Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 44, Issue 8, pp 2249–2255 | Cite as

An Experimental Study of Men’s and Women’s Personal Ads

Original Paper

Abstract

Personal ads have long served as a potentially rich source of information for social scientists regarding what women and men appear to be looking for in a partner and what they believe potential partners are looking for in them. Almost every study of this type has content analyzed existing personal ads in print media or, more recently, on the Internet. Many of the limits of this research approach were addressed in a study by Strassberg and Holty (2003) utilizing an experimental research design. Contrary to theory, prior research, and prediction, the most popular female seeking male (FSM) ad in that study was one in which the woman described herself as “financially independent, successful [and] ambitious,” producing over 50 % more responses than the next most popular ad, describing the writer as “very attractive and slim.” The present study replicated the Strassberg and Holty methodology, placing the same fictitious MSF and FSM personal ads using far more accessible Internet personal ad sites. Contrary to the previous finding, but consistent with evolutionary theories and social psychological experiments (e.g., Townsend & Wasserman, 1998), ads that presented the woman as attractive and the man as financially successful elicited the most interest.

Keywords

Personal ads Mating strategies Parental investment theory What men and women want 

References

  1. Alterovitz, S. S., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (2009). Partner preferences across the lifespan: Online dating by older adults. Psychology and Aging, 24, 513–517. doi:10.1037/a0015897.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayres, J. (1992). Personal ads: An exploratory investigation into the relationships among ad characteristics, communication apprehension, and contact. Communication Reports, 5, 67–72. doi:10.1080/08934219209367548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baize, H. R., & Schroeder, J. E. (1995). Personality and mate selection in personal ads: Evolutionary preferences in a public mate selection process. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 517–536.Google Scholar
  4. Bereczkei, T., Voros, S., Gal, A., & Bernath, L. (1997). Resources, attractiveness, family commitment: Reproductive decisions in human mate choice. Ethology, 103, 681–699. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1997.tb00178.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate selection: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buss, D. M. (2013). The science of human mating strategies: An historical perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 24, 171–177. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2013.819552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheeseman, K., Goodlin-Fahncke, W., & Tewksbury, R. (2012). Looking for a married hookup: An examination of personal ads posted by men seeking sex with married men. Journal of Men’s Studies, 20, 144–157. doi:10.3149/jms.2002.144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darden, D. K., & Koski, P. R. (1988). Using the personal ads: A deviant activity? Deviant Behavior, 9, 383–400. doi:10.1080/01639625.1988.9967793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, S. (1990). Men as success objects and women as sex objects: A study of personal advertisements. Sex Roles, 23, 43–50. doi:10.1007/BF00289878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawson, B. L., & McIntosh, W. D. (2006). Sexual strategies theories and internet personal advertisements. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9, 614–617. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Backer, C., Braeckman, J., & Farinpour, L. (2008). Mating intelligence in personal ads. In G. Geher & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 77–101). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Denny, A. S., & Tewksbury, R. (2013). Characteristics of successful personal ads in a BDSM on-line community. Deviant Behavior, 34, 153–168. doi:10.1080/01639625.2012.726166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–644.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Goode, E. (1996). Gender and courtship entitlement: Responses to personal ads. Sex Roles, 34, 141–169. doi:10.1007/BF01544293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gretiemeyer, T. (2007). What do men and women want in a partner? Are educated partners always more desirable? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 180–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hatala, M. N., & Prehodka, J. (1996). Content analysis of gay male and lesbian personal advertisements. Psychological Reports, 78, 371–374. doi:10.2466/pr0.1996.78.2.371.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Koestner, R., & Wheeler, L. (1988). Self-presentation in personal advertisements: The influence of implicit notions of attraction and role expectations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 149–160. doi:10.1177/026540758800500202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lance, L. M. (1998). Gender differences in heterosexual dating: A content analysis of personal ads. Journal of Men’s Studies, 6, 297–305.Google Scholar
  21. Lever, J., Grov, C., Royce, T., & Gillespie, B. J. (2008). Searching for love in all the ‘write’ places: Exploring internet personals use by sexual orientation, gender, and age. International Journal of Sexual Health, 20, 233–246. doi:10.1080/19317610802411532.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Sng, O., Fletcher, G. J. O., Valentine, K. A., et al. (2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 757–776.Google Scholar
  23. Lun, J., Mesquita, B., & Smith, B. (2011). Self- and other- presentational styles in the Southern and Northern United States: An analysis of personal ads. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 435–445. doi:10.1002/ejsp.804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lynn, M., & Bolig, R. (1985). Personal advertisements: Sources of data about relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 377–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. doi:10.1177/0146167284103002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morgan, E. M., Richards, T. C., & Van Ness, E. M. (2010). Comparing narratives of personal and preferred partner characteristics in online dating advertisements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 883–888. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Okami, P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 186–241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Padgett, P. M. (2007). Personal safety and sexual safety for women using online personal ads. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 4, 27–37. doi:10.1525/srsp.2007.4.2.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Phua, V. C., & Kaufman, G. (2003). The crossroads of race and sexuality: Date selection among men in personal ads. Journal of Family Issues, 24, 981–994. doi:10.1177/0192513X03256607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rajecki, D., Bledsoe, S. B., & Rasmussen, J. L. (1991). Successful personal ads: Gender differences and similarities in offers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 457–469. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1204_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Russock, H. I. (2011). An evolutionary interpretation of the effect of gender and sexual orientation on human mate selection preferences, as indicated by an analysis of personal advertisements. Behaviour, 148, 307–323. doi:10.1163/000579511X556600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sitton, S., & Blanchard, S. (1995). Men’s preferences in romantic partners: Obesity vs addiction. Psychological Reports, 77, 1185–1186.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, C. A., & Stillman, S. (2002). What do women want? The effects of gender and sexual orientation on the desirability in the personal ads of women. Sex Roles, 46, 337–342. doi:10.1023/A:1020280630635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, J. E., Waldorf, V. A., & Trembath, D. L. (1990). Single White male looking for thin, very attractive…. Sex Roles, 23, 675–685. doi:10.1007/BF00289255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Strassberg, D. S., & Holty, S. (2003). An experimental study of women’s Internet personal ads. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32, 253–260.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Symons, D. (1979). Evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Symons, D. (1990). Adaptiveness and adaptation. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 427–444.Google Scholar
  39. Thiessen, D., Young, R. K., & Burroughs, R. (1993). Lonely hearts advertisements reflect sexually dimorphic mating strategies. Ethology & Sociobiology, 14, 209–229. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(93)90007-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (1997). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 15011–15016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. (1998). Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  43. Trivers, R. L. (1996). Parental investment and sexual selection. In L. D. Houk & L. C. Drickamer (Eds.), Foundations of animal behavior: Classic papers with commentaries (pp. 796–838). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations