Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1983). Social desirability: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882–888.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted as part of the doctoral dissertation of the first author. Random assignment of participants to conditions was performed with the assistance of the Research Randomizer program developed by Geoffrey C. Urbaniak and Scott Plous (http://www.randomizer.org). Sheree Posey, Kristine Van Deventer, and Brett Butler are appreciated for their assistance with data collection. Sandra Cowen is appreciated for her assistance with setting-up the web-based data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

    Geoffrey C. Urbaniak & Peter R. Kilmann

  2. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Division, Broughton Hospital, 1000 South Sterling Street, Morganton, NC, 28655, USA

    Geoffrey C. Urbaniak

Authors
  1. Geoffrey C. Urbaniak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter R. Kilmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geoffrey C. Urbaniak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Urbaniak, G.C., Kilmann, P.R. Niceness and Dating Success: A Further Test of the Nice Guy Stereotype. Sex Roles 55, 209–224 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9075-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9075-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation