What Men Want in a Woman: Personality Is More Important than Academic Record or Athleticism

Adrian Furnham^1,2, Alastair McClelland³

¹Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
²Norwegian Business School (BI), Nydalveien, Olso, Norway.
³Research Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London, London, UK.

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2015.68092                

Abstract

Two hundred and fifty eight male respondents with a mean age of 24.5 years were presented with sixteen hypothetical females which they were asked to rate for suitability as long term partners. The hypothetical females differed with respect to: academic record ability (high/average); athleticism (high/low) and two personality variables; Extraversion (introvert/extravert) and Neuroticism (stable/neurotic). Overall males preferred intelligent, athletic, extraverted, stable females as potential long term partners. Effect sizes showed that being Extravert was seen as being the most important characteristic and being athletic as the least important. However, there were also a number of significant two- and three-way interactions between the characteristics of the potential dates. Limitations of the study are noted.

Keywords

Mate Choice, Intelligence, Health and Personality

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Botwin, M., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and Mate Preferences: Five Factors in Mate Selection and Marital Satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65, 107-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00531.x
[2]	Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 12, 1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
[3]	Buss, D. M. (1994). The Strategies of Human Mating. American Scientist, 82, 238-249.
[4]	Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
[5]	Fletcher, G., Simpson, J., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in Intimate Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72
[6]	Furnham, A. (2009). Sex Differences in Mate Selection Preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 262-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.013
[7]	Furnham, A., Ariffin, A., & McClelland, A. (2007). Factors Affecting Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources across Life- Threatening Medical Conditions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2903-2921. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00287.x
[8]	Furnham, A.. & McClelland, A. (2015). What Woman Want in a Man: The Role of Age, Social Class, Ethnicity and Height. Psychology, 6, 278-290. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2015.63028
[9]	Furnham, A., & Tsoi, T. (2012). Personality, Gender and Background Predictors of Mate Selection. North American Journal of Psychology, 14, 435-454.
[10]	Gebauer, J., Leary, M., & Neberich, W. (2012). Big Two Personality and Big Three Mate Preferences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1579-1593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167212456300
[11]	Greenless, I. A., & McGrew, W. C. (1994). Sex and Age Differences in Preferences and Tactics of Mate Attraction: Analysis of Published Advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 59-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(94)90017-5
[12]	Kenrick, D., Groth, G., Trost, M., & Sadalla, E. (1995). Integrating Evolutionary and Social Exchange Perspectives on Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951-969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.951
[13]	Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). Hurrydate: Mate Preferences in Action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.012
[14]	Neto, F., Pinto, M., & Furnham, A. (2012). Sex and Culture Similarities and Differences in Long-Term Partner Preferences. Journal of Relationships Research, 3, 57-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2012.4
[15]	Nettle, D. (2006). The Evolution of Personality Variation in Humans and Other Animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622- 631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.622
[16]	Poropat, A. E. (2009). A Meta-Analysis of the Five-Factor Model of Personality and Academic Performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322-338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014996
[17]	Prokosch, M., Coss, R., Scheib, J., & Blozis, S. (2009). Intelligence and Mate Choice. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 30, 11-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.07.004
[18]	Shackelford, T., Schmitt, D., & Buss, D. (2005). Universal Dimensions of Human Mate Preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447-458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.023
[19]	Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2012). Sex and Age Differences in Mate-Selection Preferences. Human Nature, 23, 447- 466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12110-012-9152-x
[20]	Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2008). The Psychology of Physical Attractiveness. Hove: Psychology Press.
[21]	Szymanowicz, A., & Furnham, A. (2011). Do Intelligent Woman Stay Single? Journal of Gender Studies, 20, 43-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2011.542019
[22]	Wood, D., & Brumbaugh, 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015300