Sex Roles

, Volume 55, Issue 3–4, pp 209–224 | Cite as

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

  • Geoffrey C. UrbaniakEmail author
  • Peter R. Kilmann
Original Article


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.


Nice guy Physical attractiveness Dating success 



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 ( 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.


  1. Bays, C. L. (1994). Ampersand: Lookin’ for love. Wesleyan Argus (p. 7) (November 11).Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Buss, D. M., & Angleitner, A. (1989). Mate selection preferences in Germany and the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1269–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buss, D., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallucci, N. (1984). Effects of men’s physical attractiveness on interpersonal attraction. Sex Roles, 55, 935–938.Google Scholar
  10. Goodwin, R. (1990). Sex differences among partner preferences: Are the sexes really very similar? Sex Roles, 23, 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hollandsworth, S. (1994). What you don’t know about nice guys. Mademoiselle (pp. 120–123) (October).Google Scholar
  12. Iverson, D. (1994). Nice guys finish last (Electronic version). Trincoll Journal. Retrieved February 27, 2002 from
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., & Martin, C. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1983). Social desirability: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 882–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Muller, H. (2002). The jerk appeal. Retrieved February 27, 2002 from
  19. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rostand, E. (1897). Cyrano de Bergerac (English translation by G. Thomas & M. F. Guillemard). Retrieved December 6, 1999 from
  26. Sadalla, E., Kenrick, D., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith, C. (2002). Nice guys finish last. Retrieved February 27, 2002 from
  28. Sprecher, S. (1989). The importance to males and females of physical attractiveness, earning potential, and expressiveness in initial attraction. Sex Roles, 21, 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Virtual Voyage (1999, August). Just ask Sandy: Nice guys finish last. Virtual Voyage Mall. Retrieved January 1, 2003 from
  33. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Psychiatric Rehabilitation DivisionBroughton HospitalMorgantonUSA

Personalised recommendations