In their quest to understand romantic relationships, researchers have extensively examined mate preferences. Self-report methods have been most commonly employed. In this study, the authors used a methodology not employed in other studies to date. First, they used peer reports of dating popularity to assess the extent to which individuals of varying qualities are romantically pursued by opposite-sex individuals. Second, the authors obtained peer nominations of a variety of qualities that self-report studies of mate preferences indicate may be important. Results revealed that romantically popular men are physically attractive, outgoing, and seen as trendsetters. Romantically popular women were also viewed as physically attractive and as trendsetters. In contrast to the self-report literature, men who were seen as having most potential for financial success were not particularly popular. Results are discussed with respect to the self-reported preferences literature.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berscheid, E. , Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 173-189.
2.
Block, J. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley, CA: Bancroft Books.
3.
Bloom, B. L. , Asher, S. J., & White, S. W. (1978). Marital disruption as a stressor: A review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 867-894.
4.
Briggs, S. R. , & Cheek, J. M. (1988). On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with assessment, problems with validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 426-435.
5.
Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73, 47-51.
6.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
7.
Buss, D. M. (1994a). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.
8.
Buss, D. M. (1994b). The strategies of human mating. Amen can Scientist, 82, 238-249.
9.
Buss, D. M. , & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
10.
Buss, D. M. , et al. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5-47.
11.
Buss, D. M. , & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
12.
Campbell, A. , Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life. New York: Russell Sage.
13.
Cashden, E. (in press). Women's mating strategies. Evolutionary Anthropology.
14.
Clark, M. S. , & Reis, H. T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 609-672.
15.
College Fraternity Editors Association . (1991). Greek public relations: A r4edion of who we are. Hinsdale, IL: Banta.
16.
Curran, J. P. , & Lippold, S. (1975). The effects of physical attractiveness and interpersonal attraction in the dating situation. Journal of Personality, 43, 528-539.
17.
Epstein, E. , & Guttman, R. (1984). Mate selection in man: Evidence, theory, and outcome. Social Biology, 31, 243-278.
18.
Eysenck, H. J. , & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Eysenck Personality Questionnaire manual. San Diego, CA: Educational Testing Service.
19.
Feingold, A. (1984). Correlates of physical attractiveness among college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 122, 139-140.
20.
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981-993.
21.
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125-139.
22.
Gangestad, S. W. , Thornhill, R., & Yeo, R. A. (1993). Facial attractiveness, developmental stability, and fluctuating asymmetry. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 73-85.
23.
Hays, W. L. (1981). Statistics (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
24.
Hrdy, S. B. (1981). The woman that never evolved. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
Jaccard, J. , & Wan, C. K. (1995). Measurement error in the analysis of interaction effects between continuous predictors using multiple regression: Multiple indicator and structural equation approaches. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 348-357.
26.
Kenrick, D. T. , & Keefe, R. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 75-133.
27.
Krebs, D. , & Adonolfi, A. A. (1975). Physical attractiveness, social relations, and personality style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 245-253.
28.
Reis, H. T. , Nezlek, J., & Wheeler, L. (1980). Physical attractiveness in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 604-617.
29.
Sadalla, E. K. , Kenrick, D. T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730-738.
30.
Simpson, J. A. , & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in socio sexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870-883.
31.
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-hip ratio (WHR). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293-307.
32.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.
33.
Snyder, M. , & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125-139.
34.
Snyder, M. , Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1986). Personality and sexual relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 181-190.
35.
Tellegen, A. (1982). A brief manual to the Differential Personality Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota.
36.
Tellegen, A. , & Waller, N. G. (in press). Exploring personality through test construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In S. R. Briggs & J. M. Cheek (Eds.), Personality measures: Development and evaluation (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT:JAI.
37.
Thornhill, R. , & Gangestad, S. W. (1994). Fluctuating asymmetry and human sexual behavior. Psychological Science, 5, 297-302.
38.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1971-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
39.
Vandenberg, S. G. (1972). Assortative mating, or who marries whom?Behavior Genetics, 2, 127-158.
40.
Walster, E. , Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508-516.
41.
Watson, D. , & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 448-457.
