Sex Roles

, Volume 23, Issue 1–2, pp 43–50 | Cite as

Men as success objects and women as sex objects: A study of personal advertisements

  • Simon Davis
Article

Abstract

A study was made of 328 personal advertisements sampled from a major daily Canadian newspaper. It was found that gender differences for desired companion attributes were consistent with traditional sex role stereotypes. Relative to the opposite sex, women emphasized employment, financial, and intellectual status, as well as commitment, while men emphasized physical characteristics. Physical characteristics were the most desired, regardless of sex. Secondary findings were that, for this sample, considerably more men than women placed ads, and that the mean age for both sexes was relatively high. The main findings were similar to those from earlier studies.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Basow, S. (1986). Gender stereotypes: Traditions and alternatives, Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  2. Braito, R. (1981). The inferiority game: Perceptions and behavior. Sex Roles, 7, 65–72.Google Scholar
  3. Curry, T., & Hock, R. (1981). Sex differences in sex role ideals in early adolescence. Adolescence, 16, 779–789.Google Scholar
  4. Deaux, K., & Hanna, R. (1984). Courtship in the personals column: The influence of gender and sexual orientation. Sex Roles, 11, 363–375.Google Scholar
  5. Farrell, W. (1986). Why men are the way they are. New York: Berkley Books.Google Scholar
  6. Green, S., & Sandos, P. (1983). Perceptions of male and female initiators of relationship. Sex Roles, 9, 849–852.Google Scholar
  7. Halas, C. (1981). Why can't a woman be more like a man? New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  8. Harrison, A., & Saeed, L. (1977). Let's make a deal: An analysis of revelations and stipulations in lonely hearts advertisements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 257–264.Google Scholar
  9. Hite, S. (1981). The Hite report on male sexuality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  10. Hite, S. (1987). Women and love: A cultural revolution in progress, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  11. Nevid, J. (1984). Sex differences in factors of romantic attraction. Sex Roles, 11, 401–411.Google Scholar
  12. Shaevitz, M. (1987). Sexual static. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
  13. Smith, D. (1973). Women, the family and corporate capitalism. In M. Stephenson (Ed.), Women in Canada. Toronto: New Press.Google Scholar
  14. Stiles, D., Gibbon, J., Hardardottir, S., & Schnellmann, J. (1987). The ideal man or women as described by young adolescents in Iceland and the United States. Sex Roles, 17, 313–320.Google Scholar
  15. Symons, D. (1987). An evolutionary approach. In J. Geer & W. O'Donohue (Eds.), Theories of human sexuality. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  16. Thiessen, D., & Gregg, B. (1980). Human assortive mating and genetic equilibrium: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1, 111–140.Google Scholar
  17. Urberg, K. (1979). Sex role conceptualization in adolescents and adults. Developmental Psychology, 15, 90–92.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon Davis
    • 1
  1. 1.VancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations