Is character sexy ? : the desirability of character strengths in romantic partners /

Abstract

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Michigan, 2003. Includes bibliographical references (p. 87-92). Photocopy.

Full text

INFORMATION TO U SER S
This manuscript ha s been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from th e original or copy submitted. Thus, som e th e s is and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality o f th is reproduction is dependent upo n t h e quality of the
co py sub m itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photo graphs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In th e unlikely even t that the author did not send UMI a complete m anuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material ha d to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize m aterials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand c o mer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Pro Quest Information and Learning
300 North Z ee b Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission o f the co pyright owner. F urth er reproduction prohibited with o ut perm ission.

Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

Is Character Sexy? The Desirability of Character Strengths in Romantic Partners
by
Tracy Alison Steen
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(Psychology)
in The University o f Michigan
2003
Doctoral Committee:
Professor Christopher Peterson, Chair
Professor Jane E. Dutton
Assistant Professor Laura P. Kohn-Wood
Associate Professor Fiona Lee
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

UMI Number: 3079534
UMI’
UMI Microform 307953 4
Copyright 2 003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Z eeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1 3 4 6
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

© Tracv Alison Steen
All Rights Reserved
2003
Re produced with permission of the cop yright owner. Fu rthe r reproduction prohibited w ithou t permission.

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Judy Steen, who taught me to be brave.
ii
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I count myself as one o f the lucky people who enjoyed graduate school, and I owe
much of this positive experience to my mentor, Christopher Peterson, Ph.D. He allowed
me the freedom to pursue the questions that interested me most, and he generously
provided me with one great opportunity after the next. I am honored to continue working
with him.
Special thanks are due to Jennifer Yu who cheerily assisted with the formidable
task of data entry. Also, I would like to acknowledge the financial support o f the
Manuel D. and Rhoda Mayerson Foundation in creating the Values in Action Institute, a
nonprofit organization dedicated to the development of scientific knowledge base o f
human strengths.
Had it not been for my family and my soon-to-be family, I would not be writing
this—at least not now. I would like to thank my fianc6 Russell for transforming ordinary
trips to the grocery store into exciting study breaks and for providing 24-hour emotional
and technical support. Now it is my turn to do the coddling! Speaking o f coddling, I
would like to thank my parents for supporting me from the days o f marathon back-to-
school shopping to our last (I promise!) dissertation editing session. I am particularly
indebted to my father for teaching me that it is always a good idea to make an outline but
that it is sometimes best to “just fill the square.” Finally, I would like to thank my mother
for being my best friend, role model, and editor. This dissertation is dedicated to her.
iii
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permission.

TA BLE O F CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
List of Tables v
List of Appendices vi
Ch a p ter I. In troduction 1
Ch a p ter II. Review o f Relevant L ite rature 6
Understanding the Past: Evolutionary Theories of Attraction 6
Mining the Present: Current Studies o f Mate Attraction 23
Defining the Future: Positive Psychology and Values in Action 34
Summary and Commentary on Unanswered Questions 39
Ch a pter III. Method 42
Study I 42
Study 2 45
Ch a pter IV. Results 47
Study 1 47
Study 2 50
Ch a pter V. Discussion 64
Appendices 77
Bibliography 86
iv
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

LIST OF TABLES
Table
4.1 Values in Action (VIA) Character Strengths 55
4.2 Most Frequently Mentioned Personal Characteristics in the
Self-Descriptions of Individuals Placing Personal Advertisements 56
4.3 Most Frequently Mentioned Personal Characteristics o f Desired
Matches by Individuals Placing Personal Advertisements 57
4.4 Demographic Characteristics o f Participants in Study 2 (N = 1,367) 58
4.5 Highest Rated Partner Characteristics by Men and Women 60
4.6 Gender Differences in Importance Ratings Assigned to Partner 61
Characteristics
4.7 Most Highly Rated Partner Characteristics Across Age Groups 63
v
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permis sion.

Appendix
A.
B.
LIST OF APPENDICES
Categories for Analysis of Personal Advertisements 78
Relationship Questionnaire Posted Online 81
vi
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Americans are fascinated with the process of choosing a romantic partner.
Millions o f dollars are generated each year by self-help books with enticing titles such as
What Women Want (Stains & Bechtel, 2002), What the Hell Do Women Really Want
(Clark, 1997), What Men Really Want (Goldberg, 1991), and How to Make Anyone Fall
in Love With You (Lowndes, 1997). Recent years have seen a proliferation of popular
“reality” television shows documenting real individuals as they attempt to find and attract
their ideal romantic partner. Why the intense interest in what men and women want?
Evolutionary psychologists suggest that the answer is in our genes (Miller, 2000; Ridley,
1993; Wright, 1994). Over thousands of years, genes responsible for motivating our
interest in mating were passed on repeatedly. Had any of our ancestors been completely
uninterested in sex, we could not have inherited their genes.
Evolutionary psychology provides a useful framework for exploring the enduring
issues o f “What Do Women Want” and “What Do Men Want” as well as the perhaps
more intriguing questions o f ‘'Why Do Women Want What They Want” and “Why Do
Men Want What They Want?” Modem evolutionary theorists suggest that heterosexual
men and women are attracted to qualities in the opposite sex that display that individual’s
fitness. A healthy physical appearance and a demonstrated ability to accrue resources are
obvious indicators o f one’s fitness, and it has been well documented that men (in
particular) have a preference for young, physically attractive partners and women (in
1
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

particular) have a preference for older partners with accumulated resources (Buss, 1994,
1998; Buss & Barnes, 1986; Symons, 1979). These preferences are so well documented,
in fact, that a brief scan of the literature on mate selection suggests that men and women
value little else when selecting a mate! However, basic life experience seems to suggest
that men and women value much more than resources and physical attractiveness when
choosing a long-term partner. It can be argued that a desirable mate is one who possesses
character strengths such as honesty, loyalty, kindness, a sense o f humor, intelligence, and
a capacity to love and be loved. Even Hollywood recognizes that attraction runs deeper
than physical beauty and/or resources. Consider the following quote from the popular
1997 film As Good As it Gets in which the protagonist describes what he appreciates
about the woman he loves.
I might be the only person on the face o f the earth that knows you’re the
greatest woman on earth. I might be the only one who appreciates how
amazing you are in every single thing that you d o .. .and in every single
thought that you have, and how you say what you mean, and how you
almost always mean something that's all about being straight and good....
And the fact that I get it makes me feel good, about me.
In this quote, the protagonist is referring to his love’s kindness, authenticity, generosity,
and ability to love— in other words, he is referring to her character strengths. The
existing literature does not reflect the degree to which I believe most individuals value
character strengths when selecting a mate. When character is mentioned in the literature
(and this is not a common occurrence), it is usually referred to in broad, nonspecific
2
Re prod uced with perm is sion o f the cop yright owner. Further repro du ction prohibited with out permiss ion.

terms (e.g., “Respondents indicated a preference for someone with a good personality.”).
An analysis o f the degree to which men and women find particular character strengths
attractive is needed if we are to understand more fully what men and women really want.
Although empirical evidence documenting the attractiveness of character
strengths is lacking, evolutionary psychologists offer some intriguing explanations for
why men and women would find character attractive. Modem evolutionary theorists such
as Miller (2000) and Wright (1994) observed that displaying character strengths requires
a complex, healthy brain. Individuals who are sickly or weak simply do not have the
energy to display their kindness through altruistic acts or their creativity through
nonessential works of art. Evolutionary psychologists suggest that the resources required
for expression of character strengths make these strengths reliable fitness indicators, and
they further suggest that men and women have inherited a preference for these indicators
in romantic partners (Miller, 2000).
There is a tendency to neglect evolutionary explanations of human behavior
because of the belief that they are irrelevant in our modem world (Rose & Rose, 2000).
Why would a financially independent woman, for example, care about a potential
partner’s ability to provide resources for as-yet-nonexistent offspring? The answer is
found 10,000 or so years ago when the preferences of our ancestors were shaped under
very different circumstances. We have inherited those preferences, and until/unless they
begin to diminish our ability to reproduce, they will persist (Buss, 1998). Documenting
these evolved preferences allows us better insight into courtship behaviors that may be
predictable as well as perplexing.
3
Re prod uced with p ermission of the cop yright owner. Further repro du ction prohibited with out permission.

The goal o f the current study was to document the presence of men and women’s
preferences for character strengths in a romantic partner. In other words, I hoped to
demonstrate that character—in addition to physical attractiveness and resources— is sexy.
To examine the degree to which individuals value character in romantic partners, I used
two methods. First, I analyzed personal advertisements (a.k.a. “ lonely hearts” ads) for
the relative frequency with which individuals mention specific character strengths and
other relevant personal characteristics in their desired partners. The character strengths
used in both studies are those listed in the Values In Action (VIA) Classification o f
Strengths, an organized listing o f 24 character strengths that are ubiquitous across
cultures (Peterson & Seligman, 2003).
I supplemented the naturalistic data generated from the personal advertisements
with a survey study in which individuals were asked direct questions about the qualities
they value in a romantic partner. More specifically, individuals were first asked to recall
their most successful romantic relationship and then to rate, one by one, the degree to
which various personal qualities of their partner contributed to the success o f this
relationship. The method used in both studies is described in greater detail in Chapter 3;
results are reported and discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 respectively.
The chapter that follows is a critical review of the literature relevant to character
and romantic attraction. In the first section, I review explanations provided by
evolutionary psychologists for why men and women value character strengths in
romantic partners. In the second section, I review the existing literature on mate
attraction: What romantic preferences have been documented through empirical research?
The final section explains the rationale for choosing VIA strengths to test my predictions,
4
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permission.

and it summarizes the process employed to generate the Values In Action (VIA)
character strengths.
5
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
Understanding the Past: Evolutionary Theories o f Attraction
I chose to examine the attractiveness of human character strengths through the
lens of evolutionary psychology. There is a tradition in the literature of interpreting
sexual preferences through social role or market exchange theories (e.g., Berg &
McQuinn, 1986; Berscheid & Walster, 1974; Burgess & Houston, 1979; Floyd &
Wasner, 1994; Foa & Foa, 1980). However, I followed the lead o f recent researchers
who suggested that social and economic explanations are not sufficient to explain the
complexity of human sexual preferences (e.g., Buss,1995; Kenrick & Li, 2000; Wright,
1994). Wright (1994) emphasized that any theory that assumes that humans are
motivated by a single goal—be it happiness or utility or pleasure— far underestimates our
complexity by stopping short o f asking the more fundamental question: How did these
motivations come to exist in the first place? This is the question that modem
evolutionary psychologists attempt to answer. My emphasis in this review is on
explanations offered by evolutionary psychologists for why men and women1 might find
character sexy, but I begin by giving some basic background information relevant to the
field.
1 Heterosexual relationships were the focus of this review simply because they are what have determined
our evolved characteristics. (By definition, we cannot have had exclusively homosexual ancestors.) The
field could benefit from a review of those characteristics that are most valued in same sex partners, but such
a review is beyond the scope o f the current study.
6
Reproduced with perm ission o f the cop yright owner. Further repro du ction prohibited with out permiss ion.

Put simply, evolutionary psychology is the study o f how the human brain has
been shaped by evolutionary forces. Rooted in the work of Charles Darwin, evolutionary
psychology draws upon the theory of natural selection first advanced in 1859 in Darwin’s
Origin o f Species. According to this theory, sexual reproduction results in genotypic and
phenotypic variability. With each generation, new traits are introduced into the gene
pool. Sometimes those traits make no difference at all, and other times they might have
either a beneficial or detrimental effect on an individual’s fitness. Those traits that
increase in individual’s fitness in the environment are more likely to be passed on than
those that do not. (Individuals who die before they are able to reproduce do not pass on
their traits.) This simple and elegant theory provided the groundwork for understanding
much o f human and animal behavior.
However, natural selection was not sufficient to explain certain evolutionary
adaptations. For example, Darwin was initially baffled by the fact that male peacocks
possess large, elaborate tails. Dragging these tails around and keeping them free o f
parasites requires an enormous amount o f energy. Furthermore, the tails provide a
welcoming signal to predators. How could such a costly adaptation make evolutionary
sense? After years o f further observation in nature, Darwin solved his own puzzle. In his
second groundbreaking work, The Descent o f Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.
Darwin (1871) described a process that he termed sexual selection. The rationale behind
sexual selection was that some characteristics persist in the gene pool simply because
members of the opposite sex find them appealing. And if the presence o f these
characteristics makes an individual more like to reproduce, these characteristics will be
passed on in future generations. Though the individuals possessing a particular gene
7
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permission.

come and go, the gene survives. And when the gene is passed down through countless
generations, we say that the genetic trait has evolved.
There are various theories for why a particular characteristic may appeal to the
opposite sex. Sensory bias theory suggests that members o f the opposite sex already
have certain biases in place in their brains (Dawkins & Krebs, 1978). For example,
female peacocks might find colorful plumage attractive because the peacock brain had
previously evolved a preference for bright colors (perhaps to draw them to healthy green
plants rather than shriveled brown ones). Fitness indicator theory (Fisher, 1915), on the
other hand, suggests that although any trait may be selected for simply because it is
appealing to members o f the opposite sex, certain traits are more likely than others to
persist in the gene pool. And what makes a trait particularly likely to be selected for
generation after generation is its utility in providing reliable information about its
owner’s overall health and fitness. Such a trait is referred to as a fitness indicator.
Interestingly, the most reliable fitness indicators are those that are costly to maintain yet
not essential to survival. The peacock’s tail meets this criterion and is thus a reliable
fitness indicator: Sickly males can conserve energy by growing a smaller, less brilliant
tail, and strong, healthy males can boast their level o f fitness by growing and maintaining
the most extravagant tail possible. Miller (2000) suggested that the diamond engagement
ring used in human courtship provides an excellent example o f an effective fitness
indicator. Human males often try to offer the most extravagant, costly diamond they can
afford. The more money a man can afford to spend on a costly luxury item, the more
resources we can assume he has. Thus, the diamond is a relatively useful indicator of a
8
Reproduced with permis sion o f the cop yright owner. Further repro du ction prohibited with out permiss ion.

man’s resources, and thereby an indirect but generally reliable indicator of his overall
fitness.
The fact that men tend to display their resources during courtship more so than
women (as with the diamond engagement ring) highlights another crosscultural
phenomenon relevant to human attraction: Women tend to be drawn to older partners
with status and earning potential, whereas men tend to be drawn to physically attractive,
youthful women (Buss, 1994; 1998; Buss & Barnes, 1986; Symons, 1979). The
evolutionary psychologist is not surprised by these disparate gender preferences..
Though sexual selections are made in our current culture, we are genetically linked to the
past. Some researchers speculate that our evolved preferences are related to women and
men’s traditionally different roles in the child-rearing process. Women with features that
signal youth and health (e.g., full lips, shiny hair, symmetrical features, toned muscles)
are more likely to have a longer fertility period and are more likely to have healthy babies
than older women or unhealthy women (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Similarly, relatively
older men tend to have more financial security and are better able to provide for the
children they father. Interestingly, women’s evolved preference for men with resources
persists even among women who are financially independent. In a study o f 37 cultures,
Buss (1989) found no relationship between the economic disparity found between men
and women in a culture and the value women in that culture place on resources in a
potential partner. In fact, Buss found that the more economically successful a woman is,
the more she values resources in a partner.
Although both men and women have evolved specific criteria for mate selection,
men’s standards o f attraction vary according to the nature o f their relationship much more
9
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

than women’s do. When men are engaging in strictly short-term encounters with a
woman, they are primarily concerned with her physical attractiveness but are not
particularly choosey. In other words, their standards are lowered (Buss & Schmitt, 1993;
Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990). Women, on the other hand, tend to have similar
standards or criteria for short and long-term relationships. Clark and Hartfield (1989)
illustrated this tendency in a classic study with men and women on a college campus.
When an attractive male confederate approached women on campus and asked if they
would consider having sex with him that evening, he was universally rejected by the
women. In marked contrast, 75% o f the men agreed to have sex that evening with an
attractive female confederate when asked the same question. In a related study with
college students, Kenrick et al. asked men and women to rate how much they valued
various personal characteristics in members o f the opposite sex at various levels o f
involvement (ranging from a single date to marriage). Men were far less discriminating
than women on a variety o f criteria (including kindness, intelligence, sense of humor, and
popularity) when considering a woman’s potential as a date or a sexual partner.
However, men’s choosiness rose to the level o f women’s at the level of exclusive dating
or marriage. For example, men (on average) stated that they would consider having sex
with a woman whose intelligence was in the bottom 40th percentile (vs. women who
would not consider having sex with someone unless his intelligence was in the 55th
percentile). However, men and women held similar criteria for intelligence at the level of
steady dating (60th percentile) and marriage (65th percentile).
The tendency o f women to be more discriminating in choosing sexual partners
may have evolved in response to the risk o f pregnancy, a risk that has diminished only
10
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permis sion.

recently with the advent o f birth control (Kenrick et al., 1990). Men, on the other hand,
have always been less hampered in their pursuit of strictly sexual encounters. However,
relying exclusively on short-term sexual encounters is not a reliable or efficient strategy
for passing one’s genes on to the next generation. Because women do not give physical
signals that they are ovulating (as do the females in many other species), it is unlikely
that a single sexual encounter will result in a pregnancy. And given the undesirability of
repeated short-term pairings for most women, a man can attain a relatively more desirable
(and choosey) mate if he is willing to invest in a long-term relationship with her (Buss &
Schmitt, 1993). For these reasons, human evolution has been shaped by longer-term
pairings. When men contemplate entering into a long-term relationship, their level of
choosiness approximates that o f women and they find themselves looking for many of the
same qualities that women look for in their romantic partners. The tendency o f men and
women to be equally selective in longer-term relationships is termed mutual mate choice,
and this tendency distinguishes humans from most other mammals (Kenrick et al., 1990;
Miller, 2000). In most other mammalian species, nondiscriminating males compete for
access to discriminating females who do little to advertise their own desirability (Kenrick
et al., 1990).
Evolutionary psychologists have made a connection between mutual mate choice
and the evolution o f higher order cognitive traits in men and women. Miller (2000)
suggested that we can attribute our highly developed, uniquely human brains to the fact
that our ancestors began using the brain as a fitness indicator thousands o f years ago. As
was mentioned previously, fitness indicators provide information about an organism’s
overall physical and mental condition. For this reason, the most effective fitness
11
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

indicators are those that are costly to maintain. Recall that the peacock’s tail was costly
in that it attracted predators and parasites and it required massive amounts of energy to
maintain. Likewise, the human brain is costly in that it requires massive amounts o f
energy to maintain and is extremely vulnerable to mutation. Geneticists estimate that o f
all the mutations that might occur during development, h a lf of them are relevant to brain
functioning. Thus, if an individual has flawed genes, the functional consequences are
more likely to affect the brain than any other part o f the body. By performing complex
brain functions, men and women can advertise their healthy brains. Miller (2000) posited
that once men and women began looking to each other’s brain displays as fitness
indicators, and choosing mates accordingly, their brains became progressively more
complex. And, importantly, they began to invent new ways to show them off. They
developed language and art and the capacity for abstract thought. They developed the
notion o f humor, moral judgment, spiritual transcendence, and aesthetic ability.
It is difficult for many to accept that the human capacities for language, creativity,
intelligence, humor, compassion, etc. are simply highly evolved sexual ornaments.
Miller (2000) suggested that one reason for this difficulty is the fact that many o f these
human capacities have since become adaptive in a traditional sense. The highly
developed cognitive abilities o f men and women have enabled them to build massive
civilizations in which the well-nourished, well-protected individuals rarely concern
themselves with the basic survival issues that occupied their ancestors’ energies.
However, the survival advantage that these higher-order cognitive functions happen to
have is secondary to their origin. During the period in which these traits evolved, their
adaptive potential was not yet apparent. In fact, the traits were often costly and wasteful.
12
Reproduced with permis sion o f the copy right owner. Further reproduction proh ibited witho ut perm ission.

Consider the amount o f time and energy humans expend on art, music, or religion. As
Miller (2000) wrote, “ Art and morality look like evolutionary luxuries. Creative
intelligence and language seem useful in moderation, but humans do not have them in
moderation— we have them in luxuriant excess” (p. 106). And it is exactly this wasteful
nature o f the traits that was responsible for their evolution. Only the fittest humans could
afford to devote precious energy to these luxuries, and that is precisely why they were
selected for in the first place. Miller described sexual selection as evolution’s “venture
capitalist” because “it can favor innovations just because they look sexy, long before they
show any profitability in the struggle for survival” (p. 11).
The notion that human character strengths were developed through sexual
selection is offensive to many (e.g., Rose & Rose, 2000), particularly when applied to our
moral sensibilities. However, as Daly and Wilson (1998) cautioned, it is critical to make
the distinction between function and motivation. Just because early acts o f morality
among our ancestors proved sexually attractive and were selected for in the gene pool
does not imply that humans today engage in moral acts solely in an attempt to appear
sexually attractive. The fact that humans are capable of strategizing and impression
management does not mean that strategizing and impression management motivate our
every act (Daly & Wilson, 1998; Miller, 2000). Wright (1994) suggested that humans
have a built-in protection mechanism from the harshness o f evolutionary logic: We
simply follow our emotions. When someone is suffering, we may feel compelled to help
them. If engaging in such altruistic acts results in the approval of our peers (and an
increase in our sexual attractiveness to potential mates), then so be it. Similarly, we may
act on an evolved preference for certain characteristics without being consciously aware
13
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

of the adaptive value of this preference (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Just as we might find
ourselves repelled by rotten food without being aware of the adaptive value o f our
revulsion, so we might find ourselves attracted or repelled by human characteristics with
a similar lack of awareness (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).
Evolutionary psychology has garnered some degree o f ill repute for focusing on
negative aspects o f human nature. The term survival o f the fittest brings to mind images
of strong men feasting on a fresh kill while sickly, weak men look on with envy. But
what is often overlooked is the fact that selection forces are also responsible for positive
qualities—our character strengths. For this reason, evolutionary psychology is quite
compatible with the positive psychology movement. In fact, I would suggest that
positive psychologists limit themselves if they do not consider the evolutionary origins o f
human character strengths. Understanding why humans display what we consider
strengths o f character is not only intellectually satisfying but is also practical.
Knowledge o f the adaptive function o f such traits has the potential to positively inform
efforts to foster the development of character strengths in youths. And it may prove
useful in understanding/improving romantic relationships as well.
At this point, I would like to narrow my discussion by examining through an
evolutionary lens each o f the character strengths included in this study. I highlight those
traits that men and women might find particularly attractive in a romantic partner.
Research suggests that the traits men and women value in a mate differ according to their
expectations regarding the duration of the relationship (Kenrick, 1989). I limit my study
to relationships in which there is some potential/hope for a long-term relationship.
Though I emphasize the “sexiness” of the various traits, I also discuss how many of these
14
Re prod uced with permis sion o f the cop yright owner. Fu rthe r reproduction prohibited w ithou t permission.

traits increase an individual’s survival fitness—the ability to cope with environmental
challenges. Sexual selection may have driven the evolution o f various human character
strengths, but they are more likely to persist generation after generation if they confer
additional adaptive value in their current environments (Miller, 2000).
The character strengths I focused on in this study were drawn from the Values In
Action (VIA) Classification o f Strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2003). In the final
section of this review, I explain the VIA Classification in more detail as well as my
rationale for choosing it as a guide. For the time being, it is sufficient to note that the
VIA Classification includes 24 strengths that are ubiquitous across cultures. Within the
VIA Classification, these strengths are subsumed under six broad categories: Wisdom,
Courage, Humanity, Justice, Temperance, and Transcendence. In the paragraphs that
follow, I examine each o f these categories in turn from the perspective o f evolutionary
psychology and conclude this section by making some predictions about which of the
VIA character strengths should be particularly appealing.
The first category, Wisdom, encompasses the strengths that entail “the acquisition
and use o f knowledge” (Peterson & Seligman, 2003). These strengths include
creativity/originality, curiosity/love o f learning, judgment, personal intelligence, and
perspective. From the perspective o f evolutionary psychology, individuals who engage
in creative, original behaviors are advertising (unconsciously or deliberately) that they are
so fit that they have vast amounts o f time and energy. As Miller (2000) emphasized, the
very essence o f romance is a creative, extravagant display that confers no concrete
benefit to the recipient but is o f great cost to the giver (e.g., hiring an orchestra to play a
favorite song or filling a room with flowers). Such displays suggest that an individual
15
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further rep roduction proh ibited w itho u t permissio n.

has boundless energy to spare— energy which can be funneled into being a caring,
devoted parent or spouse and/or a successful provider. Similarly, curiosity/love of
learning connotes energy and an inclination to explore the environment. And a partner
who is motivated to explore the environment to find the best materials for a comfortable
home or the best opportunities to secure resources is a valuable partner indeed. Finally,
judgment, perspective, and personal intelligence are traits that lead people to make good
decisions and relate to others well. Certainly these are qualities that would serve a
partner well inside the home (e.g., managing the household and smoothing family
conflicts) or outside the home (e.g., making sound business decisions, forming
cooperative relationships with others). Like other character strengths, those categorized
as Wisdom indicated fitness when they originated thousands o f years ago. The genes that
facilitated their expression therefore persisted in the gene pool, conferring further
adaptive value in today’s environment.
The second category of character strengths, Courage, includes those strengths that
involve “the exercise o f will to accomplish goals in the face of opposition, external or
internal” (Peterson & Seligman, 2003). Authenticity, enthusiasm/zest,
industry/perseverance, and valor are the strengths subsumed under this category.
Evidence of authenticity is critical during the courtship period because it provides some
assurance that all o f the other qualities being advertised will still be there following the
courtship period. In other words, evidence o f authenticity provides some assurance that
what you see is, in fact, what you will get. The other strengths in this category
(industry/perseverance, valor, and enthusiasm/zest) are clues that a potential partner will
have the strength to stay committed to whatever responsibilities she or he takes on in the
16
Reproduced with permis sion o f the cop yright owner. Further repro du ction prohibited with out permiss ion.

partnership— be those responsibilities domestic or otherwise— even in the face of
hardship. Buss (1994) noted that assessing an individual’s potential is often as critical to
the mate selection process as assessing his or her current status. For example, an
industrious, enthusiastic young man with an M.B. A. degree but no job (and much debt)
may be a more adaptive choice than an older man with moderate resources but less
energy. Indeed, research by Buss (1989) demonstrated that hard workers do, in fact, earn
more and hold higher status positions than their lazier, less motivated counterparts.
Furthermore, it appears that women in most cultures are aware of this link between hard
work and earning power. Across most cultures (Western and otherwise), women are
more likely to be attracted to a man if he is ambitious and are more likely to leave a long
term partner if he loses his job or demonstrates a prolonged lapse in motivation (Buss &
Schmitt, 1993).
Two strengths comprise the Humanity category o f character strengths: kindness
and the capacity to love and be loved. When Buss et al. (1990) studied mating
preferences across 36 different cultures, he found that the most highly rated preference
across all cultures was the presence of mutual attraction and love in the relationship.
Although it is difficult for scholars and lay people alike to articulate what love is
(Solomon, 1990), it is clear that an ability to give and receive love is a characteristic
strongly desired in a partner. The popular hope is that love will keep couples together
even when physical attraction fades or when couples face challenges (see, for example,
Gottman & Silver, 2000). And a potential parent desires a partner who will love their
offspring and thus be motivated to stay with the family for the long haul. In other words,
love signals commitment. When Buss (1998) asked 100 college students to describe
17
Re prod uced with permis sion o f the cop yright owner. Further repro du ction prohibited with out permiss ion.

“acts o f love,” the most common responses referred to acts o f commitment (e.g.,
choosing to remain monogamous, proposing marriage, expressing a desire for children,
etc.).
Because love is typically reserved for those with whom one is most intimate, the
opportunities one has to observe a potential partner’s capacity for love during the
courtship process are limited. In contrast, there are myriad opportunities for an
individual to observe a partner’s kindness (or lack thereof) during the courtship process.
Waitstaff in restaurants report that they receive their highest tips from men who are
paying for themselves and a date (Miller, 2000). When Buss et al. (1990) asked
individuals from 37 cultures to rank order various attributes o f a romantic partner from
most important to least important, kindness topped the list— ahead of intelligence,
exciting personality, physical health, easygoing nature, and physical attractiveness. A
survey o f college women revealed that they consider men’s most effective courting
strategies to be displays o f sympathy, caring, good manners, and a willingness to help
(Tooke & Camire, 1991). Interestingly, the same researchers found that men admit to
acting more kind, sensitive, and sympathetic than they really are in an attempt to attract
women for short-term sexual encounters (Tooke & Camire, 1991). Thus, it appears that
men interested in attracting women for short-term sexual relationships can effectively
exploit (through imitation) most women’s evolved desire for a kind, committed “family
man.”
In 1971 Trivers proposed a theory of reciprocal altruism that attempts to explain
the adaptiveness o f kindness and related traits on a broader level. The theory suggests
that individuals can benefit when they form relationships with others in which both
18
Reproduced with perm issio n of the copyright owne r. Furth er reproduction proh ibited with o ut perm ission.

parties incur some cost so that they might receive a desired benefit. Both parties give up
something, but, importantly, both parties receive something that they could not attain on
their own. Everybody wins if nobody cheats, and cheats are punished by exclusion from
the relationship (and access to the benefits). It is not necessary that we be consciously
aware o f this give and take. In fact, we have evolved a network o f psychological
motivators (e.g., guilt, compassion, gratitude) that urge individuals to act kindly to others
and to repay kindnesses others have bestowed upon us. In other words, our emotions
guide us toward reciprocal altruism (Wright, 1994).
Under the third category o f strengths proposed by VIA are the strengths o f Justice
or the “civic” strengths: fairness, leadership, and teamwork/loyalty (Peterson &
Seligman, 2003). These strengths are unique in motivating the individuals who
exemplify them to place the needs o f the group before their own. How could putting the
group before oneself be adaptive? The adaptiveness of these traits becomes apparent
when we consider their sexual attractiveness (Miller, 2000). Researchers have noted that
in chimpanzee and gorilla groups, the highest-status ape is not always the best fighter.
Rather, there are notable instances in which the alpha male is the male who displays the
best leadership abilities. For example, he may often prevent and mediate fights among
the other members o f the group. As a result, he earns the respect of the other apes and his
pick among the receptive females (de Wall, 1996). Humans share this ability to earn the
esteem o f peers through displays of leadership and fairness, but we have also developed
the more complicated concept o f moral justice. Miller (2000) noted that great moral
leaders such as Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. typically have wives who possess
many attractive attributes. Though these leaders were likely motivated by a desire to
19
Reproduced with permis sion o f the copy right owner. Further re production prohibited witho ut perm ission.

inspire and lead others, the outcome o f their acts was an increase in their sexual
attractiveness.
Miller (2000) suggested that humans evolved a proclivity for fairness because this
quality allows true sexual competition to take place. He noted the feelings of outrage that
fans experience when a sports competitor is accused o f cheating. Whether two
individuals are competing in sports, business, or creative endeavors, it is critical that
individuals play by the rules if the most fit player is to win. Individuals find it unpleasant
to appear less fit than individuals o f higher merit, but they are motivated to appear more
fit than those o f lower merit. During sexual competition, every grade o f distinction is
crucial, drawing from our evolved desire for fairness (Miller, 2000).
Finally, it makes sense that another civic strength, loyalty, would be particularly
attractive to a potential mate. A potential partner who demonstrates loyalty to his or her
country or friends or family of origin is more likely to demonstrate loyalty to his or her
future partner or children. Loyalty is so crucial to the maintenance o f relationships that
we react to violations with extreme distaste, even when we are merely witness to the
violation. Recall the intensity with which Americans reacted to Linda Tripp’s betrayal of
her friendship with Monica Lewinski. We have a variety of pejorative terms with which
we can label those who are disloyal: snitch, rat, Uncle Tom, tattle-tale— the list goes on.
Even young children know that nothing is more damning to one’s social life than to be
labeled a “snitch.” And it goes without saying that publicized snitches are not popular
choices for marriage partners.
The fifth VIA category encompasses the traits of Temperance. Protecting us
against excess, these traits include modesty/humility, prudence, and self-control (Peterson
20
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permission.

& Seligman, 2003). At first glance, it may be difficult to understand how possessing the
traits o f modesty and humility might be adaptive in the search for sexual partners.
Wouldn’t one want to advertise as many attractive qualities as possible? Miller (2000)
explained that modesty and humility are like altruism in that they are "sexually selected
handicaps—costly indicators that advertise our moral fitness.” A man (or woman) who
has many sexually attractive traits but who chooses to downplay them becomes all the
more appealing. The potential mate may observe that an individual who can afford to be
humble (rather than desperately advertising all attributes) must have much to offer
indeed. Likewise, prudence and self-control bode well for a future coupling and their
romantic appeal to a potential partner is more readily seen. A prudent partner would be
less likely to squander the family’s money and resources and less likely to make
impulsive decisions that could hurt the family. Similarly, a partner with self-control
would be more likely to remain faithful to his or her partner after the initial physical
attraction between the couple fades.
Five traits compose the final VIA category, Transcendence: awe, gratitude,
hope/optimism, playfulness, and spirituality. Peterson and Seligman (2003) described
these strengths as “the strengths that connect us to the larger universe.” Awe, gratitude,
and spirituality suggest an appreciation for and an understanding o f the world beyond the
individual. Distinguishing us from “ lower” animals, they imply a developmental
maturity and, often, a capacity for abstract thought. When Miller (2000) wrote about
humans selecting each other for their brains, such sophisticated, cerebral strengths are
what come to mind. However, traits within this category are not entirely removed from
the corporeal. Playfulness is a reliable fitness indicator in its requirements for energy.
21
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

Those who can demonstrate playfulness after a long day of work obviously have energy
to spare— energy which can be directed toward taking care of one’s family. In addition,
playfulness is often associated with youth and vitality (and, by extension, virility).
Finally, research suggests that optimists are healthier, live longer, and are more
successful in both business and personal pursuits (Peterson & Bossio, 1991; Seligman,
1998)— all qualities to be desired in a potential mate.
Miller (2000) and Wright (1994) made a strong case for why men and women
have evolved a preference for partners with character strengths. But in providing support
for this intriguing theory, they made no speculations about which character strengths
might be particularly valued in a romantic partner. For example, Miller made a
convincing case for how leadership may have evolved as a sexy fitness indicator and
cited examples o f great leaders who earned the esteem of their peers (and that o f their
attractive wives). But are we to assume that the average person would look for leadership
in a potential partner, or value leadership as much as kindness or the ability to love and
be loved when choosing a prospective partner? It seems that when individuals are
searching for prospective mates they would be particularly attuned to relational character
strengths—character strengths that are typically displayed in a dyadic relationship.
The Values in Action (VIA) character strengths that are particularly relevant to
dyadic relationships include honesty, kindness, loyalty, forgiveness, and sense o f
humor/playfulness. These relational character strengths span a number of categories
specified by the VIA classification (Humanity, Justice, Transcendence, and Courage), but
they have in common the fact that they are most often expressed in dyadic relationships.
The current study provides an opportunity to test the relative attractiveness o f a number
22
Reproduced with permission o f the co pyright owner. F urth er reproduction prohibited witho ut perm ission.

of character strengths, including those of an interpersonal nature. Although I expect
individuals to find a broad spectrum o f character strengths attractive, 1 anticipate that the
interpersonal character strengths will be particularly valued.
As is evident by the preceding literature review, the field of evolutionary
psychology is rich with intellectually stimulating arguments for why individuals would
value character strengths in romantic partners, but empirical support is lacking. The
preponderance of support that does exist documents the value that women place on
resources and men place on physical attractiveness in romantic partners. But what about
character strengths? If human character strengths are indeed evolved fitness indicators,
we would expect to see evidence that modem men and women find these qualities
attractive in romantic partners. The next section provides a review o f the existing
literature on mate attraction.
Mining the Present: Current Studies of Mate Attraction
In the previous section, I described why it makes sense from an evolutionary
perspective for individuals to value character in potential mates. In this section, I review
the existing literature on what people find attractive in potential partners. I am limiting
my review to those studies that addressed what people find attractive in potential
romantic partners— individuals with whom the possibility o f a long-term relationship is at
least possible. As Miller (2000) noted, it is longer-term couplings that have shaped
evolutionary forces, not “one-night-stands.” Because women do not advertise when they
are fertile, it takes repeated couplings over time to make pregnancy probable. For this
reason, evolutionary theory predicts that individuals value different characteristics in
23
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permis sion.

“one-night-stands” than in potential relationship partners, and the literature supports this
prediction (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Buss, 1994; Kenrick et al., 1990). For the sake of
clarity, this review does not include studies that focused exclusively on what individuals
find attractive in short-term sexual partners.
As I review the literature I note the extent to which studies o f mate attraction
included character in their level of analysis. For example, did researchers conducting
survey studies ask participants whether they valued the character o f their potential
romantic partner (among other possible attributes such as physical attractiveness, earning
potential, etc.)? Which character strengths were most valued? As has been well
established in our field, the questions we ask shape the findings we report. And a
primary motivation for my survey of the literature on mate attraction was my hunch that
existing studies have not inquired about character in more than a very general way.
In surveying the literature, it was necessary to pay particular attention to
semantics so that I did not exclude relevant findings from my study simply because a
study’s author used different words to describe character or other relevant personal
characteristics. Notably, it is common for researchers to use the terms “character” and
“personality” synonymously. Peterson and Seligman (2003) noted that their research on
character strengths stemmed from the literature on personality traits and trait theory. I
follow their lead in assuming that character strengths are personality traits and I highlight
in my analysis the studies of mate selection that examine the attractiveness of a “good
personality” or individual personality traits as well as character and character strengths.
24
Reprod uc ed with p ermission of the cop yright owner. Fu rther rep roduction prohibited with out permission.

Self-report Studies
I begin by reviewing studies that relied on participants’ self-report to determine
the extent to which they valued various characteristics in romantic partner. Feiring
(1996) conducted interviews with fifteen-year-old adolescents to leam what they valued
in a romantic partner. Adolescents were asked in an open-ended interview to describe
what they liked and disliked about their most recent boyfriend or girlfriend. For both
adolescent boys and girls, positive personality traits were the most commonly cited
attribute valued in a partner. Physical attractiveness was the second most commonly
cited positive attribute for both boys and girls. When asked to describe those attributes
that they disliked about their most recent partner, adolescents again emphasized
personality traits. Both boys and girls most commonly cited negative personality traits as
their boyfriend or girlfriend’s least attractive qualities. The second most common
response when boys and girls were asked to articulate what they disliked about their
partner was “nothing.” Unfortunately, the authors did not report which personality traits
in particular the adolescents liked and disliked in their romantic partner. Even so, this
study is valuable in demonstrating that even during the teenage years when outward
characteristics such as physical attractiveness and status are painfully important,
teenagers recognize the greater value o f one’s inner characteristics in contributing to a
good relationship.
A study with college students made clear the need for specificity when talking
about positive and negative character (personality) traits. Herold and Milhausen (1999)
investigated the veracity of our culture’s stereotype that women are more interested in
dating the “bad boys” than the “nice guys.” The authors asked a convenience sample o f
25
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

female undergraduate students to compare the descriptions o f two men and then state
which one they would prefer to date. One man—the “nice guy”—was described as a
“nice but somewhat shy” man who has had no sexual experience. The other man—the
“bad boy”—was described as “attractive,” “a lot of fun” and sexually experienced (having
had intercourse with 10 women). The results o f this study suggested that “nice guys”
don’t always finish last. Over half o f the women (54%) reported that they would prefer
to date the “nice guy,” compared to the 18% who stated a preference for the “bad boy”
and the 28% who reported no preference.
Women in the study were also asked to comment on why some women might
choose to date “nice guys” over “bad boys” or vice versa. A content analysis o f their
responses indicated that the character strengths that each woman associated with the bad
boy or nice guy image influenced her appraisal of whether he would be an attractive
partner. For example, the women who were attracted to the nice guy image tended to
assume that “nice guys” are reliable, caring, and respectful. In contrast, women who
found the nice guy less appealing tended to conceptualize these men as boring or lacking
in initiative and confidence. On the other hand, the women who found the bad boy image
appealing tended to conceptualize the bad boy as assertive, socially skilled, and
adventurous. In contrast, women who found the bad boy unappealing as a partner often
cited their fear that he might be dishonest, insensitive, and/or unreliable.
David Buss is one o f the few researchers who have gone beyond examining
whether a person’s “good character” is attractive to examining the attractiveness o f
particular character strengths. Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, and Larsen (2001) asked
about character strengths in a landmark cross-generational study of what men and women
26
Reproduced with permission o f the copy right owner. Fu rther re production prohibited w itho ut perm ission.

value in a potential partner. Building on data on mate preferences that had already been
collected in 1939, 1956, 1967, and 1977, they asked participants in 1984/1985 and again
in 1996 to rate the importance o f 18 mate characteristics: “good cook and housekeeper,
pleasing disposition, sociability, similar educational background, refinement and
neatness, good financial prospect, chastity, dependable character, emotional
stability/maturity, desire for home and children, favorable social status or rating, good
looks, similar religious background, ambition and industriousness, similar political
background, mutual attraction and love, good health, and education and intelligence”
(Buss et al., 2001, p. 3). “Dependable character” and “emotional stability/maturity” were
ranked 1, 2, or 3 by men and women across all six decades. A “pleasing disposition” was
ranked in the top 4 by men and women across all decades, and “mutual attraction/love”
was ranked in the top 5 during every time period except 1956.
The authors noted two overall trends. First, the authors found that m en’s and
women’s responses became more and more similar over time. Interestingly, it appeared
that this trend was largely due to men’s values becoming progressively more similar to
women’s values (which remained more consistent). O f course some gender differences
did remain constant over the generations, notably men’s greater valuing o f physical
attractiveness and wom en’s greater valuing o f good financial prospects.
Secondly, there was a striking consistency from generation to generation with
respect to the differential preferences placed on the various mate characteristics. (The
average cross-generational correlation was .93.) The major exceptions to this consistency
involved the traits o f chastity, physical attractiveness, financial resources, good
cook/housekeeper, and mutual attraction/love. Both sexes showed a steady increase over
27
Re prod uced with permission o f the copyright o wn er. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

time in the extent to which they valued physical attractiveness, financial resources, and
mutual attraction and love. And both sexes showed a decrease over time in their
estimation o f chastity as an important characteristic o f a mate. The characteristic of good
cook/housekeeper has become progressively less important to men over time, but has
never been highly valued by women.
The authors interpreted these findings to suggest that there is room for both
cultural and evolutionary explanations o f mate preferences. Future studies might address
whether certain preferences are more influenced by cultural trends than others. Sexual
selection theory would suggest that character strengths that are valued across cultures
(and for which humans presumably share an evolved preference) would be less
vulnerable to societal trends. The fact that character strengths appeared at the top o f the
rankings across the six time periods included in this study’s analysis indicates that survey
studies o f human mate selection are not complete without inquiring about the
attractiveness o f character strengths. Because the authors were replicating a study
originally conducted in the late I930’s, they were limited in the characteristics they could
investigate. Future research would benefit from surveying a broader array of character
strengths— strengths such as kindness, enthusiasm/zest, valor, optimism, creativity, and
spirituality.
Personal Advertisement Studies
Survey methodology is useful in research on mate attraction because o f the
specificity it allows. Researchers may simply ask individuals what they find attractive in
partners or they may ask them to rank order their preferences (as mentioned above). But
because participants in a research study are typically not willing to sustain their attention
28
Re prod uced with permission of the cop yright owner. Fu rthe r reproduction prohibited w ithou t permission.

long enough to rank order a list of 20 or more traits, the amount of information collected
is necessarily limited. For this reason (among others), a number o f researchers in the
field have begun to look outside the laboratory for data on dating preferences. Personal
advertisements have proven to be a unique source of such data. The primary advantage
of personal advertisements is that the ads themselves are free from experimenter bias.
In a typical advertisement, individuals describe themselves first and then state the
characteristics they desire in a potential partner. Individuals have many choices about
how they represent themselves in the ads and how they describe their ideal partners. The
assumption held by most researchers is that the frequency with which characteristics are
mentioned in personal advertisements is an indication o f how much a particular trait is
valued in that culture (Bailey, Kim, Hills, & Linsenmeier, 1997; Gonzales & Meyers,
1993). Because individuals are motivated to portray themselves in the best light possible
when writing a personal ad, we cannot view the ads as an accurate “snapshot” of an
individual’s personality. However, individuals’ claims are likely tempered by the fact
that they will eventually have to meet any potential partners (Baize & Schroeder, 1995).
Regardless o f the veracity o f their self-description in the advertisement, the ad can be
viewed as providing accurate information about what individuals find attractive in others
and what individuals believe others will find attractive in them.
Although personal advertisements provide an abundance of information about an
individual’s partner preferences, researchers may be selective in the information they
choose to mine from the advertisements. Pawlowski and Dunbar (1999) reviewed
personal advertisements placed by women with a focus on the women’s stated age (or
lack o f stated age). The authors found that as women age, they are less likely to specify
29
Reproduced with permission o f the co pyright owner. Fur th er reproduction prohibited witho ut perm ission.

their age or age range in personal advertisements. They suggested that women are
motivated to withhold this information because they are aware of men’s preferences for
younger women. Indeed, the authors’ analysis suggested that older women (ages 35 to
50) who withheld their age specified more traits that they desired in their partners than
women who did not withhold their age. Unfortunately, the authors only counted the total
number o f traits specified by women. They did not specify which traits women requested
in potential partners.
Miller, Smith, and Trembath (2000) focused solely on the emphasis placed on
body size in personal advertisements. They found that 13% of the males placing personal
advertisements specified that they were interested in “thin” or “low-weight” women. In
contrast, only 2% of the female advertisers made low-weight requests. The authors
contacted the men who placed the ads to determine how rigid they were about their
weight specifications. All participants were asked to look at a range of body sizes of the
opposite sex and circle their ideal body type as well as their range o f acceptability for a
potential partner. Men who specified a preference for thin women did indeed circle a
thinner body type than men who did not. Interestingly, however, their range of
acceptable body types was just as broad as that of the men who did not specify a
preference for thin women. Because women o f average or even slight builds might be
discouraged from replying to an ad with low weight specifications, the authors suggested
that these men may have discouraged responses from potential partners who would have
fallen well within their “acceptable” range.
Lance (1998) conducted a broader analysis o f personal advertisements in which
he coded the ads for mention o f personality characteristics as well as physical
30
Reproduced with permis sion o f the copy right owner. Further re production prohibited witho ut perm ission.

characteristics and background variables. Analyzing the content o f personal ads placed
in various magazines and newspapers in the Southeast, he found that personality traits
were the most commonly sought characteristics by both men and women. Notably,
personality traits were more commonly requested than both physical attractiveness and
professional/educational background characteristics. Unfortunately, the author did not
code the ads with enough specificity to determine which personality traits were most
commonly cited by the men and women in the sample.
Cameron, Oskamp, and Sparks (1977) also conducted an analysis of personal
advertisements, but unlike Lance (1998), they found gender differences in the extent to
which men and women value personality traits in potential partners. Specifically, they
found that men placing an ad were more likely to specify the physical characteristics that
they desired in a partner. “Personality characteristics” followed in frequency. Among
women, “personality traits” were the most commonly sought, followed by physical traits.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to compare the findings o f Lance (1998) and Cameron et al.
(1977) because the latter drew their advertisements from a single Western newspaper that
asked advertisers to mention desired physical attributes in the advertisements. No
mention was made o f personality attributes in the instructions. (Lance did not describe
the instructions given in any of the four periodicals they analyzed, but the current
author’s experience has been that such instructions are not standard practice in the typical
newspaper personals section.) Given that advertisers received instructions biased toward
physical descriptors, it is particularly noteworthy that men and women mentioned
personality traits with such frequency (Cameron et al., 1977). Unfortunately, as with
31
Re prod uced with permission o f the co pyright owner. Further reproduction prohib ited w ithou t permission.

Lance (1998), the authors did not specify which personality characteristics within that
category were mentioned with the most frequency.
Baize and Schroeder (1995) went beyond analyzing whether personality as a
general construct is attractive and analyzed advertisements for the presence o f broad
personality dimensions. The authors examined ads from two sources: a West Coast
weekly newspaper and a Midwestern monthly magazine. In addition to coding the ads
for references to physical characteristics, wealth, education, and leisure activities, the
authors also coded the ads for the presence o f the “Big Five” personality dimensions as
defined by Tupes and Christal (1992) and Costa and McCrae (1988). These dimensions
include: (1) Surgency (dominance, extroversion, activity level), (2) Agreeableness
(warmth, lust), (3) Conscientiousness (industriousness, orderliness), (4) Emotional
Stability (self-assurance, emotional stability), and (5) Intellect (expressive intellect,
analytic intellect, and cultural sophistication). They also rated the extent to which each
advertisement demonstrated creativity, poetic expression, and humor. The authors noted
several gender differences in the content of the advertisements. They found that men
specified creativity and poetic expression in their ads (as judged by the raters) more
frequently than women. Men also sought physical attractiveness and advertised their
own financial security more often than did women. Women described themselves with
personality terms relevant to the Emotional Stability dimension more frequently than did
men. The authors did not find significant gender differences for any of the other Big Five
dimensions. However, when the authors merged the Surgency and Agreeableness
dimensions, they found that women used Surgency or Agreeableness terms to describe
32
Re prod uced with permis sion o f th e copy right owner. F urth er re production prohibited witho ut perm ission.

themselves more often than did men. Unfortunately, the authors did not report the
relevant frequencies with which men and women used the various Big Five dimensions.
Sakai and Johnson (1997) also took a step beyond analyzing personality traits at a
general level by creating their own categories of classification: “moral characteristics,”
personableness,” and “ambitiousness.” The authors analyzed the personal advertisements
placed in a Hawaiian newspaper and noted when advertisers used personality descriptors
that could be classified in these three categories. In addition, they recorded the frequency
with which individuals mentioned age, physical attributes, recreational interests, and
economic/occupational information. Like Baize and Schroeder (1995), the authors noted
a number of gender differences in the content of the advertisements. Among women
seeking men, moral attributes were the most frequently mentioned attribute (ahead of age,
personable attributes, and professional occupation). Among men seeking women, the
woman’s age was the most frequently mentioned attribute, followed closely by moral
attributes, personableness, and physical attributes. As with the study by Baize and
Schroeder, the authors’ broad categories o f classification made it difficult to obtain a rich
understanding of what individuals desire in their romantic partners. Although Sakai and
Johnson demonstrated that moral characteristics are highly valued in romantic partners,
one is left wondering which moral characteristics in particular are valued. Is honesty as
attractive as reliability? Are there gender differences at the level o f individual character
strengths? The fact that both men and women made reference to moral characteristics (as
defined by the authors) suggested that these questions are worth pursuing.
33
Reproduced with permis sion o f the cop yright owner. F urther repro du ction prohibited with out permission .

Defining the Future: Positive Psychology and Values in Action
In my review o f the literature on human mate attraction, I highlighted the narrow
focus of many existing studies. Few researchers have explored (with reasonable
specificity) the role of character strengths in human attraction. Which character strengths
are most attractive? And to what extent do individuals attribute successful relationships
to these strengths?
The fact that researchers have not investigated the role of character strengths in
mate attraction is consistent with the history of the field. For most of psychology’s
history, the emphasis has been placed on mental illness rather than mental health
(Peterson & Seligman, 2003; Snyder & Lopez, 2002) And perhaps those researchers
interested in mental wellness have been reluctant to study character because they
considered it a culture-bound, highly subjective construct. In the past few years,
however, researchers from the fledgling field o f positive psychology have brought a
rigorous, scientific approach to the study of human character. To guide future research
in the area of human character strengths, Peterson and Seligman (2003) developed a
system o f classification for human character strengths that is outlined in The Values In
Action (VIA) Classification of Strengths. I propose that this classification provides a
useful framework for studying the extent to which individuals value character strengths in
romantic partners. In this section, I will review the process by which Peterson and
Seligman (2003) identified the character strengths included in the VIA Classification of
Strengths.
Peterson and Seligman (2003) began their study by identifying strengths
recognized by past and present cultures around the world. The works o f Socrates and
34
Re prod uced with perm is sion o f the cop yright owner. Further repro du ction prohibited with out permiss ion.

Plato, the Koran, the Bible, and the Girl Guides o f Canada were among the many diverse
sources from which strengths were culled. Though many of the strengths identified were
culture specific (e.g., being on time, stoicism, religious piety, etc.), a number of strengths
appeared universal. Dahlsgaard, Peterson and Seligman (submitted) identified six core
virtues that appear universal: wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and
transcendence. The universality of these traits lends some support to the assertion by
modem evolutionary biologists that humans have inherited their attraction to particular
character strengths from their common ancestors.
Identifying six core virtues was but the first step in formulating a classification of
character strengths. Though they are universal and suitable for endless philosophical
discourse, the core virtues do not readily lend themselves to empirical investigation.
Adhering to their goal o f bringing scientific rigor to the study o f human character
strengths, Peterson and Seligman (2003) realized that the most productive research would
emerge from strengths that could be reliably measured. Using the core virtues as a guide,
the researchers returned to their comprehensive list of valued traits and developed a
methodology for including more specific character strengths in their system o f
classification. After extensive discussion with other positive psychologists and interested
researchers, Peterson and Seligman (2003) identified five criteria for generating entries
for their classification system.
The first criterion is that a character strength must be “trait-like” in that it infuses
a person’s thoughts and behaviors and is consistent over time. Peterson and Seligman
(2003, p. 11) recognized that life circumstances provide more opportunities for some
traits to be manifested than others (e.g., kindness vs. courage). However, the authors
35
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

suggested that for a strength to be included, there must be the potential for individuals to
act in accord with this trait across various circumstances. In keeping with this stipulation,
the VIA Classification includes many strengths which are otherwise known as
“personality traits.”
The second criterion specified by Peterson and Seligman is that a character
strength “contributes to various fulfillments that comprise the good life”(2003, p. 11)
The authors emphasized that the fulfillment about which they wrote was quite distinct
from happiness (which can be fleeting). To illustrate this difference, they suggested that
fulfilling activities pass the “death-bed test.” In other words, individuals looking back on
their lives might wish they had spent more time engaging in activities that lead to
fulfillment (e.g., loving others, appreciating beauty in nature, or acting courageously), but
they are less likely to wish they had spent more time in the pursuit of fleeting pleasures.
Moreover, the authors suggested that fulfillment is directly linked to the very actions that
demonstrate the trait. Although demonstrating character strengths often brings rewards
from the environment (e.g., attracting a potential mate), these rewards are distinct from
the fulfillment that comes from acting in accord with one’s strengths.
For the third criterion, Peterson and Seligman (2003) stipulated that society must
recognize the value o f a character strength independent from any rewards or outcomes
that may result. In other words, societies must value a character strength simply because
it is a moral good. This criterion results in the exclusion o f talents and abilities such as
athletic ability and good public speaking skills since these abilities fall outside the moral
domain. When talents and abilities are separated from character strengths using this
moral criterion, two other interesting differences become apparent. First, it appears that
36
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

character strengths can be developed through strong will and effort. Although talents
such as painting or playing football can certainly be developed to some extent with effort,
there seems to be a cap on what effort can develop in the absence of genetic ability. A
child who practices gymnastics every day may not grow up to be an Olympic gymnast,
but a child truly committed to being a loyal friend will likely realize this goal. Character
strengths can be developed through effort and will, and it is perhaps this purposefulness
that leads to their moral value across societies.
The fourth criterion specified by Peterson and Seligman is that “the display of a
strength by one person does not diminish other people in the vicinity” (2003, p. 15).
Having an extremely loyal or kind o r courageous friend does not inspire envy in the way
that having a physically beautiful, multi-talented friend might. Perhaps this is because
the development of admired character strengths is an attainable goal (whereas physical
beauty or athletic prowess may not be). Thus, a sincere demonstration o f character
inspires rather than diminishes others ((Peterson & Seligman, 2003)). Unfortunately, the
concept o f character has suffered somewhat under the misapprehension that character
accrues to individuals who are stuffy, inhibited, and boring. However, the character
strengths contained in the VIA Classification—character strengths such as creativity,
playfulness, wisdom, leadership, and courage— are possessed by decidedly unstuffy
individuals. Furthermore, as noted by Peterson and Seligman, character strengths exist
on a continuum, and it is possible— and even likely—that an individual would possess
only one or two highly developed character strengths, making them unlikely to acquire a
“goody two shoes” image.
37
Reprod uc ed with p ermission of the cop yright owner. Fu rther reproduction prohibited w ithou t permission.

The fifth and sixth criteria specified by Peterson and Seligman (2003) are
particularly concerned with the language we use to describe character strengths. The fifth
criterion specifies that character strengths must have a noun form, an adjective form, and
an adverb form. In other words, we must be able to talk about the character strength
itself—separately from the individuals who may possess it (e.g., “Courage is necessary
during this time o f war.”). We must be able to use the character strength to describe a
person or event (e.g., ‘The courageous leader inspired her coworkers to join the picket
line.”) And we must be able to use the character strength to describe an action (“The
rescue team courageously risked their own lives to recover the victims.”)
The sixth criterion specifies that the opposite o f a particular character strength
cannot be a desirable quality. For example, the authors stated that they excluded
flexibility from their list o f strengths because its opposite could be interpreted as a
negative (e.g., rigidity) or a positive (e.g., steadfastness) quality. It is important to note
that having a clear opposite is not one o f the inclusion criteria for VIA character
strengths. In fact, many VIA strengths do not have clear opposites (e.g., leadership). The
sixth criterion is relevant only to those traits that do have semantic opposites.
The final criterion to be included in the VIA manual is that character strengths
must be widely recognized across cultures as being worthy o f encouragement and
development. This means that most parents, if asked, would agree that their child would
be better off for having developed a particular character strength. Similarly, we would
expect there to be institutions in society (formal or otherwise) developed to foster the
development o f character strengths. For example, summer enrichment programs exist to
develop a child’s curiosity and love o f learning. The Boy and Girl Scouts o f America
38
Reproduced with permission o f the co pyright owner. F urth er reproduction prohibited witho ut perm ission.

aim to foster character strengths ranging from persistence to leadership to appreciation of
beauty. And it is widely acknowledged that one objective in sending children to school is
to develop their personal or social intelligence through interactions with others
(presumably as they acquire knowledge and develop a lifelong love o f learning).
Whether or not these institutions are successful in developing character strengths is
debatable, but the fact that they exist speaks to the value a society places on the
individual strengths.
Using the seven criteria described above, Peterson and Seligman (2003) identified
24 character strengths for the VIA classification. See Table 4.1 for the complete list of
the strengths included. The authors o f the VIA tentatively classified the strengths under
the six universal virtues identified at the beginning of this review (Wisdom, Courage,
Humanity, Justice, Temperance, and Transcendence). However, they acknowledged that
future research might lead them to adjust the placement of the strengths accordingly.
Summary and Commentary on Unanswered Questions
The VIA manual provides a comprehensive and reliable list o f character strengths
valued across cultures, and evolutionary psychologists make a good case for the notion
that character strengths are highly evolved fitness indicators. The obvious next step
toward establishing the connection between evolutionary theory and positive psychology
is to demonstrate that modem men and women value character strengths when choosing
and evaluating romantic partners. Evolutionary psychologists have already demonstrated
support for theory-driven predictions that women value resources more so than men, and
men value physical features more so than women when choosing a partner (Buss, 1994,
39
Reproduced with permis sion o f the cop yright owner. Further repro du ction prohibited with out permiss ion.

1998; Buss & Barnes, 1986; Symons, 1979) But empirical support for the attractiveness
of character strengths is lacking. Existing studies tend to limit their level o f analysis to
character in general or a handful of character-relevant traits. The primary goal o f the
current study is to investigate the extent to which men and women value specific
character strengths as identified by the Values In Action Classification. I expect men and
women in the current study to value a number o f character strengths but particularly those
that are typically expressed in a dyadic relationship: honesty, kindness, loyalty,
forgiveness, sense of humor, and the ability to love and be loved.
I use two distinct approaches to investigating the extent to which men and women
value character strengths in romantic partners. First, I will follow the lead o f Baize and
Schroeder (199S) and others and use personal advertisements as a naturalistic source of
information about the characteristics that individuals desire in romantic partners. But
unlike previous researchers who looked only at character in general (Baize & Schroeder,
1995; Cameron, Oskamp, & Sparks, 1977; Lance, 1998; Sakai & Johnson, 1997), I will
investigate the attractiveness o f specific VIA character strengths. To supplement this
naturalistic data, I will ask individuals to reflect on their most satisfying romantic
relationship and consider the extent to which various VIA character strengths contributed
to the success o f the relationship.
Although I expect that data from the personal advertisements and the survey will
both indicate that individuals value character strengths in their romantic partners, I do not
expect identical results. Though individuals may spend a considerable amount o f time
crafting their personal advertisements, it is unlikely that they will do so in a particularly
methodical manner (e.g., carefully weighing the degree to which they value a variety of
40
Re prod uced with permission o f the co pyright owner. Further reproduction prohib ited w ithou t permission.

character strengths and then choosing their content accordingly). In Study 2, however,
participants are asked to first think of a concrete relationship and then consider how
various traits (taken one at a time) contributed to the success o f that relationship.
Individuals in Study 1 are looking for a new relationship, whereas individuals in Study 2
are evaluating a relationship already established. Though some characteristics might
initially seem very appealing or even essential to someone seeking a romantic partner,
those same characteristics might seem less important when placed in the context o f a
concrete relationship. Likewise, some characteristics initially overlooked might prove
very attractive as a relationship is actually established rather than simply contemplated.
In the next chapter, I will explain the methodology used in both approaches in more
detail.
41
Reproduced with permission o f the co pyright owner. F urth er reproduction prohibited with o ut perm ission.

CHAPTER III
METHOD
Study 1
Participants
Participants included 111 women and 111 men (N = 222) who placed personal
advertisements in a monthly Midwestern entertainment publication. Every heterosexual
advertisement (“men seeking women” or “women seeking men”) placed from July 2001
to July 2002 was included in the analysis. O f the 171 participants (77 %) who specified
their ethnicity, 91% (n = 155) identified as Caucasian, 9% (n = 15) identified as African
American or Black, and only 1% (n = 1) identified as Latino. Approximately 76%
mentioned their age in the advertisement, with reported ages ranging from 25 years to 72
years (M = 45.8 years, SD = 7.98). Men and women did not differ significantly in their
tendency to disclose their age, (1 ,N = 222) = .6 2 ,£ > .05. Nor was there significant
disparity in the ages they reported, {(168) = .059, p > .05
The newspaper allowed all individuals to print four lines o f text for free, and the
average number of lines was just over that (M = 4.75, SD = 2.01). Men and women did
not differ in the length o f their advertisements, ((220) = 1.61, p > .05. In none o f the
advertisements did individuals indicate that they were looking for a strictly casual
relationship or a “discrete” relationship.
42
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

Content Analyses
All advertisements were coded by a research assistant who was not aware o f the
research questions. Approximately 10% of the advertisements were independently coded
by the present researcher. Interrater reliability on these items was very good as indexed
by Cohen’s kappa (k > .70 for all items coded). All advertisements included the
advertiser’s self-description and the advertiser’s description of what he or she was
looking for in a romantic partner. The following demographic information about the
individual placing the ad (the advertiser) was collected whenever possible: stated age,
gender, ethnicity, and religion. The omission of such demographic information was
noted as well. Advertisements were also coded according to whether or not individuals
mentioned their hobbies and interests and their smoking/drinking habits. Finally,
researchers noted whether or not individuals referred to sex in the advertisement (e.g., "I
know how to satisfy a woman sexually”). When reading advertisers’ descriptions o f
their desired match, researches noted whether or not advertisers specified a preference for
their desired match’s ethnicity, religious preferences, age, smoking/drinking habits, and
physical appearance/attractiveness. When advertisers gave an age range rather than a
specific age, researchers took the midpoint o f the range specified. See Appendix A for a
complete list of the characteristics that were coded in the personal advertisements.
Researchers noted whether each o f the 24 VIA character strengths (Peterson &
Seligman, 2003) was included in the advertisers’ self-descriptions and/or their
descriptions of their desired match (see Table 4.1 for list o f VIA strengths). For example,
an ad that stated “I love to try new things and explore life’s mysteries” was coded as
“advertiser describes self as curious and interested in the world.” An advertisement that
43
Re prod uced with permission o f the co pyright owner. Further reproduction prohib ited w ithou t permission.

stated “I am seeking a people person who loves to socialize with others” was coded as
“advertiser desires someone with social intelligence.” And an advertisement that stated
“I have a close relationship with God and am seeking someone to join me in my spiritual
journey” was coded as “advertiser describes self as spiritual / religious” and “advertiser
desires someone who is spiritual / religious.”
In addition to coding the ads for the inclusion or exclusion o f VIA character
strengths, researchers also noted inclusion or exclusion of any o f 17 other characteristics:
good health, high-status, good cooking abilities, ambition, confidence, easy-going nature,
professional status/good education, financial security, interest in family/children, open-
mindedness, good organizational skills, predictable nature, unpredictable nature,
sophistication/refinement, independence/self-reliance, sexual experience, and/or lack of
sexual experience/chastity. These 17 personal qualities are widely valued in the United
States and thus included in this study; however, they are not included in the VIA
Classification because they are not valued ubiquitously across cultures. Some examples
follow o f how researchers coded the ads for the presence or absence o f these qualities.
An advertisement that stated “I’m a professional woman who can take care of herself
financially and emotionally” was coded as “advertiser describes self as independent /
self-reliant” and “advertiser describes self as educated / professional.” An advertisement
that stated “I hope to have a big family and am seeking someone who wants the same”
was coded as “advertiser describe self as someone who is interested in family / children”
and “advertiser desires someone who is interested in family / children.”
44
Reproduced with permis sion o f the copy right owner. Further re production prohibited witho ut perm ission.

Study 2
Participants
Participants included a convenience sample of 327 men and 999 women (1367
total) who completed an online questionnaire (see Appendix B for hard copy of
questionnaire) about the qualities of a romantic partner that contributed to a good
relationship. Individuals discovered the questionnaire while browsing the internet, and
no effort was made to recruit individuals to visit this site. Individuals did not receive any
incentive for their participation (other than the self-knowledge gained by taking the
questionnaire).
Procedure
Individuals taking the questionnaire were first asked to “think about the best
romantic partner you have ever had.” Participants then answered a series o f questions
about the nature o f their relationship with this romantic partner (e.g., the length of the
relationship, the sex of their partner, the current status o f this relationship, etc.).
Following this series o f questions, participants were asked to rate on a scale of 0-5 the
degree to which various characteristics o f their partner contributed to the success o f the
relationship. The individual points on the rating scale were as follows: 0 (does not
apply/partner does not possess trait), I (not at all important to our relationship), 2 (not
important to our relationship), 3 (somewhat important to our relationship), 4 (important to
our relationship), and 5 (very important to our relationship). Individuals were asked to
rate the importance o f the 24 VIA character strengths (listed in Table 4.1) as well as the
17 additional personal characteristics used in Study 1: good health, high-status, good
45
Re prod uced with permission o f the co pyright o wner. Fu rther reproduction prohibited w ithou t permission.

cooking abilities, ambition, confidence, easy-going nature, professional status/good
education, financial security, interest in family/children, open-mindedness, good
organizational skills, predictable nature, unpredictable nature, sophistication/refinement,
independence/self-reliance, sexual experience, and/or lack of sexual experience/chastity.
The VIA character strengths as well as the 17 other personal characteristics were
presented in the form o f statements (e.g., “M y partner appreciates beauty and excellence”
or “My partner is a good cook”), and respondents assigned these statements a value of l-
5 as described above.
46
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further rep roduction proh ibited w itho u t permissio n.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Study 1
In accord with evolutionary theories o f attractiveness (e.g., Buss, 2000; Wright,
1994), character strengths were frequently mentioned in the personal advertisements.
Table 4.2 shows the top 12 most frequently mentioned personal characteristics appearing
in advertiser’s self-descriptions, and Table 4.3 shows the 12 personal characteristics most
frequently sought in a potential partner. All advertisements were coded for the presence
or absence o f 39 personal characteristics (24 VIA strengths and 17 additional
characteristics), but I excluded from further analysis those traits that were mentioned in
fewer than 15% of the advertisements.
Although it is useful to note which traits were mentioned most frequently in
advertisers’ descriptions o f themselves and their desired partners, caution is needed when
interpreting the relative importance o f the 12 characteristics listed in Tables 4.2 and 4.3.
Repeated measures ANOVA was employed to determine how meaningful the rankings
were in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 (see Harris, 1994, for discussion o f repeated measure ANOVA
with dichotomous variables). For example, the desired age o f a potential partner was the
characteristic most frequently mentioned by advertisers, occurring in 44% o f the
advertisements. The ability to love and be loved by others was the second most
frequently requested characteristic in romantic partners, appearing in 36% of the
47
Re prod uced with p ermission of the cop yright owner. Further repro du ction prohibited with out permission.

advertisements. However, a repeated measures ANOVA indicated that there was not a
significant difference between the frequency with which age was mentioned and the
frequency with which an ability to love was mentioned, F (1, 222) = 3.01, p > .05 . In
fact, among the 12 characteristics most frequently mentioned by advertisers as desired in
a potential match, there were no significant differences between any adjacently ranked
characteristics (e.g., 1 and 2, 2 and 3, etc.). However, there were meaningful differences
between items at the top, middle, and bottom o f the lists. A repeated measure ANOVA
indicated that more advertisers requested a partner who can love and be loved than a
partner who is enthusiastic/zestful, F (1, 222) = 7.06, p < .01, and more advertisers
requested an enthusiastic/zestful partner than an intelligent partner, F (1, 222) = 6.97, p <
.01. Similarly, advertisers mentioned their ethnicity in their self-descriptions more often
than they mentioned their sense o f humor/playfulness, F (1, 222) = 77.86, p <.001, and
they mentioned their humor/playfulness more often than they mentioned their kind
nature, F (1, 222) = 12.4, p <.001.
Chi square analysis was employed to test gender differences on the twelve most
frequently mentioned personal characteristics that advertisers used to describe themselves
(Table 4.2) and their desired partners (Table 4.3). Past studies have suggested that men
tend to desire young, attractive women, while women tend to desire older men with
resources (Buss, 1994; Buss, 1998; Buss & Barnes, 1986; Symons, 1979). Based on
these findings, I expected men to mention their preference for an attractive partner (or
attractive features) more often than women. And I expected women to make references
to education/professional status, financial security, and status/prestige (all indicators of
resources) more often than men when expressing their preferences in a mate. I did not
48
Reproduced with permis sion o f the cop yright owner. F urther repro du ction prohibited with out permission .

expect men and women to differ in the frequency with which they mentioned age in their
descriptions o f desired partners, but I did expect men to request younger mates than
women.
The present study’s findings were consistent with the literature. Male advertisers
did indeed mention a preference for attractive women (or attractive features) more often
than women did, with males making 47 such mentions compared to women’s 22
mentions, 2 (1,/V = 222) = 13.14,/? < .001. Female advertisers mentioned a preference
for an educated or “professional” match more often than men did, with women making
42 references vs. men’s 22 references, ^ 2(1 , N = 222) = 8.78, p < .01. It was not possible
to test the prediction that women would request matches with high status/prestige and
financial resources more so than men because so few respondents mentioned either
financial resources or status/prestige in their ads. Only 3 women and one man requested
a partner with financial security, and no individuals specifically requested partners with
high status/prestige.
I did not anticipate any gender differences in the frequency with which men and
women requested various VIA character strengths (although I did expect both men and
women to express a desire for these traits in a potential partner). Among the VIA
character strengths mentioned by more than 15% o f the respondents (ability to love and
be love, sense o f humor/playfulness, enthusiasm/zestfulness, kindness/nurturance,
appreciate o f beauty and excellence in the world, curiosity and interest in the world, and
critical thinking/intelligence), gender differences were apparent in only two o f these
strengths: ability to love and be loved and kindness/nurturance. Women were more likely
than men (47 women vs. 33 men) to express a desire for a partner who is able to love and
49
Reproduced with permis sion o f the cop yright owner. F urther repro du ction prohibited with out permission .

be loved, ;jf2(l,N = 222) = 3.83,/? < .05. Women also expressed a desire for
kind/nurturing partners significantly more often than men (36 women vs. 17 men),
X2({,N = 222) = 8.95,/? < .01. Men and women did not differ in the frequency with
which they described themselves with any of the personal characteristics listed in
Table 4.2.
Study 2
Demographic Characteristics o f Participants
The participants were mainly white, female, and educated. Respondents ranged in
age from 16 to over 65, but 92% were between the ages of 18 and 54. The majority of
participants reported living in a city (69%) or suburb (23%), and few lived in rural areas
(9%). See Table 4.4 for detailed demographic information.
Characteristics o f Participants’ Best Romantic Relationship
Most individuals stated that their best relationship had been with someone of the
opposite sex. Only 8% o f men and 4% o f women cited a same-sex relationship as their
most satisfying relationship. Approximately 34% o f respondents indicated that their best
romantic partner was also their closest friend. Interestingly, more men than women (46%
vs. 30%) reported that their closest friend was also their best romantic partner.
Almost half (49%) o f the individuals surveyed reported that they were currently
living with their best romantic partner. When individuals were asked to report the
duration o f their best relationship, responses ranged from less than one year to more than
twenty years. Approximately 17% o f participants reported that their best relationship had
lasted less than one year, 15% of participants reported that it had lasted one to two years,
24% reported that it had lasted two to five years, 16% reported that it lasted five to 10
50
Reproduced with permission o f the co pyright owner. F urth er reproduction prohibited witho ut perm ission.

years, 16% reported that it lasted ten to twenty years, and 12% reported that it lasted
more than twenty years
Characteristics o f Participants' Partners that Contributed to the Success o f the
Relationship
The twelve most highly rated partner characteristics were as follows: loyalty
(4.63), ability to love and be loved (4.61), honesty (4.58), dependability (4.53), kindness
(4.45), expressiveness (4.41), similar values (4.37), great personality (4.33), playfulness
(4.25), critical thinking/intelligence (4.23), capacity to forgive (4.22), and fairness (4.15).
Table 4.5 shows the most highly rated traits by gender. As evident in this table, the traits
most highly rated by men and women differ slightly in order. A greater gender difference
was found when participants rated the broader spectrum o f 28 traits. Women tended to
give higher ratings o f importance to the various personal characteristics presented than
did men. In particular, women assigned higher ratings o f importance to the following
characteristics: patience, perspective, self-control, ability to commit, leadership, ability to
love, ambition, courage, self-reliance, sensitivity, objective thought, confidence,
dependability, easy-going nature, expressiveness/affection, financial security, capacity to
forgive, gratitude, hope/optimism, industriousness, interest in family/children, kindness,
and loyalty (See Table 4.6). When compared with the women’s ratings, the only partner
traits that men rated more highly were their partner’s physical attractiveness, their
partner’s level o f refinement/sophistication, their partner’s creativity, their partner’s
organizational abilities, and their partner’s cooking ability. (It should be noted that men’s
tendencies to give higher ratings of importance to the physical attractiveness o f their
51
Reproduced with permission o f the co pyright owner. F urth er reproduction prohibited witho ut perm ission.

partners and women’s tendencies to give higher ratings o f importance to their partner’s
level o f financial security were consistent with what has already been established in the
literature; Buss, 1994; Buss, 1998; Buss & Barnes, 1986; Symons, 1979).
I also examined whether age was related to individuals’ ratings of importance.
Given the large sample size, I will report only those relationships that were significant at
the p < .001 level. Interestingly, most o f these relationships were negative. Younger
individuals tended to rate the following characteristics as more important than older
individuals in the sample: ambition (r = -.305) physical attractiveness (r = -. 154),
confidence (r = -.147), enthusiasm (r = -.107), courage (r = -.107), self-control (r = -.107,
patience (r = -. 115), gratitude (r=-. 132), modesty ( r = -. 149), playfulness (r=-. 151), social
skills (r = -. 119), and unpredictability (r = -. 136). Younger participants also rated a great
personality (r = -.230) and an easy-going nature (r = -.190) as more important to their
successful relationships than did older partners. I found only two significant positive
relationships between age and individuals’ importance ratings of partner characteristics.
As individuals age, they are more likely to desire a partner who is predictable (r =.130)
and they are more likely to desire a partner who appreciates beauty and excellence in the
world (r=.!00).
Table 4.7 shows the 12 characteristics that received the highest ratings for six age
groups: 18-20,21-24, 25-35, 35-44,45-54, and 55-64. For each o f the 12 characteristics,
I conducted a one-way ANOVA to assess whether there was an overall difference in
importance ratings given by individuals from different age groups. For those
characteristics in which the one-way ANOVA indicated a significant difference, I
conducted pairwise comparisons among the various age groups. A Bonferroni correction
52
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

was applied to the alpha levels to control for the possibility o f Type I error. The one-way
ANOVA indicated a significant difference am ong individuals across the 6 age groups for
ability to love and be loved (F(6,io20) = 3.92, p < .05), loyalty (E(6,ioo9) = 2.80, g_< 01),
great personality (E(6.io22) = 15.09, g_< .001), emotional expressiveness (£(6,1012)= 3.51, p
< .05), kindness (E(6,ioio)= 2.08, p_< .05), dependability (E(6.ioo4) = 2.31, p^< .05),
playfulness (E(6,ioii) = 4.60, p_< .05), confidence (£(6,996 )= 5.34, p_< .001), enthusiasm
(E(6,ioo9) = 4.37, p_< .001), critical thinking/intelligence, (E (6,ioi9) = 2.07, p_< .05), patience
(E(6,ioo3) = 4.30, p_< .001), and love o f learning (£(6,»oio)= 2.52, p_< .05).
Post hoc analysis with a Bonferroni correction indicated that 18-20 year olds gave
significantly higher importance ratings to playfulness (M = 4.44) than did both 45-54
year olds (M = 4.14) and 55-64 year olds (M = 3.98). The 25-34 year olds (M = 4.34)
also gave higher playfulness ratings than did the 55-64 year-olds (M = 3.98). Importance
ratings given by 18-20 year olds for confidence (M = 3.94) were also significantly higher
than those given by those between the ages o f 35-44 (M = 3.74), 45-54 (M = 3.80), and
55-64 (M = 3.64). Regarding the characteristic o f enthusiasm/zest, the 18-20 year olds
(M = 4.19) and the 21-24 year olds (M = 4.08) both gave this trait a higher importance
rating than did the 35-44 year olds (M = 3.76). The 18-20 year olds (M = 4.59) and the
21-24 year olds (M = 4.57) both gave higher importance ratings to a great personality
than did the 35-44 year olds (M = 4.14), the 45-54 year olds (M = 4.14), and the 55-64
year olds (M = 4.02). Similarly, the 25-34 year olds (M = 4.48) rated a great personality
more highly than did the 35-34 year olds (M = 4,14) and the 55-64 year olds (M = 4.02).
For the characteristic o f patience, the importance ratings give by 21-24 year olds (M =
4.11) were higher than those given by 55-64 year olds (M = 3.67), and the importance
53
Reproduced with permis sion o f the copy right owner. Further re production prohibited witho ut perm ission.

ratings given by 25-34 year olds (M = 4.17) were higher than those given by both 35-44
year olds (M = 3.90) and 55-64 year olds (M = 3.67). Both the 18-20 year olds (M =
4.11) and the 21-24 year olds (M = 4.10) gave higher ratings to being educated than did
the 35-44 year olds (M = 3.69).
Pairwise comparisons for love of learning revealed a significant difference
between ratings given by 18-20 year olds (M = 3.70) and 55-64 year olds (M = 4.17).
This comparison is noteworthy because the higher ratings were given by the 55-64 year
olds. Also providing an exception to the tendency o f younger age groups to give higher
ratings than older groups, the 18-20 year olds (M = 3.57) rated an interest in
family/children as less important than did the 25-34 year olds (M = 4.07). Although a
one-way ANOVA suggested an overall difference among the age groups, no significant
pairwise comparisons were found for the following characteristics: forgiveness,
openness, similar values, critical thinking/intelligence, fairness, curiosity, loyalty,
honesty, emotional expressiveness, kindness, and dependability.
54
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permis sion.

Table 4.1
Va lu e s in Action (VIA) C ha ra c ter Stre n gths
VIA C h ara c ter S tre ng ths a n d relevant synonym s
Streng ths of Wisdom an d Know ledge
Creativity / Originality / Ingenuity
Curiosity/Interest
Critical Thinking/Intelligence / J u dg m e nt
Love of Learning
Perspectiv e / Wisdom
Streng th s of C o u rage
Bravery I Valor
Industry / P ersev e ra nce
Honesty/ Authenticity / Integrity
Enthusiasm / Zestfuln ess
Streng th s of Humanity
Capacity to Love a n d Be Loved / Intim ate A ttachm ent
Kindness / Generosity / Nurturan c e
So cial Intelligence
Streng ths of Ju stice
Loyalty / Citizenship / Duty / Teamwork
Equity I F a irn e s s
Leadersh ip
Streng th s of Tem perance
Forgiv eness / Mercy
Modesty / Humility
Prud e nc e
Self-Regulation
Strengths of Trans c en de nce
Appreciation of B eauty an d Exce lle nce / Awe / W onder
Gratitude
Hope / Optimism / Futu re-M indedness
Hum or / Pla yfulness
Spirituality I Faith / R eligio u sness
Note. List of stre ng ths from Peterso n and Seligman (2003). R eprinted with
perm ission of th e auth or.
55
Reproduced with permis sion o f the cop yright owner. Further repro du ction prohibited with out permiss ion.

Table 4.2
Most Frequently Mentioned Pe rso n al C hara c teris tics in the Self-D escriptions of
Individuals P lacing P er so na l A d v e rtisem ents
Rank Pe r s o nal c h aracteris tic Fre q uency
1. Ethnicity 77%
2. Age 76%
3. Physical attra ctive n es s 57%
4. Education / Profe ssio n al s ta tus 55%
5. H obbies / Interests 54%
6. S en se of h u mor / Playfuln ess 39%
7. Appreciation of beau ty and ex c e llence 36%
8. Capacity to love and be loved 36%
9. Enthusia sm / Z e s tfuln ess 29%
10. Curiosity / Inte rest in th e World 25%
11. Emotional e xpre s siv en ess / Affection 24%
12. K indness / N u rtu rance 23%
56
Re prod uced with permission of the cop yright owner. Fu rther reproduction prohib ited w ithou t permission.

Table 4.3
Most Fre q u ently Mentioned Perso n a l Characte ris tics of Desired Match es bv
Individuals Placing Pe r so na l A d v e rtisem e n ts
Rank Person a l c h aracteristic Fre q ue n cy
1. Age 44%
2. C apacity to love and be loved 36%
3. Ethnicity 33%
4. Physical Attractiveness 31%
5. S en se of hum o r / Playfulness 30%
6. E ducation / Professional sta tu s 29%
7. E n thusiasm / Zestfu lness 25%
8. K indness / N u rturance 24%
9. A ppreciation of beau ty and ex ce llence 20%
10. Curiosity and interest in the world 19%
11. Em otional e xpre s s iv e nes s / Affection 16%
12. Critical thinking / intelligence 15%
57
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permis sion.

Table 4.4
Dem o g raphic C haracteristic s of Participants in Study 2 ( N = 1.367)
Characteris tic n%
G e nd e r
Male 327 25
Fem a le 999 75
Age a t time of su rvey (yea rs)
16-17 10 1
18-20 173 13
21 -24 167 12
25 -34 355 26
35-44 28 8 21
45-54 266 20
55 -64 82 6
65+ 23 2
Hig h est educational level com p leted
Som e high schoo l or le s s 26 2
High school g rad ua te 66 4
Attended som e co lleg e 29 2 21
A s s o cia tes d e gree 100 7
Bachelor’s d eg re e 363 27
Post-college g rad ua te 523 38
(Table 4 .4 continues^
58
Re prod uced with permission o f the co pyright owner. Further reproduction prohib ited w ithou t permission.

(Table 4 .4 continued^
Chara c teristic n%
Ethnicity o f participants
African American 54 4
Asian Am erican 43 3
Latino 29 2
Native Am erican 6.4
White 1169 86
Marital sta tu s of participants
Married o r loving a s m arried 621 4 5
Single 579 42
Widowed 12 1
Se parate d or divorced 145 11
Political orientation
Liberal 309 23
Som ew h at liberal 291 21
Slightly liberal 148 11
Middle of th e ro a d /conservative 300 22
Slightly co n servative 120 9
Som ew h at con servative 126 9
Conservative 66 5
59
Re prod uced with permission of the cop yright owner. Fu rther reproduction prohib ited w ithou t permission.

Table 4.5
Highest R ated Partn e r Characteris tic s bv Men a nd W om en
Hig h est Rating s Given bv Men H ighest Ratines Given Bv Wom en
Characteris tic MC ha racteristic M
1. Loyalty 4.53 Loyalty 4.6 6
2. Capacity to love/be loved 4.53 C a pac ity to love/be loved 4.64
3. H onesty 4.52 H o nesty 4 .59
4. Dependability 4.37 Dependability 4.57
5. Gre a t personality 4.33 Kindness 4.50
6. Ex p re s s iv en ess 4.28 E x p re s si v en e ss 4.4 4
7. K indness 4.27 Sim ilar v alue s 4.3 9
8. Similar values 4.26 G re at personality 4 .33
9. Intelligence 4.25 Pla y fuln ess 4.2 8
10. P layfuln e ss 4.20 Forgiving nature 4.25
11. Forgiving na ture 4.09 Intelligence 4.2 3
12. F airn e s s 4.0 6 F airne s s 4.17
60
Reproduced with permis sion o f the cop yright owner. Further repro du ction prohibited with out permiss ion.

Table 4.6
G end er D ifferences in Im portance R atings Assigned to P artner C haracte ristics
Male R atinas
M SD
Fem ale Ra tin as
M SD df_ t
Patien c e 3.79 1.00 4 .07 .86 988 -4.22***
Perspective 3.87 .84 4.01 .79 996 -2.28*
Self-Control 3.64 .93 3.8 5 .90 982 -3.11**
Ability to Commit 4.3 2 .77 4.5 3 .75 979 -3.68***
Cooking Ability 2.29 1.07 2 .02 1.04 943 3.32**
Leadership 2 .60 1.12 2.94 1.06 958 -4.18***
Ability to Love 4.53 .63 4.64 .64 1003 -2.23*
Ambition 3.11 1.19 3.48 1.08 965 -4.40***
C o ur a ge 3 .2 4 .96 3.5 9 .96 978 -.35***
Confidence 3.62 .89 3.94 .81 981 -5.03***
Creativity 3.52 1.03 3.36 1.04 980 2.02*
Dependability 4.37 .76 4.57 .64 987 -4.12***
Easy-Goin g Nature 3.6 5 .10 3 .90 .96 9 6 4 -3.43**
Ex pr e ssiv e n ess 4 .28 .69 4.4 4 .70 996 -3.13**
Financial Security 2.44 1.12 3.2 4 1.03 97 5 -10.08***
Forgiven e ss 4.09 .73 4.25 .735 986 .2.92**
Phy sical A ttractiven ess 3.64 .94 3.13 .96 1000 7.08***
Gratitu de 3.63 .92 3.78 .83 98 6 -2.39*
*p < .05, **p < .01. ***p < .001 (Table 4.6 con tin u es)
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permis sion.

(T able 4.6 co n tinued)
Male Ratinas
M SD
Fem ale Ratinas
M SD df_ t
Hope/Optimism 3.89 .83 4.02 .80 970 -2.10*
Industry 3.6 5 .95 3.94 .83 99 5 -4.43***
In tere st in Family 3.7 0 1.33 3.93 1.24 959 -2.36*
Kindness 4 .27 .80 4.5 0 .69 99 4 -.4.23***
Loyalty 4.5 3 .64 4.6 6 .61 994 -2.65**
Organ ized 2.9 6 1.04 2 .80 1.0 951 2.00*
Refined 2.98 1.11 2.7 3 1.04 936 3.19**
Self-Reliant 3.79 .85 3.97 .75 996 -3.07**
Sensitive 4 .04 .77 4.15 .78 995 -1.97*
Critical Thinking 3.71 .88 3.8 5 .76 981 -2.34*
*p < .05, **p< .01. ***p< .001
62
Re prod uced with permission o f the co pyright o wner. Fu rther reproduction prohibited w ithou t permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permissio n.
Table 4.7
Most Highly Rated P a rtn er Characteristics Across A ae Groups
18-20 21-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64
1. Ability to love Ability to love Loyalty Loyalty Ability to love Honesty
2. Loyalty Loyalty Ability to love Honesty Honesty Ability to love
3. Great personality Honesty Dependability Ability to love Loyalty Loyalty
4. Honesty Dependability Honesty Dependability Dependability Expressiveness
5. Expressiveness Great personality Kindness Kindness Similar Values Dependability
6. Kindness Kindness Great personality Similar values Kindness Similar values
7. Dependability Expressiveness Expressiveness Expressiveness Expressiveness Intelligence
8. Playfulness Similar Values Similar values Playfulness Intelligence Kindness
9. Forgiveness Playfulness Playfulness Forgiveness Fairness Curiosity
10. Confidence Forgiveness Intelligence Fairness Forgiveness Fairness
11. Openness Sensitivity Forgiveness Intelligence Sensitivity Loves learning
12. Enthusiasm Intelligence Patience Great personality Playfulness Sensitivity

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose o f this exploratory study was to investigate the extent to
which individuals value character strengths in romantic relationships. The evolutionary
psychology literature offers a compelling explanation for why individuals might find
character strengths attractive in romantic partners. However, little empirical research
exists to support this theory. Although several empirical studies have demonstrated that
character in general or “a good personality” is attractive, few studies have examined the
relative attractiveness o f various specific character strengths. O f those studies that do
exist, none has extended the analysis beyond a handful o f character strengths. Thus, the
primary goal o f this study was to address a paucity in the literature and generate
empirical evidence for what many know from life experience to be true, that character
strengths are highly attractive and highly valued in a romantic partner.
The second goal was to explore whether men and women might find certain
character strengths to be particularly attractive. Interestingly, the evolutionary
psychologists who made the compelling case for the attractiveness o f character (e.g.,
Miller, 2000; Wright, 1994) treated all character strengths as equally attractive. It seems
plausible, however, that humans have evolved the tendency to be particularly attuned to
relational character strengths—character strengths that are typically displayed in a dyadic
relationship— when evaluating a romantic partner. The Values in Action (VIA)
character strengths that are particularly relevant to dyadic
64
Reproduced with permis sion o f the cop yright owner. Further repro du ction prohibited with out permiss ion.

relationships include an ability to love and be loved, honesty, kindness, loyalty,
forgiveness, and sense of humor/playfulness. Wright (1994) and Miller (2000) made a
strong case that we might be impressed by displays o f various character strengths because
they are evidence of healthy mind and body. However, I have suggested that we might
find interpersonal character strengths such as the ability to love and be loved, loyalty,
kindness, forgiveness, and honesty to be particularly attractive qualities in a romantic
partner because they demonstrate fitness in the relevant domain.
I conducted two studies to assess what individuals find attractive in romantic
partners. In the first, I coded personal advertisements according to the frequency with
which various character strengths (and other relevant personal characteristics) were
mentioned. In the second, I conducted an online survey in which participants were asked
first to consider their most successful romantic relationship and then rate how important
various characteristics o f their partners were in contributing to the success o f the
relationship. I expected character strengths to be mentioned frequently in the
advertisements. However, I also expected that the interpersonal character strengths
(loyalty, honesty, ability to love and be loved, kindness, and forgiveness) would be
mentioned even more frequently than the character strengths that are more often
expressed in individual or group settings (e.g., perseverance, wisdom, leadership).
Similarly, in the second study, I expected character strengths in general to receive high
ratings of importance, but I expected interpersonal strengths to be among the most highly
rated.
Although it was not a primary research goal, I also expected to replicate previous
findings (from the literature on romantic attraction) concerning gender differences in
65
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w ithou t p ermission.

partner preferences. It has been well established that men tend to be more attracted to
young, attractive partners, whereas women show a preference for older partners with
material resources. Thus, I expected the men in the first study to request youthful,
physically attractive partners more frequently than the women, and I expected the women
to request partners with material resources more often than the men. Likewise, in the
second study, I expected men to give higher importance ratings to the physical
attractiveness o f their partner, and I expected women to give higher importance ratings to
the financial security and ambition o f their partner.
My primary research goal—to demonstrate that character strengths are, indeed,
attractive and important qualities in a romantic partner—was largely accomplished. In
Study 1, 7 o f the 12 most frequently mentioned characteristics requested in a romantic
partner were character strengths. A capacity to love and be loved, sense of
humor/playfulness, enthusiasm/zestfulness, kindness/nurturance, appreciation o f beauty
and excellence, curiosity and interest in the world, and critical thinking/intelligence were
mentioned more frequently than other relevant personal characteristics such as financial
security, smoking or drinking habits, physical health, status, level o f confidence, level of
education, sexual experience, and hobbies.
Mixed support was found in Study 1 for the hypothesis that interpersonally
relevant character strengths would be mentioned more frequently than character strengths
that are typically expressed at the individual level (e.g., wisdom, love o f learning,
appreciation of art and beauty) or at the group level (e.g., leadership, social intelligence).
Capacity to love and be loved was the second most frequently mentioned characteristic in
partner descriptions, second only to age. This is remarkable considering that the norm
66
Reproduced with permis sion o f the copy right owner. Further re production prohibited witho ut perm ission.

among writers of personal ads is to include basic demographic information and some sort
of physical description (e.g., “single white female, late thirties, trim figure...”). The fact
that individuals mentioned a desire for a “loving” partner or “someone to love” or a
similar variant more often than they mentioned a basic physical description provides
testimony to the importance o f interpersonal character strengths. Kindness/nurturance
and a sense of humor/playfulness were ranked number 5 and number 8 respectively,
ahead of the 41 other characteristics that were included in the content analysis. However,
three relational character strengths that were predicted to be among the most highly
valued— honesty, loyalty, and forgiveness— were not included among the top 12.
(Honesty was ranked 13th but loyalty and forgiveness were ranked 32nd and 45th,
respectively.)
Advertisers’ self descriptions in the personal advertisements o f Study 1 also
provided information about the attractiveness o f character strengths. Even if these self
descriptions are subject to the most critical interpretation-that they are largely the
product o f impression management—they are still a useful source o f data. At the very
least, it is helpful to know what individuals think members o f the opposite sex find
attractive because these impressions are likely shaped by actual preferences o f the
opposite sex (Baize and Schroeder, 1995). In the current study, individuals chose to
mention a number of character strengths in their self descriptions. A sense of
humor/playfulness, appreciation o f beauty and excellence in the world, capacity to love
and be loved, enthusiasm/zestfulness, curiosity/interest in the word, and
kindness/nurturance were among the twelve personal characteristics most frequently
mentioned in self descriptions. And as with the descriptions o f desired partners, the
67
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

relational character strengths were particularly emphasized. Sense o f humor/playfulness,
capacity to love and be loved, and kindness/nurturance were ranked 6th, 8th, and 12th
respectively. But as with the descriptions of desired matches, the other relational
characteristics (loyalty, forgiveness, and honesty) were not among the most frequently
mentioned. (They were ranked 14th, 32nd, and 45th, respectively.)
Study 2 provided even stronger support for my hypothesis that individuals regard
character as an important characteristic in a romantic partner. Loyalty, the ability to love
and be loved, honesty, kindness, playfulness, critical thinking/intelligence, forgiveness,
and fairness were among the top 12 most highly rated partner characteristics. The only
non-VIA characteristics in the top 12 were dependability, emotional expressiveness,
similar values, and great personality, and these traits are certainly related to a number of
character strengths. Emotional expressiveness—the ability and willingness to share
one’s emotions with others— is related to the character strength o f social intelligence and
perhaps the strengths of kindness and bravery. Dependability is related to
honesty/integrity, and although dependability may not be universally recognized as a
character strength (and thus is not included among the VIA strengths), it is widely
regarded as a strength in Western culture. The other two non-VIA strengths in the top 12,
similar values and a great personality, are both quite general qualities that have different
meanings to different people, and both qualities may encompass a variety o f character
strengths. For example, some o f the shared values might include character strengths
(e.g., spirituality/religiosity, love of learning, industry, modesty), and a great personality
might encompass any o f a number of strengths such as optimism, playfulness, or
kindness.
68
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

Study 2 provided strong support for my second hypothesis that relational
character strengths would be among the most highly valued character strengths. Loyalty,
ability to love and be loved, honesty, kindness, playfulness, and forgiveness are all
strengths that are particularly relevant to interpersonal relationships. Critical
thinking/intelligence and fairness were the only highly rated VIA strengths that are not
particularly relevant to interpersonal relationships. A comparison o f the most frequently
mentioned characteristics in the personal ad study (Study 1) with the most highly rated
characteristics in the survey study (Study 2) raises interesting questions. The “top”
characteristics from the online questionnaire contained more character strengths than the
“top” characteristics from the personal advertisements. Age, ethnicity, and physical
attractiveness were among the most frequently mentioned characteristics in the personal
advertisements, but these were among the traits that received the lowest importance
ratings on the questionnaire. Could it be that individuals taking the questionnaire
intentionally gave lower ratings to “superficial” characteristics in an effort to give what
they considered the socially desirable response? This seems unlikely given the fact that
the questionnaires were administered anonymously via the internet. On the other hand,
individuals craft their personal advertisements with the hope that they will be read by
many eligible partners, so if either group would be subject to the effects o f social
desirability, it would be this group rather than the group taking the questionnaire.
A more plausible explanation for the differing results found in Study 1 and
Study 2 concerns the nature of the task in each study. Though individuals may have
spent hours editing their prose to create the perfect personal advertisement, it is unlikely
that they did so in a particularly methodical manner (e.g., carefully evaluating all possible
69
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

characteristics and discarding or including each after careful consideration). In Study 2,
however, participants were asked first to think of a concrete relationship and then to
consider how various traits (taken one at a time) contributed to the success o f that
relationship. Individuals in Study 1 were looking for a new relationship, whereas
individuals in Study 2 were evaluating a relationship already established. Though some
characteristics might initially seem very appealing or even essential to someone seeking a
romantic partner, those same characteristics might seem less important when placed in
the context of a concrete relationship. Likewise, some characteristics initially overlooked
might prove very attractive as a relationship is actually established rather than simply
contemplated. Of course “superficial” characteristics such as one’s physical
attractiveness do make a difference in one’s perception o f overall attractiveness; but the
data suggest that when individuals carefully consider what partner traits make for a good,
lasting relationship, character strengths assume greater importance.
The character strengths that were particularly valued included those most relevant
to dyadic relationships. This finding is not surprising, for it seems obvious that we would
be particularly sensitive to qualities that have the most direct impact on us when choosing
a romantic partner. Just as an employer might focus more on evidence o f a prospective
employee’s critical thinking skills and industry (rather than, for example, evidence of
playfulness or spirituality), so are men and women likely to be particularly interested in
those strengths of a prospective partner that affect how he/she functions in a relationship.
We ask ourselves, “Would he always tell me the truth? Would she remain loyal to me?
Would he be kind to me and to my family? Would she forgive me if I make a mistake?”
Individuals might value many character strengths in general, but they are likely to have
70
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

more specific preferences when choosing a romantic partner. As the field o f evolutionary
psychology continues to integrate sexual selection theories o f character evolution,
researchers might refine their focus by recognizing that all character strengths are not
equally sexy.
The idea that character strengths evolved through sexual selection is a relatively
new one within the field o f evolutionary psychology. In contrast, evolutionary
psychologists have a much longer history of theorizing about the evolution o f gender-
specific sexual preferences. Researchers and theorists in the field have suggested that
men evolved a preference for younger, physically attractive women because they would
be most likely to produce healthy offspring. (Older women have fewer fertile years, and
women with irregular features are presumably more likely to have mutated genes.)
Likewise, it is theorized that women have evolved a preference for older men with
resources that can be used to support any offspring. (Very young men are less likely to
have accumulated the resources that typically accrue with age.) Numerous studies across
cultures have verified the existence of these theorized gender difference, even in modem
society (Buss, 1989; 1994). The current study was consistent with these findings. In
Study 1, men placing personal advertisements mentioned a preference for attractive
partners more often than women did. Further, the women placing personal ads
mentioned a preference for an educated or a “professional” match more often than men
did, and in our current society education is a good indicator o f one’s ability to provide
resources. Similarly, the women in Study 2 judged financial security and ambition to be
more important qualities in a partner than did the men. The men, in turn, gave higher
ratings of importance to a partner’s physical attractiveness than did the women.
71
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permission.

Although gender differences regarding the importance of physical attractiveness
and material resources in sexual selection are recognized, the evolutionary psychology
literature does not include any speculation about whether men and women might differ in
their preferences for various character strengths. Interestingly, however, such gender
differences became apparent in Study 1 and, in particular, Study 2. In Study I, women
were more likely than men to seek partners who were kind and partners who were
capable o f loving and being loved. In Study 2, the same gender difference was found
between men and women with respect to the importance ratings they gave to kindness
and the ability to love and be loved. However, the men and women who completed
questionnaires for Study 2 differed in their assessment o f many other partner character
strengths as well. Interestingly, women tended to give higher ratings than men for almost
every partner characteristic they were asked to consider. The character strengths that
women rated more highly than men were the following: perspective, self-control,
leadership, ability to love, courage, critical thinking, capacity to forgive, gratitude,
hope/optimism, industriousness, kindness, and loyalty (See Table 4.S). When compared
with the women’s ratings, the only character strength that men viewed as more important
was creativity.
More than one interpretation o f these results is possible. One possibility is that
men simply place less value on character in their partners than women do. Perhaps men
care very much about their partner’s physical appearance but not as much about other
qualities. This interpretation seems unlikely given previous studies suggesting that men
are just as discriminating as women when contemplating the start o f a long-term
relationship (Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990; Miller, 2000). Alternatively,
72
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permission.

perhaps this gender difference can be explained by the nature o f the tasks in Study 1 and
Study 2. In Study 2, which produced the largest gender differences, participants were
asked to dissect a successful romantic relationship, critically analyzing the importance o f
a multitude of abstract terms. Perhaps this was simply a more familiar task for the
women in the study than it was for the men. It has been suggested that women, in
general, tend to spend more time talking about and analyzing relationships than men do
(Tannen, 1993). Perhaps men are more likely to think of relationships in global terms
(e.g., a good relationship, a lukewarm relationship, a horrible relationship, etc.), whereas
women may be more likely to spend time considering the specific components of the
relationship.
Study 1 did not require participants to stretch themselves and consider any qualities of a
partner other than those preconceived by the individual writing the ad, and this limited
requirement might be partially responsible for the greater degree o f compatibility of
responses compared with Study 2.
Another unexpected finding was the negative relationship between age o f
participants and several partner characteristics. Not only was the physical attractiveness
of a partner viewed as less important to older participants, but so were a number of
character strengths. Why might gratitude, modesty, courage, enthusiasm, humor, self-
control, and social intelligence become less important with age? Perhaps this negative
trend reflects a general mellowing o f expectations that comes with age and experience.
Perhaps older individuals have a broader perspective on the multitude o f factors
constituting a good relationship and ascribe less importance to individual characteristics.
The literature on the evolution o f sexual preferences gives little attention to the
73
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w ithou t p ermission.

preferences of older men and women. This is not surprising given the short life
expectancy o f men and women during the era in which our preferences evolved.
Furthermore, the preferences o f women past their childbearing years are not relevant to
the genetic transmission of traits. Though evolutionary psychologists have not concerned
themselves with the partner preferences of older adults, they do not deny the impact of
the environment on modifying our inherited preferences. Those researchers who are
interested in the preferences of modem adults may need to recognize that such
modification becomes increasingly likely as individuals age.
Of the many aspects o f the environment likely to modify an individual’s
preference for a romantic partner, one o f the foremost is the experience o f previous
relationships. Whether those relationships were good, bad, or mediocre, experiencing
them is likely to influence expectations and one’s assessment of the attributes o f a good
partner. Future research might address how and to what extent past relationships affect
current attitudes about the importance o f various character strengths. For example,
researchers might survey individuals currently or previously in a long-term relationship
(10+ years) and compare those currently satisfied with those currently unhappy in the
relationship (or divorced). An even more informative (and more ambitious) longitudinal
study could track individuals over the course o f a relationship to assess changes in
partners’ attitudes toward character. Before committing to their first long-term
relationship, individuals could be surveyed about their own character strengths as well as
the character strengths they desire in a partner. A follow-up survey conducted while they
were in the midst o f a relationship (good or bad) would provide fascinating information
about how experience might shape our preferences. Particularly interesting would be an
74
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permis sion.

analysis of whether certain character strengths and/or preferences were able to predict
relationships that endure.
Also important to consider in future research is the effect of the culture on
preferences for character strengths in romantic relationships. The current study was
limited in that both groups o f participants were largely white, middle class, heterosexual
Americans. The VIA character strengths used in this study were selected by Peterson and
Seligman (2003) because they were ubiquitous across cultures, but it is likely that the
particular strengths valued in romantic partners vary from culture to culture.
Furthermore, perhaps a study of partner preferences in different cultures would reveal
alternate patterns o f gender differences from the one revealed in the current study.
Also needed is an investigation o f the particular character strengths preferred in
same sex relationships. The literature on evolutionary psychology gives little attention to
the sexual preferences o f gay men and women (see, e.g., Miller, 2000), but this exclusion
should not be interpreted to suggest that character is not a highly valued characteristic in
a prospective partner o f the same sex. Perhaps gay men and heterosexual women show
the same gender differences in preferences for character strengths as heterosexual men
and women (with women tending to value most character strengths more than men).
Broadening the study of the attractiveness o f character strengths to include same sex
relationships is an important next step in the current field. However, caution is needed
when using personal advertisement studies for this purpose. The author’s observation has
been that a number of publications devoted exclusively to same-sex advertisements tend
to serve primarily those individuals looking for very casual sexual encounters or
“discrete” affairs. A comparison o f same sex advertisements from one such publication
75
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

with advertisements from a more mainstream publication, such as the one used in the
current study, would likely confound the study. The continued growth o f online dating
services (e.g., www.thematch.com) may provide an opportunity for researchers to
compare the preferences of individuals seeking same sex and opposite sex partners for
similar types o f relationships.
The opportunities for future research are appealing, but so are the results o f the
current study. Men and women are likely to welcome the evidence that character counts
in a romantic relationship. Furthermore, these findings should offer some reassurance to
those lamenting a perceived erosion o f values within our society. There may indeed be
evidence of significant change in behavioral standards, but the behaviors that may now be
considered acceptable for others are not necessarily acceptable to individuals in their
personal relationships. As this dual study shows, men and women want partners o f
character; and moreover, they want to claim character as a personal attribute.
The emphasis on character in romantic relationships is at odds with the ubiquitous
media messages equating sexual attraction with the superficial attributes o f youth and
beauty. Although physical attraction is undeniably important to romantic relationships (a
finding that this current study confirms), the media messages focused exclusively on the
physical are misleading. The current study revealed the importance o f character strengths
to a romantic relationship, and thus demonstrated that, in the vernacular, character is sexy
too.
76
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

APPENDICES
77
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

APPENDIX A
CATEGORIES FOR ANALYSIS OF PERSONAL ADVERTISEMENTS
Pro p erties of th e A dvertisem ent
Total num ber of lines in ad
Total nu m ber of words in ad
Advertiser C h a racteristic s
Dem og raphic characteristics of a d vertis e r
G end e r
Ethnicity
Age
Religion
Values in Action (VIA) chara c teristics revealed by advertise r
D e s c rib es self a s som eo n e w ho ap precia te s beauty and e xc e llence
D e scribes self a s som eo n e with perspective/wisdo m
De s c r ibe s self a s s o m eo ne with self-control / self-regulation
De s c r ibe s self a s a le a de r
D e scrib es self a s being capab le of loving a n d being loved
D e scrib es self a s brave
D e scribes self a s prudent / c a u tio us
D e s c r ibes self a s creative
D e s c r ibes self a s curious and in tereste d in the world
D e scrib es self a s enth usiastic / zestful
D e scrib es self a s fair / ju s t
D e scribes self a s forgiving
D e s c rib es self a s grateful
D e s c rib es self a s ho n est / auth e n tic
D e scribes self a s hopeful / optimistic
D e s c r ibes self a s ind ustrious / hard-w orking
D e s c r ibes self a s so m eon e with good ju d g m ent / intelligence
D e scrib es self a s kind / nurturant / g enero us
D e scrib es self a s loyal
D e scribes self a s m od es t / hum b le
D e s c r ibes self a s playful / h u morous
D e s c r ibes self a s socially skilled / socially intelligent
D e scribes self a s spiritual / religious
D e scrib es self a s so m eo n e who loves learning
O th e r re levant p e rsonal characte ristics reveale d by ad v ertiser
D e scribes self a s attractive or having attractive fe a tu re s
78
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

Mentions smoking habits
Mentions drinking hab its
Describ e s type of relationship d e s ired ( c a su a l / d iscrete vs. long-term )
Makes re fe re n ce to s e x / physical relationsh ip
Describ e s s e lf a s being in good health
Describ e s s e lf a s being a pers o n of high s ta tu s / pres tige
Describ e s self a s a good cook
D e sc ribes self a s ambitious
Describ e s s e lf a s confident
Describ e s self a s dep e n da ble
Describ e s self a s easy -going / laid-back
Describ e s s e lf a s edu c ated / “professional”
Describ e s self a s emotionally ex p re ssive/affectio na te
Describ e s se lf a s financially secu re
Describ e s self a s interested in family / children
Describ e s self a s ope n -m inded / tolerant
De scribes se lf a s organiz ed / ne a t
De scribes self a s predictable
Describ e s self a s unpredictable
De scribes self a s refined / sophistic ated
Describ e s self a s sexually e x p erie n c ed
Describ e s se lf a s sexually inexperience d / c ha st e
Charac teristics of th e D esired Match
Demographic ch a racteristics
G e nder
Ethnicity
Age
Religion
Values in Action (VIA) characteristics of de sired match
Desires s om eon e who app re c ia te s be a uty a nd e xc e llenc e
Desires som eo ne with perspective/w isdom
Desires so m eo ne with self-control / self-regulation
Desires s o m eon e who is a good leader
Desires som eo n e who is c a pa ble of loving an d b eing loved
Desires s om eon e who is brave
Desires som eo ne who is pruden t / cautious
D e sire s s o m eo ne who is creative
Desires som eo ne w ho is curious and intereste d in t h e world
D e s ires som eo ne who is e n thusia stic / zestful
Desires som eo ne who is fair / just
Desires som eo ne who is forgiving
D e sire s s o m eo ne who is grateful
79
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

D e sires so m eo n e who is hon e s t / a u thentic
D e s ires so m eo ne who is hopeful / optimistic
D e sires so m e on e who is industrious / hard-working
D e sire s s om eo ne with good judgm ent / intelligence
D e sire s s om eo ne w ho is kind / nu rturan t / ge n ero us
D e sire s so me o ne who is loyal
D e sire s so m e one who is m od e s t / humble
D e s ires so m eo ne who is playful / hum orous
D e s ires so m eo ne who is socially skilled / socially intelligent
D e sires som eon e who is spiritual / religious
D e sire s s om eo ne w ho loves learning
O ther re lev a n t pers o nal characteristics of desired match
D e sires so me on e who is a ttractive / h as attrac tive fe atu res
Specifies preference for partner who sm ok es / d oes not sm ok e
Specifies p refere n c e for partn er who drinks / do es not drink
D e sire s s om eo ne w ho is healthy
D e sire s so m e one with high sta tu s / pre stig e
D e sires so m e on e who is a good cook
D e sires so m eo n e who is ambitious
D e sires som eo n e who is confident
D e sires so m eo ne who is de p en dab le
D e sire s so m e on e who is e a sy-going / laid-back
D e sire s so m eo ne who is e ducated / “professional”
D e sires so m eo n e who is emotionally e x p ressiv e/affectio nate
D e s ires so m eo ne who is financially sec ure
D e sires so me on e who is intere sted in family / children
D e sires som eo n e who is open-m inded / tole rant
D e sires som eo n e who is organize d / n ea t
D e s ires so m eo ne who is p redicta ble
D e sires som eo n e who is unpredicta b le
D e sires som eo n e who is refined / soph isticated
D e sires som eo n e who is sexually expe rienc e d
D e sire s s om eo ne who is sexually inexperie n c e d / ch aste
80
Reproduced with permission o f the co pyright owner. F urth er reproduction prohibited with o ut perm ission.

APPENDIX B
RELATIONSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE POSTED ONLINE
Your Most Fulfilling Relationships with Others
We are interested in learning about different people’s most fulfilling relationships. W hat
is the best relationship that you’ve ever had with a frien d ? And what is the best
rela tionship that you’ve ever had with a rom antic partner? These best relationships
may or may not have been with the same individual. They may be ongoing, or they may
be in the past. Regardless, by “best” relationship we mean the one that for you was the
most personally rewarding and engaging, the one against which all others paled, the one
that felt most right. Please think for a moment about your best relationships and answer
the following questions. Some questions may not apply in all cases, so simply indicate
that using the provided option.
First, please th ink a b ou t the best rom antic p ar tn er tha t you ever had. People use
different labels to describe this sort of individual: lover, spouse, husband/wife, mate,
significant other, partner, boyfriend/girlfriend, soul mate, true love, and so on. Please
think in terms o f whatever label is most comfortable to you, and answer the following
questions.
If there is no one who fits this description, please check this b ox to skip the next
few questions and continue with the rest of the survey.
Is this individual the same person you described as your closest friend?
YES
NO
Was this person your first ever romantic partner?
YES
NO
Is this individual currently your romantic partner/lover/spouse?
YES
NO
Do you currently live together?
YES
NO
Is this person:
MALE
FEMALE
81
Reproduced with permis sion o f the copy right owner. Further re production prohibited witho ut perm ission.

Is this person:
YOUNGER THAN YOU; specify years younger
ABOUT THE SAME AGE AS YOU
OLDER THAN YOU; specify years older
The romance has lasted (or did last):
LESS THAN ONE YEAR
ONE TO TWO YEARS
TWO TO FIVE YEARS
FIVE TO TEN YEARS
TEN TO TWENTY YEARS
MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS
There are many factors that determine romance—including, of course, circumstances and
your own characteristics— but we are most interested in the traits of your partner that
make your romance a good one. Please answer the following questions about the
characteristics that explain why you regard this as your best relationship with a romantic
partner. It is possible that your partner may possess a number of the characteristics listed
below, but please remember that we are only asking you to report how important those
characteristics are to the relationship. In other words, you would give a low rating to a
characteristic that your partner possesses if it is not important to the relationship. This is
an anonymous survey, and your most honest replies are needed for useful results.
Ch ara cteristics of th is Pe r son
MY PARTNER APPRECIATES BEAUTY AND EXCELLENCE
5 = very important to our romance
4 = important to our romance
3 = somewhat important to our romance
2 = not important to our romance
1 = not at all important to our romance
0 = does not apply
MY PARTNER HAS A GREAT PERSONALITY
MY PARTNER HAS GOOD HEALTH
MY PARTNER HAS HIGH STATUS/PRESTIGE
MY PARTNER HAS PATIENCE
MY PARTNER HAS PERSPECTIVE AND WISDOM
MY PARTNER HAS SELF-CONTROL
MY PARTNER IS ABLE TO MAKE A COMMITMENT
82
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

MY PARTNER IS A GOOD COOK
MY PARTNER IS A LEADER
MY PARTNER IS ABLE TO LOVE AND BE LOVED
MY PARTNER IS AMBITIOUS
MY PARTNER IS BRAVE/COURAGEOUS
MY PARTNER IS CAUTIOUS AND DISCRETE
MY FRIEND IS CONFIDENT/SELF-ASSURED
MY PARTNER IS CREATIVE
MY PARTNER IS CURIOUS AND INTERESTED IN THE WORLD
MY PARTNER IS DEPENDABLE
MY PARTNER IS EASY-GOING/LAID-BACK
MY PARTNER IS EDUCATED
MY PARTNER IS EMOTIONALLY EXPRESSIVE AND
AFFECTIONATE
MY PARTNER IS ENTHUSIASTIC AND ENERGETIC
MY PARTNER IS FAIR AND JUST
MY PARTNER IS FINANCIALLY SECURE
MY PARTNER IS FORGIVING
MY PARTNER IS GOOD LOOKING
MY PARTNER IS GRATEFUL
MY PARTNER IS HONEST AND GENUINE
MY PARTNER IS HOPEFUL AND OPTIMISTIC
MY PARTNER IS INDUSTRIOUS AND HARD-WORKING
83
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

MY PARTNER IS INTELLIGENT
MY PARTNER IS INTERESTED IN FAMILY/CHILDREN
MY PARTNER IS KIND, NURTURING, AND RESPONSIVE TO MY
NEEDS
MY PARTNER IS LOYAL
MY PARTNER IS MODEST AND HUMBLE
MY PARTNER IS OPEN AND TOLERANT
MY PARTNER IS ORGANIZED AND NEAT
MY PARTNER IS PREDICTABLE
MY PARTNER IS NOT PREDICTABLE
MY PARTNER IS PLAYFUL AND HUMOROUS
MY PARTNER IS REFINED AND SOPHISTICATED
MY PARTNER IS SELF-RELIANT AND INDEPENDENT
MY PARTNER IS SENSITIVE
MY PARTNER IS SEXUALLY ADVENTUROUS AND/OR
SEXUALLY SKILLED
MY PARTNER IS NOT SEXUALLY EXPERIENCED
MY PARTNER IS SOCIALLY SKILLED
MY PARTNER IS SPIRITUAL OR RELIGIOUS
MY PARTNER LOVES LEARNING
MY PARTNER THINKS OBJECTIVELY
OTHER (describe)
_______________
84
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

C h aracteristic s o f our R ela tionsh ip
MY PARTNER AND I BRING OUT THE BEST IN EACH OTHER
5 = very important to our relationship
4 = important to our relationship
3 = somewhat important to our relationship
2 = not important to our relationship
I = not at all important/does not apply to our relationship
MY PARTNER AND I CAN DEPEND ON EACH OTHER
MY PARTNER AND I SPEND A LOT OF TIME TOGETHER/HAVE A
SHARED HISTORY
MY PARTNER AND I HAVE SIMILAR PERSONALITIES
MY PARTNER AND I HAVE DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES
MY PARTNER AND I UNDERSTAND EACH
OTHER/COMMUNICATE WELL/HAVE GOOD CONVERSATIONS
MY PARTNER AND I HAVE FUN TOGETHER
MY PARTNER AND I HAVE GREAT SEXUAL CHEMISTRY
MY PARTNER AND I HAVE SIMILAR HOBBIES/INTERESTS
MY PARTNER AND I HAVE SIMILAR VALUES
MY PARTNER AND I MAKE EACH OTHER FEEL SECURE
MY PARTNER AND I UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER
OTHER (describe)
_______________
OTHER (describe)
_______________
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
86
Reproduced with permis sion o f the copy right owner. Further re production prohibited witho ut perm ission.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (1997). Butch, femme, or
straight acting? Partner preferences o f gay men and lesbians. Journal o f
Personality & Social Psychology, 73(5), 960-973.
Baize, H. R., & Schroeder, J. E. (1995). Personality and mate selection in personal ads:
Evolutionary preferences in a public mate selection process. Journal o f Social
Behavior & Personality, 10(3), 5 17-536.
Berg, J. H., & McQuinn, R. D. (1986). Attraction and exchange in continuing and
noncontinuing dating relationships. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology,
50, 942-952.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1974). Interpersonal attraction, (2nd ed.), Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Burgess, R. L., & Houston, T. L. (1979). Social exchange in developing relationships.
San Diego: Academic Press.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses
tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution o f desire: Strategies f o r human mating. New York:
Basic Books.
Buss, D.M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological
science. Psychological Inquiry, 6 1-30.
Buss, D. M. (1998). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science o f the Mind. New York:
Allyn and Bacon.
87
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., & et al. (1990). International
preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal o f Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 2/(1), 5-47.
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 50(3), 559-570.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspetive
on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half
century o f mate preferences: The cultural evolution o f values. Journal o f
Marriage and the Family, 63(2), 491-503.
Cameron, C., Oskamp, S., & Sparks, W. (1977). Courtship American style: Newspaper
ads. Family Coordinator, 26(1), 27-30.
Clark, J. (1997). What the hell do women really want: A guide fo r men in the 90s. New
York: Island Flower Books.
Clark, R. D., & Hartfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers.
Journal o f Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39-55.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and
the five-factor model. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258-265.
Dahlsgaard, K., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (submitted). Toward a classification
of strengths and virtues: Historical and cultural convergences?
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. I. (1998). Human evolutionary psychology and animal
behaviour. Animal Behaviour, 57, 509-519.
88
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin o f species by means o f natural selection, or
preservation offavoured races in the struggle fo r life. London: Murray.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent o f man and selection in relation to sex. London:
Murray.
Dawkins, R., & Krebs, J. R. (1978). Animal signals: Information or manipulation? In J.
R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioral Ecology (pp. 282-309). Oxford:
Blackwell Scientific.
de Wall, F. (1996). Good Natured: The origins o f right and wrong in humans and other
animals. New York: Harper Perennial.
Feiring, C. (1996). Concept o f romance in 15-year-old adolescents. Journal o f Research
on Adolescents, 6 (2), 181-200.
Fisher, R. A. (1915). The evolution o f sexual preference. Eugenics Review, 7, 184-192.
Floyd, F. J., & Wasner, G. H. (1994). Social Exchange, Equity, and Commitment:
Structural Equation Modeling o f Dating Relationships. Journal o f Family
Psychology, 5(1), 55-73.
Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (1980). Resource theory: Interpersonal behavior in exchange. In
K. J. Gergen & M. S. Greenberg & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange:
Advances in theory and research (pp. 77-102). New York: Plenum.
Goldberg, H. (1991). What Men Really Want. New York: New American Library.
Gonzales, M. H., & Meyers, S. A. (1993). "Your mother would like me": Self
presentation in the personals ads o f heterosexual and homosexual men and
women. Sage Publications, 79(2), 131-142.
89
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permis sion.

Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (2000). The Seven Principles f o r Making Marriage Work.
New York: Crown Publishers.
Harris, R.L. (1994). ANOVA: An Analysis o f Variance Primer. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock
Publishers, Inc.
Herold, E. S., & Milhausen, R. R. (1999). Dating preferences o f university women: an
analysis o f the nice guy stereotype. Journal o f Sex and Marital Therapy, 25, 333-
343.
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the
stages o f human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal o f
Personality, 55(1), 97-116.
Kenrick, D. T. (1989). Bridging social psychology and sociobiology: The case o f sexual
attraction, Sociobiology and the social sciences., Texas Tech University Press;
1989, (130), 5-23.
Kenrick, D.T. & Li, N. (2000). The Darwin is in the Details. American Psychologist, 55
(9), 1060-1061.
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, an the
stages o f human courtship: Quantifying the parental investment model. Journal o f
Personality, 58, 97-116.
Lance, L. M. (1998). Gender differences in heterosexual dating: A content analysis of
personal ads. Journal o f Men's Studies, 6(3), 297-305.
Lowndes, L. (1997). How to Make Anyone Fall in Love With You. New York:
Contemporary Books.
90
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reprod uc tio n prohibited w itho u t permis sion.

Miller, E. J., Smith, J. E., & Trembath, D. L. (2000). The "skinny" on body size requests
in personal ads. Sex Roles, 43(1-2), 129-141.
Miller, G. F. (2000). The Mating Mind. New York: Anchor Books.
Pawlowski, B., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (1999). Withholding age as putative deception in mate
search tactics. Evolution & Human Behavior, 20{ 1), 53-69.
Peterson, C., & Bossio, L. (1991). Health and Optimism. New York: The Free Press.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (2003). Values in Action (VIA) Classification o f
Strengths. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ridley, M. (1993). The Red Queen. New York: Penguin Books.
Rose, H., & Rose, S. P. R. (Eds.). (2000). Alas, poor Darwin: arguments against
evolutionary psychology. London: Jonathan Cape.
Sakai, D. K., & Johnson, R. C. (1997). Active phenotypic assortment in mate selection:
Self-descriptions and sought-for-attributes o f mates in dating advertisements.
Social Biology, 44(3-4), 258-264.
Seligman, M. E. (1998). Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life.
New York: Pocket Books.
Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. L. (2002). Handbook o f Positive Psychology. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Solomon, R. C. (1990). Love, Emotion, Myth, and Metaphor. Amherst: Prometheus.
Stains, L. R., & Bechtel, S. (2002). What women want: What every man needs to know
about sex, romane, passion, and pleasure. New York: Ballantine Books.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution o f human sexuality. New York: Oxford University
Press.
91
Reproduced with permission o f the copyrigh t owner. Fu rthe r reproductio n prohibited with o ut perm ission.

Tannen, D. (1993). Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Tooke, J., & Camire, L. (1991). Patterns of deception in intersexual and intrasexual
mating strategies. Ethology & Sociobiology, 12, 345-364.
Trivers. (1971). The evolution o f reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review o f Biology, 46,
35-57.
Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait
ratings. Journal o f Personality, 60, 225-251.
Wright, R. (1994). The Moral Animal. New York: Vintage Books.
92
Reproduced with permission o f the co pyright owner. F urth er reproduction prohibited with o ut perm ission.