Ha · Archives of sexual behavior 2012 · Cross-sectional survey and vignette experiment · n=1586

Effects of attractiveness and status in dating desire in homosexual and heterosexual men and women.

Cited 52 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional survey and vignette experiment (by design analogy, not clinical CEBM)

PubMed 21979410 · doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9855-9 · record verified 2026-08-27

What was done

Researchers evaluated partner preferences regarding attractiveness and social status across four groups: homosexual men (n = 591, mean age 28.87 years), homosexual women (n = 249, mean age 33.36 years), heterosexual men (n = 346, mean age 39.74 years), and heterosexual women (n = 400, mean age 35.93 years). Participants completed self-report ratings of the importance of attractiveness and social status, followed by a vignette experiment assessing dating desire toward hypothetical partners based on facial photographs and status-related profiles.

What was found

In self-report ratings, heterosexual men valued attractiveness most, followed by homosexual men, heterosexual women, and homosexual women. Heterosexual women rated social status as most important. In the vignette experiment, patterns matched the self-report ratings. Across all groups, participants expressed greater dating desire for attractive and high-status individuals, with social status playing a smaller role than attractiveness. Numerical values, test statistics, and effect sizes were not reported in the abstract.

Why it matters

The study shows that partner preference patterns for attractiveness and status are broadly similar across sexual orientations, with physical attractiveness consistently exerting a stronger impact on dating desire than social status.

Limits

The abstract reports no numerical values, test statistics, or effect sizes for the dating preference outcomes. Assessments relied on hypothetical vignettes and photographs rather than actual mate choice behavior, and broader demographic characteristics of the sample were not detailed.

Cited by