A Critical Test of the Assumption That Men Prefer Conformist Women and Women Prefer Nonconformist Men

Abstract

Five studies tested the common assumption that women prefer nonconformist men as romantic partners, whereas men prefer conformist women. Studies 1 and 2 showed that both men and women preferred nonconformist romantic partners, but women overestimated the extent to which men prefer conformist partners. In Study 3, participants ostensibly in a small-group interaction showed preferences for nonconformist opposite-sex targets, a pattern that was particularly evident when men evaluated women. Dating success was greater the more nonconformist the sample was (Study 4), and perceptions of nonconformity in an ex-partner were associated with greater love and attraction toward that partner (Study 5). On the minority of occasions in which effects were moderated by gender, it was in the reverse direction to the traditional wisdom: Conformity was more associated with dating success among men. The studies contradict the notion that men disproportionately prefer conformist women.

Keywords

conformity nonconformity social role theory gender interpersonal attraction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Archer

(1996). Sex differences in social behavior: Are the social role and evolutionary explanations compatible? American Psychologist, 51, 909-917.

Bassett

J. F.

Moss

(2004). Men and women prefer risk takers as romantic and nonromantic partners. Current Research in Social Psychology, 9, 135-144.

Baumeister

R. F.

(1991). Meanings of life. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bellah

R. N.

Madsen

Sullivan

W. M.

Swidler

Tipton

S. M.

(1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Boyd

Richerson

P. J.

Henrich

(2011). The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 108, 10918-10925.

Brauer

Bourhis

R. Y.

(2006). Social power. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 601-616.

Buss

D. M.

(2001). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Buss

D. M.

Schmitt

D. P.

(1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

Campbell

(2002). A mind of her own: The evolutionary psychology of women. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

10.

Chen

X.-P.

Wasti

S. A.

Triandis

H. C.

(1997). When does group norm or group identity predict cooperation in a public goods dilemma? The moderating effects of idiocentrism and allocentrism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 259-276.

11.

Dush

C. M. K.

Amato

P. R.

(2005). Consequences of relationship status and quality for subjective well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 607-627.

12.

Eagly

A. H.

(1987). Sex differences in social behaviour: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

(1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.

14.

Eastwick

P. W.

Luchies

L. B.

Finkel

E. J.

Hunt

L. L.

(2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 623-665.

15.

Griskevicius

Goldstein

N. J.

Mortensen

C. R.

Cialdini

R. B.

Kenrick

D. T.

(2006). Going along versus going alone: When fundamental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 281-294.

16.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

17.

Hornsey

M. J.

Jetten

(2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 248-264.

18.

Jensen-Campbell

L. A.

Graziano

W. G.

West

S. G.

(1995). Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 427-440.

19.

Kenrick

D. T.

N. P.

Butner

(2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision-rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Review, 110, 3-28.

20.

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.

21.

N. P.

Yong

J. C.

Tov

Sng

Fletcher

G. J. O.

Valentine

K. A.

. . . Balliet

(2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 757-776.

22.

Minear

Park

D. C.

(2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 630-633.

23.

Reynolds

W. M.

(1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119-125.

24.

Richerson

Boyd

(2005). Not by genes alone. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

25.

Sadalla

E. K.

Kenrick

D. T.

Vershure

(1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730-738.

26.

Schaller

(1997). Beyond “competing,” beyond “compatible.” American Psychologist, 52, 1379-1380.

27.

Segal-Caspi

Roccas

Sagiv

(2012). Don’t judge a book by its cover, revisited: Perceived and reported traits and values of attractive women. Psychological Science, 23, 1112-1116.

28.

Singelis

T. M.

(1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591.

29.

Singelis

T. M.

Triandis

H. C.

Bhawuk

D. P. S.

Gelfand

M. J.

(1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 240-275.

30.

Triandis

H. C.

Gelfand

M. J.

(1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118-128.

31.

Urbaniak

G. C.

Kilmann

P. R.

(2003). Physical attractiveness and the “nice guy paradox”: Do nice guys really finish last? Sex Roles, 49, 413-426.

32.

Urbaniak

G. C.

Kilmann

P. R.

(2006). Niceness and dating success: A further test of the nice guy stereotype. Sex Roles, 55, 209-224.

33.

Van Vugt

Iredale

(2013). Men behaving nicely: Public goods as peacock’s tails. British Journal of Psychology, 104, 3-13.

34.

Wallach

M. A.

Wallach

(1983). Psychology’s sanction for selfishness: The error of egoism in theory and therapy. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

35.

Wood

Brumbaugh

C. C.

(2009). Using revealed mate preferences to evaluate market force and differential preference explanations for mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1226-1244.

36.

Wood

Eagly

(2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.73 MB