INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES

Sex Differences in Mate Preferences Revisited: Do People Know What
They Initially Desire in a Romantic Partner?
Paul W. Eastwick and Eli J. Finkel
Northwestern University
In paradigms in which participants state their ideal romantic-partner preferences or examine vignettes andphotographs, men value physical attractiveness more than women do, and women value earningprospects more than men do. Yet it remains unclear if these preferences remain sex differentiated in
predicting desire for real-life potential partners (i.e., individuals whom one has actually met). In thepresent study, the authors explored this possibility using speed dating and longitudinal follow-up
procedures. Replicating previous research, participants exhibited traditional sex differences when stating
the importance of physical attractiveness and earning prospects in an ideal partner and ideal speed date.
However, data revealed no sex differences in the associations between participants’ romantic interest in
real-life potential partners (met during and outside of speed dating) and the attractiveness and earningprospects of those partners. Furthermore, participants’ ideal preferences, assessed before the speed-dating
event, failed to predict what inspired their actual desire at the event. Results are discussed within thecontext of R. E. Nisbett and T. D. Wilson’s (1977) seminal article: Even regarding such a consequential
aspect of mental life as romantic-partner preferences, people may lack introspective awareness of what
influences their judgments and behavior.
Keywords: sex differences, mate preferences, speed dating, empathy gap, a priori theories

female) desire for romantic partners who are physically attractive
and a greater female (compared with male) desire for romantic
partners who have good earning potential. These findings are
frequently (but not always, see Eagly & Wood, 1999) discussed aspart of an evolutionary psychological perspective on mate selection, which suggests that men and women possess different
evolved, domain-specific psychological adaptations that guidetheir mate preferences and their romantic-partner choices accordingly (Buss, 1989, 1994; Buss & Kenrick, 1998; Buss & Schmitt,1993).1 In the present study, we replicated these ubiquitous sex
differences in romantic-partner preferences and attempted to follow them to their anticipated conclusion: sex-differentiated romantic interest in real-life potential romantic partners depending on thepartner’s physical attractiveness and earning prospects. In fact, thedata never pointed toward such a conclusion; instead, they led us
on a detour that raised fascinating new questions about the meaning of romantic-partner preferences and shed new light on theprocesses underlying romantic-relationship initiation.

After decades of research, it is now well established that men
and women differ in their reports of the importance of certain
characteristics in a romantic partner. Such assessments of ideal
partner preferences or mate preferences have consistently revealed two key sex differences: A greater male (compared withPaul W. Eastwick and Eli J. Finkel, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University.
This research was facilitated by National Science Foundation Grant
0719780 to Eli J. Finkel and by grants from the University Research Grants
Committee at Northwestern University and the Dispute Resolution Research Center at the Kellogg School of Management to Paul W. Eastwickand Eli J. Finkel, as well as a grant from the National Science Foundation
Graduate Research Fellowship Program to Paul W. Eastwick.
We thank Jacob Matthews and Mike Machenry for their programming
genius, and we gratefully acknowledge Alice Eagly, Mike Bailey, Spyros
Konstantopoulos, Joan Linsenmeier, and William Revelle for their insightful comments on this article. We also thank the following individuals fortheir assistance with the speed-dating study: Layla Bermeo, Debra Blade,
Christine Brooks, Bonnie Buik, Madelaine Eulich, Megan Graney, Jeff
Jablons, Kristin Jones, Julie Keller, Jennifer Leyton, Kaidi Liu, Mallory
Martino, Ashley Mason, Jesse Matthews, Abby Mitchell, Jennifer Rosner,
Seema Saigal, Sarah Scarbeck, David Sternberg, Laura Thompson, Ashley
Treadway, Stephanie Yang, and the Northwestern Class Alliance.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paul W.
Eastwick or Eli J. Finkel, Northwestern University, 2029 Sheridan Road,
Swift Hall, Room 102, Evanston, IL 60208-2710. E-mail:p-eastwick@northwestern.edu or finkel@northwestern.edu

1Some evolutionary perspectives also predict that other sex differences
will emerge within the domain of human mating, such as the desired ageof a mate or interest in short-term sexual relationships (Buss, 1989; Buss
& Schmitt, 1993; Kenrick & Keefe, 1992; Symons, 1979). The present
report focuses exclusively on the sex differences in the stated importanceof physical attractiveness and earning prospects in a romantic partner.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008, Vol. 94, No. 2, 245–264
Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 0022-3514/08/$12.00
DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245

245

246

EASTWICK AND FINKEL

Sex Differences in Stated Mate Preferences
The foundation of the modern empirical study of mate preferences dates back to the first half of the 20th century. Sociologist
Reuben Hill asked participants to rate the importance of certain
qualities in a mate and found that men placed more importance on
good looks than did women, whereas women placed more importance on good financial prospects than did men (Hill, 1945). The
best-known study of mate preferences in this “stated preference”
tradition was published by David Buss (1989), who surveyed
10,047 participants spread across 37 different cultures and documented consistent sex differences in the importance of physicalattractiveness and good earning prospects. Buss interpreted thesedata in an evolutionary framework, appealing largely to Trivers’s(1972) parental-investment theory. Buss suggested that (a) men(more than women) value physical attractiveness in a mate because
a woman’s physical attractiveness confers information about her
reproductive value, and (b) women (more than men) value earningprospects in a mate because a woman’s offspring are more likely
to survive given a man’s economic contributions. Many evolutionary psychologists argue that these preferences persist today because they increased the reproductive success of ancestral humans
who possessed them, presumably because such preferences facilitated mate choice by directing ancestral men and women to selectattractive and successful mates, respectively (see Buss & Schmitt,1993).
These two sex differences in stated mate preferences havewithstood a number of additional empirical tests. For example, thedifferences have proven robust in meta-analyses of the statedpreference paradigm (Feingold, 1990, 1992), in a nationally representative sample (Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield, 1994), andamong men and women who anticipated having high incomes(Townsend, 1989; Wiederman & Allgeier, 1992). Other researchers have asked participants to evaluate photographs or descriptionsof opposite-sex individuals; the attractiveness of these stimuli
affected men’s liking more than women’s, and the earning prospects of these stimuli affected women’s liking more than men’s(e.g., Stroebe, Insko, Thompson, & Layton, 1971; Townsend &Wasserman, 1998). In addition, a naturalistic program of research
explored the content of personal advertisements (e.g., Harrison &Saeed, 1977), revealing these same sex differences in the matecharacteristics sought by ad placers (see meta-analyses by Feingold, 1990, 1992). Finally, recent research investigating online
dating has found that (a) men’s (but not women’s) incomes predicted the number of opposite-sex emails received (Hitsch, Hortaçsu, & Ariely, 2006), and (b) the physical attractiveness of users’
online photographs predicted email receipt better for women thanfor men (Olivola et al., 2007).
Several evolutionary psychologists have also posited that distinct psychological adaptations guide people’s behavior in shortterm versus long-term romantic relationships; therefore, men andwomen are likely to value different characteristics in a romantic
partner depending on whether they are currently in a short-term ora long-term mating mindset (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). For example,
women should be more likely to prefer men who exhibit cues totheir genetic fitness (e.g., physical attractiveness) for short-term
compared with long-term relationships (Gangestad & Simpson,
2000). Some research has in fact demonstrated that men andwomen converge in the strength of their preference for physicallyattractive individuals in short-term contexts (Kenrick, Groth,
Trost, & Sadalla, 1993; Li & Kenrick, 2006; but see Buunk,
Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002; Regan, Levin, Sprecher,
Christopher, & Cate, 2000). Similarly, women tend to prioritize
earning prospects when seeking a long-term compared with ashort-term partner (Li & Kenrick, 2006). In general, the extant data
support those evolutionary perspectives that predict that sex differences in mate preferences will be especially robust when individuals consider a long-term compared with short-term relationship.
All of the above studies have helped build a strong case for the
existence of sex differences in mate preferences with respect tophysical attractiveness and earning prospects. Although much of
the support derives from the stated preferences of men and womenas reported on questionnaires or in response to experimental stimuli (e.g., photographs), the personal-ad and online-dating findings
suggest that these sex differences continue to emerge in someactual dating contexts. In addition, participants’ stated preferences
are meaningfully moderated by the short-term versus long-term
distinction, as predicted by several prominent evolutionary perspectives (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).
Nevertheless, the functional importance of these preferences
would be bolstered by demonstrations that they predict what
happens when men and women actually meet one another, either ina live dating context or even when considering real-life potential
marriage partners. Surprisingly, in prior studies in which thetargets of participants’ romantic interest were not hypothetical
ideals or photographs but rather live, flesh-and-blood human beings, the sex differences in physical attractiveness and earningprospects have proven empirically evasive. We now turn ourattention to these curious findings.

Equivocal Evidence for Sex Differences
If men (more than women) prefer physical attractiveness andwomen (more than men) prefer earning prospects, this could
conceivably result in a marriage “tradeoff” such that attractive
women will tend to marry rich men. Two studies are often cited asproviding evidence for this hypothesis. In the first, Elder (1969)
presented data showing that women’s physical attractiveness positively predicted marrying a high-status mate. In the second, Udry
and Eckland (1984) found that attractiveness was positively related
to household income (but not own income) for women; the reasonable inference is that the additional income is a result ofmarrying successful husbands. However, it is difficult to draw any
firm conclusions from these studies for two reasons. First, neither
study examined sex differences in the correlation between attractiveness and spousal earning prospects. Second, attractive people
tend to accrue many extra benefits in life, including better occupational success (see meta-analysis by Langlois et al., 2000);
therefore, an association between women’s attractiveness andmen’s earning prospects could emerge if attractive people simply
marry other attractive people (see Buller, 2005). In other words, it
could be the attractiveness of certain men (not their accompanying
income and success) that successfully attracts good-looking
women. In fact, Stevens, Owens, and Schaefer (1990) assessed theattractiveness and education levels (an indicator of earning prospects) of recently married women and men and indeed found that,after controlling for the fact that attractive women marry attractive

SEX DIFFERENCES REVISITED

men, the apparent association between men’s education and women’s attractiveness disappeared. In short, there is no strong evidence demonstrating that men and women engage in a marriage
tradeoff between physical attractiveness and earning prospects.
Several other creative research paradigms have failed to showthat men and women differ in their romantic interest toward
opposite-sex others who are physically attractive or have goodearning prospects. Speed and Gangestad (1997) asked college
students to nominate friends and acquaintances who were romantically popular, who were physically attractive, and who werelikely to have future financial success. Results revealed no sex difference in either the (large) correlation between popularity and physical attractiveness or the (negligible) correlation between popularityand future financial success. Recently, researchers have started toinvestigate romantic preferences using speed-dating (Eastwick &Finkel, in press-b; Finkel & Eastwick, in press; Finkel, Eastwick, &Matthews, 2007), a paradigm in which opposite-sex individuals meetfor short dates and then decide whether they would (“yes”) or would
not (“no”) be interested in meeting one another again. Data on
individuals (Mage ⫽ 32 years, SD ⫽ 5.3) who attended professional
speed-dating events revealed that (a) income did not make either sex
significantly more desirable, and (b) athough men indeed had a strong
preference for women with attractive faces, bodies, and a lower bodymass index (BMI), women had a similarly strong preference for men
with attractive faces, bodies, and an average BMI (Kurzban &Weeden, 2005). Finally, a speed-dating study with graduate-student
participants did find that men were more likely than women to “yes”
the dates they found physically attractive (Fisman, Iyengar, Kamenica, & Simonson, 2006). Regarding earning prospects, however,
women and men did not differ in their likelihood of “yessing” thedates they judged to be ambitious or the dates who came from wealthy
hometowns. Especially fascinating are data presented by Iyengar,
Simonson, Fisman, and Mogilner (2005) revealing that speed-daters’
stated preferences correlated poorly (rs ranging from .00 to .17) with
their actual yes/no decisions—we return to this point shortly.
With regard to the importance of physical attractiveness, Feingold’s (1990) meta-analysis summarized findings from several different research paradigms, two of which (stated preferences and personalads) are mentioned above. Although men clearly exhibit a stronger
preference for physical attractiveness in these two paradigms, theevidence for the physical-attractiveness sex difference is less robust
when participants are actually interacting with a potential partner.
Feingold (1990) reported that being physically attractive was (a)positively associated with dating activity more strongly for womenthan for men but (b) positively associated with the number ofopposite-sex interactions per day more strongly for men than for
women. Feingold speculated that these findings might actually reflect
a sex difference in the strategies that men and women use to initiate
a romantic relationship (i.e., attractive men have more interactions
because many of their female friends are attempting to initiate a
relationship through friendship). Thus, these data do not unambiguously demonstrate a sex difference in the importance of physicalattractiveness. Feingold also examined data from seven studies inwhich men and women actually went on dates with one another (e.g.,
the well-known “computer dance” study conducted by Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottmann, 1966). The correlation between romantic liking for and physical attractiveness of one’s date was positive forboth men and women, but the meta-analyzed sex difference between
these correlations was small and not significant. Although Feingold’s

247(1990) review is often cited as providing clear evidence for the sex
difference in the importance of physical attractiveness, a closer lookreveals substantial ambiguity in paradigms in which participants actually interact.

Have Participants Told More Than They Know?
It initially seems strange that the sex differences that emerge so
consistently in the literature on stated preferences become soerratic when examining live dating contexts. Fortunately, the extant social psychological literature could shed light on this quandary. One possibility is suggested by the classic Nisbett andWilson (1977) demonstrations that people are often unable tocorrectly report how features of a stimulus affect their evaluationsof it (known as a “causal judgment”). Their studies revealed thatparticipants do not use true introspection to answer such “why”
questions (e.g., “Why do you like this particular pair of stockings?”)—they instead defer to their a priori theories about whethera certain feature might plausibly lead to such an evaluation. Although these a priori theories may be correct at times, Nisbett andWilson made their case by exposing the inaccuracy of participants’
theories across a variety of contexts.
Nevertheless, the Nisbett and Wilson (1977) experiments tested
preferences and judgments that did not hold tremendous meaningin participants’ lives (e.g., stocking preferences). Might somethingas important as mate selection be subject to their critique? Could
mate preferences reflect participants’ potentially inaccurate a priori theories about the characteristics they would find appealing ina romantic partner or why they would choose a certain potential
mate over another? This suggestion is plausible for three reasons.
First, although it may seem odd to equate mate preferences with
Nisbett and Wilson’s problematic causal judgments, one of theoriginal introspective inaccuracy studies (Nisbett & Bellows,
1977) conceived of physical attractiveness in precisely this way.
Physical attractiveness was a reason participants might like or
dislike a job candidate in that study, just as it is a reason thatparticipants might like or dislike a potential romantic partner.
Second, although several subsequent articles demonstrated thatparticipants were aware of what influenced their judgments when
the data were analyzed using alternative statistical procedures(e.g., Smith & Miller, 1978), this awareness typically emerged
only when those judgments were made in rapid succession in acontrolled laboratory setting (e.g., Wright & Rip, 1981; cf. Wilson,
Laser, & Stone, 1982). People still tend to have difficulty reporting
what influences their judgments in everyday life; for example,
participants demonstrated virtually no insight about how theirmood judgments were affected by the amount of sleep they got(Wilson et al., 1982). These difficulties are likely to be compounded in the romantic domain, given how rarely individuals
select a romantic partner or must choose among several interested
and available partners (compared with how often they sleep!).
Third, because mate preferences are typically assessed when aparticipant is in a state of cool rationality, such preferences may
not reflect what inspires actual desire during the emotional throesof romantic attraction. For example, it is easy to imagine anindividual acknowledging (while calmly chatting with friends) the
benefits of dating an individual who is loyal and reliable but soon
thereafter experiencing strong romantic desire in the presence ofsomeone who is unpredictable and exciting. This is an example ofEASTWICK AND FINKEL

248

a cold-to-hot prospective empathy gap (Ariely & Loewenstein,
2005; Loewenstein, 1996, 2005) and similarly hints that statedmate preferences might not map onto priorities in live dating
contexts.
For these three reasons, it is plausible that men and women show
consistent sex differences in their stated mate preferences because
they are reporting consensual a priori theories about what characteristics in a romantic partner will inspire their interest. If individuals were to report not on hypothetical ideal partners but instead on
the actual people they were currently romantically pursuing, it isan open question (based on the previous literature) whether sex
differences would emerge—and the a priori theories account presents a strong case for why they may not.

The Current Research
To explore how the traditionally sex-differentiated characteristics of physical attractiveness and earning prospects predict initialromantic attraction, we took a broad, panoramic snapshot of participants’ romantic lives. Our procedures covered two distinct
contexts: (a) a speed-dating event designed specifically for undergraduate students and (b) an intensive one-month follow-up. During this follow up, we examined in detail how participants’ potential relationships developed, both with respect to their speed-dating“matches” and with respect to other romantic interests whom
participants met outside of speed-dating (“write-ins”). If statedmate preferences serve the function of directing romantic interest,
we should confirm the following three hypotheses:
H1. Sex differences in stated preferences. Men will state thatthey prefer physical attractiveness in a romantic partner
more than women do, and women will state that they
prefer earning prospects in a romantic partner more thanmen do. These established sex differences will be evident in reports of both an ideal partner and an ideal
speed-date.
H2. Sex differences in initiation. Given H1, men (comparedwith women) will demonstrate greater interest in andpursuit of potential partners they find attractive, andwomen (compared with men) will demonstrate greaterinterest in and pursuit of potential partners they judge tohave good earning prospects. In addition, as partner
preferences differ depending on the degree to which men
and women approach potential partners with a short-term
versus a long-term mindset, these sex differences mightprove especially robust among individuals who are more(rather than less) interested in pursuing a long-term,
serious relationship (this short-term/long-term mindset
hypothesis is called H2A).
H3. Individual differences in initiation. A participant who
states a preference for physical attractiveness (or earningprospects) in a romantic partner will also demonstrate
greater interest in and pursuit of potential partners he/she
judges to be physically attractive (or to have good earning prospects). In other words, stated preferences willcorrelate with in vivo preferences (those revealed within
the actual dating context).

However, if stated preferences do not reflect participants’ genuine
introspective insight but rather their inaccurate a priori theories
about what characteristics in a potential partner might inspire theirromantic interest, H2, H2A, and H3 might not be confirmed.
One shortcoming of previous live dating research is that thosestudies have often employed only a single dependent variable(sometimes consisting of only a single item). Of course, there aremany intervening steps between meeting someone and forming/
maintaining a romantic relationship with that person; these steps
include the initial spark of interest, sharing contact information,
initiating and enjoying time spent together, feelings of romantic
passion, and so forth. Therefore, in the present report, we employ
17 different dependent variables (collectively referred to as
relationship-initiation dependent variables) and draw conclusions
by meta-analyzing results across these diverse measures.

MethodParticipants
Using flyers posted around campus and informational e-mails
sent to the freshmen, sophomore, and junior class Listservs, we
recruited 163 undergraduate students (81 women, 82 men) toparticipate in a study of romantic-attraction processes, including a
speed-dating component (for greater procedural detail, see Finkel
et al., 2007). Participants were 19.6 years old on average (SD ⫽1.0 years); 36.2% were freshmen, 38.7% were sophomores, 21.5%
were juniors, and 3.7% were seniors. (We recruited seniors lessaggressively because they were scheduled to graduate approximately 6 weeks after the events.) The sample was 73.6% White/
Caucasian, 10.4% Asian, 5.5% South Asian, 4.3% Hispanic, 2.5%
African American, 1.2% Middle Eastern, and 2.5% unreported.
Participants were paid $5 at the end of the speed-dating event
and $3 for every follow-up questionnaire (out of 10) completed. In
addition, those who completed at least 9 of the 10 follow-up
questionnaires were paid a bonus of $10.

ProcedurePart 1: Pre-event questionnaire. The first part of the study
consisted of a 30-min online pre-event questionnaire assessing
background variables about the participants. Participants completed this questionnaire 6 –13 days before attending a speeddating event.
Part 2: Speed-dating. The second part of this study consistedof a full-fledged 2-hr speed-dating event at which participants
pursued “matches” with opposite-sex participants. Events weremodeled loosely on procedures used by professional speed-datingcompanies and took place in a secluded art gallery located in
Northwestern University’s student union. Tables and chairs werepositioned throughout the room such that each pair of speed-daters
could communicate easily with one another while seated a comfortable distance away from other pairs. Nonalcoholic beverages,
lighting, and music were selected to make the event elegant andwere held constant across all speed-dating events.
Upon each participant’s arrival at the event, one research assistant gave him or her a name tag, clipboard, pen, a set ofinteraction-record questionnaires, and a unique ID (letters for
women, numbers for men). The research assistant instructed par-

SEX DIFFERENCES REVISITED

ticipants to write their ID and first name on their name tag. Next,
a second research assistant took a digital photo of the participant
and was willing to take additional photos until the participant was
happy with one. Once all participants had arrived, the experimenter explained how the speed-dating event would proceed.
For three randomly determined speed-dating events, men remained seated while women rotated from man to man; for theremaining four speed-dating events, women remained seated while
men rotated. Each speed-date lasted for 4 min; participants conversed freely during this time. After each speed-date, the experimenter blew a whistle to signal that participants should rotate to
the location for their next speed-date. Before beginning this next
speed-date, however, participants completed an interaction record
about the previous date and jotted notes to themselves to takehome. After 2 min passed, the experimenter signaled for participants to complete their interaction records and begin their next
4-min date. Participants dated all opposite-sex individuals present
and had between 9 and 13 dates, depending on event attendance.
Once all dates had been completed, the experimenter explained tothe participants how to complete the matching process and remaining questionnaires.
After the event, participants returned to the speed-dating Web
site, where they indicated whether they would be interested inmeeting again each person they had speed-dated. Participants
clicked “yes” or “no” next to the photograph and ID of each
speed-dater. When two speed-daters replied “yes” to one another,
this was called a “match”; only matches were later provided withthe ability to contact one another (see below). Participants also
indicated whether they would allow “missed matches” (speeddaters who had said “no” to the participant but to whom theparticipant had said “yes”) to learn that the participant had said
“yes” to them. If the participant allowed this option, the missed
match was given the option of changing his/her previous “no”
response to a “yes,” thus securing an extra match for both theparticipant and the missed match. In total, 100% of participants
completed the matching process, and 54% chose the missedmatches option. Participants generated a total of 206 matchingpairs (average number of matches per participant ⫽ 2.53, SD ⫽2.0).
At 5 p.m. the day following the speed-dating event, participantsreceived an e-mail directing them to a Web site where they could
view their matches. The Web site displayed the photograph, ID,
and first name of each speed-dater with whom the participant had
a match. Participants were also given the ability to change their“no” to a “yes” for any speed-daters who agreed to the missedmatches option described above. After completing a brief postmatch questionnaire, participants could then click on a button next
to each match’s photograph to get to the speed-dating messaging
page. Participants could use this page to send a message to a matchand to view messages received from that match.
Part 3: Follow-up. Twenty-four hr after they had access totheir match information (and 48 hr after the speed-dating event),
participants received an e-mail directing them to a Web site where
they could complete the first of 10 follow-up questionnaires. They
received similar e-mails every 72 hr until the follow-up portion of
the study was completed (30 days after the speed-dating event).
They were instructed to complete each questionnaire before going
to bed that night, although we accepted late questionnaires. Of the
92% of speed-dating participants who elected to take part in the249

follow-up portion of the study, 69% completed at least 9 of the 10questionnaires.
On each of the 10 follow-up questionnaires, participants responded to items about each speed-dating match. In addition,
participants were asked to provide the name of anyone else (aside
from their matches) whom they considered to be a romanticinterest. After providing the name of this “write-in” target, they
completed follow-up questions about this individual, in addition totheir matches, at each wave. Participants could provide multiple
write-in targets; altogether, participants reported on 143 write-ins
over the course of the month. Most of the write-ins (78%) attended
Northwestern University or lived in the Chicago/Evanston, Illinois
area, whereas 20% were currently living or going to school elsewhere in the United States (no information was available for theremaining 2%). According to the participants’ reports, the writeins were 20.1 years old on average (SD ⫽ 2.0 years), participants
had known the write-ins for an average of 380 days (Mdn ⫽ 180days), and they had been romantically interested in them for an
average of 245 days (Mdn ⫽ 68 days). We refer to follow-up
questionnaire targets as either a “speed-date/match” or “write-in”
to reflect the two different ways a target could be included in thedata set. Write-ins are useful because they can address whether anyof the follow-up results can be explained away as strange anomalies that are only characteristic of relationships that grow out of aspeed-date (see Eastwick & Finkel, in press-b; Finkel et al., 2007).
Therefore, data pertaining to write-ins are presented separatelyfrom those pertaining to speed-dating matches.

Materials
All measures included in the present report (except for “yessing”) were assessed on four different questionnaires: pre-event,interaction-record, postmatch, and follow-up. The present reportfocuses on the following three traits that might describe a romantic
partner: physically attractive (assessed by the items “physicallyattractive” and “sexy/hot”), earning prospects (“good career prospects,” “ambitious/driven”), and personable (“fun/exciting,” “responsive,” “dependable/trustworthy,” “friendly/nice”). The firsttwo constructs were examined because of their relevance to theliterature on sex differences in mate preferences; the third serves asa useful comparison and includes characteristics that both men andwomen desire in a romantic partner (e.g., Fletcher, Simpson,
Thomas, & Giles, 1999; see factor analysis that follows).
Stated mate preferences. Stated mate preferences were assessed in two different ways (ideal partner and speed-date) at two
different times (pre-event and Wave 10 follow up). First, as part ofthe pre-event questionnaire, participants rated the importance ofphysically attractive (␣ ⫽ .83), earning prospects (␣ ⫽ .75), andpersonable (␣ ⫽ .71) characteristics in an ideal romantic partner ona scale from 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely). We refer to thesereports as pre-event ideal partner stated preferences.
Given that the present study was inspired by the literature on
ideal partner preferences, these pre-event ideal partner reports
seemed the most logical measures to use for construct validation.
We conducted a factor analysis (principal axis factoring withpromax rotation) on the eight items (see above) that were intended
to assess the three ideal partner constructs of interest. Inspection of
the scree plot revealed a three-factor solution: The two items
assessing Physically Attractive loaded primarily on the first factor,

250

EASTWICK AND FINKEL

the four items assessing Personable loaded primarily on the second, and the two items assessing Earning Prospects loaded primarily on the third (all factor loadings ⬎ .5 with no double
loadings).
Of course, an ideal partner preference is context-free, and theprinciple of attitude– behavior compatibility (Ajzen & Fishbein,2005) suggests that such a preference would best predict behavior
when it refers to the same, specific context in which the behavior
will take place. Therefore, also on the pre-event questionnaire,participants received the following instructions: “How much do
you think the following characteristics will matter in your decision
to ‘yes’ or ‘no’ someone after your 4-minute date?” Participants
then responded to the identical items reported above that assessed
Physically Attractive (␣ ⫽ .84), Earning Prospects (␣ ⫽ .72), andPersonable (␣ ⫽ .44) characteristics.2 We refer to these reports as
pre-event speed-date stated preferences.
On the tenth and final follow-up questionnaire, participants
again reported their ideal romantic partner preferences for Physically Attractive (␣ ⫽ .76), Earning Prospects (␣ ⫽ .79), andPersonable (␣ ⫽ .77), just as they had on the pre-event questionnaire. In addition, participants reported the likelihood that Physically Attractive (␣ ⫽ .76), Earning Prospects (␣ ⫽ .73), andPersonable (␣ ⫽ .58) characteristics would matter in their decision
to “yes” or “no” someone after a 4-min date should they go
speed-dating again. These reports are referred to as Wave 10 ideal
partner and Wave 10 speed-date stated preferences, respectively.
Partner characteristics. As part of the interaction record, participants rated on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely) the
extent to which they thought each speed-dating partner was characterized by the identical items reported above that assessed Physically Attractive (␣ ⫽ .95), Earning Prospects (␣ ⫽ .86), andPersonable (␣ ⫽ .84) characteristics. In addition, on eachfollow-up questionnaire, participants used a 1–9 scale to rate theextent to which they thought each speed-dating match and write-in
was characterized by the items assessing Physically Attractive(␣ ⫽ .92), Earning Prospects (␣ ⫽ .79), and Personable (␣ ⫽ .81)
characteristics.
Relationship initiation dependent variables. On a scale from 1(strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree), the interaction record
assessed participants’ reports of romantic desire for the speeddating partner (“I really liked my interaction partner,” “I was
sexually attracted to my interaction partner,” and “I am likely tosay ‘yes’ to my interaction partner”; ␣ ⫽ .88) and chemistry withhim or her (“My interaction partner and I seemed to have a lot incommon,” “. . . seemed to have similar personalities,” and “. . . hada real connection”; ␣ ⫽ .91).
All postmatch questionnaire and follow-up questionnaire
relationship-initiation dependent variables were assessed on scales
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). As part of thepostmatch questionnaire, participants indicated for each match
their level of match excitement (“I am extremely excited that I
matched with [name]”), their initiation plans (“I am very likely toinitiate contact with [name]”), and their initiation hopes (“I hopethat [name] initiates contact with me”).
On each of the 10 follow-up questionnaires, participants responded to items pertaining to each speed-dating match and toeach write-in. Furthermore, the items about each match/write-in
were customized depending on the participants’ answer to thefollowing pivot question: “What is the current status of yourrelationship with [name]?” Participants were given the following
response options to this question: (a) dating seriously, (b) dating
casually, (c) friend with romantic potential, (d) acquaintance withromantic potential, (e) friend without romantic potential, (f) acquaintance without romantic potential, (g) no relationship at all.
Participants completed the pivot question about each match/write-in every time they completed a follow-up questionnaire. If aparticipant selected option a, b, c, or d, this match/write-in wasconsidered romantic, and if a participant selected option e, f, or g,this match/write-in was considered nonromantic. If a participant
selected option g on two (or more) consecutive waves, no items
were assessed for that match/write-in at that wave. A smaller
subset of items was required for nonromantic compared to romantic matches/write-ins (for greater detail, see Finkel et al., 2007).
If participants selected either a romantic or a nonromantic
response to the pivot question, participants completed an item
assessing to what degree this particular match/write-in was someone they wanted to get to know better (“I am eager to get to know
[name] better”). In addition, if participants responded “yes” thatthey had “hung out with [name] in person or corresponded with[name] not in person (e-mail, instant messaging, phone, etc.)”
since the last time they completed a follow-up questionnaire, they
completed a one-item measure of date initiation (“For the mostpart, I was the one to initiate correspondence/hanging out with[name]”) and a one-item measure of date enjoyment (“Corresponding/hanging out with [name] has been enjoyable”).
If participants selected a romantic response to the pivot question, they completed the following additional measures: a five-item
measure of romantic passion (“I feel a great deal of sexual desire
for [name],” “I think [name] and I have ‘soulmate’ potential,” “I
am romantically interested in [name],” “[name] is the only person
I want to be romantically involved with,” and “[name] always
seems to be on my mind”; ␣ ⫽ .84), three items assessing to what
extent the participant desired a one-night stand, a casual relationship, and a serious relationship with the match/write-in (“I would
like to have a one-night stand with [name],” “. . . a casual relationship with [name],” “. . . a serious relationship with [name]”),and an item assessing commitment to the match/write-in (“I amcommitted to pursuing/maintaining a relationship with [name]”).
Finally, if participants responded “yes” that they had “engaged
in any romantic physical contact (kissing or other sexual activities)
with [name]” since the last time they had completed a follow-up
questionnaire, they completed a one-item measure of sexual initiation (“I basically initiated the physical contact with [name]”), a
one-item measure of sexual enjoyment (“I enjoyed the romantic
physical contact with [name]”), and an item assessing to what2

Although we were dismayed by the low alpha of the Personable index
for the speed-date preferences, we included it because the alphas for the
Personable ideal-partner preferences and partner characteristics were acceptable. Although dropping the item fun/exciting might have produced afactor more similar to the Warmth/Trustworthiness factor identified by
Fletcher et al. (1999), doing so actually reduced all relevant alphas in thepresent data set. Regardless, changing the Personable factor by dropping
this item did not substantially alter the results reported in this article.

SEX DIFFERENCES REVISITED

extent the physical contact was a good idea (“having romantic
physical contact with [name] was a bad idea [reverse scored]”).3
Potential moderator constructs. In the present report, we explore five moderators of H2 and H3. First, we describe the threeconstructs that were measured at the level of the individual participant (i.e., person-level moderators). Two of these three wereintended to address H2A: Perhaps sex differences in the association between the relationship-initiation dependent variables andphysical attractiveness or earning prospects will be larger forindividuals who are more (compared with less) interested in acquiring a serious romantic relationship (Buss & Schmitt, 1993;
Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The first moderator was desire fora serious relationship (target-general), assessed on the pre-event
questionnaire by the item: “These days, how much would you liketo have a serious relationship” (1 ⫽ not at all, 7 ⫽ very much). The
second moderator is a three-item measure of sociosexuality, aconstruct that assesses an individual’s willingness to engage inshort-term sexual relationships (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991). The
three items were assessed on the pre-event questionnaire (1 ⫽strongly disagree, 7 ⫽ strongly agree) and were selected from theoriginal Simpson and Gangestad (1991) inventory: “Sex withoutlove is okay,” “I would have to be closely attached to someone(both emotionally and psychologically) before I could feel comfortable and fully enjoy having sex with him or her” (reverse
scored), and “I can imagine myself being comfortable and enjoying ‘casual’ sex with different partners” (␣ ⫽ .86). The third was
self-perceived mate value and was assessed on the pre-event questionnaire (1 ⫽ strongly disagree, 7 ⫽ strongly agree) by the items“I am a desirable dating partner,” “In general, I tend to have many
options for romantic partners,” and “Members of the opposite sex
that I like tend to like me back” (␣ ⫽ .68). We used this construct
to probe H3: Perhaps individuals are more likely to demonstrateinterest in and pursue potential partners who approximate theirideals to the extent that they are high (or perhaps low) in selfperceived mate value.
In the present report, we explored two additional moderatorsthat were assessed on the follow-up questionnaire about eachmatch/write-in classified as romantic (i.e., target-specific moderators). The first is desire for a serious relationship (targetspecific), which also serves as one of the relationship-initiation
dependent variables (see above). The second is partner-specificattachment anxiety, assessed by the items “I need a lot of reassurance that [name] cares about me,” “I worry that [name] doesn’tcare about me as much I care about him/her,” and “I feel uncertain
about [name]’s true feelings for me” (␣ ⫽ .80). This constructrepresents the uncertainty and need for reassurance that individuals
often experience in romantic relationships. Elsewhere (Eastwick &Finkel, in press-a), we have explored this construct in detail andargued that it is a common experience during the early stages of aromantic relationship. For the purposes of the present report, wehypothesized that partner-specific attachment anxiety could foster
an empathy gap (Loewenstein, 2005) between participants’ statedpreferences (which they likely reported in a “cool” cognitive state)
and the characteristics that actually inspire their passion for potential romantic partners. For simplicity, the analyses for the twotarget-specific moderators were conducted on the dependent variable romantic attraction (␣ ⫽ .87); this DV is an average of theseven romantic-initiation dependent variable items (the five items
encompassing passion, the get to know better item, and the com-251

mitment item), which (a) were necessarily assessed for that matchor write-in at that wave and (b) were not obviously redundant witheither moderator (e.g., the one-night stand and casual relationshipitems).
Analysis strategy. We used multilevel data-analytic strategies
to examine the present data (Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998;
Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Data collected prior to the follow-up
questionnaires have a two-level structure: Measures assessed about
each speed-date/match (Level 1) are nested within participant(Level 2). Data collected on the follow-up questionnaires have athree-level structure: Measures assessed on each of the 10
follow-up questionnaires (Level 1) are nested within each match/write-in (Level 2), which are nested within participant (Level 3).
For example, a participant who was a “friend with romantic
potential” with two different matches for all 10 follow-up questionnaires would provide 20 different associations between partner
characteristics and passion (10 for each match). All analyses werecarried out in SAS with either the NLMIXED procedure (to predict“yessing” using logistic regression) or the MIXED procedure (forall remaining dependent variables). The intercept was permitted tovary randomly at Level 2 and Level 3 (where applicable). Allvariables were left unstandardized (unless indicated otherwise);participant sex was coded male ⫽ ⫺.5, female ⫽ .5.

Results
Stated Mate Preferences
Table 1 presents means for stated mate preferences separately
by sex. In line with H1, the expected sex differences emerged. On
the pre-event questionnaire, men (more than women) reported thatthe characteristic physically attractive was important in an ideal
romantic partner and would matter in their decision to say yes toa speed-date. In addition, the same sex difference emerged 1
month later when participants again reported these ideal partnerand speed-date stated preferences. The sex differences for physically attractive were medium to large in size (mean d ⫽ ⫺.55),
according to Cohen’s (1992) conventions. In addition, women(more than men) estimated on the pre-event questionnaire that thecharacteristic earning prospects was important in an ideal romantic partner and would matter in their decision to say yes to a
speed-date. One month later, this sex difference was marginallysignificant for participants’ reports of an ideal partner but did notreach significance for the speed-date stated preferences. The sex
differences for earning prospects were small to medium in size
(mean d ⫽ .35). As expected, men and women did not differ in theimportance they ascribed to personable characteristics, either in an
ideal romantic partner or on a speed-date (mean d ⫽ .07).

Sex Differences in Relationship Initiation
H2 states that sex differences should emerge in the partner
characteristics that predict relationship initiation. First, we would
expect that finding a potential romantic partner physically attractive should better predict relationship initiation for men than for3
Responses to these three items are only reported for write-ins, because
participants rarely reported engaging in romantic physical contact with afellow speed-dater.

EASTWICK AND FINKEL

252

Table 1
Sex Differences in Stated Mate Preferences Among Speed-Daters
Participant sex
Male
Stated preference
Physically attractive
Pre-event ideal partner
Pre-event speed-date
Wave 10 ideal partner
Wave 10 speed-date
Earning prospects
Pre-event ideal partner
Pre-event speed-date
Wave 10 ideal partner
Wave 10 speed-date
Personable
Pre-event ideal partner
Pre-event speed-date
Wave 10 ideal partner
Wave 10 speed-dateFemaleSex difference

M

SD

M

SD

t

df

d

8.04
7.78
8.01
7.64

1.10
1.08
0.81
1.20

7.18
7.00
7.62
6.90

1.31
1.60
1.22
1.46

⫺4.52***⫺3.64***⫺2.02*⫺2.85**

156
140
109
110

⫺0.71
⫺0.57
⫺0.36
⫺0.54

6.91
4.42
7.34
5.12

1.53
1.96
0.96
1.94

7.73
5.05
7.72
5.42

1.36
2.19
1.03
1.93

3.61***
2.47*
1.93†
0.79

161
161
109
110

0.57
0.30
0.38
0.16

8.10
7.03
8.12
7.21

0.73
1.06
0.68
0.94

8.10
7.21
8.20
7.20

0.71
1.09
0.74
1.27

0.01
1.05
0.60
0.06

161
161
109
110

0.00
0.17
0.11
0.01

Note. ns ranged from 45 to 82 men and from 66 to 81 women. On a 1–9 scale, higher numbers indicate greater stated importance of physically attractive,
earning prospects, or personable characteristics in an ideal romantic partner or in the hypothetical decision to “yes” someone after a 4-min date. Variables
were assessed both before the speed-dating event and at the 10th follow-up wave (1 month later). d ⫽ difference between the male and female means divided
by the pooled standard deviation.
†p ⬍ .10. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

women. To test this hypothesis, we regressed the relationshipinitiation dependent variables (one at a time) onto physicallyattractive judgments separately for reports of speed-dating partners/matches and write-ins and separately for men and women.
The Bs representing the associations between physically attractive
and each dependent variable are presented separately by sex in thefirst four columns of Table 2. For dependent variables assessed
prior to the follow-up questionnaire (above the dashed line), physically attractive judgments were assessed on the interaction record,
whereas for dependent variables assessed on the follow-up questionnaire (below the dashed line), physically attractive judgments
were assessed at the same follow-up wave.
Overall, participants’ judgments of a potential romantic partner’s physical attractiveness positively and significantly predicted
the relationship-initiation dependent variables. In addition, foreach dependent variable, the significance of the difference between
the male and female Bs was tested by the interaction term in a
supplementary regression analysis that entered physically attractive, participant sex, and their interaction as predictors (Cohen,
Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Sporadic sex differences emerged
for physically attractive (see bolded Bs in Table 2); for example,
men were more likely than women to initiate correspondence/hanging out with matches they found physically attractive (.35 vs.
.10), whereas women were more likely than men to enjoy corresponding/hanging out with matches they found physically attractive (.22 vs. .11). A count of these sex differences reveals twocases in which the B was significantly more positive for men andthree cases in which the B was significantly more positive forwomen out of 25 pairs of male/female regression Bs.
To gain a formal, less impressionistic sense of the big picture,
we calculated the overall effect size r for the association between
physically attractive and the relationship-initiation variables (seebottom of Table 2). We calculated these correlations using meta-

analytic models that included each relationship-initiation variable
as a random effect and participant sex as a fixed effect (Cooper &Hedges, 1994; Konstantopoulos & Hedges, 2004). For example,
each of the 28 speed-date/match Bs (see first two columns in Table2) was first standardized and then weighted by the reciprocal of its
variance (calculated from the Huber-White sandwich standard
error);4 the intercept given by the model is the average r, and thefixed effect for sex indicates the average size of the sex difference
across the DVs. This same procedure was implemented separately
for speed-dating partners/matches and write-ins. In general, physical attractiveness predicted relationship initiation quite well: Correlations were .43 (men) and .46 (women) for reports of speeddating partners/matches and .26 (men) and .31 (women) for reports
of write-ins.5 Finally, the size of the sex difference (i.e., the fixed
effect of sex in the meta-analytic model, similar to the effect sizeq, which can be interpreted like a correlation, see Cohen, 1992) ispresented in the final row of Table 2. For both speed-dating
partners/matches and write-ins, the sex difference was nonsignificant. Descriptively speaking, both sex differences were extremely
small (r ⫽ .03, p ⫽ .673, and r ⫽ .05, p ⫽ .499, for speed-dating
partners/matches and write-ins, respectively) and, if anything,
4

For “yessing,” the B estimate given by NLMIXED was first converted
to a d(B ⫻ 冑3/␲) and then to an r( 冑d2/d2 ⫹ 4), and finally the variance of
this correlation was calculated with the formula (1 ⫺ r2)2/(N ⫺ 2) (Haddock, Rindskopf, & Shadish, 1998; Rosenthal, 1994).
5
Note that the smaller effect size for write-ins compared with matches
is probably because of differences in variables assessed for these two kindsof targets; many of the largest effects were found for dependent variables
assessed either on the interaction record or the postmatch questionnaire(which did not apply to write-ins), and effects for the eight dependent
variables assessed for both matches and write-ins are roughly comparable
in size.

SEX DIFFERENCES REVISITED

253

Table 2
Associations (Regression Bs) Between Partner Characteristics and Relationship-Initiation Dependent Variables
Physically attractive
Speed-date/match
Dependent variable

么B

乆B

Earning prospects

Write-in
么B

乆B

Speed-date/match
么B

乆B

Personable

Write-in
么B

乆B

Speed-date/match
么B

乆B

Write-in
么B

乆B

Interaction record
Romantic desire.76***.74***.49***.29***.90***.95***
Chemistry.44***.51***.50***.32***.89***
1.02***“Yessing”
1.01***.80***.44***.17***.94***
1.11***
Postmatch
Excitement.49***.44***
.14†
.17*
.28**
.37***
Initiation plans.44***.41***.07.16*.10.38***
Initiation hopes.40***.48***
.00
.20**
.00
.38***------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Follow-up (all)Get to know better.46***.39***.48***.37***.27***.28***.34***.23***.64***.60***.56***.44***
Date initiation.35***
.10
.09
.18*
.20*
.06
.16†
.24*
.10
⫺.07
.07
.16
Date enjoyment.11†.22***.35***.37***.22**.31***.30***.26***.63***.65***.77***.64***
Follow-up (romantic)
Passion.31***.39***.30***.43***
.13*
.16*
.08
.10†
.27**
.26***.31***.39***
One-night stand⫺.07.28*** ⫺.14
.07
.01
⫺.25*
.16†
⫺.19*
⫺.26†
⫺.23*
⫺.09
.09
Casual relationship.26***.42***
.12
.05
.20**
.25*
.09
⫺.12
.32**
.32**
.32**
.06
Serious relationship.58***.37***.41***.43***
.26**
.17
.27**
.07
.40**
.23*
.65***.39***
Commitment.28**.45***.32**.41***
.12
.14
⫺.01
.20*
.31*
.40***.39**.48***
Follow-up (sexual)
Sexual initiation
.22
.31*
.19
.03
.08
.37*
Sexual enjoyment.36***.33***
.11
.10
.17
.14
Contact good idea
.27
.42**
.44*
.53***.14.66***Overall r
Sex difference r.43***.46***.03.26***.31***.05.19***.16***
⫺.04

.16**

.18**
.02

.29***.32***.03.25***.27***.02

Note. Regression Bs indicate the relationship between physically attractive, earning prospects, or personable partner characteristics and 17 relationshipinitiation dependent variables (each characteristic was regressed separately). Partner characteristics were measured on a 1–9 scale with higher numbers
indicating greater presence of the characteristic in the partner. Relationship-initiation dependent variables were measured on a 1–7 scale, except for romantic
desire and chemistry, which were measured on a 1–9 scale, and “yessing,” which is coded 1 for yes and 0 for no. Bs in the speed-date/match column were
calculated on potential partners whom the participants met while speed-dating; Bs in the write-in column were calculated on potential partners whom theparticipants met independently of speed-dating. Bolded Bs indicate a significant or marginally significant sex difference; the bolded B is always the morepositive of the two. Partner characteristics ( physically attractive, earning prospects, personable) were assessed either at the speed-dating event (above thedashed line) or at each follow-up wave (below the dashed line). The overall r row indicates the meta-analyzed effect size r across all Bs reported in thecolumn. The sex difference r row indicates the size of the difference between men’s reports (么) and women’s reports (乆); a negative r indicates that thecharacteristic was a stronger determinant of men’s romantic interest.
†p ⬍ .10. * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

trending such that physical attractiveness was a more important
determinant of women’s relationship initiation. Although physicalattractiveness appears to predict romantic interest in the earlystages of potential relationships, we found no evidence for sex
differences in its importance.
H2 also suggests that finding a potential romantic partner tohave good earning potential should better predict relationshipinitiation for women than for men. The four middle columns ofTable 2 present the associations between participants’ judgments of earning prospects and each dependent variable separately by sex and separately for speed-dating partners/matches
and write-ins. Overall, participants’ judgments of a potential
romantic partner’s earning prospects positively and significantly predicted the relationship-initiation dependent variables.
Again, sporadic sex differences emerged for earning prospects(see bolded Bs in Table 2); surprisingly, at the event itself, men
seemed especially interested (compared with women) in the
speed-dating partners they felt had good earning prospects. A
count of these sex differences across the 25 pairs of male/

female regression Bs reveals five cases in which the B was
significantly more positive for men and one case in which the
B was significantly more positive for women. Again, moreformally, we calculated the overall r for the association between
earning prospects and relationship initiation using the samemeta-analytic procedures described above. As displayed at thebottom of Table 2, earning prospects predicted relationshipinitiation, although the correlations were smaller than thosefound for physically attractive: Correlations were .19 (men) and.16 (women) for reports of speed-dating partners/matches and.16 (men) and .18 (women) for reports of write-ins. Again, there
were no significant sex differences in these overall associations;the difference between the male and female rs were again
descriptively very small (r ⫽ ⫺.04, p ⫽ .480, and r ⫽ .02, p ⫽.825, for speed-dating partners/matches and write-ins, respectively), with one trending in the male direction and one trending
in the female direction. Although earning prospects did positively predict romantic interest, again we found no evidence forsex differences in the importance of this variable.

254

EASTWICK AND FINKEL

Finally, for comparative purposes, we examined the relationshipbetween personable characteristics and the relationship-initiation
variables, although we would not expect to find systematic sex
differences in these associations. The final four columns of Table
2 present the associations between participants’ judgments ofpersonable and each dependent variable separately by sex andseparately for speed-dating partners/matches and write-ins. Overall, participants’ judgments of a potential romantic partner’s personable characteristics positively and significantly predicted therelationship-initiation dependent variables. Three sex differences(out of 25) emerged for personable in the female direction (seebolded Bs in Table 2). Again, we calculated the overall r for the
association between personable and relationship initiation using
the same meta-analytic procedures described previously. As displayed at the bottom of Table 2, personable predicted relationshipinitiation moderately well: Correlations were .29 (men) and .32(women) for reports of speed-dating partners/matches and .25(men) and .27 (women) for reports of write-ins. As expected, there
were no significant sex differences in these overall associations(r ⫽ .03, p ⫽ .714, and r ⫽ .02, p ⫽ .812, for speed-dating
partners/matches and write-ins, respectively).
The preceding analyses revealed that participants’ own judgments of the physical attractiveness and earning prospects ofpotential romantic partners predicted their romantic interest in
those partners equally well for men and women. However, it could
still be true that men (compared with women) are more romantically interested in objectively attractive potential partners and thatwomen (compared with men) are more romantically interested in
objectively ambitious potential partners. To explore this possibility, we obtained several alternative measures of partner characteristics. Because each speed-dater was rated by 9 –13 other speeddaters on the characteristics physically attractive, earningprospects, and personable, we could create consensus ratings ofthese three characteristics for each target by averaging these 9 –13
judgments. Interrater reliabilities for these judgments were strong:
The physically attractive reliability was ␣ ⫽ .92, the earningprospects reliability was ␣ ⫽ .77, and the personable reliability
was ␣ ⫽ .79.
For each analysis presented in the “speed-date/match” columnsof Table 2, these consensus ratings were substituted in place of thesubjective physically attractive, earning prospects, and personable
judgments (no consensus ratings were available for write-ins).
Using the same meta-analytic procedure reported above, we calculated overall rs that describe the association between each target’s consensus characteristics and participants’ reports on therelationship-initiation dependent variables with respect to that target. Overall rs and sex-difference rs are presented in the first threerows of Table 3. Physically attractive, earning prospects, andpersonable consensus ratings were positively and significantly
associated with the relationship-initiation dependent variables forboth men and women. As with the subjective judgments, however,the sex differences in these associations were small and nonsignificant.
All speed-daters had their photographs taken at the speed-dating
event, affording an additional measure of physical attractiveness.
Six independent coders (three women and three men) rated eachphoto on physical attractiveness (␣ ⫽ .76); for each analysis
presented in the first two columns of Table 2, these coder ratings
were substituted in place of the subjective attractiveness judgments

Table 3Overall Associations Between Alternative Measures of Partner
Characteristics and Relationship-Initiation Dependent Variables
Independent variable
Consensus physicallyattractive
Consensus earning prospects
Consensus personable
Coder-rated physicalattractiveness
Hometown average income

Male rFemale r

Sex difference r.27***.13***.14***.29***.14***.13***.02 ( p ⫽ .714).01 ( p ⫽ .817)⫺.01 ( p ⫽ .817).14**⫺.08**.17***⫺.02.03 ( p ⫽ .612).06 ( p ⫽ .134)

Note. Male and female r columns present the meta-analyzed effect size r
between the independent variable (calculated with respect to speed-dates/
matches only) and all relationship-initiation dependent variables (see Table2) for male and female participants, respectively. The sex difference r
column indicates the size of the difference between men’s reports andwomen’s reports; a negative r indicates that the characteristic was astronger determinant of men’s romantic interest.
**p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

(photos were not taken of write-ins, so no coder-ratings wereavailable). As shown in the fourth row of Table 3, the overall
meta-analyzed rs for men and women were again positive andsignificant, but as with the subjective physical-attractiveness judgments, the sex difference was again small and nonsignificant.
Finally, similar to an analysis conducted by Fisman et al. (2006),
we used the 2000 census data (United States Census Bureau, 2000)
to calculate the natural log of the median income of each participant’s hometown (hometown was reported by zip code on the
pre-event questionnaire). For each analysis presented in the fifthand sixth columns of Table 2, these ratings were substituted for the
subjective earning-prospects judgments (no hometown zip codes
were assessed for write-ins, so no income measure was available
for these targets). As shown in the fifth row of Table 3, womendemonstrated neither greater nor lesser romantic initiation toward
men who were from wealthy hometowns, and men appeared todislike women from wealthy hometowns, although this correlation
was small (r ⫽ ⫺.08). As with the subjective earning-prospects
judgments, the sex difference was nonsignificant (r ⫽ .06, p ⫽.134). Taken together, these five auxiliary analyses suggest that
men and women did not differ in how these alternative measuresof partner characteristics inspired their romantic interest, which isthe same pattern of results revealed by participants’ own subjective
judgments (see Table 2). (We explore H2A regarding participants’short-term versus long-term orientations in the Moderator Construct Analyses section below.)

Individual Differences in Relationship Initiation
Considering that male and female participants differed in how
important they rated physical attractiveness and earning prospects
in an ideal partner and an ideal speed-date (H1), how is it that nosex differences emerged when predicting relationship-initiation
variables from these same characteristics (H2)? This intriguingnull finding suggests the possibility that stated ideal partner preferences may have been unrelated to what actually inspired romantic interest in the live dating context of this study (see also Iyengar
et al., 2005). Therefore, we examined H3: If some participants
reported an especially strong preference for a certain partner

SEX DIFFERENCES REVISITED

255

Table 4
Correlations Between Participants’ Romantic Desire, Chemistry, and “Yessing” Bs and Stated Preferences for Physically Attractive
Variable

Romanticdesire B

ChemistryB“Yessing”
B

Pre-eventideal partner

Pre-event
speed-date

Wave 10
ideal partner

Wave 10speed-dateRomantic desire B
Chemistry B“Yessing” B
Pre-event ideal partner
Pre-event speed-date
Wave 10 ideal partner
Wave 10 speed-date—.62***
.24**
.03
.02
⫺.08
.00

.62***
—
.16*
.07
.06
⫺.06
.00

.24**
.16*
—
.09
.14
.06
.01

.02
⫺.02
.10
—
.61***.68***.55***

.07
⫺.03
.12
.62***—.61***.67***

⫺.04
⫺.10
.02
.68***.60***—.70***

⫺.01
⫺.08
.00
.55***.62***.55***—

Note. Romantic desire, chemistry, and “yessing” Bs were calculated for each participant across all 9 –13 of his/her speed-dates. Stated-preference items
were assessed on a 1–9 scale with higher numbers indicating greater self-reported importance of physically attractive in an ideal romantic partner or in the
hypothetical decision to “yes” someone after a 4-min date. Stated preferences were assessed both before the speed-dating event and at the 10th follow-up
wave (1 month later). Stated preferences above the diagonal were within-person centered; stated preferences below the diagonal were left as their raw
values.
*p ⱕ .05. ** p ⱕ .01. *** p ⱕ .001.

characteristic (e.g., physically attractive), did those same participants also demonstrate especially strong romantic interest in andpursuit of those romantic partners they judged to possess thatcharacteristic? The context of the speed-dating event provides arare opportunity to examine this individual-differences hypothesis;
because participants met between 9 and 13 potential romantic
partners at an event, we can assign each participant a unique B for
how well his/her judgments of physically attractive (or earningprospects, or personable) predicted his/her reports of romantic
desire, chemistry, or likelihood of “yessing” across all dates.6 If
the stated preferences have predictive validity, a participant who
stated that physical attractiveness was important in an ideal romantic partner or a speed-date should have shown a strong association (i.e., a large B) between judgments of his/her dates’ physical attractiveness and his/her romantic desire for, chemistry with,and likelihood of “yessing” those dates. In other words, a participant’s stated preferences and the in vivo preferences revealed by
his/her own individual Bs should be positively correlated.
Tables 4, 5, and 6 present all correlations among participants’
individual Bs (romantic desire, chemistry, and “yessing”) andhis/her stated preferences (ideal partner and speed-date, both preevent and Wave 10) for physically attractive, earning prospects,
and personable, respectively. There are two ways of scoring statedpreferences in these analyses: Stated preferences can be withinperson centered (i.e., the raw, 1–9 values minus the participant’s
mean rating across all traits, also called an ipsative measure), or
they can be left as their raw values. A high value for a withinperson centered stated preference indicates that the participant
claimed to value that trait more than he/she values other traits,
whereas a high value for a raw stated preference indicates that theparticipant claimed to value that trait more than other participants
did. Because both approaches are meaningful, we present thewithin-person centered correlations above the diagonal and the
raw-values correlations below the diagonal in Tables 4, 5, and 6.
(Of course, the correlations among the three Bs do not change
whether they are below or above the diagonal.)
Across Tables 4, 5, and 6, the three Bs correlated significantlywith one another. For example, if a participant tended to romantically desire those dates he found physically attractive, he alsotended to experience chemistry with those same dates he foundattractive (r ⫽ .62, p ⬍ .001; see Table 4). Also, the four statedpreference assessments (both within-person centered and raw values) correlated highly with one another. If a participant reported astrong ideal partner preference before the event for someone withgood earning prospects, she was more likely than other participants
to also report a preference for such a partner while speed-dating(r ⫽ .52, p ⬍ .001), and at the Wave 10 follow-up as an ideal
partner (r ⫽ .53, p ⬍ .001), and while speed-dating (r ⫽ .39, p ⬍.001; see Table 5). However, the correlations between the Bs (invivo preferences) and the stated-preference measures (both withinperson centered and raw values) were small: Out of 72 correlations, only 2 were significant and positive and 1 was actuallysignificant and negative. For example, participants who reported at
pretest that they would be more likely to say yes to a date who theyfelt was personable were in fact not significantly more likely to say
yes to those dates (r ⫽ .05, p ⫽ .578; see Table 6). In summary,although participants’ stated preferences were consistent acrossfour different assessments, and although participants’ in vivo preferences were consistent within a live dating context (i.e., the B
correlations), participants’ stated preferences were unrelated totheir in vivo preferences.
Tables 4, 5, and 6 present results aggregated across sex; however, it is possible that this presentation could obscure sex differences in these correlations. To test for sex differences, we conducted regressions that predicted each variable in Tables 4, 5, and6 from one of the remaining six variables in that table, participant
sex, and their interaction. (We report this analysis on the withinperson centered stated preferences to keep the presentation manageable, but our conclusions were identical when we used the
raw-values preferences.) Because the interaction with sex may
6
Bs for “yessing” could not be computed for participants who said “yes”(n ⫽ 6) or “no” (n ⫽ 3) to all dates. Also, because a B for “yessing” is thenatural log of an odds ratio, a number of large outliers emerged; participants who had “yessing” Bs beyond Tukey’s inner fences (Myers & Well,
1995; Tukey, 1977) were considered missing (ns ⫽ 12 for physicallyattractive, 15 for earning prospects, 25 for personable). Even with theinclusion of these outliers, however, none of the 24 nonsignificant correlations between a stated preference and the “yessing” Bs in Tables 4, 5, and6 (the correlations of interest) became significant.

EASTWICK AND FINKEL

256

Table 5
Correlations Between Participants’ Romantic Desire, Chemistry, and “Yessing” Bs and Stated Preferences for Earning Prospects
Variable

Romanticdesire B

ChemistryB“Yessing”
B

Pre-eventideal partner

Pre-event
speed-date

Wave 10
ideal partner

Wave 10speed-dateRomantic desire B
Chemistry B“Yessing” B
Pre-event ideal partner
Pre-event speed-date
Wave 10 ideal partner
Wave 10 speed-date—.71***.59***
.14
.10
.13
.03

.71***—.48***
.16*
.16*
.15
.03

.59***.48***
—
.07
.08
.09
.18

.07
.11
.04
—
.52***.53***.39***.09.13.08.53***—.38***.53***.03.13.07.60***.44***—.44***

⫺.03
⫺.02
.12
.41***.53***.47***—

Note. Romantic desire, chemistry, and “yessing” Bs were calculated for each participant across all 9 –13 of his/her speed-dates. Stated-preference items
were assessed on a 1–9 scale with higher numbers indicating greater self-reported importance of earning prospects in an ideal romantic partner or in the
hypothetical decision to “yes” someone after a 4-min date. Stated preferences were assessed both before the speed-dating event and at the 10th follow-up
wave (1 month later). Stated preferences above the diagonal were within-person centered; stated preferences below the diagonal were left as their raw
values.
*p ⱕ .05. *** p ⱕ .001.

differ depending on which variable is considered the independent
variable and which is considered the dependent variable, we examined all possible regression combinations, giving a total 42
regressions for each of the three tables. For physically attractive,
only 3 of these 42 regressions revealed a sex interaction (at p ⱕ.05), for earning prospects, only 4 of these 42 regressions revealed
a sex interaction, and for personable, only 6 out of these 42
regressions revealed a sex interaction. Furthermore, only 1 of these
13 sex-differentiated correlations was between a B and a statedpreference (the correlations of interest), and this correlation remained nonsignificant for both men and women. Therefore, wefind little evidence to suggest that the sexes differ in how well theirstated preferences correlate with their in vivo preferences.
Finally, we subjected the three in vivo preferences and the four
within-person centered stated preferences (separately for Physically Attractive, Earning Prospects, and Personable) to a factor
analysis to more formally test whether in vivo and stated preferences reflect two independent factors. (Again, results do notchange appreciably when using the raw-values preferences.) The
results of these three factor analyses (principal axis factoring withpromax rotation) are presented in Table 7. In all three cases,
two-factor solutions were suggested by parallel analyses (Hum-phreys & Montanelli, 1975; see also Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999) in which the eigenvalues of the actual data
are compared with eigenvalues of an equivalently sized set of
random data. As expected, for all three sets of preferences, thethree in vivo preferences loaded on one factor and the four statedpreferences loaded on the other. Furthermore, the promax rotation
is oblique and therefore permits the factors to be correlated;
however, as shown in Table 7, the correlation between the two
factors was generally quite weak across the three sets of preferences.

Similarity Effects?
It is plausible that participants’ awareness of their own standingon these partner characteristics ( physically attractive, earningprospects, and personable) inhibited the pursuit of their ideals. In
other words, stated preferences may have failed to correlate with invivo preferences not because participants’ stated preferences were
inaccurate, but instead because they anticipated rejection to thedegree a partner outshined them on a particular characteristic. To
explore this possibility, we conducted a series of regression equations with the following form:

Table 6
Correlations Between Participants’ Romantic Desire, Chemistry, and “Yessing” Bs and Stated Preferences for Personable
Variable

Romanticdesire B

ChemistryB“Yessing”
B

Pre-eventideal partner

Pre-event
speed-date

Wave 10
ideal partner

Wave 10speed-dateRomantic desire B
Chemistry B“Yessing” B
Pre-event ideal partner
Pre-event speed-date
Wave 10 ideal partner
Wave 10 speed-date—.59***.39***
⫺.04
⫺.13
⫺.05
⫺.07

.59***
—
.25**
.05
.05
⫺.12
.05

.39***
.25**
—
.14
.05
.06
.08

.14
⫺.02
⫺.03
—
.32***.49***
.18*

.04
.08
⫺.06
.35***—.35***.48***

.09
⫺.20*
⫺.01
.52***.44***—.47***

.02
⫺.07
⫺.10
.25**
.51***.47***—

Note. Romantic desire, chemistry, and “yessing” Bs were calculated for each participant across all 9 –13 of his/her speed-dates. Stated-preference items
were assessed on a 1–9 scale with higher numbers indicating greater self-reported importance of personable in an ideal romantic partner or in the
hypothetical decision to “yes” someone after a 4-min date. Stated preferences were assessed both before the speed-dating event and at the 10th follow-up
wave (1 month later). Stated preferences above the diagonal were within-person centered; stated preferences below the diagonal were left as their raw
values.
*p ⱕ .05. ** p ⱕ .01. ***p ⱕ .001.

SEX DIFFERENCES REVISITED

257

Table 7
Factor Loadings of Participants’ Romantic Desire, Chemistry, and “Yessing” Bs and Stated Preferences
Physically attractive
Variable
In vivo preferences
Romantic desire B
Chemistry B“Yessing” B
Stated preferences
Pre-event ideal partner
Pre-event speed-date
Wave 10 ideal partner
Wave 10 speed-date
Factor correlation

Earning prospects

Personable

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 1

Factor 2

.04
⫺.06
.04

.89
.69
.21

⫺.11
.04
.08

.86
.81
.71

.11
⫺.10
⫺.04

.80
.63
.52

.78
.74
.82
.71

.06
.02
⫺.06
.00

.79
.75
.67
.62

.06
⫺.03
.01
⫺.03

.53
.66
.73
.56

.04
.08
⫺.07
⫺.09

r ⫽ .01r ⫽ .09r ⫽ .02Note. Loadings of .2 and above are bolded. Stated preferences are within-person centered.

DV ij ⫽ ␥ 0 ⫹ ␥ 1 SelfChar i ⫹ ␥ 2 PartnerChar ij⫹ ␥ 3 StatedPref i⫹␥4(PartnerCharij ⫻ StatedPref i) ⫹ e ij,(1)where SelfChari is person i’s self-rating on a characteristic ( physically attractive, earning prospects, or personable, assessed on the
pre-event questionnaire on a scale from 1–9), PartnerCharij isperson i’s interaction-record rating of speed-dating partner j onthat characteristic, StatedPrefi is the average of person i’s four
within-person centered stated preferences (ideal partner and speeddate from both the pre-event questionnaire and the Wave 10
follow-up questionnaire) for that characteristic, and DVij is person
i’s romantic desire, chemistry, or yes/no decision regarding speeddating partner j. We regressed each of these three dependent
variables on each of the three characteristics (nine total regressions).
To examine similarity effects, we conducted each of the nine
regressions twice, as suggested by Griffin, Murray, and Gonzalez(1999): once for all reports in which participants scored higher
than their speed-dating partner (SelfChari ⬎ PartnerCharij) andonce for all reports in which participants scored lower (SelfChari ⬍ PartnerCharij). If ␥2 is positive when SelfChari ⬎ PartnerCharij but negative when SelfChari ⬍ PartnerCharij, this would
indicate that participants desired similarity on that characteristic.
Furthermore, stated-preference effects could emerge after accounting for these similarity effects: A positive PartnerCharij ⫻ StatedPrefi interaction would indicate that having a strong stated preference leads participants to either (a) strongly deselect partners who
fall below them on that characteristic or (b) strongly select partners
despite the fact that they lie above them on that characteristic.
None of the nine regressions revealed any evidence that participants desired similarity. Whether speed-dating partners scoredbelow or above the participant on a characteristic, participantssignificantly liked the partner more to the extent that he/she
possessed greater levels of that characteristic (all ␥2s were positive; ts ⬎ 2.68). Furthermore, none of the PartnerCharij ⫻ StatedPrefi interactions were both positive and significant ( p ⱕ .05),
although two were p ⱕ .10 and negative and three were p ⱕ .10
and positive. These analyses suggest that participants did notexperience inhibited romantic interest in speed-dating partners
who exceeded them on a characteristic; on the contrary, higher
physical attractiveness, earning prospects, or personable ratings

were consistently romantically inspiring regardless of self ratings,
and stated preferences did not play a consistent role in moderatingthese effects.

Moderator Construct Analyses
At this point, the data suggest a disconnect between the characteristics that participants claim to prefer in a romantic partner
and the characteristics that participants actually value in a live
dating context. To get a better sense of what might or might not be
accounting for the effects reported above, we conducted several
theoretically sensible moderational analyses.
Desire for a serious relationship (target-general). Some
prominent evolutionary theories (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000) would suggest that the null results for H2(missing sex differences) are not meaningful without considering
participants’ short-term versus long-term mating orientations. After all, several previous reports have suggested that men’s andwomen’s ideal partner preferences change depending on whether
they are considering a short-term or long-term relationship (e.g., Li& Kenrick, 2006). Therefore, we explored H2A: Might sex differences in the associations between the relationship-initiation
dependent variables and physical attractiveness or earning prospects have emerged for participants who were more (comparedwith less) interested in having a long-term relationship? If so, we
would expect to consistently find significant Partner Characteristic ⫻ Sex ⫻ Desire for a Serious Relationship (Target-General)interactions predicting the relationship-initiation dependent variables.7 We tested whether this three-way interaction was significant for every male/female pair of Bs displayed in Table 2 (with7This three-way interaction tests whether any sex difference in theassociation between a partner characteristic and romantic interest is smaller
for participants who experienced low compared with high desire for aserious relationship. Given ambiguities in the previous literature (e.g.,
Kenrick et al., 1993, vs. Li & Kenrick, 2006), we did not specifically
hypothesize whether the sex differences would be reduced, nonexistent, orreversed for participants experiencing low desire for a serious relationship.
Indeed, the three-way interaction could detect any of these patterns, and allof them would support prominent evolutionary models of mating (Buss &Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000); we therefore tested forthree-way interactions across all relevant moderator analyses.

258

EASTWICK AND FINKEL

the exception of those pertaining to the dependent variables desire
for a serious relationship/casual relationship/one-night stand,which are theoretically ambiguous in this case). In other words, we
explored 11 possible three-way interactions in which speed-dating
matches served as targets and 8 possible three-way interactions forthe write-ins for each partner characteristic.
For the characteristic physically attractive, H2A predicts thatthese three-way interactions will be negative. That is, the two-way
Physically Attractive ⫻ Desire for a Serious Relationship (TargetGeneral) interaction (which tests whether physically attractive
better predicts the dependent variable among individuals morecompared with less interested in a serious relationship) should be
more positive for men than for women. However, out of 11
possible three-way interactions for the speed-dating matches, 0were significant and negative and 1 was actually significant andpositive (i.e., the two-way interaction was more positive forwomen). Out of eight possible three-way interactions for the writeins, two were significant and negative and two were significant andpositive. For the characteristic earning prospects, H2A predicts
that these three-way interactions will be positive. That is, thetwo-way Earning Prospects ⫻ Desire for a Serious Relationship(Target-General) interaction (which tests whether earning prospects better predicts the dependent variable among individuals
more compared with less interested in a serious relationship)should be more positive for women than for men. Only 1 out of 11
possible three-way interactions for the speed-dating matches was
significant and positive, and one out of eight possible three-way
interactions for the write-ins was actually significant and negative(i.e., the two-way interaction was more positive for men). Finally,
H2A would not necessarily predict the emergence of significant
three-way interactions for the characteristic personable. In thiscase, 1 out of 11 possible three-way interactions was significant(and positive) for the speed-daters, and three out of eight possible
three-way interactions were significant (and positive) for the writeins. In short, these analyses did not reveal compelling evidence
that the sex differences predicted by H2 emerged more strongly forparticipants who were especially interested in acquiring a serious
romantic relationship.
Sociosexuality. Sociosexuality refers to the degree to which
individuals are willing (unrestricted) or unwilling (restricted) toengage in short-term, sexual relationships (Simpson & Gangestad,1991). Again, we examined H2A: It is possible that sex differencesin Table 2 might emerge for individuals at the restricted (low)compared with the unrestricted (high) end of the sociosexuality
scale. To explore this possibility, we conducted analyses identicalto those reported above for desire for a serious relationship (targetgeneral). (Note that the predicted direction of effects reverses forsociosexuality because of how the items are scored.)
None of the 11 Physically Attractive ⫻ Sex ⫻ Sociosexuality
interactions was significant for the speed-dating matches, and twoof the eight possible three-way interactions for the write-ins weresignificant and negative (i.e., the opposite of the predicted direction). For the characteristic earning prospects, 0 of the 11 possible
three-way interactions was significant for the speed-dating
matches, and for the write-ins, 1 was significant and negative (thepredicted direction) and 1 was significant and positive (the opposite of the predicted direction). For the characteristic personable, 1
out of 11 possible three-way interactions was significant (andnegative) for the speed-dating matches, and one out of eight

possible three-way interactions was significant (and negative) for
the write-ins. Again, the data did not suggest that the sex differences predicted by H2 emerged more strongly for participants who
were less (compared with more) willing to engage in short-term,
sexual relationships.
Desire for a serious relationship (target-specific). We also
explored whether one of the relationship-initiation dependent variables, desire for a serious relationship, could serve as a moderatorof the effects reported in Table 2. Because participants completed
this item with regard to a specific target, it provides a more focusedtest of H2A than does the general, person-level desire-for-aserious-relationship item. However, because this target-specificdesire-for-a-serious-relationship measure was assessed on eachfollow-up questionnaire for matches/write-ins classified as romantic (see Method section), it cannot be used to predict many of therelationship-initiation dependent variables (e.g., those assessed at
the level of the target, such as “yessing”). For simplicity, we
examined whether the three-way Partner Characteristic ⫻ Sex ⫻Desire for a Serious Relationship (Target-Specific) interaction
significantly predicted the amalgamated dependent variable romantic attraction, which was made up of all the romantic-initiation
items that had to be available at each follow-up wave for eachmatch or write-in classified as romantic (see Method section).
For the characteristic physically attractive, this three-way interaction was marginally significant and positive (the opposite of thepredicted direction) for matches and was marginally significant
and negative (the predicted direction) for write-ins. For the characteristics earning prospects and personable, the three-way interactions did not reach marginal significance for either speed-dating
matches or write-ins. In total, we did not find compelling evidence
for H2A using this target-specific desire-for-a-serious-relationshipitem. (Null or inconsistent results also emerged when we examined
the moderational role of the two target-specific variables thatassessed desire for a casual relationship and desire for a one-night
stand.)An astute reader might notice that in the first two columns ofTable 2, physically attractive predicts desire for a one-night standmore strongly for women than for men but predicts desire for aserious relationship more strongly for men than for women. Thispattern is consistent with H2A, and indeed, the Physically Attractive ⫻ Sex interaction is significant if used to predict the difference between these two items (serious minus one-night stand).
However, the Physically Attractive ⫻ Sex interaction is not significant for the write-ins, and neither of the Earning Prospects ⫻Sex interactions is significant. Oddly, the Personable ⫻ Sex interaction is significant for the write-ins; the sex-differentiated patternis especially pronounced in this case but is not consistent with
H2A. In short, one of the four predicted interactions was significant, and one of the two nonpredicted interactions was significant.
Finally, it is worth noting that the three moderators used above
to test H2A all demonstrated healthy variability in this sample.
Desire for a serious relationship (target-general) had a mean of 5.0(SD ⫽ 1.6), sociosexuality had a mean of 3.2 (SD ⫽ 1.8), anddesire for a serious relationship (target-specific) had a mean of 4.8(SD ⫽ 1.8; across matches and write-ins). The range of all threevariables included the entire 1–7 scale, and none had any outliers
outside of Tukey’s inner fences (Myers & Well, 1995; Tukey,1977). It is also unlikely that all participants had solely short-termromantic goals in mind: For speed-dating matches, participants

SEX DIFFERENCES REVISITED

were most interested in a casual relationship (M ⫽ 5.08), followed
by a serious relationship (M ⫽ 3.89), and were least interested ina one-night stand (M ⫽ 3.20; all three means differ significantly atp ⬍ .001). For write-ins, participants were most interested in aserious relationship (M ⫽ 5.39), followed by a casual relationship(M ⫽ 5.14), and were again least interested in a one-night stand(M ⫽ 3.10; all three means differ significantly at p ⬍ .03). In sum,the data suggest that participants’ short-term versus long-termorientations had no bearing on our failure to confirm H2 in thisstudy.
Partner-specific attachment anxiety. We also conducted an
exploratory analysis examining whether partner-specific attachment anxiety (e.g., Eastwick & Finkel, in press-a) might serve asa moderator of the effects presented in Table 2. We hypothesizedthat participants might show traditional sex differences on thecharacteristics that predict the relationship-initiation variables
when they are not feeling particularly anxious or uncertain about
what a potential romantic partner thinks of them. In other words,
anxiety could be one emotion that fosters an empathy gap (e.g.,
Loewenstein, 2005) between the cool, rational mindset in whichstated preferences are typically reported and the desire participants
feel toward a real-life potential romantic partner. Perhaps it iseasier to compare a target’s qualities with some ideal romanticpartner template (a template which typically differs by sex) when
one is not preoccupied with thoughts about whether that target isromantically interested in the self.
To illustrate, imagine a male participant who is not caught up in
the throes of anxiety with respect to a certain physically attractive
female target, yet he still remains romantically interested in her
and recognizes that she is an “objectively” good catch. It is easy to
imagine that, in such a nonanxious state, men (compared withwomen) might be more inspired by a target’s physical attractiveness and women (compared with men) might be more inspired bya target’s earning prospects. However, as participants report increasing levels of partner-specific attachment anxiety, the traditional sex differences should become attenuated. This hypothesis
suggests that a three-way Partner Characteristic ⫻ Sex ⫻ PartnerSpecific Attachment Anxiety interaction should emerge for the
traditionally sex-differentiated characteristics physically attractive
and earning prospects but not for personable in predicting romantic attraction. (We use this amalgamated dependent variable again
because partner-specific attachment anxiety, like desire for a serious relationship [target-specific], was assessed only for matches/
write-ins classified as romantic.)
For the characteristic physically attractive, this three-way interaction was marginally significant and positive for matches; thissuggests that, as predicted, physically attractive was a better predictor of romantic interest for men (compared with women) at low
rather than high levels of partner-specific attachment anxiety.
However, the three-way interaction did not achieve significancefor the write-ins. For the characteristic earning prospects, thethree-way interaction was marginally significant and negative formatches and significant and negative for write-ins; this suggests
that, as predicted, earning prospects was a better predictor ofromantic interest for women (compared with men) at low rather
than high levels of partner-specific attachment anxiety. Finally, forthe characteristic personable, the three-way interaction was not
significant for either matches or write-ins, as expected.8 Although
we view these results as preliminary and we await future research259

before drawing definitive conclusions, it is possible that the uncertainty or anxiety often associated with developing relationships
may attenuate traditional sex differences in the characteristics that
men and women consider important in a romantic partner.
H3 moderation. Finally, we attempted to identify significant
moderators of the 72 stated/in vivo correlations presented in Tables 4, 5, and 6. For example, it is plausible that participants
showed greater correspondence between their stated and in vivo
preferences to the extent that they were interested in having along-term, serious relationship or to the extent that they had arestricted sociosexual orientation (these H3 moderational analyses
can only be conducted with moderators measured at the level ofthe individual participant). If this were true, we would expect tofind that desire for a serious relationship (target-general) positively
interacted (and sociosexuality negatively interacted) with statedpreferences to predict in vivo preferences. Separately for these two
possible moderators, we conducted two regressions for each of the
72 correlations (total regressions per moderator ⫽ 144), once withthe stated preference serving as the dependent variable and oncewith the in vivo preference serving as the dependent variable (justas above when we explored sex differences in these correlations).
The interaction of desire for a serious relationship (target-general)and these preferences was never significant and positive (thepredicted direction) and was actually significant and negative in
two cases. In addition, sociosexuality was only a significant andnegative (the predicted direction) moderator in 1 of these 144
regressions; it was never significant and positive. Therefore, itappears unlikely that participants’ desire for a serious relationshipor their sociosexuality orientation were factors that could explain
why their stated and in vivo preferences were uncorrelated.
We also explored the possibility that self-perceived mate value
could moderate these 72 stated/in vivo correlations. Two patterns
are plausible. For one, perhaps stated and in vivo preferences
correlated poorly in this study because participants with low matevalue felt they had little to offer in the dating arena and were
therefore more likely to express interest in real-life potential partners who fell short of their stated ideal. On the other hand, perhaps
individuals with high mate value possessed unrealistic ideals regarding romantic partners, and it would therefore be the low-matevalue participants who would be in a position to select partners
who approximated their attainable ideals. The first hypothesis
predicts that self-perceived mate value will positively interact withstated preferences to predict in vivo preferences (and vice versa),
and the second hypothesis predicts that these interactions will be
negative. Again, we conducted 144 regressions. The interaction ofself-perceived mate value and these preferences was never significant and positive, and in nine cases (6% of the analyses), theinteraction was significant and negative. We therefore find little
consistent evidence that participants’ self-perceived mate value(i.e., their own general self-assessment of success with the oppo8

Of the three marginal or significant three-way interactions involving
partner-specific attachment anxiety, only the following two-way simple
slope of interest was reliable: The Physically Attractive ⫻ Sex interaction
was significant and positive for individuals scoring one standard deviation
above the mean on partner-specific attachment anxiety (e.g., physicallyattractive predicted romantic attraction better for women than for men athigh levels of anxiety). Thus, the present results do not allow for definitive
conclusions about the precise pattern of these interactions.

EASTWICK AND FINKEL

260

site sex) significantly inhibited or augmented the pursuit of theirideals at the speed-dating event.
Table 8 briefly summarizes the outcomes of each of the analyses
reported in this article that tested a possible explanation for our
failure to confirm H2 and H3.

Discussion
In the present study, we examined how participants’ judgments of potential romantic partners’ physical attractiveness,earning prospects, and personable characteristics predicted theromantic interest they felt toward those individuals. We advanced three hypotheses: Given that (a) participants demonstrated traditional stated-preference sex differences on the characteristics physically attractive and earning prospects, data
should have revealed (b) sex differences in the associations between those characteristics and romantic interest in
potential partners and (c) meaningful correlations between stated preferences and in vivo preferences revealed at
the speed-dating event. The latter two hypotheses were unsupported. First, although physical attractiveness, good earningprospects, and personable characteristics were all positively
and significantly associated with romantic interest, the data
revealed no evidence of sex differences in these associations. We were also unable to find any evidence that thesemissing sex differences were related to participants’ long-term
versus short-term orientations, as might be predicted bysome prominent evolutionary theories (e.g., Buss & Schmitt,1993). Second, stated preferences were largely independent ofin vivo preferences: For example, a participant who claimed tovalue physical attractiveness highly in a romantic partner was
not significantly more likely than other participants to like, feelchemistry with, or say “yes” to the dates he found physicallyattractive.
These data offer support for the idea that mate preferences asreported in the typical stated-preference paradigm might reflect

participants’ a priori theories about the characteristics of aperson that might inspire their romantic interest (Nisbett &Wilson, 1977; see Sprecher, 1989, for a similar perspective).
Recall one Nisbett and Wilson (1977) example: Some participants watched a film while distracted by a noisy power saw andclaimed that the noise negatively affected their impression of
the film. In fact, participants who watched the movie without
the distraction did not rate the film any more favorably. Although the power saw seemed like a plausible explanation forparticipants’ dislike of the film, it actually had no discernable
impact. Similarly, participants’ stated mate preferences might
overweight (or underweight) factors that seem like plausible (orimplausible) reasons for liking one particular romantic partner
more than another. If indeed participants’ stated preferences
derive from such plausibility judgments in lieu of genuine
introspection, this could explain why they failed to predict
judgments and behavior in this study.
It may initially seem absurd that something as important as
one’s mate preferences (as opposed to beliefs about distracting
power saws) might merely reflect a priori theories constructedfrom naı̈ve plausibility judgments. One possible resolution tothis puzzle is that stated mate preferences may be subject to theempathy gap (Loewenstein, 2005) if one’s preferences are reported coolly and rationally without fully accounting for theaffect that often characterizes romantic processes. According tothis theoretical perspective, we might expect that a priori theories will play a role in partner selection in the instances whenparticipants somehow elude the powerful affect often associatedwith romantic attraction. In the present study, we found suggestive evidence that traditional sex differences in relationshipinitiation emerged for participants reporting low (comparedwith high) levels of one indicator of such affect: partnerspecific attachment anxiety.
However, the a priori theories and (closely related) empathygap accounts are not the only plausible interpretations of theTable 8Plausible Explanations for the Failure to Confirm Hypotheses 2 and 3
Alternative explanation
For missing sex differences (Hypothesis 2)● Sex differences might emerge using consensus or objective measures of partner characteristics● Sex differences might emerge for participants who are more (compared to less) interested in a serious relationshipin general● Sex differences might emerge for participants who have a restricted (compared to an unrestricted) sociosexual
orientation● Sex differences might emerge for participants reporting high (compared to low) interest in a serious relationshipwith a specific partner● Sex differences might emerge for participants reporting low (compared to high) levels of partner-specificattachment anxiety
For poor correlation of stated and in-vivo preferences (Hypothesis 3)● Participants might exhibit diminished interest in partners who exceeded their self-ratings on a particularcharacteristic (i.e., they anticipated rejection)● Correlations might be stronger for participants who are more (compared to less) interested in a serious
relationship in general● Correlations might be stronger for participants who have a restricted (compared to an unrestricted) sociosexual
orientation● Correlations might be stronger for participants who are especially high (or especially low) in self-perceived matevalue

Supported?
Unsupported
Unsupported
Unsupported
Unsupported
Modestly
supported
Unsupported
Unsupported
Unsupported
Unsupported

SEX DIFFERENCES REVISITED

present data. For example, the closed field of eligible partners
at the speed-dating event itself might have inspired individuals
not to act on their preferences but rather to simply pursue thebest of the available options. Individual preferences might exert
more of an influence in an open-field situation in which participants are not guaranteed a face-to-face interaction with all
the desirable individuals present.9 Nor does the a priori theories
account suggest that stated mate preferences are not worthy of
empirical study. Quite the contrary, the present results highlight
new research possibilities that will facilitate a better understanding of (a) when and how romantic-partner ideals impact
partner selection and (b) how those ideals come to be sex
differentiated in the first place. Below, we explicate some ofthese possibilities and highlight what the present work does anddoes not say about the processes underlying romantic-partner
selection.

Alternative Explanations, Limitations, and Future
Directions
Comparison with previous literature. Although on the surface
it appears anomalous that these data revealed no evidence of sex
differences in the importance of physical attractiveness and earning prospects, the results are actually quite consistent with previous findings. As reported in the introduction section, other studies
have found that physical attractiveness is a similarly strong determinant of men’s and women’s desirability in speed-dating (Kurzban & Weeden, 2005) and regular dating (Feingold, 1990) contexts. Kurzban and Weeden (2005) and Fisman et al. (2006) did
not find a significant sex difference in the (weak) effect of income(or hometown income) on speed-daters’ desirability; we, too,found weak effects for this variable and no significant sex difference. Iyengar et al. (2005) also reported small correlations between
speed-daters’ stated preferences and their “yessing” Bs, very similar to those reported here. In an article that specifically explored
sex differences in a speed-dating context, Fisman et al. (2006)
reported that men were more likely than women to say “yes” to a
speed-dating partner they found to be physically attractive. In fact,
our data showed this same sex difference (see Table 2, third row,
first vs. second columns), but we would hesitate to conclude that
this sex difference alone demonstrates that physical attractivenessis more important to men. It does suggest that men may be moreeager than women to obtain the contact information of a physicallyattractive other, but as illustrated by our range of dependent
variables, exchanging contact information is merely one step on
the road to relationship initiation. The fact that this particular sex
difference reverses at other points in the process (e.g., feelingchemistry, date enjoyment) recommends employing a range of
dependent variables as investigators to further unravel how partner
characteristics impact the process of selecting a romantic partner.
Last, although we found no evidence that participants preferredsimilarity on these particular characteristics, other researchers havein fact had similar difficulty uncovering similarity effects (especially on physical attractiveness) in live dating contexts (Walster etal., 1966, cf. Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971).
Moreover, we are not the first to recommend examining whether
participants’ stated mate preferences predict their interest in reallife romantic partners. The sex difference in the preferred age of
one’s mate has enjoyed such validation: For example, Buss (1989)

261

reported substantial correlations between national averages ofmen’s and women’s preferences for a younger/older mate andnational statistics on age difference at marriage (see also Kenrick& Keefe, 1992). At this time, it is unclear why preferences forcharacteristics such as physical attractiveness or earning prospects
in a mate operate differently in live romantic contexts comparedwith age preferences. Future reports that directly compare thefunctional role of preferences for romantic partners’ characteristics
and for romantic partners’ age (perhaps at different points inwomen’s ovulatory cycles; e.g., Haselton & Miller, 2006) are sure
to reveal fascinating insights.
Sample considerations. The participants in this sample were
all undergraduate students at a medium-sized private university inthe midwestern United States. In addition, all participants werewilling to go speed-dating, an activity that probably does notappeal to everyone (cf. Eastwick & Finkel, in press-b; Finkel et al.,2007). It would be a tremendous stretch from the current data tosuggest that physical attractiveness or earning prospects are neverassociated with sex-differentiated romantic interest in actual dating
partners. Our sample may have been especially egalitarian; sex
differences might have emerged had our sample been composed ofparticipants with more traditional values or perhaps socialites
actively striving to date individuals who closely approximate thecosmopolitan ideal. However, the most important threat to thegeneralizability of the present sample was successfully dodged:
Traditional sex differences did emerge on the ideal partner andspeed-date stated preferences. This sample may have been unusualin various ways, but it was not unusual in this key respect. In fact,
because these are bright, motivated college students who probably
enjoy introspecting about their romantic lives, it is reasonable tosuggest that the individual-differences hypothesis (H3) was probably especially likely to receive support in this sample. The factthat these students seemed to have little introspective access totheir own romantic-partner preferences does not bode well for lesspsychologically curious individuals. And although it may be truethat college students are less likely than adults to have figured out
what they want in a romantic partner, this work was intended toaddress previous studies on sex differences, the better part ofwhich employed college student samples. Nevertheless, firm conclusions await replication across diverse samples.
One aspect of this sample leaves open a strong form of ahypothesis originally advanced by Li, Bailey, Kenrick, and Linsenmeier (2002): It may be that the characteristics that are considered necessities (as opposed to luxuries) in a mate are especiallysex differentiated. For example, if women consider earning prospects to be a necessity in a mate, they may be especially unwilling(compared with men) to consider a potential partner who falls
below some acceptable threshold on this trait. Because all of themen in this sample were attending a respectable university, it ispossible that all the men exceeded this threshold. Thus, the present
data show that men and women do not differ in their earningprospects preference once this threshold is met but cannot establish
whether there are sex differences in the threshold itself. This
necessities-versus-luxuries interpretation, however, is unlikely to
9

Of course, the write-in targets came from an open field of eligible
partners, and we did not find evidence for sex differences among those data
(i.e., H2 was unsupported). Nevertheless, we could only directly test H3
using the in vivo preferences calculated at the speed-dating event.

262

EASTWICK AND FINKEL

apply to physical attractiveness, as it would be difficult to argue
that all of our participants were above some minimal standard on
this dimension.
Mate selection versus mate retention. An emerging body ofresearch has recently demonstrated that romantic-partner ideals areimportant within established romantic relationships (Fletcher &Simpson, 2000). For example, romantic partners who idealize one
another are less likely to break up (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin,
1996), and participants report greater satisfaction with their present
relationship to the extent that their partner matches their ideals(Fletcher et al., 1999). Although the present report casts somedoubt on the notion that mate preferences serve the function ofmate selection, this extant research on ideals suggests that mate
preferences may instead serve the function of mate retention.
Although this selection/retention distinction is surely not a strict
dichotomy, it allows for the possibility that at moments of deliberative choice during the course of one’s relationship (e.g.,whether to marry one’s partner), an individual might compare hisor her partner to a set of ideal preferences and decide whether or
not the relationship is worth continuing (Fletcher & Simpson,
2000; Gagné & Lydon, 2004). It is certainly plausible that traditional measures of stated mate preferences (e.g., Hill, 1945) might
predict mate retention—this may indeed be how such preferencesplay a functional role.
Two pieces of evidence will be critical to confirm this materetention hypothesis. First, the mate-retention account suggeststhat sex differences should emerge in how the characteristics
physically attractive and earning prospects are associated withrelationship dissolution. We know of no data indicating that (a)men are more likely than women to end a relationship with apartner who is judged unattractive or (b) women are more likely
than men to end a relationship with a partner who is judged to havepoor earning prospects, but these hypotheses are certainly reasonable and testable. Second, for understandable reasons, studies thathave examined the role of partner ideals in established romantic
relationships typically assess participants’ ideals after they are
already in a relationship. Although it would certainly be difficult toassess ideals before participants meet a long-term romantic partner, such a procedure would avoid the problem of participants’
ideals becoming “contaminated” by the characteristics of a current
partner. In fact, one recent study indeed found that participantschanged their ideals such that they placed more importance on thepositive characteristics of their current romantic partner, even after
dating for only a few months (Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas,
2000). Research that explores whether partner ideals (a) predict
sex differences in relationship dissolution and (b) persist before,
during, and after the initiation of a relationship will be critical forthe argument that mate preferences serve the function of materetention.
Accuracy and awareness. We cannot establish definitively
that participants are wholly unaware of the qualities that initiallyappeal to them in a romantic partner. The strongest evidence forsuch a claim in the present data set comes from the speed-date
preferences, which required participants to report what qualities
would appeal to them on a 4-min date. Even this focused set ofitems failed to predict participants’ judgments and behavior reliably (see Tables 4, 5, and 6). (These results also suggest that the
problem of attitude compatibility, Ajzen, 2005, does not explain
why stated mate preferences failed to translate into sex differen-

tiated romantic interest.) On the other hand, our participants werelikely aware that characteristics such as physical attractivenesshave a positive (as opposed to negative) impact on their liking forsomeone. A distinction raised by Wilson and Gilbert (2003) intheir review of the affective-forecasting literature is perhaps relevant: People are generally good at predicting the valence of theiremotions but make interesting and systematic errors when predicting the intensity of their emotions. Had we assessed unappealing
characteristics in this study, our participants’ predictions might
have been accurate regarding valence (I like reliability and dislike
laziness) but inaccurate regarding intensity (I like reliability morethan I like physical attractiveness). To be sure, this conjecture will
require additional research.

Conclusions and Future Directions
What role do mate preferences play in the process of earlyromantic-relationship development? The implicit and consensual
answer has until now been simple: Preferences guide behavior bydirecting men and women to select and pursue whatever potential
romantic partner most closely approximates their typically sexdifferentiated ideals. Support for this account had been demonstrated in paradigms in which participants were provided withwritten or visual stimuli (e.g., personal ads, photos), but support
was less robust once participants interacted with flesh-and-blood
potential romantic partners. In the present study, we took a comprehensive snapshot of participants’ romantic lives in an effort toimprove understanding of how exactly people go about the processof romantic-partner selection. Our efforts revealed no discernable
functional role for mate preferences in determining whom participants desired and pursued for a romantic relationship.
We have suggested that participants’ stated mate preferences
may reflect their a priori theories about the characteristics of apotential romantic partner that will inspire their interest—in otherwords, people do not truly know what they desire in a romantic
partner. However, there are two related interpretations of thecurrent data that are decidedly less extreme: Participants’ statedmate preferences may have validity (e.g., they predict mate retention), but participants either (a) do not compare a potential romantic partner with an ideal until after a relationship has begun or (b)do attempt such a comparison but it is flawed in some respect. We
hope that these possibilities will inspire future research and shed
new light on the processes underlying romantic-partner selection.

References
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior (2nd ed.). MiltonKeynes, England: Open University Press.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In
D. Albarracı́n, B. T. Johnson, and M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of
attitudes (pp. 173–221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). The heat of the moment: The effectof sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 18, 1–12.
Berscheid, E., Dion, K., Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1971). Physicalattractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 173–189.
Buller, D. J. (2005). Adapting minds: Evolutionary psychology and thepersistent quest for human nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolu-

SEX DIFFERENCES REVISITED
tionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,12, 1– 49.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating.
New York: Basic Books.
Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In
D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social
psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An
evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100,
204 –232.
Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Ageand gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvementlevels. Personal Relationships, 9, 271–278.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.). (1994). The handbook of research
synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in humanbehavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408 – 423.
Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (in press-a). The attachment system infledgling relationships: An activating role for attachment anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (in press-b). Speed-dating: A powerful andflexible paradigm for studying romantic relationship initiation. In S.
Sprecher, A. Wenzel, and J. Harvey (Eds.), The handbook of relationship initiation. New York: Erlbaum.
Elder, G. H. (1969). Appearance and education in marriage mobility.
American Sociological Review, 34, 519 –533.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J.
(1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.
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.
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A
test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
125–139.
Finkel, E. J., & Eastwick, P. W. (in press). Current Directions in Psychological Science.
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., & Matthews, J. (2007). Speed-dating as aninvaluable tool for studying initial romantic attraction: A methodologicalprimer. Personal Relationships, 14, 149 –166.
Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Genderdifferences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed-dating experiment.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 673– 697.
Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close
relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 102–105.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933–940.
Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals
in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
76, 72– 89.
Gagné, F. M., & Lydon, J. E. (2004). Bias and accuracy in close relationships: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
8, 322–338.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of humanmating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573– 644.
Griffin, D. W., Murray, S. L., & Gonzalez, R. (1999). Difference score263

correlations in relationship research: A conceptual primer. Personal
Relationships, 6, 505–518.
Haddock, C. K., Rindskopf, D., & Shadish, W. R. (1998). Using odds ratios
as effect sizes for meta-analysis of dichotomous data: A primer on
methods and issues. Psychological Methods, 3, 339 –353.
Harrison, A. A., & Saeed, L. (1977). Let’s make a deal: An analysis ofrevelations and stipulations in lonely hearts advertisements. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 257–264.
Haselton, M. G., & Miller, G. F. (2006). Women’s fertility across the cycle
increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence compared
to wealth. Human Nature, 17, 50 –73.
Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate-selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, 554 –558.
Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2006). What makes you click?
Mate preferences and matching outcomes in online dating. Unpublishedmanuscript, University of Chicago Graduate School of Business.
Humphreys, L. G., & Montanelli, R. G. (1975). An investigation of theparallel analysis criterion for determining the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 193–205.
Iyengar, S. S., Simonson, I., Fisman, R., & Mogilner, C. (2005, January).
I know what I want but can I find it? Examining the dynamic relationshipbetween stated and revealed preferences. Paper presented at the Society
for Personality and Social Psychology Annual Meeting, New Orleans,LA.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social
psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1). New York: McGrawHill.
Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993).
Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mateselection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
951–969.
Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex
differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 15, 75–133.
Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). Meta-analysis. In D. Kaplan(Ed.), Handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp.
281–297). New York: Sage.
Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). Hurrydate: Mate preferences in action.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244.
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M.,& Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic andtheoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390 – 423.
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002).
The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in
preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468 – 489.
Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 272–292.
Loewenstein, G. (2005). Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision
making. Health Psychology, 24, S49 –S56.
Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The self-fulfilling
nature of positive illusions in romantic relationships: Love is not blind,but prescient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1155–
1180.
Myers, J. L., & Well, A. (1995). Research design and statistical analysis.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nisbett, R. E., & Bellows, N. (1977). Verbal reports about causal influences on social judgments: Private access versus public theories. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 613– 624.

264

EASTWICK AND FINKEL

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know:
Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
Olivola, C. Y., Todorov, A., Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Hortaçsu, A.,& Ariely, D. (2007). A picture is worth a thousand inferences: First
impression and mate selection in Internet matchmaking and speeddating. Unpublished manuscript, Princeton University.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models:Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Christopher, F. S., & Cate, R. (2000).
Partner preferences: What characteristics do men and women desire in
their short-term sexual and long-term romantic partners? Journal of
Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12, 1–21.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper and
L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244).
New York: Sage.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences insociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870 – 883.
Smith, E. R., & Miller, F. D. (1978). Limits on perception of cognitive
processes: A reply to Nisbett and Wilson. Psychological Review, 85,
355–362.
Speed, A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1997). Romantic popularity and mate
preferences: A peer-nomination study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 928 –936.
Sprecher, S. (1989). The importance to males and females of physicalattractiveness, earning potential, and expressiveness in initial attraction.
Sex Roles, 21, 591– 607.
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.
Stevens, G., Owens, D., & Schaefer, E. C. (1990). Education and attractiveness in marriage choices. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 62–70.
Stroebe, W., Insko, C. A., Thompson, V. D., & Layton, B. D. (1971).
Effects of physical attractiveness, attitude similarity, and sex on various

aspects of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 18, 79 –91.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Townsend, J. M. (1989). Mate selection criteria: A pilot study. Ethology
and Sociobiology, 10, 241–253.
Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. (1998). Sexual attractiveness: Sex
differences in assessment and criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior,19, 171–191.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. G.
Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971(pp. 136 –179). Chicago: Aldine.
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley.
Udry, J. R., & Eckland, B. K. (1984). Benefits of being attractive: Differential payoffs for men and women. Psychological Reports, 54, 47–56.
United States Census Bureau. (2000). Census 2000 summary file 3. Retrieved Febrauary 13, 2006, from http://factfinder.census.gov
Walster, E., Aronson, V., Abrahams, D., & Rottmann, L. (1966). Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 508 –516.
Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mateselection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 115–124.
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. In M. P.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp.
345– 411). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wilson, T. D., Laser, P. S., & Stone, J. I. (1982). Judging the predictors of
one’s own mood: Accuracy and the use of shared theories. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 537–556.
Wright, P., & Rip, P. D. (1981). Retrospective reports on the causes ofdecisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 601– 614.

Received August 21, 2006
Revision received June 6, 2007
Accepted June 7, 2007 䡲

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!
Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available
online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be
notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!