Content uploaded by Mike Mucci
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mike Mucci on Feb 24, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Journal of Psychology and the Behavioral Sciences, Vol.24, 2015 Mucci & Mason
PREFERRED MATE CHARACTERISTICS
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Susan E. Mason Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Niagara University, Niagara University,
New York, USA 14109. E-mail: sem@niagara.edu
1
Preferred Mate Characteristics in Young Adults
Michael J. Mucci & Susan E. Mason
Niagara University
The possible sex difference in preferred mate characteristics is a domain that is receiving more
attention as of late, due to the increases in new forms of dating and new conceptualizations of
attraction. Evolutionary theory posits that men are attracted to cues signaling reproductive value and
women are attracted to resources and personality traits, while more social-based theories rely on
societal pressures explaining the way men and women behave when it comes to attraction. The present
study found that men and women may not differ in terms of how important they rate general physical
attractiveness and shared values. However, women did value long-term relationships more and
monetary potential more, while men rated characteristics like eye color, hair color, and weight as more
important. Further, relationship longevity was only predicted partially by certain aspects of real-life
relationships, but not ideal mate preferences. These findings suggest that a simple evolutionary
approach to mate preferences research may not be completely sufficient in today’s society.
Keywords: attraction, relationships, dating, evolution, mate preferences
The literature on young-adult mate preferences and
relationships is extensive, yet many of the reported findings
are contradictory and inconclusive. This study was
designed to provide additional information regarding
several issues of interest to relationship researchers,
including the correlation between expressed preferences
and demonstrated preferences; sex differences in preferred
mate characteristics; and factors associated with
relationship duration in young adults.
Recent research on expressed preferences and
demonstrated preferences has yielded inconclusive results.
For example, Eastwick, Finkel, and Eagly (2011),
compared self-reported mate preferences with preferences
demonstrated in live-interaction situations and found
significant differences. In contrast, Burris, Welling, and
Puts (2011) found that women who express a preference
for more masculine faces tend to have more masculine
partners. Methodological differences between the studies
make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the
correlation between expressed and demonstrated mate
preferences. Research on attractiveness tends to focus on
initial attraction. In relationship research, though, changes
in ratings of attractiveness are also of interest. Reis et al.
(2011) found that simply spending more time with
someone in a live-interaction can make that person seem
more attractive.
The traditional view of sex differences in mate
preferences is that men tend to value traits signaling
physical attractiveness and reproductive capacities, and
women tend to value traits signaling stability and resource
acquisition (Buss, 1989; Li & Kenrick, 2006, Li et al.,
2013; Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield, 1994). Much of the
theory in this area stems the work of Trivers (1972), who
argues that women invest more in parenting and are
therefore more discriminating in mate selection. Men, who
traditionally carry less of the responsibility of having and
raising a child, are less selective. From an evolutionary
perspective, the cost of wasting one’s reproductive
resources is less for men than it is for women. Women are
thought of as the choosier sex because they can spread their
genes to the next generation best by securing resources
over the 9 months of pregnancy. Men, however, may be
better suited pursuing other sexual partners in that time, in
order to enhance their chances of progeny in the next
generation (Trivers, 1972; Feingold, 1992; Bjorklund &
Shackelford, 1999).
Just as sex differences in mating preferences have been
interpreted from an evolutionary perspective, so have sex
differences in relationships. This could be thought of as the
difference between relationship preferences and pursuit,
and actual relationship maintenance once in a committed
relationship. Some relationships are found to involve
jealousy induction, an intentional tactic used to make a
romantic partner jealous. This type of behavior is typically
correlated with lower relationship satisfaction and
commitment (Mattingly, Whitson, & Mattingly, 2012).
Other relationships are potentially volatile because of too
much jealousy in particular domains. Many studies have
shown that men are more distressed by potential sexual
infidelities, while women are more distressed by potential
emotional infidelities (Buss, Larsen, Westen &
Semmelroth, 1992; Edlund & Sagarin, 2009; Sagarin,
Becker, Guadagno, Wilkinson, & Nicastle, 2012). In
comparison to men, women have been found to show
heightened jealousy in romantic relationships. Sagarin and
Guadagno (2004), for example, found that women more
often than men report “extreme jealousy”. These studies
lend support to evolutionary models of human mating
behavior.
As would be expected from an evolutionary
perspective, meta-analytic work has shown that women
prefer taller partners, or partners who are at least as tall as
The Journal of Psychology and the Behavioral Sciences, Vol.24, 2015 Mucci & Mason
PREFERRED MATE CHARACTERISTICS
2
they are (Pierce, 1996). This result is consistent with the
finding that taller men have more attractive girlfriends
(Feingold, 1982). In general, the traditional evolutionary
hypotheses regarding the importance of physical
attractiveness to men, and the importance of earning
capacity to women, have been supported by the relevant
research in the field (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Jonason,
2009). However, it is less clear whether these basic
differences in preferences hold true in real-life dating
situations. However, research in the same area has shown
that initial preferences do not inspire the desire for
romantic partners in actual speed dating contexts (Eastwick
& Finkel, 2008)
Additionally, some researchers have suggested that
gender-specific mate preferences may be at least partially
due to socially constructed views of men and women
(Wood & Eagly, 2002). A study conducted by Stanik and
Ellsworth (2010) found that in environments where women
could acquire advanced education, women were more
likely to engage in short-term relationships, less likely to
desire men with high wealth and status, and less likely to
promote traditional gender roles. Women may be less
likely to depend on the support of a long-term romantic
partner, then, if they are able to provide for themselves and
create stability through their own lifestyles and career
choices.
Another challenge to evolutionary hypotheses comes
from the work of Thompson and O’Sullivan (2012).
Thompson and O’Sullivan used an implicit association test,
rather than self-report data, to study mate preferences in
college students. Both men and women were more likely to
associate the pleasant condition with romantic images as
opposed to sexual images. There was a gender difference,
however, in that the association between romantic images
and the pleasant condition was greater for women than it
was for men
Some characteristics are desired by both men and
women. In a 2013 report, which included an analysis of
research from 1939 through 2011, Henry, Helm Jr., and
Cruz concluded that both sexes place a high value on a
mate’s dependable character, pleasing disposition, and
emotional maturity. Although this comprehensive report
found similarities between men and women, it also found
the traditional sex differences. The importance of physical
attractiveness to men and the importance of earning
capacity to women seem to be fairly robust findings.
The Present Study
The present study examined sex differences in mate
preferences and the relations between ideal and real mate
characteristics. An additional goal of the study was to
identify factors that predict relationship longevity.
Based on previous research on mate preferences (Buss,
1989; Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Henry, Helm & Cruz,
2013; Jonason, 2009), we hypothesized that men would
focus on characteristics signaling physical attractiveness
and reproductive value more than women would, and that
women would focus on personality variables and earning
potential more than men. We expected that ideal mate
preferences would differ from the characteristics of real
romantic partners, though published reports on this point
have been contradictory (Burris, Welling, & Puts, 2011;
Eastwick, Finkel, & Eagly, 2011). We further hypothesized
that personality and relationship variables would better
predict relationship length than physical characteristics
would, and that real partner characteristics would better
predict relationship length than ideal mate preferences
would.
Method
Participants
Our sample consisted of 127 young adults (99 women;
28 men) between the ages of 18 and 36 (M = 19.54, SD =
1.99), who were recruited on a university campus and
through social media. For some reason, females seemed
more drawn to our study than men. In the future, we would
like to gather more data on a more balanced sample. Some
students received extra credit for their participation, but
there was no monetary compensation. Based on self- report
data, the sample was 88% Caucasian, 4% African
American, 4% Hispanic/Latino, 2% Asian, and 2% “other.”
Most of the participants expected to get married (90%).
Materials and Procedure
A three-part questionnaire was designed and
administered through Survey Monkey. In Part 1, data were
collected on the number of past relationships an individual
had; the length of the participant’s longest relationship; and
demographic variables such as age, sex and ethnicity.
Part 2 included 11 questions about preferred
characteristics in an ideal potential mate, and asked
participants to rate the importance of each characteristic on
a five-point scale. Part 3 included a similar set of 11
questions about characteristics in a mate, but rather than
referencing an ideal potential mate, Part 3 referenced the
characteristics of an actual romantic partner, specifically
the partner with whom the participant had the longest
relationship. The questions in Part 3 asked participants to
use a five-point scale and rate the degree to which each
statement applied to their actual partner. The 11 questions
in Parts 2 and 3 assessed preferences for (Part 2) or actual
ratings of (Part 3) a romantic partner in terms of physical
attractiveness, shared values, potential for monetary
success, popularity, family dynamics, shared activities and
interests, hair or eye color, height, weight, number of
previous relationships, and masculinity or femininity. All
questions were carefully created after deliberating about
what preferences would be most important to ask men and
women about. Although these questions were not pulled
from previously validated measures, we believe they
tapped into many of the basic aspects of initial attraction
The Journal of Psychology and the Behavioral Sciences, Vol.24, 2015 Mucci & Mason
PREFERRED MATE CHARACTERISTICS
3
and relationship maintenance. Future research needs to be
done to validate individual items, determine factor
structures, and ensure internal consistency.
Results and Discussion
We used IBM SPSS Statistics 19 to analyze the data,
with primary analyses focused on sex differences in
preferred mate characteristics and factors that contribute to
relationship length. Participants’ longest romantic
relationships ranged in length from less than one month to
69 months (M = 19.56, SD = 14.31).
A major hypothesis of the present study was that men
would rate physical attractiveness as more important than
women would. In contrast to the findings of previous
research, we found no significant sex difference for the
value of general physical attractiveness between men (M =
4.21, SD = .13) and women (M = 4.01, SD = .81), t(125) =
-1.21, p =.229. However, there were sex differences in
ratings for specific physical characteristics. Men were more
likely than women to value a potential partner’s weight (M
= 3.68, SD = .98; M = 3.14, SD = 1.03; for men and
women, respectively; t(125) = -2.460, p = .015). Men were
also more likely than women to value a potential partner’s
eye or hair color (M = 2.18, SD = 1.02; M = 1.75, SD = .84;
for men and women, respectively; t(125) = -2.289, p =
.024). In contrast to men, women placed more importance
on a potential partner’s height (M = 3.29, SD = 1.09; M =
2.54, SD = .92; for women and men, respectively; t(125) =
3.349, p = .01), a finding that is consistent with previous
work (Pierce, 1996).
As hypothesized, women valued a potential partner’s
earning power more than men did (M = 3.00, SD = .77; M
= 2.60, SD = .92; for women and men, respectively; t(125)
= 2.285, p = .024). Women were also more likely than men
to place importance on long-term relationships (M = 4.34,
SD = .86; M = 3.89, SD = .92; for women and men,
respectively; t(125) = 2.415, p = .017) and the number of
previous partners a potential mate had (M = 2.45, SD = .95;
M = 1.75, SD = .75; for women and men, respectively;
t(125) = 3.612, p < .001). None of the other ideal mate
characteristics showed significant sex differences (see
Table 1 for information on all t-tests). The importance of
shared values did not differ between the sexes (M = 4.38,
SD = .74; M = 4.11, SD = .96; for women and men
respectively; t(125) = 1.635, p = .104). The importance of
popularity did not differ between the sexes (M = 2.14, SD =
.80; M = 2.04, SD = .83; for men and women respectively;
t(125) = -.580, p = .563). The importance of shared
activities did not differ between the sexes (M = 4.26, SD =
.69; M = 4.10, SD = .79; for women and men respectively;
t(125) = 1.016, p = .311). The importance of family
dynamics did not differ between the sexes (M = 4.16, SD =
.90, M = 3.96, SD = 1.0; for women and men respectively;
t(125) = .999, p = .320). The importance of masculine and
feminine qualities did not differ between the sexes (M =
2.97, SD = 1.12; M = 2.92, SD = 1.21; for women and men
respectively; t(125) = .209, p = .835).
Table 1
t-tests for all significant and non-significant sex differences
Variable
t
p
Importance of physical
attractiveness
-1.210
.229
Importance of long term
relationships
2.415
.017*
Importance of shared values
1.635
.104
Importance of earning potential
2.285
.024*
Importance of shared activities
1.016
.311
Importance of hair and eye color
-2.289
.024*
Importance of family dynamics
0.999
.320
Importance of height
3.349
.001*
Importance of weight
-2.460
.015
Importance of masculine and
feminine characteristics
0.209
.835
Importance of previous
relationships
3.612
<.001*
Note. p values marked with an * are statistically significant.
Ideal mate preferences correlated with real partner
ratings, with the following exception. Ratings for number
of previous relationships of ideal partners did not correlate
with ratings for number of previous relationships of real
partners. In other words, expressed preferences tended to
match ratings for real romantic partners. This was true for
all characteristics except number of previous relationships
(see Table 2).
Linear regression analyses were run with each of the
ideal preferences variables regressed against the dependent
variable of relationship length, but none proved significant.
Furthermore, age and number of relationships failed to
significantly predict relationship length. Relationship
length was predicted, however, by three of the real-life
relationship variables. First, participants who rated their
previous partner as someone who shared their values had
longer-lasting relationships, β = 3.27, p =.012. Shared
values explained a significant proportion of variance in
relationship length, F(1,126) = 6.568, p = .012, R2 =.050,
R = .223; an increase of one point on the shared-values
rating scale was associated with an additional 3.27 months.
The Journal of Psychology and the Behavioral Sciences, Vol.24, 2015 Mucci & Mason
PREFERRED MATE CHARACTERISTICS
4
Table 2
Correlations between ideal preference variables and what participants
actually pursued in partners
Correlation
r
p
Importance of physical
attractiveness and Physical
attractiveness
.201
.023*
Importance of shared values
and Shared values
.445
<.001*
Importance of earning potential
and Earning potential
.293
.001*
Importance of popularity
and Popularity
.217
.014*
Importance of family dynamics
and Family dynamics
.185
.037*
Importance of shared activities
and Shared activities
.302
.001*
Importance of hair and eye color and
Hair and eye color
.298
.001*
Importance of height
and Height
.249
.005*
Importance of weight
and Weight
.342
<.001*
Importance of masculine and
feminine characteristics
and Masculine and feminine
characteristics
.331
<.001*
Importance of previous relationships
and Previous relationships
.112
.206
Note. p values marked with an * are statistically significant.
Secondly, participants who rated their previous partner’s
family dynamics positively had longer relationships, β =
2.68, p =.008. Quality family dynamics also explained a
significant portion of the variance in relationship length,
F(1,126) = 7.335, p < .01, R2 =.055, R = .235; an increase
of one point on the family-dynamics rating scale was
associated with an additional 2.68 months. Finally,
participants who viewed their previous partner as having
had an appropriate number of relationships had longer
relationships, β = 2.24, p = .014. Partners having an
appropriate number of previous relationships also
explained a significant portion of the variance in
relationship length, F(1,126) = 6.188, p = .014, R2 = .047,
R = .217; an increase of one point on the number-of-
relationships rating scale was associated with an additional
2.24 months. We conclude, then, that relationship longevity
is predicted by real rather than ideal ratings, and it is
predicted by relationship variables rather than physical
characteristics. Average relationship length for this
population was 19.56 months, so an increase of 2-4 months
is actually a significant change, especially when
considering the unstable nature of college romantic
relationships.
Long-lasting relationships are associated with shared
values, desirable family dynamics, and an acceptable
number of previous relationships.
Conclusion
This study adds to the growing body of literature on
attraction and relationships. Although evolutionary theory
has guided much of the research in the area, other
perspectives, especially social-based theories, should also
be considered. Our data provided only partial support for
evolutionary hypotheses of sex differences in mate
preferences. We contend that both biological and social
factors influence mate choice, and that both types of factors
contribute to the success of a romantic relationship. In our
study, physical characteristics were important in mate
selection, but they were not significant factors contributing
to relationship duration. One interpretation of our findings
is that there is a shift in the relative importance of
biological and social factors during a relationship, with
biological factors decreasing in importance and social
factors increasing in importance. This may be due to the
fact that physical characteristics may be important for
breeding physical attraction and bringing people together,
but they may be relatively meaningless for predicting long-
term interpersonal satisfaction, where compatibility matters
most.
References
Bjorklund, D. F., & Shackelford, T. K. (1999). Differences
in parental investment contribute to important
differences between men and women. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 86-89.
doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00020
Burriss, R. P., Welling, L. M., & Puts, D. A. (2011). Mate-
preference drives mate-choice: Men's self-rated
masculinity predicts their female partner's preference
for masculinity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51, 1023-1027. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.0
8.018
Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex Differences in human mate
preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37
cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1-49.
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J.
(1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution,
physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3,
251-255. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x
The Journal of Psychology and the Behavioral Sciences, Vol.24, 2015 Mucci & Mason
PREFERRED MATE CHARACTERISTICS
5
Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., & Eagly, A. H. (2011).
When and why do ideal partner preferences affect the
process of initiating and maintaining romantic
relationships? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101, 1012-1032. doi: 10.1037/a0024062
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.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2009). Sex differences in
jealousy: Misinterpretation of nonsignificant results as
refuting the theory. Personal Relationships, 16, 67-78.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01210.x
Feingold, A. (1982). Do taller men have prettier
girlfriends? Psychological Reports, 50,(3, Pt 1),
doi:10.2466/pr0.1982.50.3.810
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection
preferences: A test of the parental investment model.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125-139. doi:10.1037/003
3-2909.112.1.125
Henry, J., Helm Jr., H. W., & Cruz, N. (2013). Mate
selection: Gender and generational differences. North
American Journal of Psychology, 15, 63-70.
Jonason, P. K. (2009). The value of physical attractiveness
in romantic Partners: Modeling biological and social
variables. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 229-240.
Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Sng, O., Fletcher, G. O.,
Valentine, K. A., Jiang, Y.F., Balliet, D. (2013). Mate
preferences do predict attraction and choices in the
early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 105, 757-776. doi:10.1037/a00
33777
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and
differences in preferences for short-term mates: What,
whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 468-489. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.
468
Mattingly, B. A., Whitson, D., & Mattingly, M. B. (2012).
Development of the romantic jealousy-induction scale
and the motives for inducing romantic jealousy Scale.
Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse
Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 31, 263-
281. doi:10.1007/s12144-012-9144-3
Pierce, C. A. (1996). Body height and romantic attraction:
A meta-analytic test of the male-taller norm. Social
Behavior and Personality, 24, 143-149.
doi:10.2224/sbp.1996.24.2.143
Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick,
P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Familiarity does indeed
promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557-570. doi:
10.1037/a0022885
Sagarin, B. J., Becker, D., Guadagno, R. E., Wilkinson, W.
W., & Nicastle, L. D. (2012). A reproductive threat-
based model of evolved sex differences in jealousy.
Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 487-503.
Sagarin, B. J., & Guadagno, R. E. (2004). Sex differences
in the contexts of extreme jealousy. Personal
Relationships, 11, 319-328. doi:10.1111/j.1475-
6811.2004.00085.x
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. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.66.6.1074
Stanik, C., & Ellsworth, P. (2010). Who cares about
marrying a rich man? Intelligence and variation in
women’s mate preferences. Human Nature, 21, 203-
217. doi:10.1007/s12110-010-9089-x
Thompson, A. E., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2012). Gender
differences in associations of sexual and romantic
stimuli: Do young men really prefer sex over
romance? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 949-957.
doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9794-5
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual
selection. In B.Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and
the descent of man (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural
analysis of the behavior of women and men:
Implications for the origin of sex differences.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-72.
