Evolutionary Psychology
Workshop 5: Partner-Wanted Ad’s.
Learning Outcomes.
 1. Review the evidence concerning the use of lonely-heart
personal advertisements (LHPA’s) to understand human
mate preferences.
 2. Carry out a content analysis of lonely-heart
advertisements.
 3. Discuss the findings in light of theoretical predictions.
Background.
 Lonely-hearts personal advertisements (LHPA's) are a
highly popular means of meeting potential short- or longterm mating partners.
 Around 80% of major newspapers and magazines surveyed
ran LHPA's (Thiessen et al., 1993).
 There are problems in that submitters of LHPA's may
represent a biased sample, or that the information provided
may be inaccurate (Wiederman, 1993).
 However, according to Thiessen et al., (1993) and
Greenless & Mcgrew (1994) LHPA's provide an ecologically
valid dating and mating arena in which to analyse human
reproductive strategies and mate preferences.
Advantages of Content Analysis
of LHPA’s.
 1. Use of LHPA's is common, and those who place a LHPA
do so for valid interpersonal reasons and not just because
they want to be volunteers in research.
 2. The placing of a LHPA is a 'real-life' act with genuine
consequences and so is akin to a naturalistic observation
rather than a controlled laboratory study.
 3. LHPA users offer a broader range of age, class, and
experiences than do most studies on mate preferences,
which rely on undergraduate students.
 4. The commodities of exchange are clear - both sexes
provide
information
about
themselves
and
their
preferences.
 5. The success or failure of a strategy can be followed-up.
 6. The technique is simple to conduct and evaluate.
General Predictions.
 Based on sexual selection / parental investment we could
argue that females may seek males who demonstrate their
ability and willingness to contribute to a relationship or on
their genetic quality.
 Males place a higher emphasis on female fertility and could
thus be predicted to seek information concerning youth,
attractiveness, parental skills, and fertility.
Female Predictions.
 We might expect females to offer:
 Youth and attractiveness ('cute', 'buxom' 'petite',
'shapely'), caring behaviour ('kind', 'gentle', 'sincere'),
perhaps the promise of sex ('cuddly', 'sensual' 'into fun
times').
 They may seek:
 Resources, and the willingness to invest them (i.e.
'homeowner',
'employed',
'professional'
'generous',
'sharing' etc).
 Intelligence ('educated'), mate reliability ('honesty'), and a
partner who is older than themselves ('mature').
 Certain physical features (i.e. 'tall', 'muscular') but may not
particularly emphasise 'good looks'.
Male Predictions.
 We might expect males to principally offer:
 Resources (i.e. status, job description, property ownership,
likes holidays abroad) and reliability ('honest', 'mature'
etc).
 While they may not offer good looks they may emphasise
their height or physique ('tall', 'rugged', 'healthy').
 They will seek:
 Younger attractive partners and will probably not demand
intelligence, social status, or resources.
 Certain characteristics such as 'generosity', 'good sense of
humour', 'kindness', 'caring nature' etc may be sought by
both sexes.
Previous Content-Analysis Studies.
 In an analysis of more than 1000 LHPA's, Wiederman
(1993) reported than female advertisers sought resources
11 times more often than males.
 Males were likely to offer resources and the willingness to
invest them (e.g. ‘homeowner’, ‘employed’ ‘educated’,
‘generous nature’) than women.
 Males who mentioned resources were significantly more
likely to receive a reply.
 Thiessen et al., (1993) also reported that males were
significantly more likely to offer resources, while women
were more likely to seek them.
 Greenless & Mcgrew (1993) reported that males sought
youth, attractiveness, and sexual availability, while women
sought evidence of resources, financial security, and
possible long-term commitment.
Resource Offering and Requests.
From Thiessen et al., 1993, p216.
The Factor of Age.
 In a review of age preferences, Kenrick & Keefe (1992)
found that females typically preferred males who were
around 5-10 years older than themselves, and this
remained fairly consistent over the life span.
 Greenless & McGrew (1994) reported that the average age
of male advertisers was 36 as opposed to 34.9 for women
and women are significantly more likely to stipulate the age
of their preferred partner (older than themselves).
 In around 900 LHPA's from the 'Observer' newspaper
Pawlowski & Dunbar (1999) found that women typically
prefer males 2-3 years older than themselves and this
remains stable across the age range, males however
request increasingly younger partners as they age.
Age Preferences.
Data from Kenrick & Keefe, 1993, p80.
Age Preferences continued.
Data from Pawlowski & Dunbar, 1999, in Barrett et al., (2002) p100.
Characteristics of the Sender.
 Waynforth & Dunbar (1995) showed that individual
preferences are contingent upon what the person has to
offer. In more than 800 LHPA's they found:
 Women become less demanding as they get older (as their
reproductive value declines).
 Males become more demanding as they get older
(resources increase).
 Women offering attractiveness are more demanding.
 Males offering resources are more demanding.
 Males with fewer resources offer family commitment.
 Males and females with dependant offspring make lower
demands.
 Individuals from higher socio-economic groups make
higher demands than those from lower groups.
Successful LHPA's.
 Lynn & Shurgot (1984) found that females describing
themselves as 'slim' received more replies.
 Tall, males with dark hair received more replies than
shorter males with lighter hair.
 Green et al., (1984) compared the most ‘popular’ male and
female 'dates' with the most 'unpopular’ from a video
dating agency.
 Younger and more attractive females were most popular as
were older males with high status.
 Rajecki et al., (1991) reported that in general women
received more replies than men, with younger women and
older males receiving the most replies.
Pawlowski & Koziel (2002)
 Using matrimonial bureau records of 551 male and 617
female LHPA's they analysed which particular stated traits
influenced the 'hit rate'.
 As in previous studies males offered resources and sought
attractiveness, while females offered attractiveness and
sought resources/commitment.
 For males the most important predictors of hit rate (in
order of success) were education, age (older), height (tall)
and marital status (single) and resources.
 For females the most important factors influencing hit rate
were as follows: weight (thin), height (medium), and
education (less).
 Surprisingly attractiveness offered was not a significant
predictor.
Activities.
 1. Use the table provided to put together a tally sheet of
features offered and requested by each sex.
 We will collect the data together and discuss the findings.
 2. Using your knowledge concerning successful LHPA's,
write an LHPA for a male and female that you think should
bring them success.
Results.
% of 460 LHPA's offering/seeking
attractiveness
60
50
%
40
female
male
30
20
10
0
offer
request
Type
Results.
% of 460 LHPA's offering /seeking
youth
40
35
30
%
25
female
20
male
15
10
5
0
offer
request
Type
Results.
%
% of 460 LHPA's offering/seeking
resources
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
female
male
offer
request
Type
Results.
% of 460 LHPA's offering/seeking
physical attractiveness
60
50
%
40
female
30
male
20
10
0
offer
request
Type
References.
 Green, S.K., Buchanan, D.R., & Heuer, S.K. (1984). Winners,
losers, and choosers: a field investigation of dating initiation.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10: 502-511.
 Greenless, I.A., & McGrew, W.C. (1994). Sex and age differences
in preference and tactics of mate attraction: analysis of published
advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15: 59-72.
 Kenrick, D.T., & Keefe, R.C. (1992). Age preferences in mates
reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies.
Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 15: 75-133.
 Lynn, M., & Shurgot, B.A. (1984). Responses to lonely hearts
advertisements: effect of reported physical attractiveness,
physique and coloration. Personality and Social psychology
Bulletin, 10: 349-357.
 Pawlowski, B., & Dunbar, R.I.M. (1999). Impact of market value
on human mate choice decisions. Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London, B, 266: 281-285.
References continued.
 Pawlowski, B., & Koziel, S. (2002). The impact of traits offered in
personal advertisements on response rates. Evolution and Human
Behaviour, 23: 139-149.
 Rajecki, D.W., Bledsoe, S.B., & Rasmussen, J.L. (1991). Successful
personal ads: gender differences and similarities in offers,
stipulations, and outcomes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
12: 457-469.
 Thiessen, D., Young, R.K., & Burroughs, R. (1993). Lonely hearts
advertisements reflect sexually dimorphic mating strategies.
Ethology and Sociobiology, 14: 209-229.
 Waynforth, D., & Dunbar, R.I.M. (1995). Conditional mate choice
strategies in humans: evidence from 'lonely hearts'
advertisements. Behaviour, 132: 755-779.
 Wiederman, M.W. (1993). Evolved gender differences in mate
preferences: evidence from personal advertisements. Ethology
and Sociobiology, 14: 331-352.