

3:12

that hypothesis anymore. I would

3:14

say the newer studies are

3:16

better because they have... larger

3:18

samples so they asked more

3:20

women and they have way

3:22

more precise methods to estimate

3:25

ovulation or where people are

3:27

in their cycle because cycles

3:29

are so different between different

3:31

women and within each woman

3:33

of course. So you're basically

3:35

saying that it's a bigger

3:37

sample size in the later

3:39

studies and also they're more

3:41

precise at working out. what

3:43

stage of a woman's monthly

3:45

cycle she's actually in, which

3:47

I guess would really affect

3:49

the outcome of that. Yes,

3:52

I would say the newer

3:54

studies are way more precise

3:56

and use better methods, including

3:58

larger sample sizes. Well, scientifically

4:00

speaking... What is a bad

4:02

boy? It kind of depends

4:04

on whether you mean a

4:06

bad boy from the behavior

4:08

or from how people look.

4:10

If you take the behavior,

4:12

I would define a bad

4:14

boy as a person who's

4:16

probably not that trustworthy, who

4:19

is rather dominant, maybe even

4:21

high in narcissism or some

4:23

of the other. Dark triad

4:25

traits. Dark triad traits are

4:27

narcissism, alcoholism and psychopathy. So

4:29

people who are high in

4:31

these traits which are pretty

4:33

highly intercorrelated. So what we're

4:35

looking at there in the

4:37

research is behavior that is

4:39

typical bad boy behavior. Do

4:41

you ever look at physical

4:43

characteristics and how do you

4:46

correlate that with bad boy

4:48

behavior? Yes, so physical characteristics

4:50

or characteristics that probably... characterise,

4:52

a bad boy may everything

4:54

be related to masculinity, muscularity,

4:56

traits that we assume are

4:58

related to testosterone levels, so

5:00

deep voices, people who are

5:02

probably tall, who have muscles,

5:04

and yeah, just a very

5:06

masculine look, a beard probably.

5:08

Do we know if it

5:11

really does correlate with bad

5:13

boy behavior? So if you've

5:15

got like that defined your

5:17

a beard kind of quite

5:19

built etc etc etc is

5:21

there any research out there

5:23

that shows that those men

5:25

are more likely to be

5:27

ghosting you not returning your

5:29

calls etc etc etc etc.

5:31

I don't think that there

5:33

are is any strong evidence

5:35

for that. So of course

5:38

there might be studies finding

5:40

a correlation but it correlations

5:42

are never perfect of course

5:44

and it might be true

5:46

for some people that these

5:48

traits are related but for

5:50

others they are not so

5:52

how they look and what

5:54

the personality might be totally

5:56

unrelated. When we see a

5:58

guy who is quite well

6:00

built, a very defined jawline,

6:02

deeper voice, there's no reason

6:05

to assume that they're a

6:07

bad boy as such. It

6:09

kind of depends on what

6:11

you're looking at but of...

6:13

Of course, so a lot

6:15

of people assume that there

6:17

is a correlation between bad

6:19

boy look and bad boy

6:21

behavior because the idea is

6:23

that both might signal somewhat

6:25

testosterone levels, for example, may

6:27

influence both and that it

6:29

signals good genes, for example.

6:32

But in reality, the correlations

6:34

are quite low. So I

6:36

wouldn't say they're absent, but

6:38

they are really small. So

6:40

maybe. Yeah, the connection is

6:42

just evident for some people,

6:44

but for most it isn't.

6:46

Why would somebody go for

6:48

a man who isn't going

6:50

to be a good partner

6:52

and a good father from

6:54

an evolutionary perspective shouldn't attraction

6:56

to that kind of a

6:59

person be bred out? Because

7:01

it doesn't make sense from

7:03

an evolutionary perspective. Well, it

7:05

somewhat does make sense from

7:07

an evolutionary perspective if you

7:09

assume that these traits signal

7:11

good quality genes. For example,

7:13

people who have high testosterone

7:15

levels that might translate to

7:17

deeper voices or more muscles

7:19

or more dominant behavior, that

7:21

these people have, for example,

7:23

better immune systems. And this

7:26

would probably then translate to

7:28

your offspring if you made

7:30

with these. people. But the

7:32

idea is more or less

7:34

if you should only be

7:36

attracted to these people for

7:38

short-term mating and that they

7:40

may not be good fathers,

7:42

so probably not for long-term

7:44

relationships. What kind of things

7:46

can we measure when we

7:48

look at attraction? We can,

7:50

for example, show people pictures.

7:53

or videos or present voice

7:55

recordings to them. And then

7:57

we can measure how attracted

7:59

they are to different signals

8:01

in the voices or in

8:03

the videos, for example, how

8:05

attractive the face is, how

8:07

dominant people behave, how deep

8:09

the voice is, and we

8:11

can measure attractiveness and correlate

8:13

that with the attractiveness that

8:15

people perceive or how attracted

8:17

they say that they are

8:20

to these people. So let's

8:22

say I'm in this experiment.

8:24

taught me through the experiment

8:26

itself. What would you put

8:28

me through? So let's go

8:30

for pictures, probably. I will

8:32

show you maybe 50 or

8:34

100 pictures of different men

8:36

separately, of course. And then

8:38

you would have to say

8:40

how attractive you're to that

8:42

person or how interested you're

8:44

in that person for short-term

8:47

sexual relationship or for long-term

8:49

relationship. Most of these ratings

8:51

are done on a scale,

8:53

for example, from one to

8:55

10, how attractive are you

8:57

to that. person. And then

8:59

you can of course either

9:01

manipulate how masculine these people

9:03

look or you can just

9:05

take natural pictures and have

9:07

a natural variation and variables

9:09

you're interested in. So I'm

9:12

looking at an image and

9:14

you're manipulating it potentially to

9:16

look more masculine or more

9:18

feminine. And how do you

9:20

judge my response? Is it

9:22

me saying, oh, that guy's,

9:24

that guy's hot? Or are

9:26

you looking at other things?

9:28

Yeah, most of the time

9:30

it's you saying this guy's

9:32

hot or on a scale

9:34

from one to 10. This

9:36

is a 10, for example.

9:39

But there are also studies

9:41

looking at how long do

9:43

you look at the picture,

9:45

for example, with the idea

9:47

that you're probably looking longer

9:49

at a picture that you

9:51

find attractive. Sorry, this must

9:53

be really fun to set

9:55

up these experiments. A scientific

9:57

setting where you can grade

9:59

somebody's attractiveness from zero to

10:01

10 feels very high school.

10:03

So... Yeah. And so you're

10:06

measuring this. I guess the

10:08

big... The question is, do

10:10

women in these studies actually

10:12

prefer men who are more

10:14

masculine looking? It depends on

10:16

four bodies, mostly yes, but

10:18

the relationship is probably not

10:20

linear. So if the muscles

10:22

are too big, you might

10:24

not be as attracted. It

10:26

kind of depends, but for

10:28

faces we know that people

10:30

are more or less attracted

10:33

or mostly attracted to average

10:35

faces. So not the highest

10:37

masculinity, but more people who

10:39

are looking more or less

10:41

average, often seen as the

10:43

most attractive people. Yeah, I

10:45

guess for me the the

10:47

big thing is you might

10:49

be attracted to somebody who's

10:51

musilly. but you still want

10:53

them to be a softie.

10:55

Just because they look like

10:57

a bad boy doesn't mean

11:00

that they are a bad

11:02

boy. Other experiments where you're

11:04

just looking at behaviour, other

11:06

experiments where you're just looking

11:08

at the physical features, and

11:10

other experiments where you're looking

11:12

at both. So most of

11:14

the time we try to

11:16

isolate one of these variables

11:18

because we're just interested in

11:20

faces or bodies or behavior.

11:22

So yeah, most studies only

11:24

look at one of these

11:27

features and really try to

11:29

get rid of all other

11:31

information to not have anything

11:33

impacting the results. There are

11:35

also studies looking at like

11:37

a more broad picture but

11:39

they are really rare because

11:41

it's hard to control then

11:43

for what are people actually

11:45

evaluating. Okay so the studies

11:47

where people are looking at

11:49

the physical traits, more masculine

11:51

bodies but faces really interestingly

11:54

more average, how about bad

11:56

behavior, are women attracted to

11:58

that? If you just ask

12:00

them, like without showing any

12:02

videos or so, if you

12:04

just ask... them, would you

12:06

prefer a partner who's dominant,

12:08

for example? Most of them

12:10

would say, no, that's not

12:12

really interesting to me. Women

12:14

value other traits more if

12:16

you ask them. For example,

12:18

trustworthiness is more important or

12:21

also intelligence as is dominant

12:23

behavior. But if you show

12:25

them videos mating situations, for

12:27

example, where two people flirt

12:29

with each other, then dominance

12:31

can be attractive. But yeah,

12:33

so they are attractive then

12:35

to a little bit more

12:37

dominant behavior in, for example,

12:39

flirting situations. But again, it's

12:41

not like the most dominant

12:43

behavior ever that might seem

12:45

a bit too... aggressive probably

12:48

if they are too dominant.

12:50

Does this go both ways?

12:52

So are men attracted to

12:54

bad girls or is that

12:56

not quite the same thing?

12:58

I see if that's really

13:00

fascinating because that's also a

13:03

thought I had in my

13:05

mind during the last weeks

13:07

I was like well why

13:09

are we always talking about

13:11

women being interested in bad

13:13

guys and how many different

13:16

sexualities they have, but not

13:18

the other way around. I

13:20

would say it's probably more

13:22

or less as for women,

13:24

so in general most people

13:26

don't really prefer bad guys

13:29

or bad girls, but more

13:31

value warmth and trustworthiness and

13:33

intelligence. And as these traits

13:35

are probably not related that

13:37

much, I would say of

13:39

course, men value physical attractiveness

13:42

in women. but that might

13:44

not have something to do

13:46

with how bad they behave.

13:48

Do we know anything about

13:50

homosexual relationships and attraction to

13:52

bad boys? We don't really

13:55

know that much, unfortunately. More

13:57

or less, there's not much

13:59

evidence. because most of the

14:01

studies simply didn't sample any

14:03

homosexual people. But what we

14:05

see is, or what we

14:08

know from some studies, if

14:10

your sexual desire increases, it's

14:12

not really discriminative between men

14:14

and women. So the sexual

14:16

desire for women, if you're

14:18

interested in women, made increase

14:21

in the same manner. Have

14:23

you ever dated a bad

14:25

boy? Forgive me for asking.

14:27

Yes. I did. I love

14:29

the pauses. You're like, yes,

14:31

how did you think I

14:34

got into my field of

14:36

study? No, I just thought

14:38

about it and yeah, I

14:40

did definitely. No, I mean,

14:42

that was before I started

14:44

to study the subject. Yeah,

14:46

that makes sense. So it

14:49

was when I was younger.

14:51

Right, right, right. I mean,

14:53

what got you into it?

14:55

I was really interested in

14:57

hormones and how hormones affect

14:59

what we are interested in

15:02

generally and how hormones affect

15:04

our own well-being and personality,

15:06

especially across the cycle. then

15:08

I became more generally interested

15:10

in partner preferences and how

15:12

people behave in relationships. Do

15:15

people come to you for

15:17

romantic advice? Sometimes, yes. Because

15:19

you're the expert in made

15:21

choice and in bad boys.

15:23

Do you have this one

15:25

friend that constantly goes after

15:28

bad boys and you have

15:30

to keep having interventions? Well,

15:32

I would say most of

15:34

my friends nowadays have kids

15:36

and are made in like

15:38

pretty stable relationships, but of...

15:41

course a couple of years

15:43

ago many of my friends

15:45

always got with a bad

15:47

boy like always and these

15:49

were of course always the

15:51

same women but now they

15:54

have really nice stable partners.

16:00

It seems that what most people really

16:02

value in a partner are things

16:04

like kindness and intelligence. So So maybe days

16:06

of the boy and the bad girl

16:08

are numbered, And and I'm not too

16:11

upset about it, to be honest. I

16:13

think the world think the world could do

16:15

with less ghosting and inconsiderate behaviour. far

16:17

as I'm concerned, they can stay

16:19

in films and books, books, but only

16:21

if they get their their come-uppence. Thank you

16:23

for joining me for more Boys with Julius

16:25

producer was Olivia Olivia Jani And to

16:27

keep up to date with all the

16:29

other episodes in the series, in subscribe

16:31

to Why Do We Do That

16:33

on BBC on BBC and have push notifications

16:35

turned on. That way on. won't

16:37

miss why we have why have and

16:39

get so upset when our football

16:41

team loses. football team Do We Do

16:43

That from BBC Radio 4 is

16:45

produced by BBC by Audio. audio?