Niceness and Dating Success: A Further Test of the Nice Guy Stereotype

Geoffrey C. Urbaniak; Peter R. Kilmann

doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9075-2

Sex Roles

August 2006, Volume 55, Issue 3, pp 209–224

Niceness and Dating Success: A Further Test of the Nice Guy Stereotype

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Geoffrey C. UrbaniakEmail author
Peter R. Kilmann

Original Article

First Online:: 16 November 2006

DOI: 10.1007/s11199-006-9075-2

Cite this article as:: Urbaniak, G.C. & Kilmann, P.R. Sex Roles (2006) 55: 209. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9075-2

Abstract

Proponents of the nice guy stereotype argue that women often say they wish to date kind, sensitive men, but, in reality, still choose to date macho men over nice guys, especially if the macho men are more physically attractive. We investigated the relationship between men’s agreeableness, physical attractiveness, and their dating success across different relationship contexts. One hundred and ninety-one male college students completed a computerized questionnaire to assess their levels of agreeableness and aspects of their dating history. Twenty college-aged women rated the men’s photographs for attractiveness. Results supported the nice guy stereotype. Lower levels of agreeableness predicted more less-committed, casual, sexual relationships.

Keywords

Nice guyPhysical attractivenessDating success

References

Bays, C. L. (1994). Ampersand: Lookin’ for love. Wesleyan Argus (p. 7) (November 11).
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 7 (pp. 157–215). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Angleitner, A. (1989). Mate selection preferences in Germany and the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1269–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO–FFI) professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallucci, N. (1984). Effects of men’s physical attractiveness on interpersonal attraction. Sex Roles, 55, 935–938.Google Scholar
Goodwin, R. (1990). Sex differences among partner preferences: Are the sexes really very similar? Sex Roles, 23, 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollandsworth, S. (1994). What you don’t know about nice guys. Mademoiselle (pp. 120–123) (October).
Iverson, D. (1994). Nice guys finish last (Electronic version). Trincoll Journal. Retrieved February 27, 2002 from http://www.trincoll.edu/zines/tj/tj02.10.94/articles/article6.html.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & West, S. G. (1995). Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 427–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenrick, D. T. (1994). Evolutionary social psychology: From sexual selection to social cognition. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 27 (pp. 75–121). San Diego, California: Academic.Google Scholar
Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., & Martin, C. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
Li, N., Bailey, J., Kenrick, D., & Linsenmeier, J. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1983). Social desirability: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, H. (2002). The jerk appeal. Retrieved February 27, 2002 from http://www.askmen.com/dating/heidi/heidi15b.html.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2000). On the invalidity of validity scales: Evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 582–593.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Piedmont, R. L., & Weinstein, H. P. (1993). A psychometric evaluation of the new NEO-PIR facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 60, 302–318.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Regan, P. (1998a). Minimum mate selection standards as a function of perceived mate value, relationship context, and gender. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 10, 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, P. (1998b). What if you can’t get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1294–1303.Google Scholar
Regan, P., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F., & Cate, R. (2000). Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term and long-term romantic partners? Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostand, E. (1897). Cyrano de Bergerac (English translation by G. Thomas & M. F. Guillemard). Retrieved December 6, 1999 from ftp://uiarchive.cso.uiuc.edu/pub/etext/gutenberg/etext98/cdben10.txt.
Sadalla, E., Kenrick, D., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. (2002). Nice guys finish last. Retrieved February 27, 2002 from http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith/getiton15.html.
Sprecher, S. (1989). The importance to males and females of physical attractiveness, earning potential, and expressiveness in initial attraction. Sex Roles, 21, 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1074–1080.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Urbaniak, G. C., & Kilmann, P. R. (2003). Physical attractiveness and the “nice guy paradox”: Do nice guys really finish last? Sex Roles, 49, 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virtual Voyage (1999, August). Just ask Sandy: Nice guys finish last. Virtual Voyage Mall. Retrieved January 1, 2003 from http://www.virtualvoyage.com/soapbox/client15/nice5.htm.
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508–516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Weiderman, M. W., & Dubois, S. L. (1998). Evolution and sex differences in preferences for short-term mates: Results from a policy capturing study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Geoffrey C. Urbaniak
- 1
- 2
Email author
Peter R. Kilmann
- 1

1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
2.Psychiatric Rehabilitation DivisionBroughton HospitalMorgantonUSA

Niceness and Dating Success: A Further Test of the Nice Guy Stereotype

Abstract

Keywords

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Cookies