Content uploaded by Jan MA de Vries
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jan MA de Vries on Oct 21, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[Trinity College Dublin]
On:
27 October 2009
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 785045691]
Publisher
Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Marriage & Family Review
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792306931
Hot Picture or Great Self-Description
Jan M. A. de Vries ab; Leland Swenson c; R. Patricia Walsh d
a Trinity College Dublin, Ireland b School of Nursing and Midwifery, Dublin, Ireland c Loyola Marymount
University, Los Angeles, USA d Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Online Publication Date: 08 January 2008
To cite this Article de Vries, Jan M. A., Swenson, Leland and Walsh, R. Patricia(2008)'Hot Picture or Great Self-Description',Marriage
& Family Review,42:3,7 — 34
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1300/J002v42n03_02
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J002v42n03_02
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Hot Picture or Great Self-Description:
Predicting Mediated Dating Success
with Parental Investment Theory
Jan M. A. de Vries
Leland Swenson
R. Patricia Walsh
ABSTRACT. This study explores the impact of photographs and self-
descriptions on success in attracting dates in single and divorced hetero-
sexual clients (n = 589) of a large commercial dating service (Great
Expectations Inc.) in Los Angeles. Predictions and a rationale for the out-
come are based on Parental Investment Theory (Trivers, 1972). Findings in-
dicate that attractiveness ratings of photographs of clients consistently
explain variance in success in attracting dates, with the most attractive
Jan M. A. de Vries is affiliated with Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, School of Nursing
and Midwifery, Dublin, Ireland. Leland Swenson is Retired Full Professor, Loyola
Marymount University, Los Angeles. R. Patricia Walsh was Professor at Loyola
Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA.
Address correspondence to: Dr. Jan M. A. de Vries, Trinity College Dublin, School
of Nursing and Midwifery, 24, D’Olier street, Dublin 2, Ireland (E-mail: jan.devries@
tcd.ie or jdevries1@msn.com).
The authors deeply mourn the demise of R. Patricia Walsh in 2006 after a long and
courageous battle against cancer. She was a lover of psychological research, the re-
search process, and the knowledge derived from it. She tempered her enthusiasm with
the rigor of the statistician which made her collaboration with us, all the more valuable
and appreciated. As well as a co-author and colleague she was as good a friend as anyone
could wish and all miss her.
The authors received help from various sources. They would like to thank them all,
in particular J. Ullman, J. Selleck and others at G/E Inc., and Dr. K. Kraan for statistical
support.
Marriage & Family Review, Vol. 42(3) 2007
Available online at http://mfr.haworthpress.com
© 2007 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J002v42n03_02 7
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
women and men being selected most often. There is one exception to this:
among men who want children the most attractive ones are not selected
most frequently. Aspects of self-descriptions (financial and non-finan-
cial resources, altruism, physical health, hedonistic tendencies, and so-
cial desirable qualities) extracted from the clients’ profiles do not predict
significant variance in dating success. Overall the results do not provide
support for the role of Parental Investment Theory (Trivers, 1972) in dat-
ing mediated by the agency in our study. Discussion focuses on alterna-
tive paradigms, methodological issues, and implications for the further
development of a theory of mediated dating. doi:10.1300/J002v42n03_02
[Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Ser-
vice: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com>
Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The Haworth Press. All
rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Attractiveness, dating, gender differences, mate-choice,
Parental Investment Theory
INTRODUCTION
Although professional dating services, new media, and the Internet
have helped modernize and expand the mediated dating market,1the
types of information presented have by and large remained the same as
when the market was dominated by newspapers and magazines. A pho-
tograph and a text profile with a self-description and expectations in re-
gard to the prospective partner tend to be the information provided. This
is rarely questioned because it is generally assumed that both the photo-
graph and the text profile provide essential information on which those
seeking dates base their decisions.
Evolutionary theory provides a fundamental rationale for this assump-
tion in regard to those seeking a mating partner (and not just companion-
ship). Based on the idea that mating and therefore dating behavior aimed
at finding a sexual partner is rooted in adaptations that have a reproduc-
tive advantage, two factors are considered essential in long-term mate
selection: (1) finding “good” genes in the prospective partner as a pre-
dictor of good genes in the expected offspring, and; (2) finding a part-
ner who is likely to provide effective parental investment (Trivers,
1972; Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Oda, 2001; Gaulin & McBurney, 2001).
Photographic evidence tends to provide information in regard to the
8 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
first factor, while text profiles, in particular the self-descriptions, tend to
do so mostly for the second factor.
Photographs and “Good Genes”
Since “good genes” cannot be detected directly, mating and dating
choices are based on phenotypical expressions of these genes. Photo-
graphs allow us to inspect and evaluate the phenotype of a prospective
date. The perception of phenotypical suitability is experienced as attrac-
tion. Empirical research has identified a variety of factors (see Barber,
1994). For instance, in men, height, athleticism, and strength (Buss,
1999) are considered attractive, while in women, attractiveness is speci-
fied in “clear skin, full lips, small lower jaw, symmetrical features, white
teeth, absence of sores and lesions” (Buss, 1999, p. 159), youthfulness
(Buss, 1989), and low waist-to-hip ratio (Singh, 1993; Buss, 1999;
Streeter & McBurney, 2003). Youth in women represents higher fertility.
Low waist-to-hip ratio is seen as an adaptation that provides an advan-
tage for childbirth.
Empirical research in a variety of cultures indicates that facial sym-
metry and averageness of facial features are related to attractiveness
(Jones & Hill, 1993). Facial symmetry (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997;
Thornhill & Gangestad, 2006) is also found to correlate with good health
during development both in men and women and may represent the pres-
ence of genes that contribute to high resistance to parasites. The face even
provides clues in regard to longevity (Henderson & Anglin, 2003) and
fertility (Soler et al., 2003). In general, among all aspects of attractive-
ness, facial attractiveness is considered most strongly related to general
attraction (Riggio et al., 1991). This would explain why photos of the
face are most prominent in how those seeking dates present themselves.
Self-Descriptions and Expectation
of Parental Investment
Self-descriptions allow those seeking a date to express preparedness
of parental investment (Trivers, 1972). This might take place in the form
of evidence of possession or control of resources, the ability to acquire
them, the willingness to share them, and personality aspects and qualities
that would benefit a long-term relationship. The outcome of a seminal
cross-cultural study (37 cultures in 33 countries on 6 continents) conducted
by Buss (1995, 1998) suggests that such qualities are universally recog-
de Vries, Swenson, and Walsh 9
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
nized. He found that across cultures, kindness and understanding, and
intelligence were considered most desirable in a partner, followed by
exciting personality, good health, adaptability, and creativity. These ge-
neric assets in a partner are considered relevant for maintaining long-
term relationships (Buss, 1999; Palmer & Palmer, 2002). Most specific
for parental investment, and also on the list were desire for children,
good earning capacity, good housekeeping, and good education (Buss,
1998). Thus, evolutionary theory not only provides a rationale for the
role of photographs and self-description in mediated dating, but more
specifically it identifies the elements that should make the materials ef-
fective in attracting dates.
Gender Differences
It is evident that the factors mentioned above show similarities for
men and women (Goodwin, 1990). Nonetheless, gender differences in
their relative importance (Buss & Schmitt, 1993) in the mate selection
process are part and parcel with evolutionary principles. Parental In-
vestment Theory (Trivers, 1972) suggests that since women are limited
in the number of offspring they can have during their lives, their reliance
on help from their male partners in securing the survival of their offspring
is important in optimizing reproduction. In contrast, men can optimize
their offspring through short-term alliances with many women, while
minimizing parental investment. It follows that women, more than men,
may have developed adaptations to be discriminative in seeking reliable
signs of effective parental investment in their male partners (Trivers,
1972; Buss, 1993). Thus, they are hypothesized to scrutinize self-de-
scriptions more than men and have them weigh more heavily in their
dating decisions. It is also suggested (Gangestad, 1993; Waynforth,
2001) that adaptations may have developed in the form of a “trade-off”
between men and women in which women offer physical attractive-
ness in return for evidence of resources. This effect was established in
“lonely hearts advertisements” by Harrison and Saeed (1977), sup-
ported by Townsend and Wasserman (1998) for dating desire in stu-
dents, and by Dawson and McIntosh (2006) for Internet dating. In
general, empirical evidence indicates that men report they value attrac-
tiveness (and therefore photographs) more than women (Powers, 1971;
Feingold, 1990; Sprecher, Sullivan & Hatfied, 1994; Buss, 1985, 1993,
1998).
10 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
Studying Dating Success and Rationale
for This Study
The empirical literature reviewed so far is congruent with Parental
Investment Theory (Trivers, 1972) and suggests that both photographs
and self-descriptions should predict dating success. It should however
be noted that support is based mostly on studies of dating preferences and
desire. Dating desire expresses intentions but not necessarily decisions.
It is actual dating decisions and success at attracting dates that provide
the strongest evidence in investigating whether attractiveness or parental
investment guide dating behavior. Our literature search yielded a handful
of publications providing this type of evidence, each with rather different
methodology and contrasting results. Green, Buchanan and Heuer (1984)
compared the most popular and least popular male and female members
of a commercial dating service (not online) and found that more popular
males had higher status and more attractive photographs, while more popu-
lar females were younger and also more attractive. Blaize and Schroeder
(1995) examined the content of romantic advertisers (without photo-
graphs) in newspapers and related them to the number of responses
received. They found that information on income and education in per-
sonality descriptions were related to the number of responses men re-
ceived, but not for women. Also, mentioning attractiveness produced
more responses for both genders, but significantly more for men. Goode
(1996) placed bogus personal ads (text only) varying gender, status, and
reported attractiveness to find that attractive females and high status
males received more responses than their counterparts. Goode (1996)
placed bogus personal ads (text only) varying gender, status, and re-
ported attractiveness. It was found that attractive females and high sta-
tus males received more responses than their counterparts. These three
studies suggest that both attractive photographs or described attractive-
ness and indications of parental investment like status, income, and edu-
cation contribute to success in attracting dates. However, two other
studies find support mainly for the attractiveness aspect. Woll (1986)
asked members of a dating service to perform a running commentary on
their thought processes during the selection process and found that age
and attractiveness were mentioned more frequently than any other de-
scriptive characteristic. Kurzban and Weeden (2005) studied “speed
dating” (3 minute face-to-face meetings between pools of 25 men and
women) in another large dating service in the US and found that attrac-
tiveness predicted dating decisions more than any other variable. In
light of the methodological variations in these studies it is difficult to
de Vries, Swenson, and Walsh 11
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
draw conclusions and we don’t pretend that we will be able to settle the
matter. Nevertheless, it would seem that a concerted effort to put the im-
pact of photographs and self-descriptions side by side is called for. Only
Green et al. (1984) provide this kind of comparison, but with a small
sample (n = 40) and without particular focus on parental investment. It
is therefore that the study presented in this article looks at a large sample
drawn from the dating records of members of a dating service and ad-
dresses the contribution to actual dating success of attractiveness in
photographs and signs of parental investment. As such, this study pro-
vides a unique contribution to research on mediated dating.
Operationalizing Dating Success and Predictions
We operationalize dating success here as the frequency with which
self-description and photographs generate interest from others to go on
a date, thus isolating the impact of the materials and excluding aspects
of the selection and decision processes following interaction with pro-
spective dates.
The following predictions, suggested by the theory and empirical evi-
dence presented above, are addressed in this study:
1. Dating success will be predicted by the attractiveness of the photo-
graphs. Evolutionary theory posits that inspection of phenotypical
fitness of a partner is adaptive. Photographs allow us to do this.
Most of the studies reviewed here support this prediction.
2. Dating success will also be predicted by aspects of the self-de-
scriptions that provide evidence of preparedness of parental in-
vestment, in particular resources (financial and non-financial) and
the preparedness to share these (altruistic tendencies). This pre-
diction is the cornerstone of Parental Investment Theory (Trivers,
1972). Support is more unanimous in research on dating prefer-
ences than in studies addressing dating success.
3. Female dating success is more strongly related to evidence of at-
tractiveness in their submitted photographs than male dating suc-
cess. Evolutionary theory suggests that gender differences in mate
selection include that men find attractiveness more important in
a mate than women. Empirical support for this prediction is stron-
gest in research on mate preferences.
4. Male dating success is more strongly related to evidence of prepared-
ness of parental investment in their submitted self-descriptions than
12 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
female dating success. The rationale for this prediction is rooted in
evolved gender differences in how reproduction can be optimized.
Males may try to avoid parental investment, so females will have
to ascertain male preparedness. Since female parental investment
is given to optimize reproduction, men may be less motivated to
question this aspect in a female partner. Empirical support comes
from research on mate preferences.
In addition, two fundamental issues are addressed. The first issue is
that Parental Investment Theory (Trivers, 1972) on which we’ve based
our hypotheses hinges on the idea that people seek long-term mates for
successful reproduction. Although it is likely that many of those seeking
dates via a commercial dating service do so to find a long-term mate,
they may also consider the possibility of short-term mating, concurrently
or as an alternative. Short-term mating involves different strategies and
preferences as well as different reproductive advantages. Sexual Strate-
gies Theory (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Schmitt et al., 2003) suggests that
both long-term and short-term mating are universal adaptations shaped
by evolution and hardwired in both men and women. For men, short-
term mating is an effective way of optimizing offspring and minimizing
parental investment, especially when there are many mates available.
For women, short-term mating is adaptive when a particularly high qual-
ity mate is sought followed by the production of high quality offspring
with higher survival rates. This strategy will have evolved in circum-
stances when parental investment from the short-term male partner was
not necessary for the survival of offspring. If we expect short-term mating
tendencies in our sample we should consider how this might affect our
hypotheses. Based on Buss and Schmitt (1993) men are predicted to rely
on the photographs even more in comparison with long-term mating, and
even less on the self-descriptions in their decision making. Also, for
women who desire short-term mating a change in emphasis is predicted
to occur in how self-descriptions are scrutinized with a shift towards se-
lecting tall, strong, and protective men, and a shift in focus on the pre-
paredness of the man “to immediately expend resources on her [. . .] in
spite of the fact that women are generally less exacting in short-term than
in long-term contexts” (p. 221). Studies by Gangestad and Simpson
(1990) and Li and Kenrick (2006) demonstrated that women who look
for short-term mating find physical attractiveness in men more important.
In addition, an Australian survey by Rhodes, Simmons and Peters (2005)
found that attractiveness correlated with self-reported short-term (but
not long-term) mating success in men. In conclusion: both for men and
de Vries, Swenson, and Walsh 13
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
women short-term mating may coincide with more emphasis on physi-
cal aspects and therefore an increase of the importance of photographs
in selecting date (prediction 1).
The second issue, raised by Howard, Blumstein and Schwartz (1987)
but generally overlooked in the literature, is whether models like Parental
Investment Theory (Trivers, 1972) and Sexual Strategies Theory (Buss &
Schmidt, 1993) lose their predictive value if those seeking dates have
decided that they don’t want children yet or have children and do not
want more children? Should we assume that reproductive adaptations are
so deeply ingrained in our system that we cannot escape their impact? Or
could the decision to avoid offspring override them? We address this is-
sue in our study by comparing participants who have a wish for children
with those who do not (or not any more).
METHODS
Subjects
Subjects were 589 heterosexual Caucasian members (307 female: 34%
wishing children and 66% not wishing children, and 282 male: 55%
wishing children and 45% not wishing children) of a large dating service
in the Los Angeles area, Great Expectations Inc (G/E).2The study ad-
dressed a random sample of members actively seeking a partner. Some
had been members for years, others were relatively new members. Their
ages ranged from 23 to 76 years with an average age of 41. Seventy-five
percent of the subjects were between 30 and 50 years old. Male and fe-
male age distributions were very similar for the main demographic vari-
ables. A significant difference between the male and female samples was
that more males than females wrote they wanted children (2(1,588) =
25.67, p = .000, sig. at p ⬍.001). When split up in groups according to
whether they stated they wanted children or not (see Table 1) it turned out
that on average those who wanted children were about 10 years younger
than the ones who did not (t(587) = ⫺15.735, p = .000, sig. at p ⬍.001)
and were less than half as likely to be divorced. More than half of the
women who did not want children (any more) already had children, while
over 40% of men who did not want children already had them. This per-
centage was below 10% in those who stated they wanted children. On
average female subjects were somewhat younger than males both in
the group who wanted children (2 years) and the group who did not
14 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
(1.4 years). Participants had a variety of occupations and educational
backgrounds. More than 85% of the subjects had a college education,
with 64% having completed it. Caucasians (85% of a sample of 700)
were over-represented compared to the overall population of Los An-
geles. Analysis by ethnic background was not feasible, because of the
limited representation of non-Caucasians. Therefore, it was decided to
focus on Caucasians only.
Materials
The study involves the analysis of randomly selected “profiles” con-
structed by members of G/E Inc. dating service and their dating activity
at G/E Inc. up to the moment of sampling for this study.
Profiles. G/E Members created a two-page profile of information
about themselves, using a standard form produced by the company. The
first page contains blanks to fill in demographics (gender, age, occupa-
tion, education, children, race, religion, marital status, etc.), general per-
sonal information, and spaces for three one-paragraph essays. The first
essay (What I Like to Do) covers the subject’s preferred activities. The
second essay (Who I Am) describes the subject’s personality and interests.
The third essay (What I am Looking For) addresses the person the mem-
ber hopes to meet. The second page contains one or more photographs of
de Vries, Swenson, and Walsh 15
TABLE 1. Overview of Demographic Variables Split for Men and Women Who
Want and Don’t Want Children in the Dating Service
Wish for Children No wish for Children
Women
(n = 104)
Men
(n = 154)
Women
(n = 203)
Men
(n = 128)
Age (mean) 34.1 36.1 44.8 46.2
SD 5.1 6.4 8.3 9.5
Marital Status (%)
Single 76.0 76.6 36.5 42.2
Divorced 24.0 23.4 56.2 51.6
Widowed 0.0 0.0 7.4 5.5
In a relationship (%) 6.7 5.2 6.4 11.7
Have children (%) 6.7 9.7 52.7 40.6
Children at home (%) 6.7 2.6 27.1 9.4
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
the person. These two-page profiles were filed in books. G/E members
would browse through this information to decide whom to date. While
G/E has added Internet dating to its operations, data for this study were
gathered only from profiles in the books. Clients would browse through
the books in the same way as one would browse web pages.
Dating Activity. Records of dating activity of participants were made
available to the authors by G/E Inc. For this article the main focus is on
the average number of dates per month (TSM = Times Selected per
Month) proposed by other members of G/E.
Procedure
Sampling. Profiles were randomly selected from the G/E books and
copied.
Content Analysis of Self-Descriptions and Expectations-Other.Acod-
ing scheme for content analysis was developed using the essays of a sam-
ple of 100 male and female members. Several categories of responses
were developed based on prior research in this area (Trivers, 1972; Buss,
1985; Green, Buchanan & Heuer, 1984). In the analysis of the three es-
says in the profiles we focused on identifying aspects that would provide
evidence of effective Parental Investment (categories 1-3) and other de-
sired qualities in a partner (categories 4-6). The following categories
were used:
1. Resources Financial: Possessing resources such as money, prop-
erty, financial security;
2. Resources Non-Financial: Possessing non-financial resources, par-
ticular talents, or superior abilities;
3. Altruistic/Tolerant: Expressed tendency to promote welfare of
others unselfishly, preparedness to share, and expressed tolerance;
4. Physical Health/Activities: Statements of physical attributes such
as attractiveness, fitness, or energy;
5. Hedonistic/Pleasure Seeking: Hedonistic values such as a plea-
sure seeking or excitement seeking life style, expressed love of
fun, adventure, and sensuality;
6. Social Desirability: Socially desirable personality traits such as
trustworthiness, communication, skills, humor, or self-acceptance.
A 50-page manual containing examples of each category was devel-
oped and used by twelve raters. Raters were graduate students in psy-
chology who were given extensive training in the application of the
16 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
rating scheme before it was applied to the profiles in the study. Inter-
rater reliability for the essays ranged from .82 to .88. Every time an aspect
occurred the rater would check it. For the purpose of statistical analysis,
we reduced the variables thus created to more robust yes/no dichotomies
(see percentage scores in Table 2) after it was established that no signifi-
cant distinctions were found between aspects mentioned once, twice, or
more times. Essays one and two (What I Like to Do and Who I Am)
were combined and will be referred to as “Self-descriptions.” Essay three
(What I am Looking For) was analyzed separately and will be referred to
as “Expectations-other.” We included them in our study because ex-
pressing expectations is as much a part of dating as is describing oneself.
We have no predictions as to how they may relate to Dating Success.
Photograph Attractiveness Ratings. Four male and four female raters,
also graduate students (and Caucasian), ranging in age between 25 and
50 years, rated the Attractiveness of the subjects using a 10-point scale.
The average of the four ratings was computed and used in the study.
Males rated female photographs and females rated male photographs.
Photograph raters were instructed to weigh facial beauty over physical
beauty, based on a study by Riggio et al. (1991) in which facial beauty
was established as the primary variable in Attractiveness judgments.
Inter-rater reliability ranged from .62 to .95. Most participants pre-
sented photographs of themselves alone, with neutral backgrounds.
Dependent Variables. Dating Success in this study was operation-
alized as the average number of times a client was selected for a date
(TSM) during their membership of G/E Inc. Whether dates actually
took place is beyond the scope of this study. Selection Activity (SMM =
Average number of selections made per month) was also computed.
Four Groups. Comparisons between four groups were made: (1) Wo-
men with a wish for children; (2) Men with a wish for children;
(3) Women who do not want children; (4) Men who do not want children.
RESULTS
Dating Success in the Four Groups
The results in Table 2 provide an overview of Dating Success (TSM)
and Selection Activity (SMM). Significance levels are indicated as fol-
lows: *p ⬍.05; **p ⬍.01; ***p ⬍.001. Men made more selections
(SMM) than women (F(1,585) = 11.096, p = .000***) and women got
de Vries, Swenson, and Walsh 17
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
selected (TSM) more frequently than men (F(1,585) = 12.408, p =
.000***). Univariate Analysis of Variance for SMM including Wish for
Children demonstrated that Gender was the only significant effect. This
reflects to a certain extent that even members of a dating agency adhere
to the traditional norm that men should ask women for a date, rather than
the other way around. Univariate Analysis for TSM with the same vari-
ables also showed an effect for Wish for Children (F(1,585) = 8.126, p =
.005**) and an interaction effect for Gender with Wish for Children
18 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
TABLE 2. Overview of Main Independent and Dependent Variables Split for
Men and Women Who Want and Don’t Want Children
Wish for Children No Wish for Children
Women
(n = 104)
Men
(n = 154)
Women
(n = 203)
Men
(n = 128)
PHOTOGRAPHS
Attractiveness (mean) 5.34 5.27 5.37 5.04
SD (scale 1-10, range 3-7.5) 0.73 0.75 0.69 0.77
Self-description: WHAT I LIKE TO DO ⫹WHO I AM (mean nr of aspects, range 0-6)
Resources Financial 94% 91% 95% 90%
Resources Non-Financial 88% 92% 94% 88%
Altruistic/Tolerant 63% 66% 60% 64%
Physical Health/Activities 92% 92% 94% 88%
Hedonistic/Pleasure Seeking 96% 93% 96% 93%
Social Desirability 81% 84% 86% 82%
Expectations-other: WHAT I AM LOOKING FOR IN OTHERS (mean nr of aspects)
Resources Financial 48% 27% 41% 23%
Resources Non-Financial 57% 53% 57% 52%
Altruistic/Tolerant 43% 44% 35% 41%
Physical Health/Activities 44% 53% 44% 57%
Hedonistic/Pleasure Seeking 56% 58% 51% 55%
Social Desirability 86% 80% 87% 68%
Dating Success (TSM ⫽Times selected per month)
Mean 2.66 0.92 1.31 1.29
SD 3.2 1.3 2.0 1.4
Selection Activity (SMM ⫽Selections made per month)
Mean 1.36 2.37 1.37 2.23
SD 1.6 4.3 1.6 2.7
Note: Frequencies for the aspects of self-descriptions and expectations-other indicate the percentage of
the sample mentioning each aspect.
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
(F(1,585) = 24.868, p = .000***). What it comes down to is that women
who want children get selected the most (mean = 2.66 per month (p/m))
and men who want children the least (mean = 0.92 p/m), while men and
women who have no wish for children are on average about equally suc-
cessful in attracting dates (mean = 1.31 and 1.29 p/m). We will avoid
making conclusions or generalizations based on this particular result,
because it needs to be understood in relation to the gender imbalances in
these four groups of the G/E membership and therefore our sample (see
Table 2). Based on the high probability that both men and women who
want children and those who do not will mostly select each other, the
relative scarcity of women who want children (n = 104) in the G/E Inc.
membership may ensure a higher frequency of selection, since there are
154 men who are most likely to seek such women. Also, the abundance
of women who don’t want children (n = 203) as compared with men
who don’t want children (n = 128) would explain why these women get
selected about half as often as women who want children, while the 128
men who don’t want children get selected about as often as their 203 fe-
male counterparts. Exact computations of how many choices are made
and received do not come to the same total because of a combination
of two factors: (1) some selections were made across group lines; and
(2) random sampling within the membership of the dating service.
Since the frequency with which subjects are selected is affected in this
way, this needs to be taken into account in interpreting differences be-
tween the four groups.
Attractiveness and Self-Descriptions in the Four Groups
Table 2 also shows that Attractiveness ratings had similar distributions
for the four groups. Women were rated as somewhat more attractive than
men (F(1,585) = 10.766, p = .003**). There were no significant differ-
ences between those that wanted children and those that did not, but
there was an interaction effect for Gender × Wish for Children (F(1,585)
= 4.785, p = .029*, reflecting the somewhat lower mean Attractiveness
of men who do not want children. The variables that emerged from the
analysis of the profiles were mentioned consistently in the combination
of the Self-Descriptions. The majority of participants mention each of the
aspects at least once, but on average two or more mentions of each aspect
was recorded. Each of the aspects is mentioned by at least 80% of the par-
ticipants, except for Altruism (63-66%). The Expectations-other gener-
ated an entry for each variable between 40 and 60% of the participants
de Vries, Swenson, and Walsh 19
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
with only Social desirability (68-86%) included by a large majority
of the subjects. Univariate analysis of variance (including effects for Gen-
der and Wish for Children) showed no significant effect for the Self-
Description variables (0 = not mentioned; 1 = mentioned). Significant
differences between men and women were only found in Expectations-
other. Resources Financial (F(1,585) = 25.630, p = .000***) and Social
Desirability (F(1,585) = 14.301, p = .000***) were requested more by
women, while Physical Health/Activities (F(1,585) = 6.480, p = .011*)
were requested more by men. There were no significant differences for
Wish for Children, but one interaction effect for Expectations-other:Gen-
der × Wish for Children × Social Desirability (F(1,587) = 4.204, p = .041*)
which reflect that men who haveno wish for children report Social Desir-
able traits the least.
Predicting Dating Success (TSM):
Testing the Hypotheses
We performed a Linear Multiple Regression Analysis to predict the
impact of all independent variables in Table 2 and the demographic
variables in Table 1 on the dependent variable Dating Success (TSM).
Because of our interest in interaction effects for Gender and Wish for
Children, these were also included. After calculating the separate dummy
variables and scale scores, interaction terms were calculated for all in-
dependent variables in two- or three-way interaction with Gender and
Wish for Children. Since we included the interaction effects we entered
all variables in the equation at the same time (Enter Mode). Stepwise
Mode cannot be used when including interaction effects. To prevent
co-linearity, these constructs were centred on the mean values (Aiken &
West, 1991). A summary of the outcome of the procedures is presented
in Table 3. The findings indicate that about 20% of the variance in Dat-
ing Success (Adjusted R2= .204) can be explained by the variables tar-
geted in this study. The most prominent factor by far is Attractiveness.
Prediction 1 (Dating Success will be predicted by the attractiveness of
the photographs) was therefore supported. Prediction 2 (Dating success
will also be predicted by aspects of the self-descriptions that provide ev-
idence of preparedness of parental investment, in particular resources
(financial and non-financial) and the preparedness to share these (altru-
istic tendencies).) was not supported. Of the Self-Description variables
mentioned, only having Financial Resources had some impact on Dating
Success, but the negative effect was opposite to what we expected and
20 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
de Vries, Swenson, and Walsh 21
TABLE 3. Multiple Regression Analysis (Enter Mode); Dependent Variable:
Dating Success (TSM = Average Times Selected per Month)
tp
(constant) ⫺2.818 .005
Independent variables
Attractiveness in photograph .345 8.468 .000***
Self-description
Resources Financial ⫺.104 ⫺2.525 .012*
Resources Non-Financial .036 .917 .359
Altruistic/Tolerant .002 .048 .962
Physical Health/Activities .014 .354 .723
Hedonistic/Pleasure Seeking .019 .464 .643
Social Desirability .034 .833 .405
Expectations-other
Resources Financial ⫺.030 ⫺.703 .483
Resources Non-Financial ⫺.017 ⫺.412 .681
Altruistic/Tolerant ⫺.086 ⫺2.117 .035*
Physical Health/Activities .073 1.790 .074
Hedonistic/Pleasure Seeking .070 1.703 .089
Social Desirability ⫺.023 ⫺.565 .572
Demographic variables
Gender .153 3.362 .000***
Wish for Children ⫺.035 ⫺.692 .489
Age ⫺.096 ⫺1.714 .087
Divorced ⫺.026 ⫺.540 .589
Widowed .001 .021 .983
Have Children ⫺.035 ⫺.630 .529
Children at Home .030 .662 .508
2-way Interaction effects (only sig.)
Attractiveness ⫻Gender .166 4.115 .000***
Financial self ⫻Gender ⫺.110 ⫺2.678 .008**
Hedonistic other ⫻Gender .088 2.162 .031*
Altruistic other ⫻Gender ⫺.103 ⫺2.511 .012*
3-way Interaction effects (only sig.)
Attractiveness ⫻Gender ⫻Wish
for Children .120 2.942 .003**
Financial self ⫻Gender ⫻Wish
for Children ⫺.116 ⫺2.782 .006**
Note: All independent variables entered reported; for interaction effects only significant variables included
in table.
Adjusted R2= .204, F (59,587) = 3.545, p = .000***
Collinearity Tolerance between .791 and 1.
*p < .05; **p < .01; *** p < .001
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
only present for females (see Table 3 for interaction effect). Since this
prediction is pivotal for Parental Investment Theory (Trivers, 1972), its
refutation implies we should question the applicability of the theory in
predicting mediated dating success.
For predictions 3 and 4 we need to look into the 2-way interaction
variables that were created, which show four small contributions to
explaining Dating Success. Prediction 3 (Female dating success is
more strongly related to evidence of attractiveness in their submitted
photographs than male dating success.) was supported by these find-
ings. The effect for Attractiveness × Gender suggests that especially
highly attractive women (Attractiveness level 5) in both groups were se-
lected with great frequency (mean = 6.18 p/m; see Figure 1). In compar-
ison with women rated at Attractiveness level 4 they were selected more
than twice as often (mean = 2.84 p/m). This was the case for both
22 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
FIGURE 1. Graph of Dating Success (TSM = Average Times Selected per
Month) Separated for Wish for Children, Gender, and Attractiveness (Attractive-
ness Has Been Divided into 5 Levels (1 = Not Attractive; 5 = Highly Attractive))
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
women who wanted children and those who did not. In contrast, the
most attractive men (Attractiveness level 5) were on average selected
slightly less frequently (mean = 1.16 p/m) than the ones who were
somewhat less attractive at level 4 (mean = 1.47 p/m). Taking into account
one of the two significant 3-way effects (see Figure 1) it becomes clear
that the reverse effect for males is only the case for men who want chil-
dren. It would seem that for all females and males who do not want chil-
dren to be in the highest level of attractiveness is an advantage, albeit a
smaller advantage for men, while for men who want children it is a dis-
advantage. For them, being more attractive is only an advantage up to
level 4. It would seem that the women who select men to have children
with were impressed by good looks, but somewhat less swayed by the
best of looks.
Prediction 4 (Male dating success is more strongly related to evidence
of preparedness of parental investment in their submitted self-descrip-
tions than female dating success.) received very limited support. None
of the self-description variables predicted more Dating Success for men
in comparison with women. Only one effect, Financial Resources Self ×
Gender, was significant. This effect is the result of the fact that females
who do not mention their own financial resources are selected twice as
frequently (mean = 3.23 p/m) as the women who do (mean = 1.69 p/m),
while for men the frequency of selection between those who mention
(mean = 1.10 p/m) and do not mention financial resources (mean = 1.00
p/m) is small in comparison. This effect could have been more prominent
if the group of women who did not mention their financial resources had
not been so small (n = 16). For the second three-way effect (see Figure 2)
again the men who want children are the odd ones out. For men and
women who don’t want children and women who do, not mentioning
Financial Resources seems to be an advantage in getting dates. For men
who want children this is not the case (mean = .50 p/m). In fact, the 14
males in this group who did not mention their financial assets were se-
lected about half as frequently as the 140 who did (mean = .96 p/m). The
effect size is small because so few participants did not mention their fi-
nancial assets. We may conclude that Prediction 4 received some support
here, but only for men who want children.
No predictions were made for the relationship between Expectations-
Other and Dating Success. The results show that the impact is limited.
The negative effect for Altruism/Tolerance reflects that those who asked
for Altruism in others were selected less frequently (mean = 1.24 p/m)
than those who did not (mean = 1.57 p/m). Furthermore, a 2-way effect
for requesting Altruism in Others × Gender reflects that this is only the
de Vries, Swenson, and Walsh 23
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
case for women. Women who do not look for altruistic tendencies in
their dates are selected more frequently (mean = 2.01 p/m) than those
who do (mean = 1.38 p/m), while this makes very little difference in the
selections of males who do (mean = 1.11 p/m) and those who do not
(mean = 1.07 p/m).
The third 2-way effect, Hedonism-Other × Gender suggests that fe-
males who request hedonistic aspects in the man they are looking for are
more likely to get selected (mean = 2.07 p/m) than those who do not
(mean = 1.44 p/m). This does not seem to have an impact on the selection
of men who do (mean = 1.11 p/m) and do not (mean = 1.05 p/m).
Finally, although not a significant effect, the negative relationship
between TSM and Age (see Table 3) reflects that younger clients
are selected more frequently. Analyses of Variance showed only one
signifiacant interaction effect involving Age, that between Age and
24 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
FIGURE 2. Graph of Mean Dating Success (TSM = Average Times Selected
per Month) Separated for Wish for Children, Gender, and Financial Resources
Self (Yes/No)
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
Gender on TSM (F(36,504) = 2.949, p = .001**), which is more signifi-
cant than the negative relationship found in the Multiple Regression pro-
cedure. It is indicative of the fact that men prefer younger women and
women prefer older men. This finding reflects preferences for partner age
in a variety of studies (for instance, Kenrick and Keefe, 1992).
DISCUSSION
Our expectations that dating success would be predicted by the attrac-
tiveness of the photographs and more so for women than for men were
supported (predictions 1 and 3). This confirms findings discussed in
the introduction by Woll (1986) and Kurzban and Weeden (2005). A sub-
tle exception to the linear relationship between attractiveness and dating
success in our findings is that in the selection of men who want children
attractiveness may be an advantage but only up to a point. If a man is
“too” attractive a woman may become somewhat less likely to select
him. This result ties in with Waynforth’s (2001) suggestion that women
may suppress selecting attractive mates because they rate them as more
likely to cheat or leave them. Although he found no evidence that this
inhibited women from actually choosing attractive partners, the principle
may play a role in the sense that women who seek a partner to have chil-
dren with may be somewhat less motivated to seek out the most attrac-
tive males, as has been demonstrated in our study.
Our second main finding, and perhaps the most important one, is the
limited predictive value (predictions 2 and 4) of the profiles. This result
contrasts with Green, Buchanan, and Heuer (1984), Blaize and Schroeder
(1995) and Goode (1996) who found that self-descriptive factors repre-
senting parental investment predicted dating success (see Introduction).
Our expectations may have been inflated in particular by the outcomes
of research on qualities universally desired in partners (Buss, 1989), but
we had not expected that the aspects in the profiles that reflect parental
investment (altruism, financial, and non-financial resources) would con-
tribute so little to explaining the variance in dating success. Brase (2006)
had found apparent indifference in male Internet daters to cues of female
parental investment. Our findings suggest that this may be the case for
both genders. Only mentioning financial resources made a difference and
only for men who want children. They were more successful in getting
dates when they mentioned they had money. The overall results suggest
de Vries, Swenson, and Walsh 25
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
that evidence of parental investment and other aspects of the profiles play
a minor role in selection frequency.
On a methodological note, the limited contribution of the self-de-
scriptions to explaining dating success may be partly accounted for by
limitations in the variability of the profiles themselves and/or our analy-
sis. First, our analysis of the profiles focused on specific aspects related
to evolutionary principles at the exclusion of other aspects that might
have surfaced if we had attempted an open qualitative analysis (see for
instance Strauss & Corbin, 1998). It is therefore possible that significant
elements in the profiles have been overlooked. Second, the quantitative
approach we applied to the aspects in the profiles has its limitations. The
dichotomous variables we used, although they tell us whether an element
is mentioned or not, do not inform us whether an aspect was introduced
persuasively or not. It is possible that a rating of the profiles would have
created variables with a higher predictive validity. It remains to be seen
whether this could have been done with acceptable inter-rater reliability.
Third, it is likely that participants provided profiles that were similar in
content. Woll and Young (1989) reported that clients of dating services
put a lot of thought in their descriptions, and are well aware that they are
competing for the attention of other clients. We have every reason to be-
lieve that our sample at G/E Inc. is no different. In fact clients at G/E Inc.
received expert advice from G/E’s staff on how to write their essays. This
may have reduced the diversity in content and quality of the essays and
therefore the differential impact of the messages on dating success. It is
interesting that in one study (Hagiwara, 1975), in which self-descriptions
had a higher predictive value than photographs, the self-descriptions in-
cluded not only positive and neutral descriptions but also negative de-
scriptions. Hagiwara used a sample of female Southern Californian
students in a simulated dating study and found that personality descriptions
of the men they selected accounted for 43% of the variance in their dat-
ing desirability, while photographs accounted for 17% of the variance. It
would seem that variability in the personality descriptions translated
into variance in dating desirability. Of course the presence of negative
self-descriptions does not reflect the reality of dating and can therefore
not be replicated in a study of actual dating success. Nonetheless, it
emphasizes the role of variability in this kind of studies. Finally, pre-se-
lective mechanisms (relatively high fees and active selection by G/E Inc.
to reach a “classy” clientele) may have reduced the variability in status,
financial resources, and educational background to such an extent that G/E
members may have taken similar demographics of other members more
or less for granted and did not use these as selection principles. Thus
26 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
whether someone reports financial or non-financial resources may not
be considered essential. Although the methodological issues addressed
here are not unimportant it should be noted that they are inextricably tied
in with the study of “real” dating behavior and therefore mostly unavoid-
able, with the exception of the first issue.
This brings us to the wider theoretical implications. Our findings pro-
voke questioning the applicability of evolutionary theory in the kind of
dating situation we studied. Howard, Blumstein, and Schwartz (1987)
addressed this theme in their study of over 6,000 heterosexual and
homosexual couples in the USA and came to the conclusion “that the
richness of human mate preferences is better understood from a social
perspective” (p. 200). More recently Najman et al. (2006) surveyed cri-
teria for partner selection in a sample of Australian men (n = 876) and
women (n = 908) and came to the conclusion that physical attractive-
ness, lots of money, and intelligence–together referred to as the “evolu-
tionary imperative”–were valued less in comparison with criteria like
whether someone “cares about you,” “is fun to be with,” or “enjoys sex.”
Although, we could debate their definition of what the “evolutionary
imperative” should encompass, it is significant that their findings led
them to raise the issue. Of course, as we’ve pointed out before, research
on dating preferences and actual dating behavior are likely to yield differ-
ent results. Incidentally, comparison of our findings with Najman et al.’s
(2006) results illustrates this issue. In our study attractiveness predicted
dating success more than any other variable, whereas in Najman et al.
physical attractiveness ranked only eighth for males and ninth for fe-
males on a list of ten desired qualities in a sexual partner. Nonetheless,
an important commonality is that a survey response and a dating choice
based on a photograph and a profile are both rather far removed from the
face-to-face interactions that shaped the evolution of mating adaptations.
For instance in face-to-face dating self-disclosure is a gradual process
(Merkle & Richardson, 2000). Maybe we are just not adapted to respond
to the immediacy of the self-disclosure as provided in the G/E Inc. pro-
tocols. Furthermore, and this is of particular relevance for more than
half of the participants, what happens when we look for a mate with
whom we do not want offspring? Should we assume that we override
long-term mating strategies and revert to learned or improvised re-
sponses? Or do we activate the other available program in the “repro-
ductive robot” in us, that is, short-term mating? Of course, the dominant
impact of the photographs and small gender differences suggest a role
for short-term strategies. It is possible that even in purported long-term
dating exploits short-term dating principles dominate the selection stage.
de Vries, Swenson, and Walsh 27
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
It was suggested by Buss and Schmitt (1993, p. 220/221) that short-term
mating strategies may be used as an “assessment device” to evaluate
one’s own mate value, the intentions of the potential mate, his or her
enduring characteristics, as well as possible deception. This leads us to
speculate that our inability to reliably discriminate between short-term
and long-term mating tendencies on the basis of the G/E Inc. profiles
may be partly due to obfuscation efforts by those members who were
looking for a short-term mate. It is an interesting thought, but this is as
far as this study’s contribution to this issue reaches. Apart from this we
nevertheless question how relevant long-term and short-term mating ad-
aptations really are for post-reproductive forty or fifty year olds. In a
sense any reproductive strategy is inappropriately activated in this part
of our sample. Perhaps other paradigms provide a better fit to predict the
dating behavior of this group and since differences with the reproductive
part of our sample were mostly small, there is little that should discourage
us from considering these alternatives for mediated dating as a whole.
We will consider two approaches.
In terms of learned behavior it is obvious that even a novice at medi-
ated dating has a wide experience in being targeted for persuasion with
a photograph and a short piece of text. Advertisements and commercials
work in this way. Much like in a “business interaction” rather than “a
prelude to romance” (characterization by Ahuvia and Adelman, 1992,
p. 458) participants may activate learned responses to being targeted for
persuasion during initial dating efforts. Research on persuasion empha-
sizes the role of credibility (Aronson, 2004) of a message. The difference
between the credibility of photographs and text material may be pivotal
in understanding the outcomes of our study. Since the attractiveness of
the candidate can be verified on the very first date, it does not pay off to
lie with a picture. It follows, that someone seeking a date may have a cer-
tain degree of confidence in the photographic evidence. On the other
hand, the content of self-descriptions cannot be verified instantly on the
first date, but has to be established over the course of a series of contact
opportunities. From this perspective there is no point in putting too much
confidence in the self-description. Furthermore, just like with advertise-
ments and commercials we are used to taking text-based information
with a grain of salt. We know that people have an understanding of what
makes them “look good on paper” and are aware that the information is
being designed to persuade us. This may make us extra cautious in our
response to self-descriptions. “Reactance theory” (Brehm & Brehm, 1981)
even predicts that blatant efforts to persuade may have the opposite
effect.
28 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
It would seem that we are building up momentum to argue for doing
away with self-descriptions in mediated dating, however this would
discount the possible impact of assortative (or assortive) mating.
Assortative mating ensures that those with similar age, education, reli-
gion (Houts, Robins & Huston, 1996), social prestige (Withbeck &
Hoyt, 1994), birth order (Russell & Wells, 1994), personality traits
(Mehrabian, 1989), love style (Hahn & Blass, 1997), interests, hobbies,
expectations, etc., will find each other. Buss (1985) has characterized
assortative mating as “the most common deviation from random mating
in Western societies” and argues that mating with someone similar en-
hances the reproduction of genes the partners have in common. Byrne
(1971) argues that frequent interaction with someone similar has rein-
forcement value. Empirical support for the occurrence of this principle
is somewhat scattered. Lykken and Tellegen (1993) found no evidence
for assortative mating in an extensive study on twins and their spouses,
while Kurzban and Weeden (2005) in their study of speed dating only
found assortative trends in race and height. Swenson, Walsh and Kim
(1993) found that members of a dating service expressed a clear desire to
date others similar in a variety of ways, but Walsh, Swenson, Kessler,
Giese, and Nakashima (1993) found limited evidence that this led to ac-
tual assortative mating. Nevertheless, they did find a weak but significant
matching trend for attractiveness between those seeking dates and those
accepting them. Since the same principles as in selecting someone for a
date are involved in accepting a date we would expect the most attractive
people to accept dates from the most attractive candidates, while less at-
tractive date seekers may be accepted by less attractive receivers of a
dating request. Empirical research has provided some support for this
type of mechanism that lead to mates being matched for attractiveness
(Berscheid, Dion, Walster & Walster, 1971; Berscheid & Walster,
1974; Byrne, 1971; Shanteau & Nagy, 1979), although not all authors
found such effects (Huston, 1973; see also Takeuchi, 2006). The match-
ing principle and assortative mating provide an explanation for the
low degree of explained variance in dating success in the investigated
variables. Choices based on similarity reduce the impact of particu-
larly attractive physical or other features on dating success. Takeuchi
(2006) developed a comprehensive model (Probability Matching The-
ory), which integrates the preference for attractive partners with match-
ing tendencies. He stresses that matching aspects are mostly subservient
to a “baseline tendency” (p. 27) to select the most attractive partners.
Moderator variables like availability of partners, fear of rejection, com-
pensatory qualities (different for men and women) will determine to what
de Vries, Swenson, and Walsh 29
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
extent the matching aspect will weaken the relationship between attrac-
tiveness and dating success. The complexity of his model is beyond our
scope in this discussion but may pave the way for future efforts to map
out the intricacies of dating behavior.
Developments in the commercial dating industry and demographic
limitations in our sample suggest replication of our studies on the
Internet, and with different demographics. Particularly, the comparison
between men and women who want and do not want children is of inter-
est. Future research should further explore this distinction. Furthermore,
it is not unthinkable that Parental Investment Theory (Trivers, 1972) is
more relevant in less economically developed populations where the fi-
nancial or status aspect would receive more emphasis and gender differ-
ences could be more pronounced than in our study. Furthermore, a
wider study of the role of long-term and short-term mating in mediated
dating is essential to establish whether Sexual Strategies Theory (Buss &
Schmitt, 1993) has merit in explaining actual dating behavior. Efforts to
discriminate between the two strategies and a more robust way of iden-
tifying sexual versus non-sexual dating should be a priority. We would
like to stress that this type of research should move beyond surveying
dating preferences and address actual dating success! Future research
should also address how the overall quality of self-descriptions impacts
dating success. The style of description (such as creative use of language
or humor) rather than its content, as we investigated, may attract pro-
spective partners. Further development and testing of models for dating
success may seek to integrate evolutionary hypotheses with other para-
digms. We addressed matching theory, assortative mating, and persua-
sion theory. In addition, information processing models (such as visual
versus language processing), decision-making models (such as a “pov-
erty model” of mating) (Lykken & Tellegen, 1993) versus the abun-
dance of choice in web-based dating) and a variety of other approaches,
may also contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of dating
mechanisms. With the rapid proliferation of commercial dating websites
there is a need to inform the industry and its clients. Results of our study
suggest to dating agencies that it is useful to discriminate between cli-
ents who have a wish for children and those who do not. They also sug-
gest that lengthy self-descriptions may not be effective. Furthermore,
serious dating agencies may need to find ways of becoming more aware
of reliability issues and deception (both in self-descriptions and photo-
graphs) which are rampant on many dating sites. This issue is further
complicated by the mixing on the Internet of those seeking contact to find
a real life mate and those who only want to meet in cyberspace and feel
30 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
free to misrepresent themselves in a desired role. Based on our study
there is one thing we can communicate with reasonable confidence to
those seeking mediated dates: make sure you place a “hot picture,” except
when you are a man who wants children; in that case “too hot” is not
good!
NOTES
1. Mediated dating includes all ways of looking for a mate or partner with the use of
an intermediary (online dating, dating services and agencies, match making, advertise-
ments in papers and magazines, etc.).
2. Great Expectations, Inc. (G/E) was started by Jeffrey Ullman in 1976 on the sug-
gestion of his mother who wanted to make it easier for him to meet a nice girl. In 1994
he sold the company which then grossed over $90 million a year and claimed to have
initiated over 10,000 marriages. Today, the Great Expectations franchises operate dating
services in 27 cities in 17 states in the USA, covering most parts of the country except
the northeast. They offer both online and offline dating. The Los Angeles branch has
been operating for over 30 years in which considerable growth took place. Costs of
membership are at the high end of the spectrum. This attracts well-educated and finan-
cially secure clients. Great Expectations screens and validates vital information, meets
members face-to-face, and maintains current photographs and videos that accurately
represent potential dates.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L.S. & S.G. West (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interac-
tions. Newbury Park: Sage.
Ahuvia, A.C. & Adelman, A.C. (1992). Formal Intermediaries in the Marriage Market:
A typology and review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 452-463.
Aronson, Elliot (2004). The Social Animal: Ninth Edition. New York: Worth. Barber,
N. (1994). The Evolutionary Psychology of Physical Attractiveness: Sexual Selection
and Human Morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395-424.
Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, R., & Walster, G.M. (1971). Physical attractiveness
and dating choice: a test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 7, 173-189.
Berscheid, E., and E. Walster (1974). Physical Attractiveness. In: L. Berkowitz, (Ed).
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 157-215. New York: Academic Press.
Blaize, H.R. & Schroeder, J.E. (1995). Personality and mate selection in personal ads:
evolutionary preferences in a public mate selection process. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 10, 517-536.
Brase, G.L. (2006). Cues of parental investment as a factor in attractiveness. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 27, 145-157.
Brehm, S.S. & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom
and control. New York: Academic Press.
de Vries, Swenson, and Walsh 31
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
Buss, D.M. (1985). Human mate selection. American Scientist, 73, 47-51.
Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypoth-
eses testing in 37 cultures. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
Buss, D. M. (1998). The Psychology of Mate Selection: Exploring the Complexity of
the Strategic Repertoire. In C. Crawford & D. L. Krebs (Eds), Handbook of evolu-
tionary psychology: Ideas, issues and applications. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Buss, D.M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: the new science of the mind. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn &Bacon.
Buss, D.M. & Barnes, M.F. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.
Buss, D.M. & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary per-
spective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
Byrne, D. (1971) The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Dawson, B.L. & McIntosh, W.D. (2006). Sexual Strategies Theory and Internet Personal
Advertisements. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9, 614-617.
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.
Gaulin, S. J.C. & McBurney, D.H. (2001). Psychology: an evolutionary approach. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gangestad, S.W. & Simpson, J.A. (1990). Towards an evolutionary history of female
sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69-96.
Gangestad, S.W. (1993). Sexual selection and physical attractiveness: implications for
mating dynamics. Human Nature, 4, 3, 205-235.
Gangestad, S. W. & Thornhill, R. (1997). Human sexual selection and developmental
stability. In J.A. Simpson & D.T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology
(pp.169-195). Mahweh, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goode, E. (1996). Gender and Courtship Entitlements: Responses to Personal Ads. Sex
Roles: A Journal of Research, 34, 141-169.
Goodwin, R. (1990). Sex Differences among partner preferences: Are the sexes really
very similar? Sex Roles, 23, 501-513.
Green, S.K., Buchanan, D.R. & Heuer, S.K. (1984). Winners, losers, and choosers: A
field investigation of dating initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
10, 502-511.
Hagiwara, S. (1975). Visual versus verbal information in impression formation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 692-698.
Hahn, J. & Blass, T. (1997). Dating Preferences: A Function of Similarity of Love
Styles. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 695-610.
Harrison, A.A. & Saeed, L. (1977). Let’s make a deal: An Analysis of Revelations and
Stipulations in Lonely Hearts Advertisements. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 35, 257-264.
Henderson, J.J.A. & Anglin, J.M. (2003). Facial Attractiveness predicts longevity.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 351-356.
Houts, R.M., Robins, E. & Huston, T.L. (1996). Compatibility and the Development
of Premarital Relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 7-20
32 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
Howard, J.A., Blumstein, P. & Schwartz, P. (1987). Social or Evolutionary Theories?
Some observations on preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53, 194-200.
Huston, T.L. (1973). Ambiguity of Acceptance, social desirability, and dating choices.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 32-42.
Jones, D. & Hill, K. (1993). Criteria of Facial Attractiveness in five populations. Human
Nature, 4, 271-296.
Kenrick, D.T. & Keefe, R.C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences
in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and brain sciences, 15, 75-133.
Kurzban, R. & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 26, 227-244.
Lowry, R. (1998-2003). Vassar Stats: Web Site for Statistical Computation. Poughkeepsie,
NY: Vassar College. [http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/rdiff.html]
Li, N.P. & Kenrick, D.T. (2006). Sex Simmilarities and Differences in Preferences for
Short-Term Mates: What, Wheahter, and Why? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 468-489.
Lykken, D.T & Tellegen, A. (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.
Mehrabian, A. (1989). Marital Choice and Compatibility as a function of trait similar-
ity-dissimilarity. Psychological Reports, 65, 1202.
Merkle, E.R. & Richardson, R. A. (2000). Digital Dating and Virtual Dating: Conceptu-
alizing Computer Mediated Romantic Relationships. Family Relations, 49, 187-192.
Najman, J.M., Dunne, M.P., Purdie, D.M., Boyle, F.M. & Coxeter, P.D. (2006). Sexual
Partner Preferences: Evolutionary Imperative, Emotional Attachment or Hedonism.
Marriage and Family Review, 40, 5-23.
Oda, R. (2001). Sexually dimorphic mate preference in Japan. Human Nature, 12, 3,
191-206.
Palmer, J.A. & Palmer, L.K. (2002). Evolutionary psychology: the ultimate origins of
human behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Powers, E.A. (1971). Thirty years of research on ideal mate characteristics: What do
we know? International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 21, 109-118.
Rhodes, G., Simmons, L.W. & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior:
Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26,
186-201.
Riggio, R.E., Widaman, K.F., Tucker, J.S. & Salinas, C. (1991). Beauty is More than
Skin Deep: Components of Attractiveness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
12, 4, 423-439.
Russell, R. J. H. & Wells, P.A. (1994). Human assortative mating: questions concerning
genetic similarity theory. Animal Behavior, 47, 463-464.
Schmitt, David P (2003). Universal Sex Differences in the Desire for Sexual Variety:
Tests from 52 Nations, 6 Continents, and 13 Islands. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85, 85-104.
Shanteau, J. & Nagy, G. (1979). Probability of Acceptance in Dating Choice. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 522-533.
de Vries, Swenson, and Walsh 33
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
Singh, D. (1993). Body shape and women’s attractiveness: the critical role of waist-
to-hip-ratio. Human Nature, 4, 297-321.
Soler, C., Nunez, M., Gutierrez, R., Nunez, J, Medina, P., Sancho, M., Alvarez, A. &
Nunez, A.(2003). Facial Attractiveness in men provides clues to semen quality.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 199-207.
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.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-
cedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Streeter, S.A. & McBurney, D. H. (2003). Waist-Hip Ration and attractiveness: new evi-
dence and a critique of “a critical test”. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 88-98.
Swenson, L.C. Walsh, R.P, & Kim, K. (1993). Desire to date similar others in a video
dating service. Paper presented at WPA93 conference, Phoenix, AZ.
Takeuchi, S.A. (2006). On the Matching Phenomenon in Courtship: A Probability
Matching Theory of Mate Selection. Marriage & Family Review, 40, 25-51.
Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, S.W. (2006). Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental
stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 27, 131-144.
Townsend, J.M. & Wasserman, T. (1998). Sexual Attractiveness: Sex Differences
in Assessment and Criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171-191.
Trivers, R.L. (1972). Parental investment and natural selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.),
Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.
Walsh, R. P., Swenson, L.C., Kessler, M., Giese, L. & Nakashima, C. (1993). Assor-
tive mating in a video dating service. Paper presented at WPA93 conference,
Phoenix, AZ.
Waynforth, D. (2001). Mate choice trade-offs and women’s preference for physically
attractive men. Human Nature, 12, 207-219.
Whitbeck, L.B. & Hoyt, D.R. (1994). Social Prestige and Assortive Mating: A compar-
ison of students from 1956 and 1988. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
2, 137-145.
Woll, S. B. (1986). So many to choose from: Decision strategies in video dating. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 43-52.
Woll, S.B. & Young, P. (1989). Looking for Mr. or Ms. Right: Self-presentation
in Videodating. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 483-488.
doi:10.1300/J002v42n03_02
34 MARRIAGE & FAMILY REVIEW
Downloaded By: [Trinity College Dublin] At: 15:39 27 October 2009
