Cited by 42Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorPersonality Traits and PsychologyAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

Big Two Personality and Big Three Mate Preferences: Similarity Attracts, but Country-Level Mate Preferences Crucially Matter

Gebauer, Jochen E., Leary, Mark R., Neberich, Wiebke·2012·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Abstract

People differ regarding their “Big Three” mate preferences of attractiveness, status, and interpersonal warmth. We explain these differences by linking them to the “Big Two” personality dimensions of agency/competence and communion/warmth. The similarity-attracts hypothesis predicts that people high in agency prefer attractiveness and status in mates, whereas those high in communion prefer warmth. However, these effects may be moderated by agentics’ tendency to contrast from ambient culture, and communals’ tendency to assimilate to ambient culture. Attending to such agentic-cultural-contrast and communal-cultural-assimilation crucially qualifies the similarity-attracts hypothesis. Data from 187,957 online-daters across 11 countries supported this model for each of the Big Three. For example, agentics—more so than communals—preferred attractiveness, but this similarity-attracts effect virtually vanished in attractiveness-valuing countries. This research may reconcile inconsistencies in the literature while utilizing nonhypothetical and consequential mate preference reports that, for the first time, were directly linked to mate choice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167212456300

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gebauer, J. E., Leary, M. R., & Neberich, W.
Affiliations
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Affinitas GmbH, Berlin, Germany
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Published
2012-09-05
Volume
38
Issue
12
Pages
1579-1593
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
OpenAlex
W2127177028
Cited by
42
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
mate preferences, attractiveness, social status, interpersonal warmth, cultural values, online dating, mate choice, cross-cultural comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Choice Behavior, Culture, Europe, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Marriage, Middle Aged, Personal Satisfaction, Personality, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sexual Partners, Social Class, Students, Age Distribution, Sex Distribution, Multilevel Analysis, Young Adult

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