Big Two Personality and Big Three Mate Preferences

Abstract

People differ regarding their “Big Three” mate preferences of attractiveness, status, and interpersonal warmth. We explain these differences by linking them to the “Big Two” personality dimensions of agency/competence and communion/warmth. The similarity-attracts hypothesis predicts that people high in agency prefer attractiveness and status in mates, whereas those high in communion prefer warmth. However, these effects may be moderated by agentics’ tendency to contrast from ambient culture, and communals’ tendency to assimilate to ambient culture. Attending to such agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation crucially qualifies the similarity-attracts hypothesis. Data from 187,957 online-daters across 11 countries supported this model for each of the Big Three. For example, agentics—more so than communals—preferred attractiveness, but this similarity-attracts effect virtually vanished in attractiveness-valuing countries. This research may reconcile inconsistencies in the literature while utilizing nonhypothetical and consequential mate preference reports that, for the first time, were directly linked to mate choice.

Keywords

mate preferences similarity-attracts agency communion agentic-cultural-contrast communal-cultural-assimilation

Mate choice is a far-reaching decision. This appears to be true from a subjective perspective, considering that people typically spend much of their nonworking hours with their mates. This also appears true from an evolutionary perspective, considering that people usually stock their offspring with half of their chosen mates’ genes. Thus, there should be considerable subjective and evolutionary pressures to get one’s mate choice “right.” But what guides human mate preferences and choice? Much research has revealed universal tendencies (Cottrell, Neuberg, & Li, 2007; Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991; Kurzban & Leary, 2001) and sex differences (Buss, 1989; Eagly & Wood, 1999; Eastwick & Finkel, 2008), but relatively little is known about personality differences in mate preferences (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997; Buston & Emlen, 2003). The present research concerns this topic, focusing on the relationship between personality’s “Big Two” (agency/competence and communion/warmth; Abele, Cuddy, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2008) and mate preferences’ “Big Three” (attractiveness, status, and warmth; Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas, & Giles, 1999).

Similarity-attracts is the prevailing hypothesis regarding personality differences in mate preferences and choice (Botwin et al., 1997; Buston & Emlen, 2003; Humbad, Donnellan, Iacono, McGue, & Burt, 2010). The similarity-attracts hypothesis assumes that people prefer mates who are similar to themselves (Buss, 1984). However, empirical evidence did not always confirm the similarity-attracts hypothesis in the domain of personality. Some research found modest relations between personality traits and mate preferences, but other research found no such relations (Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Lykken & Tellegen, 1993; Watson, Hubbard, & Wiese, 2000). This inconsistency lead to the conclusion that “mating is essentially random for personality differences” (Eysenck, 1990, p. 252). Over and above clarifying empirical inconsistencies, the field would profit from methodological improvements. Most studies used mate preference reports from students of unknown relationship status. Also, in these studies, mate preference reports were hypothetical and inconsequential (Buston & Emlen, 2003; Cottrell et al., 2007; Fletcher et al., 1999). Together, it seems desirable to reconcile inconsistent evidence using more rigorous methods.

How can inconsistent past evidence be reconciled? One possibility may be to consider cross-cultural differences in personality effects on mate preferences. As will be explained, such cross-cultural differences may occur as a result of agentic individuals’ general tendency to contrast from ambient culture and communal individuals’ general tendency to assimilate to ambient culture. Are such tendencies of agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation applicable to partner preferences? If so, agentics should prefer a given mate characteristic least strongly in countries where this mate characteristic is most sought after, whereas agentics should prefer the same mate characteristic most strongly in countries where this mate characteristic is least sought after. Conversely, communals should prefer a given mate characteristic most strongly in countries where this mate characteristic is most sought after, whereas communals should prefer the same mate characteristic least strongly in countries where this mate characteristic is least sought after. Thus, operation of agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation would lead to cross-cultural differences in personality effects on mate preferences, which may explain prior inconsistencies.

What methods are well suited to examine personality differences in mate preferences? We capitalize on a sample of 187,957 participants across 11 countries. These participants were online-daters who reported on their personality and their mate preferences while setting up dating profiles. As such, the sample is diverse in age, occupation, and income. More important, participants were single, participating with the aim of finding a mate. Finally, our participants knew that their self-reported mate preferences form the basis for receiving partner suggestions and that they could only contact potential mates from their personal list of partner suggestions. Thus, in this design, mate preferences were nonhypothetical, consequential, and directly linked to mate choice (Gebauer, Leary, & Neberich, 2012).

The following sections will introduce Big Two personality dimensions, agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation mechanisms, Big Three mate preferences, and conclude with our country-moderated similarity-attracts hypothesis.

Big Two Personality: Agency and Communion

Much value lies in organizing personality traits into bigger factors. Proposed “Big Factor” models range from the “Big One” (Musek, 2007) to the “Big Seven” (Benet & Waller, 1995). All of these models have their strengths and weaknesses. We capitalize on the Big Two dimensions of agency (e.g., competence, uniqueness, ambition) and communion (e.g., warmth, relatedness, morality; Bakan, 1966; Wiggins, 1979). The main strength of the Big Two for the present research is its cross-cultural universality (Abele, Uchronski, Suitner, & Wojciszke, 2008; S. T. Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007; Trapnell & Paulhus, 2012). This universality showcases the Big Two’s fundamental nature. Furthermore, the Big Two accommodate other personality taxonomies, such as the “Big Five” (Paulhus & John, 1998; Saucier, 2009), and organize social values (Trapnell & Paulhus, 2012), gender (Bem, 1974), interpersonal problems (Horowitz, Rosenberg, Baer, Ureno, & Villasenor, 1988), self-enhancement strategies (Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002), and narcissism (Gebauer, Sedikides, Verplanken, & Maio, 2012). The Big Two also organize person-perceptions (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007), group-perceptions (S. T. Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), and culture-perceptions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). This wide applicability further supports the Big Two’s fundamental nature. Most direct evidence for their fundamental nature probably comes from Big Two’s evolutionary link to cultural-contrast and cultural-assimilation.

Agentic-Cultural-Contrast and Communal-Cultural-Assimilation

Human beings are social and cultural animals (Baumeister, 2005; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary, 2010). Thus, it is pivotal for them to be accepted by social group members (Leary & Baumeister, 2000; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995). Cultural-contrast and cultural-assimilation may greatly facilitate the attainment of such acceptance, and there are reasons to believe that agency and communion constitute the individual-level forces that drive cultural-contrast and cultural-assimilation: In the first essay on the Big Two, agency was linked to contrasting oneself from others and communion to assimilating oneself to others (Bakan, 1966). Similarly, it has been suggested that agency is for “getting ahead” in the social world, whereas communion is for “getting along” (Hogan, 1982). Cultural-contrast and cultural-assimilation were at times even incorporated into definitions of agency and communion: “Agency refers to the condition of being a differentiated individual. . . . Communion refers to the condition of being part of a larger social or spiritual entity” (Wiggins, 1991, p. 89). More recently, agency has been linked to strivings to “individuate and expand the self,” whereas communion has been linked to strivings to “integrate the self in a larger social unit” (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007; see also Blatt & Luyten, 2009; Brewer & Chen, 2007; Frimer, Walker, Dunlop, Lee, & Riches, 2011; Grotevant & Cooper, 1998; Helgeson, 1994; McAdams, Hoffman, Mansfield, & Day, 1996).

Empirical evidence supports these distinct foundations of agency and communion. For example, there is a substantial link between agency and individualism (Wojciszke, 1997), with individualists being concerned with contrast from others (Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003). There is also a substantial link between communion and collectivism (Wojciszke, 1997), with collectivists being concerned with assimilation to others (Sedikides et al., 2003). In addition, agency incorporates openness to experience (Saucier, 2009), with openness being linked to differentiation from social norms (i.e., contrast; Paulhus & John, 1998), whereas communion incorporates agreeableness (Saucier, 2009), with agreeableness being linked to conforming to social norms (i.e., assimilation; Paulhus & John, 1998).

Finally, a recent study examined the relations between Big Two personality and religiosity (Gebauer, Paulhus, & Neberich, 2012). Cross-cultural differences in the effect of Big Two personality on religiosity were predicted, and these predictions followed agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation mechanisms. Supporting agentic-cultural-contrast, agentic individuals were relatively religious in nonreligious countries and relatively nonreligious in religious countries. Supporting communal-cultural-assimilation, communal individuals were relatively nonreligious in nonreligious countries and relatively religious in religious countries. To our knowledge, this evidence is the first to show directly that agentic-contrast and communal-assimilation occur in respect to ambient culture. Our hypothesis that country moderates the relationship between similarity and attraction directly builds on this research.

Big Three Mate Preferences: Attractiveness, Status, and Warmth

Mate preferences can be organized into bigger factors, too. “The most comprehensive work on this topic” (Eastwick & Neff, 2012, p. 1) suggests a three-factor structure reflecting attractiveness, status, and warmth (Fletcher et al., 1999; Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000; Simpson, Fletcher, & Campbell, 2001). This Big Three structure emerged from extant factor analytic work and was subsequently replicated (Fletcher, Tither, O’Loughlin, Friesen, & Overall, 2004; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), including in research with the present dataset (Bruder, Gebauer, & Neberich, 2012).

The Country-Moderated Similarity-Attracts Hypothesis

What predictions does the similarity-attracts hypothesis make regarding Big Two personality effects on Big Three mate preferences? Attractiveness and status possess agentic elements, whereas warmth possesses communal elements (Abele, Uchronski, et al., 2008; Trapnell & Paulhus, 2012; Wiggins, 1979). Hence, the similarity-attracts hypothesis predicts that agentic individuals should particularly prefer attractive and high-status mates, whereas communal individuals should particularly prefer interpersonally warm mates. These predictions, however, do not consider agentic individuals’ inclination to contrast themselves from ambient culture and communal individuals’ inclination to assimilate themselves to ambient culture. Attending to these principles suggests a country-moderated similarity-attracts hypothesis.

Specifically, agency should predict particularly strong preferences for attractive and high-status mates, and communion should do so much less, but this classic similarity-attracts effect should be particularly strong in countries where desiring attractive and high-status mates is not normative. Such particularly strong similarity-attracts effect should be witnessed because agentic individuals can contrast from ambient culture via a particularly strong preference for attractive and high-status mates, and communal individuals can assimilate to ambient culture via a particularly weak preference for attractive and high-status mates. At the same time, the same similarity-attracts effect should be weaker in countries where desiring attractive and high-status mates is normative. A diminished similarity-attracts effect vis-à-vis attraction and status should be witnessed because agentic individuals contrast from ambient culture via a weaker preference for attractive and high-status mates, and communal individuals assimilate to ambient culture via a stronger preference for attractive and high-status mates.

Analogous predictions should apply to preferences for mates who are interpersonally warm. Communion should predict preferences for interpersonal warmth, but agency should do so much less. However, this classic similarity-attracts effect should be particularly strong in countries where warmth is a normative mate preference. Again, a stronger similarity-attracts effect for warmth should be witnessed here because agentic individuals contrast from ambient culture via a weaker preference for interpersonal warmth, and communal individuals assimilate to ambient culture via a stronger preference for interpersonal warmth. At the same time, the same similarity-attracts effect should be weaker in countries where a preference for interpersonal warmth is not particularly normative. Such a diminished similarity-attracts effect with respect to warmth should be witnessed because agentic individuals contrast from ambient culture via a particularly strong preference for interpersonal warmth, and communal individuals assimilate to ambient culture via a weaker preference for interpersonal warmth.

How strongly should agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation moderate similarity-attracts effects? Research on the strength of these mechanisms should provide some indication. Prior research found a strong moderating effect of agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation on the relationship between the Big Two personality traits and religiosity (Gebauer, Paulhus, et al., 2012). Specifically, in religious countries (e.g., Turkey and Poland) religiosity was much more strongly linked to communion than to agency. In nonreligious countries (e.g., Sweden and Germany), however, religiosity was more strongly linked to agency than to communion. Thus, a full reversal in the relationship between Big Two personality and religiosity was witnessed. However, a full reversal is not likely when it comes to similarity-attracts effects. After all, similarity-attracts effects are directly tied to evolutionary success (Bereczkei & Csanaky, 1996; Buss & Barnes, 1986), suggesting that the similarity-attracts effect is probably more universal (Norenzayan & Heine, 2005).

In summary, past research called for studying personality differences in Big Three mate preferences (Fletcher et al., 2004). We respond to this call while capitalizing on the Big Two dimensions of personality. Overall, we expect evidence for the similarity-attracts hypothesis. Crucially, however, we also expect cross-cultural differences in the strength of similarity-attracts effects, and these cross-cultural differences should follow the general principles of agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation:

Hypothesis 1: Compared with communal individuals, agentic individuals should particularly prefer attractive mates, but this similarity-attracts effect should be relatively strong in countries with low attractiveness preferences and relatively weak in countries with high attractiveness preferences.

Hypothesis 2: Compared with communal individuals, agentic individuals should particularly prefer high-status mates, but this similarity-attracts effect should be relatively strong in countries with low-status preferences and relatively weak in countries with high-status preferences.

Hypothesis 3: Compared with agentic individuals, communal individuals should particularly prefer interpersonally warm mates, but this similarity-attracts effect should be relatively weak in countries low on warmth preferences and relatively strong in countries high on warmth preferences. In testing our model, we capitalize on the first cross-cultural online-dating dataset in which participants’ mate preference reports were nonhypothetical, consequential, and directly linked to mate choice.

Method

Participants

We analyzed data from 187,957 individuals from the eDarling dataset (Gebauer, Sedikides, & Neberich, 2012b). eDarling is an online-dating company, owning online-dating sites from 11 European countries. Hence, participants came from the following 11 countries: Austria (n = 17,109), France (n = 18,105), Germany (n = 19,318), Italy (n = 13,899), the Netherlands (n = 13,552), Poland (n = 18,789), Russia (n = 19,734), Spain (n = 17,339), Sweden (n = 19,457), Switzerland (n = 11,183), and Turkey (n = 19,472). The sample’s sex distribution was fairly equal with 47% women (n = 87,727) and 53% men (n = 100,230). The sample’s age distribution was wide, with 30,919 participants (16.5%) 18 to 24 years old, 54,604 participants (29.1%) 25 to 34 years old, 47,141 participants (25.1%) 35 to 44 years old, 37,136 participants (19.8%) 45 to 54 years old, 15,131 participants (8.1%) 55 to 64 years old, 2,616 participants (1.4%) 65 to 74 years old, and 410 participants (0.2%) 75 years or older. The mean age in the sample was 37.49 years (SD = 12.22). The vast majority of participants were heterosexual (96.8%).

Materials

Participants responded to many self-report items while completing their dating profile at the online-dating site. We used these items to form measures of Big Two personality, Big Three mate preferences, and country-level Big Three mate preferences.

Big Two personality

The 20-item eDarling Big Two Personality Scale (Gebauer, Paulhus, et al., 2012) asks participants, “How well does each of the following generally describe you?” followed by 10 agentic items (e.g., “adventuresome,” “competitive,” “outgoing;” α = .78) and 10 communal items (“caring,” “honest,” “understanding;” α = .86; 1 = not at all to 7 = very much).

The scale was found to possess high measurement equivalence across each of the 11 countries (Gebauer, Paulhus, et al., 2012). Using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis, an unconstraint model was built with the following features: a latent agency variable, defined by the 10 items of the Agency subscale (manifest variables) and a latent communion variable, defined by the 10 items of the Communion subscale (manifest variables). The two latent variables were allowed to correlate with each other. This unconstraint model was compared with a conservatively constraint model (Byrne, 2001), in which the following were set as equal across all 11 countries: all 2 × 10 paths between the latent variables and the manifest variables, the variances of the two latent variables, and the error terms of the 2 × 10 manifest variables. Following widely applied recommendations for large samples and relatively complex models, measurement equivalence was judged by ΔRMSEA (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), and results suggested high measurement equivalence (unconstraint RMSEA = .026, constraint RMSEA = .031, ΔRMSEA = .005; Gebauer, Paulhus, et al., 2012).

Further supporting the scale’s validity, an independent validation study on 344 participants showed that the Agency subscale loaded highly (.87) on a factor together with well-established agency scales, whereas the Communion subscale loaded highly on a factor together with well-established communion scales (.91; Abele, Uchronski, et al., 2008; S. T. Fiske et al., 2002; Trapnell & Paulhus, 2012).

Big Three mate preferences

The nine-item eDarling Big Three Mate Preference Scale (Bruder et al., 2012) asks participants, “How important are the following issues in a partnership?” followed by three attractiveness items (“my partner’s sex appeal,” “my partner’s physical appearance,” and “our sexual compatibility;” α = .77), three status items (“importance match’s income,” “importance match’s education,” and “having similar educational backgrounds;” α = .67), and three warmth items (“being able to easily talk about personal problems with my partner,” “being able to discuss with my partner how I am feeling toward him or her,” “having my partner be open with me about how he or she feels toward me”; α = .77; 1 = not important to 7 = very important). The scale was tested for measurement equivalence in the same way as described above for the Big Two personality measure (defining three latent variables with three manifest variables each). Again, the results suggested high measurement equivalence (unconstraint RMSEA = .023, constraint RMSEA = .027, ΔRMSEA = .004; Bruder et al., 2012).

Further supporting the scale’s validity, an independent validation study on 429 participants (Bruder et al., 2012) showed that the subscales of the present scale loaded highly on the same factors as the corresponding subscales from the original Big Three Mate Preference Scale (Fletcher et al., 1999).

Country-level Big Three mate preferences

Independent data are not available on country-level Big Three mate preferences. This is not surprising because most theories on mate preferences focus on nature-based universals across countries rather than on nurture-based cross-cultural differences (Buss, 1989; but see Eagly & Wood, 1999; Wood & Eagly, 2002). Yet, evidence suggests that the mean of eDarling participants’ individual responses for each country provides a suitable measure of country-level preferences. Specifically, research involving the eDarling dataset found that the country-level mean of individual religiosity was a precise measure of country-level religiosity (Gebauer et al., 2012b; Gebauer, Paulhus, et al., 2012). Indeed, eDarling-based country-level religiosity correlates very strongly with independent country-level religiosity indices (.74, Diener, Tay, & Myers, 2011; .84, Fincher & Thornhill, 2012). Thus, for each of the Big Three mate preferences, we used the mean of individual responses for each country as an index of country-level Big Three mate preferences. We calculated these means separately for men and women because men and women differ in their mate preferences (Fletcher et al., 2004), and the strength of these sex differences can vary by country (Bruder et al., 2012).

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows means and standard deviations of personality’s Big Two and mate preferences’ Big Three, separately for each country and sex. The mean values as well as the differences between them closely resemble past findings (Cottrell et al., 2007; Van Lange & Sedikides, 1998) and thus demonstrate past findings’ robustness across demographically diverse samples from different European countries. Specifically, in line with the Muhammad Ali effect (Van Lange & Sedikides, 1998), participants on average scored high on communion and somewhat lower on agency, and this was the case within each country for women (ts > 93.50, ps < .001) and—to a smaller degree—for men (ts > 70.00, ps < .001). Furthermore, in line with the Sociofunctional Perspective of ideal close others (Cottrell et al., 2007), participants on average desired warmth in a mate very much and desired warmth more strongly than attractiveness and status, and this was the case within each country for women (warmth vs. attractiveness: ts > 46.94, ps < .001; warmth vs. status: ts > 90.51, ps < .001) and for men (warmth vs. attractiveness: ts > 5.77, ps < .001; warmth vs. status: ts > 128.84, ps < .001).¹

Table 1.

Big Two’s and Mate Preferences’ Means and Standard Deviations per Country (Separately for Women and Men)

	Big Two				Mate preferences
	Agency		Communion		Attractiveness		Status		Warmth
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Women
Austria	4.26	0.80	6.11	0.66	5.72	1.04	4.41	1.07	6.43	0.86
Switzerland	4.19	0.78	6.01	0.67	5.55	1.07	4.31	1.03	6.27	0.94
Germany	4.14	0.81	6.01	0.73	5.49	1.10	4.31	1.05	6.22	1.03
Spain	4.36	0.87	5.82	0.74	5.40	1.14	4.28	1.23	6.40	0.91
France	4.09	0.92	5.61	0.87	5.06	1.23	3.22	1.18	5.89	1.22
Italy	4.13	0.95	5.45	0.90	5.50	1.16	4.41	1.07	6.27	1.06
The Netherlands	4.31	0.82	6.04	0.63	5.49	1.09	3.89	1.08	6.23	0.91
Poland	4.86	0.84	5.96	0.72	5.30	1.19	3.94	1.10	6.23	1.02
Russia	4.46	1.00	5.72	0.91	5.38	1.16	4.14	1.13	5.98	1.11
Sweden	4.56	0.85	5.83	0.72	5.36	1.12	3.55	1.11	6.36	0.92
Turkey	4.87	0.91	6.18	0.75	5.58	1.25	5.00	1.09	6.54	0.86
All countries	4.39	0.91	5.87	0.79	5.41	1.16	4.08	1.20	6.24	1.02
Men
Austria	4.40	0.81	5.85	0.78	5.59	1.15	3.41	1.09	6.12	1.13
Switzerland	4.42	0.79	5.78	0.79	5.58	1.08	3.44	1.08	5.97	1.12
Germany	4.27	0.83	5.80	0.81	5.46	1.13	3.42	1.08	6.04	1.13
Spain	4.41	0.85	5.58	0.83	5.32	1.20	3.35	1.21	6.06	1.12
France	4.30	0.93	5.57	0.93	5.12	1.29	2.58	1.12	5.77	1.29
Italy	4.35	0.96	5.31	0.96	5.55	1.19	3.52	1.06	5.95	1.24
Netherlands	4.37	0.81	5.82	0.76	5.41	1.14	3.07	1.08	5.99	1.04
Poland	4.82	0.86	5.71	0.86	5.38	1.21	3.05	1.11	5.95	1.19
Russia	4.53	1.07	5.28	1.04	5.62	1.27	3.06	1.17	5.70	1.32
Sweden	4.58	0.86	5.58	0.86	5.31	1.14	2.83	1.08	5.94	1.17
Turkey	5.04	0.94	5.93	0.94	5.51	1.29	3.47	1.20	5.98	1.26
All Countries	4.53	0.93	5.67	0.90	5.44	1.21	3.21	1.16	5.95	1.20

Multilevel Analytic Strategy

Participants were nested in countries. Therefore, we used multilevel modeling (HLM 6.06; Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2004) to test 2 (sex: men vs. women) × 3 (mate preferences: attractiveness, status, and warmth) models. Separate testing for men and women is necessary because our analyses involve country-level mate preferences and these country-level mate preferences can differ between men and women (Bruder et al., 2012). However, when the sexes are tested separately, the agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation mechanisms should apply to men and women equally. Hence, separate testing for men and women allowed us to evaluate the robustness of our results.

We centered our Level 1 predictors around their group (country) means because our hypotheses concerned cross-level interactions. Only group-mean centering allows an unambiguous interpretation of cross-level interactions (Raudenbush, 1989a, 1989b) because cross-level interactions under grand-mean centering of Level 1 predictors (the alternative to group-mean centering) can be distorted by possible interactions involving the group means of these Level 1 predictors. However, such distortion cannot occur when centering around group means (Enders & Tofighi, 2007; Hofmann & Gavin, 1998).

Agency and communion vary between countries (Gebauer, Wagner, Sedikides, & Neberich, 2012). Thus, we repeated the 2 × 3 models described above, controlling for country-level agency and communion. Together then, we calculated 12 multilevel models. Each of these models followed the same form:

Level 1 model (bold: group-mean centering)

mate preference (x) = β_{0} + β_{1} (agency) + β_{2} (communion) + r,

where a person’s mate preference(x) is a combination of an individual-specific intercept, β₀, individual-specific linear slopes of agency, β₁, communion, β2, and a residual error, r. Individual-specific intercepts and slopes were then modeled as Level 2 outcomes.

Level 2 model (bold italic: grand-mean centering)

β_{0} = γ_{00} + γ_{01} (mate preference [x]) {+ γ_{02} (agency) + γ_{03} (communion)} + u_{0}

β_{1} = γ_{10} + γ_{11} (mate preference [x]) {+ γ_{12} (agency) + γ_{13} (communion)}

β_{2} = γ_{20} + γ_{21} (mate preference [x]) {+ γ_{22} (agency) + γ_{23} (communion)},

where γ₀₀, to γ₂₀ are sample means, γ₀₁(mate preference[x]) to γ₂₁(mate preference[x]) are sample-specific slopes of country-level mate preference[x], γ₀₂(agency) to γ₂₂(agency) are sample-specific slopes of country-level agency, and γ₀₃(communion) to γ₂₃(communion) are sample-specific slopes of country-level communion. Finally, u₀ is the error term at Level 2. Content in curly parentheses is only included in models controlling for country-level agency and communion.

Multilevel Analyses

Predicting attractiveness preferences

Separately for each sex, we specified a first multilevel model predicting attractiveness preferences. Predictors were agency (Level 1; group-mean centered), communion (Level 1; group-mean centered), sex-specific country-level attractiveness preferences (Level 2; grand-mean centered), agency × sex-specific country-level attractiveness preferences (cross-level interaction), and communion × sex-specific country-level attractiveness preferences (cross-level interaction). Individual level attractiveness preferences (Level 1) served as the criterion.

The top left panel of Table 2 shows the statistics for this model. Specifically, for both sexes, we found a positive effect of agency on attractiveness preferences and a weaker positive effect of communion on attractiveness preferences. Thus, we detected a similarity-attracts effect within both sexes. Crucially, however, both of these main effects were qualified by sex-specific country-level attractiveness preferences. Specifically, the positive effect of agency on attractiveness preferences was lower in countries that were high on attractiveness preferences. At the same time, the positive effect of communion on attractiveness preferences was higher in countries that were high on attractiveness preferences. Overall then, the similarity-attracts effect was weaker in countries high on attractiveness preferences, and this was the case for both women and men. In addition, the top right panel of Table 2 shows that these results hold despite controlling for country-level agency and communion.

Table 2.

Multilevel Modeling Results

	No covariates								Country-level Big Two controlled
	Women				Men				Women				Men
	b	SE	t	p	b	SE	t	p	b	SE	t	p	b	SE	t	p
Attractiveness preferences
Agency	.35	0.004	79.85	.001	.38	0.004	90.2	.001	.35	0.004	80.66	.001	.38	0.004	88.79	.001
Communion	.23	0.005	46.69	.001	.31	0.004	71.34	.001	.24	0.005	46.82	.001	.31	0.004	70.87	.001
Agency cross-level interaction	−.13	0.03	−4.99	.001	−.34	0.03	−11.6	.001	−.21	0.03	−6.93	.001	−.37	0.03	−12.4	.001
Communion cross-level interaction	.30	0.03	10.17	.001	.33	0.03	11.19	.001	.28	0.03	8.33	.001	.36	0.03	11.88	.001
Status preferences
Agency	.31	0.004	72.52	.001	.29	0.004	66.93	.001	.32	0.004	72.44	.001	.29	0.004	66.38	.001
Communion	−.05	0.005	−10.3	.001	−.19	0.004	−43.3	.001	0.05	0.005	−9.64	.001	−.18	0.004	−41.4	.001
Agency cross-level interaction	−.06	0.01	−5.95	.001	−.05	0.01	−3.78	.001	−.05	0.01	−5.21	.001	−.05	0.02	−3.58	.001
Communion cross-level interaction	.16	0.01	14.35	.001	.23	0.01	15.54	.001	.18	0.01	15.62	.001	.25	0.02	16.2	.001
Warmth preferences
Agency	.05	0.003	13.21	.001	.03	0.004	6.18	.001	.05	0.004	14.38	.001	.02	0.004	5.24	.001
Communion	.57	0.004	135.6	.001	.75	0.004	191.5	.001	.58	0.004	135.5	.001	.75	0.004	188.8	.001
Agency cross-level interaction	−.07	0.02	−3.57	.001	−.08	0.03	−2.29	.02	−.15	0.02	−6.3	.001	−.14	0.04	−3.27	.001
Communion cross-level interaction	.24	0.02	11.22	.001	.27	0.03	8.32	.001	.23	0.03	8.82	.001	.23	0.04	5.42	.001

The top panel of Figure 1 provides a graphical display of these results. Specifically, separately for men and women, Figure 1’s top panel shows the independent relations between Big Two personality and attractiveness mate preferences for each country (y-axis) as a function of sex-specific country-level attractiveness preferences. Similarity-attracts effects can be witnessed in countries low in country-level attractiveness preferences. However, in countries high in country-level attractiveness preferences, attractiveness preferences were similarly strongly predicted by agency and communion.

Figure 1.

Relation (β) between Big Two personality and each of the Big Three mate preferences within each country (y-axis) as a function of country-level mate preferences (x-axis)

As a case in point, in the country with the lowest country-level attractiveness preferences (France, N_women = 9,366, N_men = 8,739), we found comparatively strong effects of agency on attractiveness preferences (β_women = .28, β_men = .31), whereas effects of communion on attractiveness preferences (β_women = .13, β_men = .16) were significantly weaker for women (z = 13.06, p < .001) and for men (z = 13.93, p < .001). In contrast, in the country with the highest country-level attractiveness preferences (Austria, N_women = 7,993, N_men = 9,116), we found weaker (compared with France) effects of agency on attractiveness preferences (β_women = .24, β_men = .23) and stronger (compared with France) effects of communion on attractiveness preferences (β_women = .22, β_men = .24). Indeed, agency did not predict attractiveness preferences stronger than did communion, and this was the case for women (z = 1.37, p = .17) and for men (z = −0.81, p = .42). These results support the country-moderated similarity-attracts hypothesis (see also the top third of Table 3, which contains the standardized relations between agency/communion and attractiveness preferences for each country). Next, we examined equivalent models for status preferences, expecting to find equivalent result patterns.

Table 3.

Personality and Mate Preference Relations per Country and Sex

	Women				Men
	Agency		Communion		Agency		Communion
Predictor	β	p	β	p	β	p	β	p
Criterion: Attractiveness mate preferences
Austria	.24	.001	.22	.001	.23	.001	.24	.001
Switzerland	.22	.001	.25	.001	.24	.001	.30	.001
Germany	.26	.001	.20	.001	.25	.001	.26	.001
Spain	.29	.001	.09	.001	.32	.001	.16	.001
France	.28	.001	.13	.001	.31	.001	.16	.001
Italy	.24	.001	.19	.001	.24	.001	.29	.001
Netherlands	.29	.001	.18	.001	.31	.001	.20	.001
Poland	.31	.001	.04	.001	.32	.001	.12	.001
Russia	.27	.001	.13	.001	.25	.001	.27	.001
Sweden	.29	.001	.22	.001	.34	.001	.23	.001
Turkey	.27	.001	.13	.001	.29	.001	.24	.001
All countries	.25	.001	.17	.001	.27	.001	.22	.001
Criterion: Status mate preferences
Austria	.23	.001	.003	.80	.19	.001	−.08	.001
Switzerland	.24	.001	.04	.003	.20	.001	−.07	.001
Germany	.22	.001	.05	.001	.21	.001	−.06	.001
Spain	.26	.001	−.05	.001	.22	.001	−.16	.001
France	.25	.001	−.10	.001	.25	.001	−.21	.001
Italy	.30	.001	.03	.06	.25	.001	−.10	.001
Netherlands	.33	.001	−.08	.001	.24	.001	−.18	.001
Poland	.23	.001	−.11	.001	.24	.001	−.23	.001
Russia	.23	.001	−.04	.001	.21	.001	−.10	.001
Sweden	.30	.001	−.11	.001	.28	.001	−.31	.001
Turkey	.18	.001	.05	.001	.21	.001	−.12	.001
All countries	.23	.001	.002	.63	.21	.001	−.12	.001
Criterion: Warmth mate preferences
Austria	.05	.001	.48	.001	−.05	.001	.54	.001
Switzerland	.007	.53	.49	.001	.02	.06	.59	.001
Germany	.007	.47	.53	.001	−.02	.04	.59	.001
Spain	.07	.001	.39	.001	.05	.001	.51	.001
France	.04	.001	.38	.001	.002	.81	.51	.001
Italy	−.03	.02	.50	.001	−.04	.001	.59	.001
Netherlands	.04	.001	.42	.001	.05	.001	.53	.001
Poland	.09	.001	.34	.001	.05	.001	.51	.001
Russia	.11	.001	.33	.001	.04	.001	.51	.001
Sweden	.004	.63	.55	.001	.006	.49	.63	.001
Turkey	.08	.001	.48	.001	.07	.001	.54	.001
All countries	.05	.001	.43	.001	.007	.02	.55	.001

Predicting status preferences

We specified models identical to those for predicting attractiveness preferences, with the exception of replacing attractiveness preferences with status preferences (both at the individual and the country level).

The middle left panel of Table 2 shows the statistics for these models. Specifically, for both sexes, we found a positive effect of agency on status preferences and a weak negative effect of communion on status preferences. Thus, we again detected a similarity-attracts effect within both sexes. Crucially, however, both of these main effects were qualified by sex-specific country-level status preferences. Specifically, the positive effect of agency was weaker in countries that were high on status preferences. At the same time, the negative effect of communion was weaker in countries that were high on status preferences. Overall then, the similarity-attracts effect was reduced in countries high on status preferences, and this was the case for women and men. In addition, the middle right panel of Table 2 shows that these results hold despite controlling for country-level agency and communion.

The middle panel of Figure 1 provides a graphical display of these results. Equivalent to the results involving attractiveness preferences, similarity-attracts effects can be witnessed in countries low in country-level status preferences. However, in countries high in country-level status preferences, status preferences were similarly strongly predicted by communion than by agency.

As a case in point, in the country with the lowest country-level status preferences (France, N_women = 9,366, N_men = 8,739), we found comparatively strong positive effects of agency on status preferences (β_women = .25, β_men = .25), whereas effects of communion on status preferences (β_women = −.10, β_men = −.21) were significantly weaker for women (z = 30.21, p < .001) and for men (z = 43.29, p < .001). In contrast, in the country with the highest country-level status preferences (Turkey, N_women = 5,186, N_men = 14,289), we found weaker (compared with France) positive effects of agency on status preferences (β_women = .18, β_men = .21) and weaker (compared with France) negative effects of communion on status preferences (β_women = .05, β_men = −.12). Despite this reduction, however, the similarity-attracts effect did not vanish for either women (z = 7.79, p < .001) or for men (z = 41.52, p < .001). The results buttress the country-moderated similarity-attracts hypothesis (see the middle third of Table 3, which contains the standardized relations between agency/communion and status preferences for each country). Next, we examined equivalent models for warmth preferences. We again expected that agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation would lead to cross-cultural differences in the strength of the similarity-attracts effect.

Predicting warmth preferences

We again specified models identical to those for predicting attractiveness preferences, with the exception of replacing attractiveness preferences with warmth preferences (both at the individual and the country level).

The bottom left panel of Table 2 shows the statistics for these models. Specifically, for both sexes, a comparatively weak positive effect of agency on warmth preferences and a comparatively strong positive effect of communion on warmth preferences were obtained. Thus, we once more detected a similarity-attracts effect within both sexes. Again, however, both of these main effects were qualified by sex-specific country-level warmth preferences. Specifically, the positive effect of agency was reduced in countries that are high on sex-specific warmth preferences. At the same time, the positive effect of communion was greater in countries high on sex-specific warmth preferences. Overall then, similarity-attracts effects were lower in countries low on warmth preferences and somewhat higher in countries high on warmth preferences, and this was the case for both women and men. In addition, the bottom right panel of Table 2 shows that these results hold despite controlling for country-level agency and communion.

The bottom panel of Figure 1 provides a graphical display of these results. Equivalent to the results involving attractiveness and status preferences, similarity-attracts effects varied across countries. However, compared with attractiveness preferences (Figure 1’s top panel) and status preferences (Figure 1’s middle panel), the country-level played little role in determining the strength of the similarity-attracts effect regarding interpersonal warmth. That is, the similarity-attracts effect in the domain of warmth was strong in each of the 11 countries.

As a case in point, in the country with the highest country-level warmth preferences (Austria, N_women = 7,993, N_men = 9,116), we found comparatively weak positive effects of agency on warmth preferences (β_women = .08, β_men = .05), whereas effects of communion on warmth preferences (β_women = .50, β_men = .52) were significantly stronger for women (z = 30.58, p < .001) and for men (z = 40.69, p < .001). However, in the country with the lowest country-level warmth preferences (Russia, N_women = 11,119, N_men = 8,615), we also found weak (compared with Austria) positive effects of agency on warmth preferences (β_women = .12, β_men = .11), and we also found strong (compared with Austria) positive effects of communion on warmth preferences (β_women = .35, β_men = .49). Not surprisingly then, communion effects were significantly stronger than agency effects for women (z = 22.85, p < .001) and for men (z = 41.28, p < .001; see also the bottom third of Table 3, which contains the standardized relations between agency/communion and warmth preferences for each country).

What may explain the consistently weaker country influence in the domain of warmth preferences? It has been argued that culture should have a weaker impact on reactions that have particular evolutionary value (Norenzayan & Heine, 2005). It follows that culture should moderate the Big Two personality effects on each of the Big Three mate preferences differently depending on how evolutionarily important each mate preference is. Following this logic, the mate preference domain of interpersonal warmth should be most robust to agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation because warm interpersonal connections are of particular evolutionary importance (Cottrell et al., 2007).

Discussion

The present research is the first to examine the relation between Big Two personality traits and Big Three mate preferences. It is also the first to respond to calls for studying personality differences in Big Three mate preferences in general (Fletcher et al., 2004). Furthermore, this research is the first to examine personality differences in mate preferences among single online-daters, whose self-reports of mate preferences were directly consequential for finding and choosing a mate. In addition, the present research capitalizes on a very large sample (N = 187,957) of participants from 11 countries who varied widely in demographic characteristics. Most importantly, this research is the first to examine the possibility that differences in the strength of similarity-attracts effects can be partly explained by the fact that agentic people contrast from country-level preferences and communal people assimilate to country-level preferences.

Review of Present Results

Overall, results supported the general similarity-attracts hypothesis for attractiveness, status, and warmth. This finding is not trivial, considering that (a) similarity-attracts effects in the domain of personality do not always replicate (Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Lykken & Tellegen, 1993; Watson et al., 2000), (b) some evidence suggests that agency/dominance-related mate preferences follow an opposites-attracts principle (Dryer & Horowitz, 1997; Tiedens & Fragale, 2003), and (c) much available evidence is based on participants whose mate preference reports were hypothetical, inconsequential, and unrelated to mate choice (Buston & Emlen, 2003; Cottrell et al., 2007; Fletcher et al., 1999).

Moreover, the present results demonstrated the influence of agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation on similarity-attracts effects. We found, for example, that across all countries agentic individuals were particularly inclined to seek attractive/high-status mates, whereas this was not the case for communal individuals. However, these classic similarity-attracts effects were strongly reduced in countries that were high on attractiveness/status preferences (see Figure 1’s top/middle panel). These findings may help to explain inconsistent findings regarding the relationship between similarity and attraction in the domain of personality (Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Lykken & Tellegen, 1993; Watson et al., 2000).

Furthermore, findings suggested that agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation moderated similarity-attracts effects in the domain of interpersonal warmth less strongly than in the domains of attractiveness and status. As it seems, nature allowed culture less room in the domain of warmth preferences than in the domains of attractiveness and status preferences. This interpretation squares with evidence for the particularly strong evolutionary importance of interpersonal warmth (Cottrell et al., 2007). In addition, a mate’s attractiveness and status may be more publicly visible than his or her warmth, and publicly visible characteristics may be influenced particularly strongly by agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation. Irrespective, all of the effects were found separately for men and women. This, in conjunction with large sample sizes within each country, illustrates the robustness of the results.

Implications

What implications does the present research carry for understanding the relationship between similarity and attraction in the domain of personality? The results clearly showed that robust differences exist between countries in the strength of similarity-attracts effects in the domain of personality. This conclusion has important implications for understanding the large differences in personality-based similarity-attracts effects observed across studies and laboratories (Buss, 1984; Feng & Baker, 1994; Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Lykken & Tellegen, 1993; Watson et al., 2000). A meta-analysis may be able to trace these differences to agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation mechanisms. Together, the present results point toward promising ways to reconcile inconsistencies in this literature.

What implications does the present research carry for understanding agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation mechanisms? Past research supported the operation of these mechanisms only in the domain of self-perception (i.e., personal religiosity; Gebauer, Paulhus, et al., 2012). The present results extend these findings, illustrating the applicability of agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation to mate preferences.

Finally, at its broadest level, the present research highlights the importance of studying personality in conjunction with social or cultural context. Moreover, the present findings suggest that considering only social context may not be sufficient. In addition, considering the motivational base of personality (here: agentic-contrast and communal-assimilation) is also important. We believe that the complex psychological mechanisms underlying human behavior require studying personality differences in conjunction with social context as well as in conjunction with personality’s motivational base.

Open Questions and Future Research

The present research capitalized on self-reports of mate preferences. Hence, may self-presentation concerns (Leary & Allen, 2011; Paulhus, 2002) have contributed to the present results? In the present context, we believe that self-presentation poses a particularly unlikely alternative explanation because participants knew that their reported mate preferences directly influenced the partner suggestions they would receive and, thus, participants had every reason to be totally honest. In addition, participants knew that they would be able to contact only other online-daters from their list of partner suggestions and that dishonest self-presentation would eventually lead to dates with nonpreferred potential partners.

The present research capitalized on differences across countries in mate preferences and consistently found results that were in line with both theory and prior research (Gebauer, Paulhus, et al., 2012). In other words, country-level differences proved to be consequential. However, do our country-level differences actually reflect general differences across the 11 countries at large or do they reflect differences in “online-dating culture” within these countries? Research with the same dataset used in these analyses found online-dating culture-level differences to be very representative of country-level differences at large (Gebauer et al., 2012b; Gebauer, Paulhus, et al., 2012). However, this was the case for religiosity, and the same representativeness may not necessarily be given for mate preferences. An influential meta-analysis on individualism-collectivism illustrates this point (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). This meta-analysis, which compared mean levels of individualism-collectivism between studies, found large mean differences between studies from the same country. Thus, different studies within the same country often sample very divergent subcultures. Hence, to obtain suitable (sub)culture-level indices, it appears most appropriate to average individual-scores from the samples used in the respective research (if sample size is large enough, as it is in the present sample; A. P. Fiske, 2002; Schmitt, 2005). This reasoning echoes recommendations regarding the applicability of Hofstede’s country-level indices. Hofstede obtained his country-level indices by averaging individual-level responses from average employee samples. This can explain why Hofstede’s indices were found psychologically relevant for “average” employees, but they were found to be irrelevant for senior executives (Thompson & Phua, 2005). Irrespective, the eDarling-based country-level indices are psychologically relevant for the present eDarling participants (Gebauer et al., 2012b; Gebauer, Paulhus, et al., 2012). Apart from all this, when it comes to mate preferences, online-dating samples may be anyway more appropriate than representative country samples. This should be the case because such representative samples inevitably include participants who are not actually looking for a mate, and this renders participants’ responses artificial.

The present research crucially capitalizes on country-level differences in mate preferences but was not designed to explain the origins of country-level differences in mate preferences. Even so, it argues for future research on the origins of country-level differences in mate preferences. For example, attractiveness preferences may be particularly high in countries with high pathogen load, because in such countries it should be particularly important to find a mate with high genetic quality to resist pathogen threat, and attractiveness signals high genetic quality. Future research should examine relations between country-level mate preferences and their possible origins at the country-level.

The present research used data from an online-dating site, which is explicitly designed for people with long-term mating goals. Future research could examine whether short-term versus long-term mating goals (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Trivers, 1972) qualify agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation mechanisms in the domain of mate preferences. In addition, online-dating and conventional offline-dating differ in several key aspects. For example, compared with offline-dating, online-dating offers access to a particularly large number and variety of potential partners, capitalizes on computer-mediated communication early in the getting-to-know process, and is often based on partner matching (Finkel, Eastwick, Karney, Reis, & Sprecher, 2012). Future research could examine whether these differences lead to differences in the strength of agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation mechanisms in what people desire from their mates. Furthermore, the present research assessed mate preferences independent of each other. That is, participants could potentially choose the highest values on all three mate preference domains. However, there lies additional benefit in assessing mate preferences in a dependent way (Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002). In such dependent designs, participants typically have a fixed amount of “mate dollars” that they must distribute among mate preference domains. Future research could examine what effect the use of dependent designs may have on agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural- assimilation mechanisms.

Finally, future research should test for additional applications of the agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation mechanisms. Can these mechanisms also clarify other differences in personality effects across various groups? For example, can these mechanisms help to explain cross-cultural differences in personality effects on specific behaviors? A recent study suggests so (Gebauer, Sedikides, & Neberich, 2012a). Specifically, behaviors that benefit others (e.g., promoting animal rights, supporting others’ development, volunteering) are typically viewed as a result of communion rather than agency (Peeters, 1992; Wojciszke, Baryla, Parzuchowski, Szymkow, & Abele, 2011). However, in countries in which these other-profitable behaviors are rare, agentic individuals should behave relatively other-profitably (i.e., agentic-cultural-contrast), whereas communal individuals should not behave very other-profitably (i.e., communal-cultural-assimilation). These hypotheses received support across seven other-profitable behavioral intentions, further buttressing the validity and wide applicability of the agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation mechanisms.

Conclusion

We examined the question of whether differences in mate preferences are linked to differences in personality, focusing on Big Three mate preferences (Fletcher et al., 1999) and on Big Two personality (Abele, Uchronski, et al., 2008). We used data from 187,957 online-daters across 11 countries. To our knowledge, this study is the first to capitalize on mate preference reports that are nonhypothetical, consequential, directly linked to mate choice, and potentially important for participants’ relationship outcomes. Overall, results revealed a similarity-attracts effect: Mate preferences for attractiveness and status were particularly strong among agentic individuals but not among communal individuals. At the same time, mate preferences for warmth were particularly strong among communal individuals but not among agentic individuals. Crucially, however, these effects differed across countries, revealing further evidence for the operation of agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation mechanisms (Gebauer, Paulhus, et al., 2012). Agentic individuals desired a given mate preference more when this preference was not much sought after in their country, and they desired this mate preference less when it was much sought after. Conversely, communal individuals desired a given mate preference less when the preference was not much sought after in their country, and they desired this mate preference more when it was much sought after. As a result, similarity-attracts effects were reduced or even absent in some countries. This pattern may explain prior inconsistent results concerning similarity-attracts effect in the domain of personality. In all, the present research integrated advances in personality psychology, social-cultural psychology, and motivational psychology to demonstrate consequential effects of agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation in the domain of mate preferences.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Martin Bruder and John Rauthmann for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Abele

A. E.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Judd

C. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

(2008). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1063-1065.

Abele

A. E.

Uchronski

Suitner

Wojciszke

(2008). Towards an operationalization of the fundamental dimensions of agency and communion: Trait content ratings in five countries considering valence and frequency of word occurrence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1202-1217.

Abele

A. E.

Wojciszke

(2007). Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 751-763.

Bakan

(1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2005). The cultural animal. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Bem

(1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Benet

Waller

N. G.

(1995). The “Big Seven” model of personality description: Evidence for its cross-cultural generality in a Spanish sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 701-718.

Bereczkei

Csanaky

(1996). Mate choice, marital success, and reproduction in a modern society. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 17-35.

10.

Blatt

S. J.

Luyten

(2009). A structural-developmental psychodynamic approach to psychopathology: Two polarities of experience across the life span. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 793-814.

11.

Botwin

M. D.

Buss

D. M.

Shackelford

T. K.

(1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65, 107-136.

12.

Brewer

M. B.

Chen

(2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological Review, 114, 133-151.

13.

Bruder

Gebauer

J. E.

Neberich

(2012). Sex differences in Big Three mate preferences. Manuscript in preparation, University of Konstanz, Germany.

14.

Buss

D. M.

(1984). Marital assortment for personality dispositions: Assessment with three different data sources. Behavior Genetics, 14, 111-123.

15.

Buss

D. M.

(1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.

16.

Buss

D. M.

Barnes

(1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.

17.

Buss

D. M.

Schmitt

D. P.

(1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

18.

Buston

P. M.

Emlen

S. T.

(2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: the relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 8805-8810.

19.

Byrne

B. M.

(2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20.

Campbell

W. K.

Rudich

Sedikides

(2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 358-368.

21.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.

22.

Cottrell

C. A.

Neuberg

S. L.

N. P.

(2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 208-231.

23.

Diener

Tay

Myers

D. G.

(2011). The religion paradox: If religion makes people happy, why are so many dropping out? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1278-1290.

24.

Dryer

D. C.

Horowitz

L. M.

(1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 592-603.

25.

Eagly

A. H.

Ashmore

R. D.

Makhijani

M. G.

Longo

L. C.

(1991). What is beautiful is good, but . . . : A meta-analytic review of the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128.

26.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

(1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.

27.

Eastwick

P. W.

Finkel

E. J.

(2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 245-264.

28.

Eastwick

P. W.

Neff

L. A.

(2012). Do ideal partner preferences predict divorce? A tale of two metrics. Social Psychological & Personality Science. Advance online publication.

29.

Enders

C. K.

Tofighi

(2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121-138.

30.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1990). Genetic and environmental contributions to individual differences: The third major dimension of personality. Journal of Personality, 98, 245-261.

31.

Feng

Baker

(1994). Spouse similarity in attitudes, personality, and psychological well-being. Behavior Genetics, 24, 357-364.

32.

Fincher

C. L.

Thornhill

(2012). Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 31, 1-19.

33.

Finkel

E. J.

Eastwick

P. W.

Karney

B. R.

Reis

H. T.

Sprecher

(2012). Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 3-66.

34.

Fiske

A. P.

(2002). Using individualism and collectivism to compare cultures—A critique of the validity and measurement of the constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 78-88.

35.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77-83.

36.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.

37.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Simpson

Thomas

(2000). Ideals, perceptions and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933-940.

38.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Simpson

J. A.

Thomas

Giles

(1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72-89.

39.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Tither

J. M.

O’Loughlin

Friesen

Overall

(2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 659-672.

40.

Frimer

J. A.

Walker

L. J.

Dunlop

W. L.

Lee

Riches

(2011). The integration of agency and communion in moral personality: Evidence of enlightened self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 149-163.

41.

Gangestad

S. W.

Simpson

J. A.

(2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 573-644.

42.

Gebauer

J. E.

Leary

M. R.

Neberich

(2012). Unfortunate first-names: Effects of name-based relational devaluation and interpersonal neglect. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 5, 590-596. doi: 10.1177/1948550611431644.

43.

Gebauer

J. E.

Paulhus

D. L.

Neberich

(2012). Big Two personality and religiosity across cultures: Communals as religious conformists and agentics as religious contrarians. Social Psychological & Personality Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1948550612442553

44.

Gebauer

J. E.

Sedikides

Neberich

(2012a). Big Two personality and other-profitability: Agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation. Unpublished manuscript, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany.

45.

Gebauer

J. E.

Sedikides

Neberich

(2012b). Religiosity, social self-esteem, and psychological adjustment: On the cross-cultural specificity of the psychological benefits of religiosity. Psychological Science, 23, 158-160.

46.

Gebauer

J. E.

Sedikides

Verplanken

Maio

G. R.

(2012). Communal narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0029629

47.

Gebauer

J. E.

Wagner

Sedikides

Neberich

(2012). Agency-communion and self-esteem relations are moderated by culture, religiosity, age, and sex: Evidence for the “Self-Centrality Breeds Self-Enhancement” principle. Journal of Personality. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00807.x

48.

Grotevant

H. D.

Cooper

C. R.

(1998). Individuality and connectedness in adolescent development: Review and prospects for research on identity, relationships, and context. In Skoe

E. E.

von der Lippe

A. L.

(Eds.), Personality development in adolescence: A cross-national and life span perspective (pp. 3-37). Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis.

49.

Helgeson

V. S.

(1994). Relation of agency and communion to well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412-428.

50.

Hofmann

D. A.

Gavin

M. B.

(1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623-641.

51.

Hogan

(1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In Page

(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 30, pp. 55-89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

52.

Horowitz

L. M.

Rosenberg

S. E.

Baer

B. A.

Ureno

Villasenor

V. S.

(1988). Inventory of interpersonal problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 885-892.

53.

Humbad

M. N.

Donnellan

M. B.

Iacono

W. G.

McGue

Burt

S. A.

(2010). Is spousal similarity for personality a matter of convergence or selection? Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 827-830.

54.

Kurzban

Leary

M. R.

(2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 187-208.

55.

Leary

M. R.

(2010). Affiliation, acceptance, and belonging: The pursuit of interpersonal connection. In Fiske

S. T.

Gilbert

D. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 864-897). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

56.

Leary

M. R.

Allen

A. B.

(2011). Self-presentational persona: Simultaneous management of multiple impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1033-1049.

57.

Leary

M. R.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 1-62). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

58.

Leary

M. R.

Tambor

E. S.

Terdal

S. K.

Downs

D. L.

(1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518-530.

59.

N. P.

Bailey

J. M.

Kenrick

D. T.

Linsenmeier

J. A.

(2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the trade-offs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947-955.

60.

Luo

Klohnen

E. C.

(2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: A couple-centered approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 304-326.

61.

Lykken

D. T.

Tellegen

(1993). Is human mating adventitious or the result of lawful choice? A twin study of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 56-68.

62.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 20, 568-579.

63.

McAdams

D. P.

Hoffman

B. J.

Mansfield

E. D.

Day

(1996). Themes of agency and communion in significant autobiographical scenes. Journal of Personality, 64, 339-378.

64.

Musek

(2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213-1233.

65.

Norenzayan

Heine

S. J.

(2005). Psychological universals: What are they and how can we know? Psychological Bulletin, 135, 763-784.

66.

Oyserman

Coon

H. M.

Kemmelmeier

(2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.

67.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In Braun

Jackson

D. N.

Wiley

D. E.

(Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 67-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

68.

Paulhus

D. L.

John

O. P.

(1998). Egoistic and moralistic bias in self-perceptions: The interplay of self-deceptive styles with basic traits and motives. Journal of Personality, 66, 1025-1060.

69.

Peeters

(1992). Evaluative meanings of adjectives in vitro and in context: Some theoretical implications and practical consequences of positive negative asymmetry and behavioral-adaptive concepts of evaluation. Psychologica Belgica, 32, 211-231.

70.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(1989a). A response to Longford and Plewis. Multilevel Modelling Newsletter, 1(3), 8-11.

71.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(1989b). “Centering” predictors in multilevel analysis: Choices and consequences. Multilevel Modelling Newsletter, 1(2), 10-12.

72.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

Congdon

(2004). HLM for Windows (Version 6.06) [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

73.

Saucier

(2009). What are the most important dimensions of personality? Evidence from studies of descriptors in diverse languages. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 3/4, 620-637.

74.

Schmitt

D. P.

(2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 28, 247-275.

75.

Sedikides

Gaertner

Toguchi

(2003). Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 60-79.

76.

Simpson

J. A.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Campbell

(2001). The structure and function of ideal standards in close relationships. In Fletcher

G. J. O.

Clark

M. S.

(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 86-106). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

77.

Thompson

E. R.

Phua

F. T. T.

(2005). Are national cultural traits applicable to senior firm managers? British Journal of Management, 16, 59-68.

78.

Tiedens

L. Z.

Fragale

A. R.

(2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558-568.

79.

Trapnell

P. D.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2012). Agentic and communal values: Their scope and measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 39-52.

80.

Trivers

R. L.

(1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell

(Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136-179). Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.

81.

Van Lange

P. A. M.

Sedikides

(1998). Being honest but not necessarily more intelligent than others: Generality and explanations for the Muhammad Ali effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 675-680.

82.

Watson

Hubbard

Wiese

(2000). General traits of personality and affectivity as predictors of satisfaction in intimate relationships: Evidence from self- and partner-ratings. Journal of Personality, 68, 413-449.

83.

Wiggins

J. S.

(1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 295-412.

84.

Wiggins

J. S.

(1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In Grove

W. M.

Ciccetti

(Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Vol. 2. Personality and psychopathology (pp. 89-113). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

85.

Wojciszke

(1997). Parallels between competence- versus morality-related traits and individualistic versus collectivistic values. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 245-256.

86.

Wojciszke

Baryla

Parzuchowski

Szymkow

Abele

A. E.

(2011). Self-esteem is dominated by agentic over communal information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1-11.

87.

Wood

Eagly

A. H.

(2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727.