Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 11, Issue 5–6, pp 401–411 | Cite as

Sex differences in factors of romantic attraction

  • Jeffrey S. Nevid
Article

Abstract

Subjects were asked to rate various physical features, demographic characteristics, and personal qualities in terms of their degree of importance in determining choice of romantic partners in both sexual and meaningful or long-term relationships. Consistent with the sex-role stereotype, males placed relatively greater emphasis than females on the physical characteristics of their prospective romantic partners. Females more strongly emphasized the personal qualities of their prospective partners than did males. Both sexes more heavily weighed various personal qualities than physical characteristics in the context of romantic choice in a meaningful relationship.

Keywords

Demographic Characteristic Social Psychology Physical Characteristic Great Emphasis Romantic Partner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bar-Tal, D., & Saxe, L. Perceptions of similarly and dissimilarly physically attractive couples and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 772–781.Google Scholar
  2. Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1971, 7, 173–189.Google Scholar
  3. Berzins, J. F., Ross, W. F., English, G. E., & Haley, J. V. Subgroups among opiate addicts: A typological investigation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1974, 83, 65–73.Google Scholar
  4. Brislin, R. W., & Lewis, S. A. Dating and physical attractiveness: Replication. Psychological Reports, 1968, 22, 976.Google Scholar
  5. Feinman, S., & Gill, G. W. Sex differences in physical attractiveness preferences. Journal of Social Psychology, 1978, 105, 43–52.Google Scholar
  6. Harrison, A. A., & Saeed, L. Let's make a deal: An analysis of relevations and stipulations in lonely hearts advertisements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 257–264.Google Scholar
  7. Kleck, R. E., & Rubenstein, C. Physical attractiveness, perceived attitude similarity, and interpersonal attraction in an opposite-sex encounter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 107–114.Google Scholar
  8. Lerner, R. M. Some female stereotypes of male body build-behavior relations. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 28, 363–366.Google Scholar
  9. Lerner, R. M., & Gellert, E. Body build identification, preference, and aversion in children. Developmental Psychology, 1969, 1, 456–462.Google Scholar
  10. Lerner, R. M., Karabenick, S. A., & Stuart, J. L. Relations among physical attractiveness, body attitudes, and self-concept in male and female college students. Journal of Psychology, 1973, 85, 119–129.Google Scholar
  11. Murstein, B. I. Who will marry whom? Theories and research in marital choice. New York: Springer, 1976.Google Scholar
  12. Ries, H. T., Nezlek, J., & Wheeler, L. Physical attractiveness in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38, 604–617.Google Scholar
  13. Walster, E. Effect of self-esteem on liking for dates of various social desirabilities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1970, 6, 248–253.Google Scholar
  14. Walster, E., Aronson, E., Abrahams, D., & Rottman, L. Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 508–516.Google Scholar
  15. Wiggins, J. S., Wiggins, N., & Conger, J. C. Correlates of heterosexual somatic preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 82–90.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey S. Nevid
    • 1
  1. 1.St. John's UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations