Chapman University Publishes Research on Attractiveness and Mating In National Study of Americans
Chapman University has published research on what people find “desirable” and “essential” in a long-term partner based on two of the largest national studies of mate preferences ever conducted. This research supports the long-held belief that people with desirable traits have a stronger “bargaining hand” and can be more selective when choosing romantic partners, but it also challenges other commonly held mating beliefs. The studies examined how heterosexual mate preferences differed according to a person’s gender, age, personal income, education and appearance satisfaction.
“We looked at the extent to which attractiveness and resources are ‘desirable’ versus ’essential’ to men and women when they are looking for a long-term partner,” said
David Frederick
, Ph.D., assistant professor of psychology at Chapman University and a co-author on the study. “We’ve known for a long time that men care more about attractiveness in a long term partner, and women care more about resources. In two national datasets, we found that gender was by far the strongest predictor of what people want in a long-term mate: it was more important than age, income, education, or confidence in appearance. We found that although men have stronger preferences for a ‘good looking’ and ‘slender’ partner, men and women care equally about having a partner who is specifically attractive to them. Wealthier men and people who were more confident in their appearance had stronger preferences for a good-looking partner, and older men and women placed less importance on looks and income traits when seeking a long-term partner,” continued Dr. Frederick.
The study took a “mating market” approach which is defined as heterosexual individuals compete with others of the same gender to make “bids” to members of the other gender for the purposes of securing a romantic partner. People with desirable traits are in a position to be more selective about what they look for in mate. The mating market metaphor can be extended to include a distinction between partner “necessities” (what people find essential in a partner) and partner “luxuries” (what people would prefer to have in a partner, but could live without).
Here are some of the findings broken down by category:
Gender Differences:
Specifically, the study revealed that men and women differed in the percentage indicating:
- it was ‘desirable/essential’ that their potential partner was good-looking (M 92 percent vs. W 84 percent),
- had a slender body (M 80 percent vs. W 58 percent),
- had a steady income (M 74 percent vs. W 97 percent),
- and made/will make a lot of money (M 47 percent vs. W 69 percent).
There were also gender differences in whether it was ‘very important/a must have’ that their partner made at least as much money as they do (M 24 percent vs. W 46 percent) and had a successful career (M 33 percent vs. W 61 percent), but
not
in whether their partner was physically attractive to them (M 40 percent vs. W 42 percent).
Confidence in Physical Attractiveness:
People who reported greater satisfaction with their own appearance did not have stronger preferences for a partner who is physically attractive to them, but they did report stronger preferences for partners who are good looking and slender – this was true for both men and women.
Income:
People with higher incomes had stronger preferences for partners who are good looking – and this was true for both men and women. Men with higher incomes showed stronger preferences for women with slender bodies. Wealthier women had stronger preferences for men who had a steady income or made lots of money.
Education:
Men with more education had stronger preferences for female partners who are good looking and slender; however for both men and women, education level was not related to preferences for steady income or making a lot of money.
Age:
Older people – both men and women – had weaker preferences for a partner they find physically attractive, who make as much money as they do, and who has a successful career.
A total of nearly 28,000 heterosexual participants ages 18 to 75 years completed the surveys.
Authorship was: Dr. David Frederick of Chapman University; Dr. Martie Haselton, Dr. Melissa Fales and Dr. Kelly Gildersleeve of UCLA; Dr. Justin Garcia of Indiana University; and Dr. Helen Fisher of Rutgers University. The paper appears in the journal,
Personality and Individual Differences
. A link to the full article can be found here free of charge for one month:
http://authors.elsevier.com/a/1RgxNheKdP~mM
Consistently ranked among the top universities in the West, Chapman University provides a uniquely personalized and interdisciplinary educational experience to highly qualified students. Our programs encourage innovation, creativity and collaboration, and focus on developing global citizen-leaders who are distinctively prepared to improve their community and their world.
Follow us on Facebook at:
Chapman University Facebook
On Twitter at:
@ChapmanU
On YouTube at:
Chapman University YouTube Channel
###
Categories
Recent Posts
- ANNETTE BENING, ED ASNER, AND GARY COLE JOIN CAST CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED PLAY BRINGS THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE OF WARFARE TO LIFE
- DISNEY EXECUTIVES AND OTHER ORANGE COUNTY LEADERS JOIN CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY GOVERNING BOARDS
- Chapman University’s Office of the Provost and Musco Center Presents Provost’s Arts & Lecture Series
- General H. R. McMaster visits to commemorate partnership between Chapman University and Richard Nixon Foundation
- More Category 5 Hurricanes Forecasted by Scientists
Archives
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011