A new study published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology examined whether exposure to attractive dating prospects could boost creative thinking. The researchers found that for women, viewing profiles of long-term-oriented mates led to more fluent and original ideas—but only when sexual arousal was low. Heightened sexual arousal appeared to inhibit their creative output.
Creativity is often considered an adaptive trait. It helps people solve problems, communicate ideas, and navigate challenges. But creativity may also serve as a kind of ornament—a display that helps people stand out and attract romantic partners. Past research has shown that creativity is seen as desirable in a mate, particularly artistic creativity. People with creative talents tend to report more romantic partners, and women especially rate creativity highly in potential long-term partners.
If creativity evolved partly through sexual selection, then romantic contexts—especially those involving attractive potential mates—might be expected to activate creative thinking. A classic 2006 study found that imagining romantic situations could enhance creativity, but few studies have tested this idea since. The current research aimed to build on that work.
“Most of us—whether we realize it or not—try to highlight certain traits when we want to catch someone’s eye. We might showcase our appearance, but also our personality, skills, or talents,” said study author Katarzyna Galasinska, a PhD candidate and member of the Center for Research on Biological Basis of Social Behavior at SWPS University.
“These behaviors aren’t random; they’re deeply rooted in our evolutionary past. Scientists have suggested that creativity may be one of the traits shaped by sexual selection. It could have helped our ancestors attract romantic partners—and it likely still plays a role today. Research shows that people, regardless of gender, find creativity attractive.
“If that’s the case, we should be able to observe increases in creativity when people are thinking about potential partners—especially in situations where attraction is central, such as dating, flirting, or even during the fertile phase of a woman’s menstrual cycle (a topic I’ve studied before).”
Galasinska and her co-authors, Aleksandra Szymkow and Marco Antonio Correa Varella, conducted two large online experiments with Polish adults recruited through a national survey panel. All participants were heterosexual and between 18 and 40 years old. The two experiments were designed to mimic online dating experiences.
“Online dating platforms provided the perfect testing ground,” Galasinska said. “Our question was simple: does seeing an attractive potential partner make us think more creatively?”
In the first study, 483 participants were randomly shown either four attractive or four unattractive photos of opposite-sex individuals on a simulated dating platform. After rating the photos, participants wrote a short self-promotional biography for a hypothetical dating profile. Independent raters evaluated these bios on four dimensions of creativity: fluency (number of ideas), flexibility (variety of themes), originality (uniqueness), and self-creativity promotion (how much participants described themselves as creative).
The researchers also measured mood, arousal, sexual arousal, and motivation to perform well. They examined whether these factors might mediate the effect of viewing attractive partners on creativity. They also looked at individual differences like relationship status, mate value, and openness to casual sex.
In the second study, 494 participants completed a repeated-measures version of a classic creativity test—the Alternative Uses Task—both before and after viewing profiles of attractive potential mates. This time, the profiles described the individuals as either seeking short-term or long-term relationships. The researchers again evaluated participants’ creativity based on fluency, flexibility, and originality of their responses. They also measured arousal, mood, dating desirability, and sexual arousal after the manipulation.
The first study found no direct effect of viewing attractive versus unattractive faces on creativity overall. Across the board, participants did not score significantly higher or lower in creativity after seeing more attractive potential partners. However, there were interesting gender differences in the data.
Men showed greater flexibility and originality in their bios, while women displayed more fluency and greater emphasis on their own creative traits. For men, being in a positive mood after viewing attractive mates was linked to greater fluency. Single men, in particular, were more motivated to perform well, which also predicted greater creativity.
“Our research shows that creative expression is shaped by a combination of situational, emotional, and individual factors,” Galasinska told PsyPost. “Simply seeing an attractive face on a dating platform doesn’t automatically boost creativity compared to seeing a less attractive one. What truly matters is how a person feels in response to what they see. The same image can evoke very different emotional reactions—and those emotions, in turn, influence how creatively we think.”
“This suggests that emotional and motivational states aren’t just background noise; they actively shape how we respond to romantic cues and what psychological or cognitive value—like creativity—we derive from them. For men, creativity tends to flourish when they’re in a positive mood and feel motivated to impress someone.”
The second study provided more nuanced results, especially for women. Women who viewed profiles of long-term-oriented mates were more creative than those who saw short-term-oriented mates. They generated more ideas and offered more original responses, even though the overall average creativity scores decreased slightly after the manipulation.
However, this boost in creativity only held when women’s level of sexual arousal remained low. When women reported being more sexually aroused by a desirable long-term mate, their creative fluency and originality actually dropped. A deeper analysis showed that dating desirability predicted greater sexual arousal, which in turn suppressed creative performance. This pattern was not seen in flexibility (i.e., the range of categories women used) and did not occur among men.
For men, there were no significant differences in creativity after viewing short-term versus long-term mates. Their creative thinking appeared less sensitive to relationship context, which may reflect differences in how men and women approach mate selection.
“The most surprising finding was how women responded to attractive men who, in their dating profiles, expressed interest in long-term relationships,” Galasinska explained. “We expected these candidates to increase dating desirability—and, as a result, boost creative thinking. But the opposite happened: greater interest in going on a date was actually linked to lower creativity, and this drop was explained by heightened sexual arousal.”
“At first, this pattern puzzled us. But when we turned to predictions from sexual selection theory, it began to make sense. The effect aligned with strategic aspects of female mating psychology: before investing effort—such as through creative expression—women often seek reassurance that a potential partner is truly committed to long-term investment, especially in the context of offspring.”
“What’s striking is how precisely evolutionary theories can predict such outcomes—often in ways that seem counterintuitive at first, but become clear when viewed through the deeper logic of mating strategies,” Galasinska said.
The experimental design of the research is a key strength. By randomly assigning participants to conditions and manipulating variables like mate attractiveness and relationship orientation, the studies allowed for stronger causal inferences about the effects of mating contexts on creativity. This approach helps move beyond mere correlations to identify potential mechanisms linking attraction and creative expression.
But the researchers caution that their findings are specific to an artificial context—a simulated dating portal—and may not fully capture the dynamics of real-world attraction. Viewing static images is very different from interacting with someone in person.
“One limitation of this study is that laboratory settings may not activate mating motivation as effectively as real-life romantic contexts,” Galasinska noted. “When individuals select a partner in constrained or artificial environments—where information about potential partners is limited—key non- verbal cues of mate value and romantic interest, such as charm, charisma, scent, voice pitch, or eye contact, are often absent. These subtle signals may be more effective in triggering creativity than purely verbal descriptions used in experimental designs.”
“Since evolutionary theories of sexual selection suggest that any trait used to attract a potential mate may also serve as an advantage in same-sex competition, the natural next step is to investigate whether—and how—competition for a partner influences our creativity. I have already collected data addressing this question, and the results are truly intriguing. A forthcoming publication will soon present the full story.”
The study, “The Influence of Mating Context on Creativity: Insights from Simulated Dating Scenarios,” was authored by Katarzyna Galasinska, Aleksandra Szymkow, and Marco Antonio Correa Varella.
