Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence From a Speed Dating Experiment
Open accessAbstract
We study dating behavior using data from a Speed Dating experiment where we generate random matching of subjects and create random variation in the number of potential partners. Our design allows us to directly observe individual decisions rather than just final matches. Women put greater weight on the intelligence and the race of partner, while men respond more to physical attractiveness. Moreover, men do not value women's intelligence or ambition when it exceeds their own. Also, we find that women exhibit a preference for men who grew up in affluent neighborhoods. Finally, male selectivity is invariant to group size, while female selectivity is strongly increasing in group size.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Men place greater weight on physical attractiveness in potential mates, a more visible trait that requires less signaling.
“By contrast, men place greater weight on physical attractiveness in potential mates, a more visible trait that requires less signaling (Buss, 1989; Fisman et al., 2006).”
From Talking the talk, not walking the walk: The coevolution of overconfidence and loss aversion (2026) · cites this paper as Fisman et al., 2006
Cites
Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204 · Cited by 4,253 · see citing works
Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions.
Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.181 · Cited by 1,417 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Too Much of a Good Thing: The Challenge and Opportunity of the Inverted U
Grant, A. M., & Schwartz, B. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393523 · Cited by 668 · see citing works
Understanding the Effect of Accuracy on Trust in Machine Learning Models
Yin, M., Wortman Vaughan, J., & Wallach, H. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300509 · Cited by 527 · see citing works
Gendered racial exclusion among white internet daters
Feliciano, C., Robnett, B., & Komaie, G. (2009) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.09.004 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
FISMAN, R., IYENGAR, S. S., KAMENICA, E., & SIMONSON, I. (2008) · Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-937x.2007.00465.x · Cited by 189 · see citing works
Self-citationOne-way mirrors in online dating: a randomized field experiment
Bapna, R., Ramaprasad, J., Shmueli, G., & Umyarov, A. (2016) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2301 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Human Reliance on Machine Learning Models When Performance Feedback is Limited: Heuristics and Risks
Lu, Z., & Yin, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445562 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Rechkemmer, A., & Yin, M. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501967 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Talking the talk, not walking the walk: The coevolution of overconfidence and loss aversion
Dawson, C., & de Meza, D. (2026) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000644 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-05-01
- Volume
- 121
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 673-697
- ISSN
- 0033-5533 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-4650
- OpenAlex
- W2134255645
- Cited by
- 522
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 25
- FWCI
- 18.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Quarterly Journal of Economics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Columbia Academic Commons (Columbia University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- National Institute on Aging (T32AG000186)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
- Keywords
- mate choice, gender differences, speed dating, dating behavior, physical attractiveness, intelligence, race, neighborhood affluence, group size, partner choice, random matching
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
