Who we choose to fall in love and start a family with has gathered considerable interest over the past few decades. The common perception is that men and women prefer different characteristics in their potential mates. The two principal theories contesting these different preferences are based on perspectives drawn from the study of evolution and social structure.
The evolutionary (Darwinistic) perspective assumes that successful mate choice behaviors continue to influence current mate selection because the behavior led to continued existence and prosperity of the human species [1]. Sex differences between men and women have evolved because they have historically faced different environmental and social pressures [2]. The parental investment model proposed by Trivers in 1972 further suggests that this is because men and women differ in the level of parental investment required to ensure the survival of the species. Thus, their mating behaviors evolved accordingly. While women invest extensive physiological resources in producing offspring, men invest more outside resources beyond the act of conception [3].
In contrast, the social structure perspective proposes that sexually differentiated mate selection results from contrasting social positions that men and women have historically occupied within society [2,4]. These types of societal constraints and gender expectations still persist. In an attempt to maximize resources, women who are delegated to roles of less power and resources seek out these characteristics in potential mates. They can offer commodities such as physical beauty, fertility, and sexual pleasure that are desired by men [2,4,5].
Both hypotheses are supported by ample evidence that can be reviewed in Shoemake 2007 [6].
Here, we used a short online poll to investigate possible sex differences and differences associated with career stage regarding mate selection of Berlin neuroscientists.
The survey comprised three questions: 1) ''What is your gender?'' 2) ''What is your position in neuroscience research?'' 3) ''What are the first four qualities you look for in a partner?” Categories were the following: age, cleanliness, ethnicity, financial security, intelligence, kindness, nerdiness, physical attraction, religion, sense of humor, social status, trustworthiness, and other. The survey was prepared on surveymonkey.com and sent to the Berlin Neuroscience community via mailing lists of Medical Neurosciences, Mind and Brain, Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience as well as the forum of the staff of the Department of Experimental Neurology. Answers were collected between April 28 and May 2, 2014.
126 responses were collected for the poll. One response had to be excluded since no answers were given to the questions. Out of the 125 answers, 62 participants were male, 61 female, one preferred not to answer and one chose “other”. Of the remaining 125 participants, 23 were students, 58 PhD students, 5 technicians, 20 postdocs, 4 group leaders, 10 professors, and 5 other (Fig. 1).
 |
| Fig. 1. Sociodemographic distribution of the participants |
Neuroscientists Look for Intelligence, Physical Attraction Rates Only Third
Overall, intelligence (88.6%) was the most frequently reported quality that respondents looked for in their partners, followed by sense of humor (74.0%), physical attraction (68.3%), trustworthiness (60.2%), and kindness (58.5%) (Fig. 2). All other options had less than 10% votes, except for other (11.4%): age (8.1%), social status (7.3%), cleanliness (6.5%), nerdiness (5.7%), religion (3.3%), financial status (2.4%), and ethnicity (1.6%).
 |
| Fig. 2. Gender differences in mate selection |
Male and Female Neuroscientists Desire Similar Qualities in their Partner
Both male and female participants rated the same top five qualities. The only differences across gender occurred with respect to physical attraction and sense of humor. For men, physical attraction was the second most frequent criterion, whereas only about half of the participating women reported it (80.6 vs. 55.7%, χ²(1, N=123)=8.81, p=0.003). Sense of humor was significantly more preferred by women compared to men (82.0 vs. 66.1%, χ²(1, N=123)=4.01, p=.045).
Neuroscientists Look for the Same Qualities Independent of Career Stage
Due to the low responses from technicians and 'other', we did not include these groups in the analysis. The responses from group leaders and professors were grouped for the same reason. All four groups – students, PhD students, postdocs, group leaders/professors – rated the top five qualities – intelligence, physical attraction, sense of humor, trustworthiness, and kindness – almost equally frequent. The more advanced in their career stage, the more important their partners' intelligence was rated by neuroscientists. Interestingly, postdocs rated physical attraction substantially lower than the other three groups, while they rated kindness substantially higher. Postdocs also had the highest score, even if not as pronounced, for trustworthiness and sense of humor. Only group leaders/professors rated social status as a quality of high importance. A Pearson's chi-squared test was performed and no relationship was found between career stage and any of the mate selection criteria investigated in this study.
 |
| Fig. 3. Career stage and mate selection |
Discussion
We discovered that male and female neuroscientists have similar mate selection criteria which differ only when it comes to physical attraction. Intelligence was found to be the most frequently reported criterion. A relationship between career stage and mate selection criteria was not found.
In our study, we found intelligence, physical attraction, sense of humor, trustworthiness, and kindness to be the five key attributes both men and women look for in their mate. This goes in line with the immense amount of literature on mate preference that generally indicates a preference for intelligence, emotional stability, honesty and trustworthiness, an exciting overall personality, and – of course – a physically attractive appearance [7].
NEUROSCIENTISTS RATE INTELLIGENCE AS THE
MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THEIR PARTNER
Interestingly, our study suggests that neuroscientists rate intelligence as the most important factor in their partner – or at least, that is what we would like to believe. According to the matching hypothesis, people are more likely to form and succeed in a relationship with a partner who is equally socially desirable, which often refers to physical attractiveness [8]. On average, women tend to be attracted to men who are taller than they are and vice versa. While men want women with full breasts and lips, low waist-hip ratio, and a young appearance, women prefer men with broad shoulders, narrow waist, V-shaped torso, and masculine facial dimorphism. In addition, both seem to be attracted by a symmetrical face [9-11]. Even when on a purely platonic level, it was shown that people – especially men – tend to be drawn to others that they perceive as similarly attractive [12]. And sure, you probably know one or two successful couples where both partners are not necessarily attractive to the same degree. In this case, the less attractive partner possesses compensating qualities such as status and wealth [13]. Yet, it is not entirely surprising that intelligence is highly ranked. It was previously shown that people unconsciously attribute positive characteristics, e.g. intelligence, to physically attractive people [14]. This association was found to be stronger for men compared to women [15]. Prokosch and colleagues proposed a general fitness factor (f-factor) where intelligence and physical attractiveness are positively correlated because both reflect the quality of the genes and developmental stability [16].
NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAREER STAGE AND MATE SELECTION CRITERIA
Surprisingly, social status was ranked very low in this study, and only group leaders and professors seem to have a preference for it. According to the literature, women have a substantial preference for high social status and wealth [17,18]. In a large US study, men and women were asked how willing they would be to marry someone who possessed a variety of characteristics. While men were significantly less willing than women to marry someone who was “not good looking,” women were significantly less willing than men to marry a partner who was “not likely to hold a steady job” and who “would earn less than you.” However, they showed that both characteristics matter to men and women – just to a different degree [19].
We did not find a relationship between career stage and any of the mate selection criteria investigated here. Yet, group leaders and professors tend to pay more attention to social status. We can only speculate that being a neuroscientist or a researcher in academia favors a certain kind of person (which would also explain the lack of gender differences). Why postdocs, in particular, ranked physical attraction much lower than the other groups and tend to value sense of humor, kindness, and trustworthiness more, we'll leave up to your imagination.
What you think your partner should be like and how your beloved turns out to be might be completely different. That’s love!
Limitations of this Study
This study is greatly limited by the short online poll and low number of respondents. A more detailed study on the mates and reproductive success of Berlin neuroscientists would provide a deeper insight on the actual selection criteria and evolutionary fitness of neuroscientists.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Anna Pajkert for helping with the statistical analysis of the data.
[1] Kenrick, Advan Exp Soc Psychol, 1994
[2] Eagly and Wood, Amer Psychol, 1999
[3] Trivers, “Parental investment and sexual selection”, in Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine, 1972
[4] Howard et al, J Pers Soc Psychol, 1987
[5] Buss and Barnes, J Pers Soc Psychol, 1986
[6] Shoemake, J Scientific Psychol, 2007
[7] Regan, “The Mating Game. A Primer on Love, Sex, and Marriage”, Chapter 1: “Mate Preferences”, 2nd Edition, California State University, Los Angeles, 2008
[8] Feingold, Psychol Bull, 1988
[9] Perrett et al, Nature, 1998
[10] Nettle, Proc Biol Sci, 2002
[11] Glassenberg et al, Arch Sex Behav, 2010
[12] Feingold, J Pers Soc Psychol, 1990
[13] Myers, Social psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 10th ed., 2009
[14] Dion et al, J Pers Soc Psychol, 1972
[15] Kanazawa, Intelligence, 2011
[16] Prokosch et al, Intelligence, 2005
[17] Buss and Schmitt, Psychol Rev, 1993
[18] Feingold, Psychol Bull, 1992
[19] Sprecher et al, J Pers Soc Psychol, 1994
by Marietta Zille
this article originally appeared 2014 in CNS Volume 7, Issue 2, Neuroscience of Love
