What Do You Look for in a Prospective Date? Reexamining the Preferences of Men and Women Who Differ in Self-Monitoring Propensities

Abstract

Males and females who differed in self-monitoring propensities indicated their preferences for an evening date by ranking the desirability of nine opposite-sex targets who were varied in attractiveness and personality. In contrast to past research, criteria used to evaluate dating partners were not influenced by participants' self-monitoring propensities. Results provided little evidence that dating orientations of high and low self-monitors vary systematically when partners are selected from a broad, representative array of alternatives. Consistent with past research, men weighed attractiveness cues more heavily than did women; women attached more weight to dispositional information than men did. Yet, internal analyses revealed that the dating orientations of male and female participants were really more similar than different: Both the looks and the character of prospective dating partners were highly salient to men and women, who were most interested in dating individuals who maximized total outcomes across both dimensions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 394-400.

Bazzini, D. G. , & Shaffer, D. R. (1995). Investigating the social-adjustive and value-expressive functions of well-grounded attitudes: Implications for change and for subsequent behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 19, 279-305.

Briggs, S. R. , & Cheek, J. M. (1988). On the nature of self-monitoring: Problems with assessment, problems with validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 663-678.

Briggs, S. R. , Cheek, J. M. , & Buss, A. H. (1980). An analysis of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 679-686.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 149.

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

Cloninger, S. C. (1996). Personality: Description, dynamics, and development New York: Freeman.

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.

10.

Fischer, J. M. , & Heesacker, M. (1995). Men's and women's preferences regarding sex-related and nurturing traits in dating partners. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 260-269.

11.

Glick, P. (1985). Orientations toward relationships: Choosing a situation in which to begin a relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 544-562.

12.

Glick, P. , De Morest, J. A. , & Hotze, C. A. (1988). Self-monitoring and beliefs about partner compatibility in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 485-494.

13.

Graziano, W. G. , Jensen-Campbell, L. A. , Shebilske, L. J. , & Lundgren, S. R. (1993). Social influence, sex differences, and judgments of beauty: Putting the interpersonal back in interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 522-531.

14.

Hatfield, E. , & Rapson, R. L. (1996). Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

15.

Horowitz, I. A. , & Bordens, R. S. (1995). Social psychology. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

16.

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.

17.

John, O. P. , Cheek, J. M. , & Klohnen, E. C. (in press). On the nature of self-monitoring: Construct explication via Q-sort ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

18.

Landolt, M. A. , Lalumiere, M. L. , & Quinsey, V. L. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethnology and Sociobiology, 16, 3-23.

19.

Myers, D. G. (1996). Social psychology (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

20.

Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/private realities: The psychology of self monitoring. New York: Freeman.

21.

Snyder, M. , Berscheid, E. , & Glick, P. (1985). Focusing on the exterior and the interior: Two investigations of the initiation of personal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1427-1439.

22.

Snyder, M. , & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125-139.

23.

Snyder, M. , & Simpson, J. A. (1984). Self-monitoring and dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1281-1291.

24.

Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual section and the descent of man 1871-1971 (pp. 136-172). Chicago: Aldine.