Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The total list of partner characteristics were: reliable, honest, kind, interesting personality, sense of humor, intelligence, caring, good health, flexible, can get along with friends, attractive appearance, romantic, ambition, creative, easy-going, finished education, good family background, high salary, relationship experience, wants to have children in future, and religion.

References

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. M. (2003). What does sexual orientation orient? A biobehavioral model distinguishing romantic love and sexual desire. Psychological Review, 110, 173–192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feingold, A. (1992a). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 125–139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feingold, A. (1992b). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (1995). Age preferences for same- and opposite-sex partners. Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 125–133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanzieri, N., & Hildebrandt, T. (2011). Using hegemonic masculinity to explain gay male attraction to muscular and athletic men. Journal of Homosexuality, 58, 275–293.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, I. H., & Colten, M. E. (1999). Sampling gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 99–110. doi:10.1300/J082v37n04_06.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peplau, L. A. (2001). Rethinking women’s sexual orientation: An interdisciplinary, relationship-focused approach. Personal Relationships, 8, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, I. L. (1986). A sociological journey into sexuality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2009). World gender gap report 2009. Retrieved 11 Mar 2010, from http://www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/report2009.pdf.

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, POB 9104, 6500 HE, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Thao Ha, Judith E. M. van den Berg, Rutger C. M. E. Engels & Anna Lichtwarck-Aschoff

Authors
  1. Thao Ha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Judith E. M. van den Berg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rutger C. M. E. Engels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anna Lichtwarck-Aschoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thao Ha.

Appendix

Appendix

Vignettes to indicate high and low social status

Person with a high-status profile:

Name: Tom (female: Anne)

Gender: Male (or female)

Place: Utrecht

Education: University degree in medicine

Profession: Medical doctor

Gross salary: €7000 per month

Hobbies: Meeting with friends, going out

Favorite television programs: Network, Nova (these are shows for upper-class persons in the Netherlands)

Relationship: None

Male with a low-status profile:

Name: Tom (female: Anne)

Gender: Male (or female)

Place: Utrecht

Education: low-level educational degree

Profession: work on a conveyor belt

Gross salary: €1100 per month

Hobbies: Meeting with friends, going out

Favorite television programs: Hart van Nederland, Editie NL (these are shows for lower-class persons in the Netherlands)

Relationship: None

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ha, T., van den Berg, J.E.M., Engels, R.C.M.E. et al. Effects of Attractiveness and Status in Dating Desire in Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women. Arch Sex Behav 41, 673–682 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9855-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9855-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation