Sex Roles

, Volume 34, Issue 3–4, pp 141–169 | Cite as

Gender and courtship entitlement: Responses to personal ads

  • Erich Goode


Dating and courtship through personal advertisements have been studied only in an extremely limited fashion. Few researchers have sought information about the responses ad placers have received, and only one has placed a bogus ad in order to receive and examine responses. I placed ads in four personal columns in part to determine the relative importance of attractiveness and occupational/financial success in attracting potential dating partners. Men are far more influenced by looks and women, by success. So much is this the case that it is entirely possible that for some men, lower socioeconomic attributes among women are actually seen as desirable. Men are more likely to see dates with more desirable partners as their courtship entitlement; that is, they are more likely to put themselves forward as potential dates for my (fictive) ad placers when, an independent panel of judges determined, they would not be deemed sufficiently desirable partners for them. Moreover, men are more likely to be “minimalists” and “blitzers” in personals-generated courtship, that is, to put forth little effort, and to answer more than one ad. I suggest that a sense of inappropriate entitlement constitutes a form of role overreach — that is, is a feature of the masculine role that clashes with the gender role of women.


Social Psychology Gender Role Potential Date Socioeconomic Attribute Independent Panel 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adelman, M. B., & Ahuvia, A. C. (1991). Mediated channels for mate seeking: A solution to involuntary singlehood?Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8 273–289.Google Scholar
  2. Ahuvia, A. C., & Adelman, M. B. (1992). Formal intermediaries in the marriage market: A typology and review.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54 452–463.Google Scholar
  3. Austrom, D., & Hanel., K. (1983).Looking for companionship in the classified section. Unpublished paper, York University, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
  4. Batten, M. (1992).Sexual strategies: How females choose their mates. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.Google Scholar
  5. Beker, G., & Rosenwald, C. (1985).The personals: The safe way to mate and date. New York: Zebra Books.Google Scholar
  6. Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7 173–189.Google Scholar
  7. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). Physical attractiveness.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 7 157–215.Google Scholar
  8. Block, S. (1984).Advertising for love: How to play the personals. New York: Quill.Google Scholar
  9. Bolig, R., Stein, P. J., & McHenry, P. C. (1984). The self-advertisement approach to dating: Male-female differences.Family Relations, 33 587–592.Google Scholar
  10. Buss, D. M. (1994).The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Cameron, C., Oskamp, S., & Sparks, W. (1977). Courtship American style: Newspaper ads.The Family Coordinator, 26 27–30.Google Scholar
  12. Darden, D. K., & Koski, P. K. (1988). Using the personal ads: A deviant activity?Deviant Behavior, 9 383–400.Google Scholar
  13. Deaux, K., & Hanna, R. (1984). Courtship in the personals column: The influence of gender and sexual orientation.Sex Roles, 11 363–375.Google Scholar
  14. Deutscher, I. (1973).What we say/what we do. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  15. Foxman, S. (1982).Classified love: A guide to the personals. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Goodchilds, J. D., & Zellman, G. L. (1984). Sexual signaling and sexual aggression in adolescent relationships. In N. M. Malamuth & E. Donnerstein (Eds.),Pornography and sexual aggression. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goode, E. (1996). The ethics of deception in social research: A case study.Qualitative Sociology, 19 11–33.Google Scholar
  18. Goode, W. J. (1982).The Family (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Harrison, A. 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
  20. Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986).Mirror, mirror ⋯ The importance of looks in everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  21. Henley, N., Hamilton, M., & Thorne, B. (1985). Womanspeak and manspeak: Sex differences in communication, verbal and nonverbal. In A. G. Sargent (Ed.),Beyond sex roles. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Hirschman, E. C. (1987). People as products: Analysis of a complex marketing exchange.Journal of Marketing, 51 98–108.Google Scholar
  23. Hoyt, L. L., & Hudson, J. W. (1981). Personal characteristics important in mate preference among college students.Social Behavior and Personality, 9 93–96.Google Scholar
  24. Hudson, J. W., & Henze, L. F. (1969). Campus values in mate selection: A replication.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31 772–775.Google Scholar
  25. Kellermann, K. (1984). The negativity effect and its implications for initial interaction.Communication Monographs, 51 37–55.Google Scholar
  26. Koestner, R., & Wheeler, L. (1988). Self-presentation in personal advertisements: The influence of implicit notions of attraction and role expectations.Journal of Personal Relationships, 5 149–160.Google Scholar
  27. Laner, M. R. (1979). Growing older female: Heterosexual and homosexual.Journal of Homosexuality, 4 267–275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994).The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lynn, M., & Bolig, R. (1985). Personal advertisements: Sources of data about relationships.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2 377–383.Google Scholar
  30. Lynn, M., & Shurgot, B. A. (1984). Responses to lonely hearts advertisements: Effects of reported physical attractiveness, physique, and coloration.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10 349–357.Google Scholar
  31. Mathes, E. W. (1975). The effects of physical attractiveness and anxiety on heterosexual attraction over a series of five encounters.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 37 769–773.Google Scholar
  32. Montini, T., & Ovrebo, B. (1990). Personal relationship ads: An informal balancing act.Sociological Perspectives, 33 327–339.Google Scholar
  33. Parsons, T., & Bales, R. (1955).Family socialization and interaction process. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  34. Patzer, G. L. (1985).The physical attractiveness phenomena. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  35. Rajecki, D. W., Bledsoe, S. B., & Rasmussen, J. L. (1991). Successful personal ads: Gender differences and similarities in offers, stipulations, and outcomes.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12 457–469.Google Scholar
  36. Rajecki, D. W., & Rasmussen, J. L. (1992). Personal ads as deviant and unsatisfactory: Support for evolutionary hypothesis.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15 107.Google Scholar
  37. Simenauer, J., & Carroll, D. (1982).Singles: The new Americans. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  38. Stack, S. (1991).Mate selection: An analysis to replies to the personals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North Central Sociological Association, Dearborn, MI.Google Scholar
  39. Tannen, D. (1990).You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  40. Tavris, C., & Wade, C. (1984).The longest war: Sex differences in perspective. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  41. Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottmann, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 508–516.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966).Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  43. Woll, S. (1986). So many to choose from: Decision strategies in videodating.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3 43–52.Google Scholar
  44. Woll, S. B., & Young, P. (1989). Looking for Mr. or Ms. Right: Self-presentation in videodating.Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51 483–488.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erich Goode
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyState University of New YorkStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations