Big Two Personality and Big Three Mate Preferences: Similarity Attracts, but Country-Level Mate Preferences Crucially Matter
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
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?
Empirical tests of sociometer theory have treated state and trait self-esteem interchangeably.
“In addition, empirical tests of sociometer theory have treated state and trait self-esteem interchangeably (Denissen, Penke, Schmitt, & van Aken, 2008; Gebauer, M. R. Leary, & Neberich, 2012;Stinson et al., 2008).”
From Cultural norm fulfillment, interpersonal belonging, or getting ahead? A large-scale cross-cultural test of three perspectives on the function of self-esteem. (2015) · cites this paper as Gebauer, M. R. Leary, & Neberich, 2012
Cites
Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 · Cited by 4,567 · see citing works
Inventory of interpersonal problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications.
Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureño, G., & Villaseñor, V. S. (1988) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.56.6.885 · Cited by 2,026 · see citing works
Narcissism, Self-Esteem, and the Positivity of Self-Views: Two Portraits of Self-Love
Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E. A., & Sedikides, C. (2002) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167202286007 · Cited by 866 · see citing works
Power moves: complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior
Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558 · Cited by 634 · see citing works
Fincher, C. L., & Thornhill, R. (2012) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x11000021 · Cited by 526 · see citing works
Gebauer, J. E., Wagner, J., Sedikides, C., & Neberich, W. (2013) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00807.x · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gebauer, J. E., Wagner, J., Sedikides, C., & Neberich, W. (2013) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00807.x · Cited by 172 · see citing works
Self-citationWagner, J., Lüdtke, O., Jonkmann, K., & Trautwein, U. (2013) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0029680 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Gebauer, J. E., Sedikides, C., Wagner, J., Bleidorn, W., Rentfrow, P. J., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2015) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspp0000052 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Self-citation
- 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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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