In Western cultures, the male role traditionally has centered on occupational and economic tasks, whereas the female role traditionally has focused on domestic tasks.
Consequently, sex differences in social behavior are believed to be caused in part by the tendency of people to behave in a manner consistent with their sex roles. Applied to mating behavior, this principle suggests that, to the extent that people prefer others to behave in accordance with existing sex-role stereotypes, “male” characteristics, attributes, and concerns such as a high-paying job and assertiveness will be valued more by women than by men when considering and selecting a potential mate, and “female” characteristics, attributes, and concerns, such as nurturance and presenting an attractive appearance will be valued more by men than by women (Berscheid & Regan, 1997, p. 354).
The second theory of evolution proposes that human mating stems from past centuries that affected our hunter-gatherer forebears (Berscheid & Regan, 1997). Berscheid and Regan state that there are four types of attributes the human species considers when deciding on a mate: physical or genetic fitness, emotional fitness, relational fitness, and social fitness (1997). It is said that our ancestors who selected mates with these characteristics enjoyed greater reproductive success than those who chose other mate selection preferences (Berscheid & Regan, 1997).
So what do these theories boil down to when it comes to selecting a romantic partner? Numerous studies and experiments have been conducted to gauge just that. In 1989, psychologist Susan Sprecher conducted an experimental study presenting highly attractive or unattractive targets, who had a high or low income potential, and who had a high or low expressiveness. While deciding on what target the participants would choose for a dating partner, both the men and women overwhelmingly chose the physically attractive target. Sprecher stated that the women participants, however, reported being more influenced by the male targets income potential (1989). The results were publicized and not confidential, therefore, according to Berscheid and Regan, “could yield less insight into mating dynamics than studies that utilize data from…behavior observation of mate choice” (p. 356).
While many studies rank physical attractiveness high on the list when selecting a mate, how do humans judge attractiveness? According to Simmons, Rhodes, Peters, and Koehler (2004), who provided the first detailed asymmetry study in human faces, “humans find symmetrical faces more attractive than asymmetrical faces.” The results of this study exposed that perceived symmetry was positively correlated to both male and female attractiveness, however, measured symmetry was “only related to attractiveness in male faces.” To note, perceived symmetry and asymmetry can influence what we find attractive, and depending on gender, what is physically attractive to one person may not be to another.
In another study, according to R. Hill’s “Campus Values in Mate-Selection” (1945), Hudson and Henzes’ “Campus Values in Mate Selection: A Replication” (1969), and McGinnis’ “Campus Values in Mate Selection: A Repeat Study” (1958), and as quoted in Berscheid & Regan (p. 358), “mate preferences have remained fairly constant.” Three decades of the same study were conducted, as shown in the table below:
Per the table above, the top five characteristics shown for men in 1945 were 1) dependable character, 2) emotional stability, 3) pleasing disposition, 4) mutual attraction, and 5) good health. The women’s top five in 1945 were 1) emotional stability, 2) dependable character, 3) ambition/industriousness, 4) pleasing disposition, and 5) mutual attraction. Over two decades later, in 1969, the top five characteristics men chose when selecting a mate were 1) dependable character, 2) mutual attraction, 3) emotional stability, 4) pleasing disposition, and 5) desire for home/children. As you can see, most four of the five responses remained constant, however, a new one topped the list, with men placing stronger importance on a desire for a home and having children. In 1969, the top five characteristics for women were 1) emotional stability, 2) dependable character, 3) mutual attraction, 4) pleasing disposition, and 5) desire for home/children. Again, as with the men’s responses, the women remained constant with four of the five characteristics, but again we see a strong importance placed on having children and a home. Notice in all three decades for both men and women, “good looks” were not at the top of the list in regards to selecting a mate, however, which each decade, good looks became more and more important for the men.
Per Cunningham, Barbee, and Druen (1996), men and women usually prefer the same characteristics when considering a potential partner, as shown in the table above. In 1994, Sprecher, Sullivan, and Hatfield conducted a survey of men and women on a national level asking them “how willing they would be to marry someone who possessed a variety of characteristics” (p. 1076). The men responded that if the women were not good looking, they would be less likely to marry them. The women, on the other hand, responded that if the men were not likely to hold a steady job and earned less than they did, they were less likely to marry those men. Berscheid and Regan (1997) note that despite the respondent’s answers, it didn’t mean that attractiveness was not important to women and holding a steady job with a good income was not important to men when deciding on a mate. In fact, according to Sprecher’s study (1989), both women and men prefer physically attractive partners, and tend to prefer partners that are equivalent when it comes to having a good job with good pay (i.e. “social status).
A survey research method was used to investigate the current characteristics that people look for when deciding on a potential romantic partner. A web-based survey collected data pertaining to respondent’s choices regarding specific characteristics that they first notice when determining to select that person as a potential mate as well as their age, beliefs, and what type of person they’d rather be with in regards to body type and features.
100 participants from a web-based survey responded to a series of nine questions. Participants were random and not based on age, race, gender, cultural background, or location. The websites, and , were utilized by the researcher to collect and analyze data of the participants. Nine questions were asked, ranging from age to their relationship beliefs. Answers selected by the participants were in multiple choice formats. Answers remained confidential and respondents remained anonymous.
For question number one, 70% of participants were in the 18-25 age bracket; 14% were between 26-32; 7% were between 13-17; 6% between 33-40; and 3% 41 or older. 74% claimed that they have been in love for question number two, while 14% said that they didn’t know, and 12% claiming no, they’ve never been in love. When asked “what is the first thing you notice about the opposite sex,” 32.3% state body type; 24.2% said eyes, 9.1% claimed clothes; 3% said hair color; and 31.3% stated “other,” such as how they present themselves and carry themselves in their posture (i.e. demeanor), face, hands, hair type, and shoes. Question four asked “what type of person would you rather be with?” and 8% responded “someone who is overweight with a pretty/handsome face,” while 31% responded “someone who is thin/average with an average face,” and 61% claimed that it “doesn’t really matter, it’s about personality.” 63% stated in question five that they do believe in marriage, with 21% stating that they don’t know, and 16% responding “no.” Number six asked what people considered to be most important when selecting a mate, and an overwhelming 78% responded “personality.” 15% said hobbies and interests, 3% stated religion, 2% said background, and only 2% claimed attractiveness. Of the 100 participants, no one selected age, salary, or sexual experience. When asked if they had ever cheated on a partner, and what was the main reason, 68% stated that they had never cheated, however, 1% said yes, because the person they cheated on with was more attractive, 2% said yes, because the other person had more sexual experience, 6% said that the other person gave them more attention, 7% claimed the other was more fun to be around, and 16% said yes, they cheated due to other reasons such as boredom, long distance relationship, drinking, current relationship issues, needs not being met, and confusion. When asked if they had ever compared their partner to a celebrity, 77% stated no, while 23% stated they had. And when asked if they believed that opposites attracted, 43% said that they didn’t know, 32% said yes, and 25% said no. See appendix A for the complete survey and results.
This survey was a condensed modern day version of Hill’s original survey conducted in 1945. 74% of participants claimed that they had been in love, with 78% claiming that personality was the number characteristic they looked for when selecting a romantic partner. However, the majority responded in question three that “body type” was the first thing people noticed in the opposite sex. With these figures, it may be safe to assume that yes, body type and looks are the first thing the majority of people notice regarding the opposite sex, however, that is not the only thing that they look for when deciding to sleep with, date, or marry that person. In fact, this survey proves that assumption with question four. 61% said that it didn’t matter what the other person looked liked, it was more about personality. For those that had been in a relationship, 68% claimed that they had never cheated, while 16% said they had, for various reasons. However, none of the various reasons had anything to do with looks or body type. And when asked if those in a relationship ever compared their partner to a celebrity (meaning in look and body type), 77% said no. With these figures, yes, looks play a part in the beginning stages of attraction, but personality is what keeps the relationship alive and thriving.
With the studies shown above, it has been revealed that depending on gender, looks may or may not be as important when first selecting a partner. In the study done by Sprecher, Sullivan, and Hatfield (1994), the men responded that if the women were not good looking, they would be less likely to marry them. In previous decades, such as with Hill’s, Hudson and Henze’s, and McGinnis’ surveys, good looks didn’t even top the top five features that men look for in selecting a mate, however, we did see with all three decades an increase in the importance of it for men. Notice, though, that in the Sprecher, Sullivan, and Hatfield survey, that they word the men’s response less likely to marry a woman who wasn’t good looking. That does not mean that they wouldn’t consider marrying a woman who wasn’t good looking. Some gaps in the literature reviewed also revealed that hardly any studies specifically asked participants about personality, but rather, focused more so on attractiveness and social status instead. Future recommendations for research could include more behavioral and observational studies, combined with more modern day surveys. And, as we have seen, divorce rates have skyrocketed over the past decade. Research should be conducted to show why more and more people are choosing divorce, and the impact that it has on children and their beliefs on relationships and marriage. As time changes, so does technology, and the way people select their mate in the 21st century is radically different from back in Hill’s day when he conducted his survey in 1945.
Appendix A
References
Berscheid, E., & Regan, P.C. (1997). Gender differences in characteristics desired in a
potential sexual and marriage partner. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality,
9, 25-37.
Betzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-cultural study. Current
Anthropology, 30, 654-676.
Buss, D.M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
Buss, D.M., Shackelford, T.K., Kirkpatrick, L.A., & Larsen, R.J. (2001). A half century
of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 63, 491-503.
Cunningham, M.R., Barbee, A.P., & Druen, P.B. (1996). Social allergens and the reactions
that they produce: Escalation of annoyance and disgust in love and work. In R.M. Kowalski
(Ed.), Aversive interpersonal behaviors (pp. 189-214). New York: Plenum Press.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). Sex, evolution, and behavior (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Eagly, A.H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagley, A.H., & Karau, S.J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685-710.
Fisman, R., Iyengar, S.S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in
mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 121(2), 673-697.
Geary, D.C., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. The
Journal of Sex Research, 41, 27-42.
Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate-selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37,
554-558.
Hudson, J.W., & Henze, L.F. (1969). Campus values in mate selection: A replication. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 31, 772-775.
McGinnis, R. (1958). Campus values in mate selection: A repeat study. Social Forces, 35,
368-373.
Simmons, L.W., Rhodes, G., Peters, M., & Koehler, N. (2004). Are human preferences
for facial symmetry focused on signals of developmental instability? Behavioral
Ecology, 15, 864.
Sprecher, S. (1989). The importance to males and females of physical attractiveness, earning
potential and expressiveness in initial attraction. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 21, 591-
607.
Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender
differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66, 1074-1080.
Zinczenko, D., & Spiker, T. (2006). Men, love, and sex. New York: Rodale Inc.