Gender Differences in Characteristics Desired in a Potential Sexual and Marriage Partner

Abstract Only recently have researchers recognized that the qualities that are considered desirable in a short-term sexual partner may differ from those sought in a long-term marriage partner. To investigate this hypothesis, and to explore gender differences in what are considered to be sexually as opposed to maritally desirable characteristics, 70 men and women ranked a set of 23 characteristics in terms of desirability in a potential sexual and marriage partner. As hypothesized, results revealed that both men and women preferred a physically attractive potential sexual partner, and women showed no more preference than did men for a socially or financially powerful potential sexual partner. Also as predicted, men more than women preferred a physically attractive marriage partner; unexpectedly, women did not find such characteristics as social or financial power and a college degree as more desirable in a prospective spouse than did men.

[1]  E. Walster,et al.  Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  E. Berscheid,et al.  What is beautiful is good. , 1972, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  P. Lewis,et al.  Beautiful is good: Evidence that the physically attractive are more socially skillful , 1977 .

[4]  Thomas F. Cash,et al.  Sexism and beautyism in personnel consultant decision making. , 1977 .

[5]  J. Hudson,et al.  Personal characteristics important in mate preference among college students , 1981 .

[6]  R. Sherwin,et al.  Campus sexual norms and dating relationships: a trend analysis. , 1985 .

[7]  Terry A. Beehr,et al.  Effects of applicant sex, applicant physical attractiveness, type of rater and type of job on interview decisions* , 1986 .

[8]  D. Buss,et al.  Preferences in human mate selection. , 1986 .

[9]  P. Blumstein,et al.  Social or evolutionary theories? Some observations on preferences in human mate selection. , 1987 .

[10]  S. Kalick,et al.  Physical attractiveness as a status cue , 1988 .

[11]  B. Lieberman,et al.  Extrapremarital intercourse: Attitudes toward a neglected sexual behavior. , 1988, Journal of Sex Research.

[12]  B. Roscoe,et al.  Dating infidelity: behaviors, reasons and consequences. , 1988, Adolescence.

[13]  L. Margolin.  Gender and the prerogatives of dating and marriage: An experimental assessment of a sample of college students , 1989 .

[14]  Susan Sprecher,et al.  The importance to males and females of physical attractiveness, earning potential, and expressiveness in initial attraction , 1989 .

[15]  E K Sadalla,et al.  Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: qualifying the parental investment model. , 1990, Journal of personality.

[16]  J. Townsend,et al.  Effects of potential partners' physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection , 1990, Archives of sexual behavior.

[17]  Catherine A. Surra,et al.  Research and Theory on Mate Selection and Premarital Relationships in the 1980s. , 1990 .

[18]  Alan Feingold,et al.  Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. , 1990 .

[19]  A. Feingold.  Good-looking people are not what we think. , 1992 .

[20]  A. Feingold,et al.  Gender differences in mate selection preferences: a test of the parental investment model. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  E. Berscheid,et al.  Gender differences in beliefs about the causes of male and female sexual desire , 1995 .