Advertisement

Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 673–682 | Cite as

Effects of Attractiveness and Status in Dating Desire in Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women

  • Thao Ha
  • Judith E. M. van den Berg
  • Rutger C. M. E. Engels
  • Anna Lichtwarck-Aschoff
Original Paper

Abstract

The present study examined partner preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and woman, focusing on attractiveness and status. Homosexual (N = 591 men; M age = 28.87 years, SD = 10.21; N = 249 women; M age = 33.36 years, SD = 13.12) and heterosexual participants (N = 346 men; M age = 39.74 years, SD = 14.26; N = 400 women; M age = 35.93 years, SD = 13.72) rated the importance of attractiveness and social status of potential partners and then, in a vignette test, expressed their desire to date hypothetical potential partners based on photographs that varied in attractiveness and status-related profiles. With ratings, heterosexual men valued attractiveness the most, followed by homosexual men, heterosexual women, and homosexual women. Heterosexual women rated social status as most important. When status profiles were manipulated and accompanied with photographs of faces, the pattern of differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals supported the self-reported results. Overall, homosexual men and women have similar mate preferences to heterosexual men and women by showing more dating desire for attractive and high social status persons. Compared to attractiveness, status played a smaller role in dating desire.

Keywords

Sexual orientation Homosexuality Heterosexuality Mate preference Attractiveness Status 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thao Ha was supported by a Mozaiek grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research during the preparation of this article.

References

  1. Bailey, J. M., Gaulin, S., Agyei, Y., & Gladue, B. A. (1994). Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1081–1093. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1081.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (1997). Butch, femme, or straight? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 960–973.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayard, K., Hellerstein, J., Neumark, D., & Troske, K. (2003). New evidence on sex segregation and sex differences in wages from matched employee-employer data. Journal of Labor Economics, 21, 887–922. doi: 10.1086/377026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses testes in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brian Sciences, 12, 1–49. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00023992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., Bruchon-Schweitzer, M., et al. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 societies. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 982–1026). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  8. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buston, P. M., & Emlen, S. T. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proceeding of the National Academy of the United States of America, 100, 8805–8810. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1533220100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships, 9, 271–278. doi: 10.1111/1475-6811.00018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Child, M., Graff Low, K., McDonell McCormick, C., & Cocciarella, A. (1996). Personal advertisements of male-to-female transsexuals, homosexual men, and heterosexuals. Sex Roles, 34, 447–455. doi: 10.1007/BF01547812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, A. B., & Tannenbaum, I. J. (2001). Lesbian and bisexual women’s judgments of the attractiveness of different body types. Journal of Sex Research, 38, 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Currie, T. E., & Little, A. C. (2009). The relative importance of the face and body in judgments of human physical attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173–192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109–128. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feingold, A. (1992a). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feingold, A. (1992b). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., & Matthews, J. (2007). Speed-dating as an invaluable tool for studying romantic attraction: A methodological primer. Personal Relationships, 14, 149–166. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00146.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 673–697. doi: 10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gobrogge, K. L., Perkins, P. S., Baker, J. H., Balcer, K. D., Breedlove, S. M., & Klump, K. L. (2007). Homosexual mating preferences from an evolutionary perspective: Sexual selection theory revisited. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 717–723. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9216-x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gonzales, M. H., & Meyers, S. A. (1993). “Your mother would like me”: Self-presentation in the personal ads of heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ha, T., Overbeek, G., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2010). Effects of attractiveness and social status on dating desire in heterosexual adolescents: An experimental study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 1063–1071. doi: 10.1007/s10508-009-9561-z.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayes, A. F. (1995). Age preferences for same- and opposite-sex partners. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 125–133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heffernan, K. (1999). Lesbian and the internalization of societal standards of weight and appearance. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 3, 121–127. doi: 10.1300/J155v03n04_16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Howard, J. A., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1987). Social or evolutionary theories? Some observations on preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hrdy, S. B. (1997). Raising Darwin’s consciousness: Female sexuality and the prehominid origins of patriarchy. Human Nature, 8, 1–49. doi: 10.1007/s12110-997-1003-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kenrick, D. T., Keefe, R. C., Bryan, A., Barr, A., & Brown, S. (1995). Age preferences and mate choice among homosexuals and heterosexuals: A case for modular psychological mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1166–1172. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Khallad, Y. (2009). Mate selection in Jordan: Effects of sex, socio-economic status, and culture. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 155–168. doi: 10.1177/0265407505050940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krupp, D. B. (2008). Through evolution’s eyes: Extracting mate preferences by linking visual attention to adaptive design. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 57–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.126.3.390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Langlois, J. H., Ritter, J. M., Roggman, L. A., & Vaughn, L. S. (1991). Facial diversity and infant preferences for attractive faces. Developmental Psychology, 27, 79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lanzieri, N., & Hildebrandt, T. (2011). Using hegemonic masculinity to explain gay male attraction to muscular and athletic men. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 275–293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lippa, R. A. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: An examination of biological and cultural influences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 193–208. doi: 10.1007/s10508-006-9151-2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lips, H., & Lawson, K. (2009). Work values, gender, and expectations about work commitment and pay: Laying the groundwork for the “motherhood penalty”? Sex Roles, 61, 667–676. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9670-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Rouby, D. A., & Miller, S. L. (2007). Can’t take my eyes off you: Attentional adhesion to mates and rivals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 389–401. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.389.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meyer, I. H., & Colten, M. E. (1999). Sampling gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 99–110. doi: 10.1300/J082v37n04_06.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meyer, I. H., Rossano, L., Ellis, J. M., & Bradford, J. (2002). A brief telephone interview to indentify lesbian and bisexual women in random digit dialing sampling. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 139–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Olson, I. R., & Marshuetz, C. (2005). Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion, 5, 498–502. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.5.4.498.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peplau, L. A. (2001). Rethinking women’s sexual orientation: An interdisciplinary, relationship-focused approach. Personal Relationships, 8, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reiss, I. L. (1986). A sociological journey into sexuality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saxton, T. K., Burris, R. P., Murray, A. K., Rowland, H. M., & Roberts, S. C. (2009). Face, body and speech cues independently predict judgment of attractiveness. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 23–35. doi: 10.1556/JEP.7.2009.1.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Silverthorne, Z. A., & Quinsey, V. L. (2000). Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 67–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, C. A., & Stillman, S. (2002). What do women want? The effects of gender and sexual orientation on the desirability of physical attributes in the personal ads of women. Sex Roles, 46, 337–342. doi: 10.1023/A:1020280630635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Teuscher, U., & Teuscher, C. (2007). Reconsidering the double standard of aging: Effects of gender and sexual orientation on facial attractiveness ratings. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 631–639. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thornhill, R., & Grammar, K. (1999). The body and face of woman: One ornament that signals quality? Evolution of Human Behavior, 21, 105–120. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00044-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Todd, P. M., Penske, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 15011–15016. doi: 10.1073_pnas.0705290104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 149–164. doi: 10.1007/BF01542229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Townsend, J. H., & Wasserman, T. (1998). Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment and criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171–191. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00008-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Van Straaten, I., Engels, R. C. M. E., Finkenauer, C., & Holland, R. W. (2008). Sex differences in short-term mate preferences and behavioral mimicry: A semi-naturalistic experiment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 902–911. doi: 10.1007/s10508-007-9179-y.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. VanderLaan, D. P., & Vasey, P. L. (2008). Mate retention behavior of men and women in heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 572–585. doi: 10.1007/s10508-006-9139-y.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wood, D., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2009). Using revealed mate preferences to evaluate market force and differential preference explanations for mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1226–1244. doi: 10.1037/a0015300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. World Economic Forum. (2009). World gender gap report 2009. Retrieved 11 Mar 2010, from http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/report2009.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thao Ha
    • 1
  • Judith E. M. van den Berg
    • 1
  • Rutger C. M. E. Engels
    • 1
  • Anna Lichtwarck-Aschoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Behavioural Science InstituteRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations