The Multiple Routes to Mating Success
A wise man once told me, “As a man, you have to die once in order to live.” I never fully appreciated his advice, nor did I understand it until I experienced it firsthand. From that time on, I understood the origins of the Jerk vs. Nice Guy battle. Readers may be asking themselves, “What in the world is this guy talking about?” Well, I’m referring to the widely known fact that women habitually date men that are jerks while the “nice” guys are often left twiddling their thumbs in solitaire. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Figuratively speaking, in order for a man to enjoy the company of women and be able to seduce them, his inner nice guy must first die through heartache. It is at this point that his inner bad boy surfaces and goes on the prowl.
(Smith, 2002, as quoted in
Urbaniak & Kilmann, 2006, p. 210).
We all know someone who is the classic bad boy: charming, rebellious, selfish, thrill seeking, impulsive, and with a long list of sexual encounters and heartbreaks left in his path. Such depictions of the edgy guy with women all around him appear widely in popular culture, from James Dean to James Bond. The undeniable mating success of the bad boy has motivated many nice guys throughout the course of human evolution to gel their hair, put on leather jackets, and attempt to change their congenial ways. Today, there exists a wide assortment of dating coaches and “pick-up artists” available to teach the frustrated male how to adopt the attractive traits of the bad boy.1
There’s no denying that bad boys can be attractive. The traits that bad boys tend to display (at least at first), such as good style, assertiveness, confidence, creativity, humor, charisma, high energy, and good social skills, are all attractive courtship displays. There’s no doubt: bad boys exhibit a lot of the crucial aspects of mating intelligence.
But what do women really like about the bad boy? Is it the selfish, aggressive aspects, or the attractive traits that come along for the ride? Do bad boys have more sexual partners because of their higher sex drive, low self-control, aggressiveness, or persistent tactics, or because of their attractive traits? Or is it a bit of a mix of all these qualities? Is it necessary for the nice guy to be bad to obtain his mating goals in life? Can he just work on his mating intelligence skills? What does it even mean to be “bad”?
The media loves translating correlations into causation. For instance, The Independent reports on a correlation between being bad and number of sexual partners and boldly proclaims in the title: “Why Women Really Do Love Self-Obsessed Psychopaths.”2 Is this right? Do women really love self-obsessed psychopaths? Really?
These issues, phrased in a thousand different ways (e.g., What’s the allure of the bad boy? Do jerks finish first? Do nice guys finish last?), have been debated ever since the dawn of humanity. There is no shortage of speculation coming from all different directions, including peer-reviewed journal articles, magazines, and numerous Internet blogs. This is a topic that intrigues scientists and civilians alike.
We may finally have some answers. Or at the very least, hints. In recent years, a good bit of scientific research has been conducted on this topic, both directly and indirectly. In this chapter, we explore this fascinating topic in a number of ways, drawing on many different literatures.
First, we pinpoint what exactly women mean when they use terms such as “bad boy” and “nice guy.” Then we discuss the psychology of individuals who are primarily driven by selfish desires, and how they go about obtaining their mating goals. We go on to discuss the highly related topics of dominance and the attainment of social status. Then, we look at what women actually want. Finally, we present what we think are the most reasonable conclusions based on all of the current evidence. Join us in our search to get to the bottom of this age-old mystery.
First things first, let’s clarify some terminology. Not all women mean the same thing by the terms “bad boy” and “nice guy.” Edward Herold and Robin Milhausen3 asked 174 female undergraduates enrolled in a first-year course on couple and family relations why they think nice guys are more likely to have fewer sexual partners. The researchers found that there were a number of different explanations for why nice guys are perceived as sexually inexperienced. One reason some women suggested was that nice guys are simply less forward with women. One wrote, “To me ‘nice guys’ aren’t as persistent or aggressive and don’t use sleazy tactics to add another notch to their bedposts.” Another reason was that nice guys want serious relationships and value commitment. Some women wrote that they desired nice guys as friends instead of lovers. As one woman wrote, “Nice guys are the ones we always see as just friends, and generally aren’t seen as potential partners. In general, nice guys are overlooked when it comes to sexual relationships.” Ouch!
Some women in their sample conceptualized nice guys as needy, weak, predictable, boring, inexperienced, and unattractive. One woman wrote, “Nice guys often don’t provide the drama and adventure women think they want.” Other women were more flattering in their description of nice guys, viewing them as having positive traits such as a good personality, high standards and morals, and politeness. Nice guys were also considered to be more passive in their interactions with women, lacking confidence and being unsure of themselves. They were also thought to be willing to wait for sex because they cared about their partners and treated them with respect.
In general, nice guys were thought of as less physically attractive. As one woman put it, “Nice guys are generally not as attractive, and have a great personality to compensate for this shortcoming. Unfortunately, looks, not personality, tend to get a woman into bed.” Double ouch! No wonder nice guys are frustrated! (We would beg to differ with this woman, though, and refer her to Chapter 3).
Perceptions of bad boys fell into four different categories. One group of women saw bad boys as rebellious, mysterious, daring, arrogant, and dangerous. Another group saw bad boys as macho, strong, and confident. A third group viewed bad boys as fun, adventurous, spontaneous, and outgoing. A fourth group saw the bad boy as sexy, charming, good looking, and sexually experienced.
Women cited many different reasons for why bad boys are sexually experienced. Some women suggested that bad boys use aggressive, dishonest, and manipulative tactics to obtain sex. Others suggested that bad boys are more likely to approach and ask women for sex because of their self-confidence and prior successes with women, which made them less fearful of rejection. Participants reported that the sexual success of bad boys led them to be viewed as more desirable and appealing by women. Bad boys were also considered to be more physically and sexually attractive, approaching relationships more casually, caring more about sex than intimate relationships, and sexually unfaithful.
These are college-aged women, between the ages of 18 and 25 years at one university writing these responses, so the findings must be taken with a grain of salt. Women at different stages of their life and with different life experiences may have different conceptions of (as well as interest in) “bad boys” and “nice guys”. Still, this research provides a general idea of how these different kinds of men are perceived.
Taking these results at face value, though, we can see that nice guys are perceived as good people, friends, and marriage partners, but not passionate lovers. Bad boys, on the other hand, are perceived as having more of a mix of positive and negative qualities. On the one hand, bad boys are perceived as having some very attractive traits (e.g., sexy, confident, charming). On the other hand, they are also seen as exhibiting negative behaviors such as aggression and duplicity. Therefore, a number of traits are “bad” in the sense that they are related to highly selfish, exploitative mating strategies.
Although a certain degree of self-deception and other-deception can be adaptive in the mating domain, particularly in the courtship phase (see Chapters 6 and 7), some individuals take deception and selfishness to the extreme, almost completely lacking in the emotional intelligence skills required to respect the feelings of others, let alone form an intimate, meaningful, and committed relationship (not that they necessarily want to).
As we noted in Chapter 3, differences in various personality traits may exist because of the adaptive benefits they may confer on survival and reproductive outcomes. In that chapter, we reviewed research on agreeableness and conscientiousness and demonstrated that individuals high in these two traits show more restraint in many aspects of their lives, behaviors that are conducive to maintaining a long-term relationship. We also mentioned that those with low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness behave in ways that may increase their short-term mating success. A reduction in both of these traits—agreeableness and conscientiousness—is an integral component of a number of personality disorders that are receiving considerable research attention.
In recent years, psychologists have looked at the traits and behaviors of these socially undesirable individuals: those with narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Although they have traditionally been studied only in clinical settings, researchers have started to investigate these traits and behaviors in the general population. Let’s zoom in on these people, get into their head, and look at their mating outcomes to get a better sense of how these individuals accomplish their selfish mating goals.
Narcissists display high levels of self-focus, self-importance, and a sense of entitlement while seeking admiration, attention, prestige, and status.4 This self-focus is even reflected in their brains! People with narcissistic tendencies are quicker at identifying their own picture compared with a picture of a stranger or a friend, and their brains show increased activation in regions associated with self-awareness and representations of the self.5
Because enjoying the social scene is a means of boosting status and ego, narcissists are very extraverted and social. According to W. Keith Campbell, “the social scene can be like a drug to them. They get so excited by the social scene that they feel a ‘rush.’ This rush makes them even more cocky. They feel popular, important, powerful, and desirable.”6 There’s no doubt: narcissists are addicted to fleeting ego boosts, and the transient social scene gives them just the boost they crave. Of course, not all extraverts are narcissistic, but narcissists do tend to display extraverted behaviors. They are sensation seekers; they crave excitement and novel experiences. Narcissists aren’t interested in just any sort of social scene, though: they intentionally seek out people who will maintain their high positive self-image and intentionally avoid people who may give them a harsh dose of realism.
Unsurprisingly, research shows that narcissists do not tend to do well in long-term relationships and suffer from all sorts of intrapersonal and interpersonal problems.7 Indeed, their low need for affiliation and high need for power are not conducive to maintaining intimate relationships. Narcissists do report being generally uninterested in caring relationships, so they have very few motivations to change. Twenge and Campbell suggest that “this apparent independence on the part of narcissists, however, may veil a deep need for social acceptance—or perhaps for social dominance.”8 It has also been suggested that narcissists may be their own worst enemy because they “lack the self-control necessary to inhibit the behaviors that thwart the attainment of their goals.”9
Narcissism reaches its peak in adolescence and declines with age. Although part of the reason for this decline may be reduced levels of testosterone, as people get older it also becomes less socially acceptable and increasingly pathetic to display narcissistic traits. “It is one thing to see a twenty-five-year-old with a leased Mercedes lying to a young woman; it is another thing to see a sixty-five-year-old doing the same thing,” notes Campbell.10 There are also sex differences in displays of narcissism.11 One study, which consisted of face-to-face interviews with 34,653 adults, found that men on average are more narcissistic than women across the life span.12
Narcissism can be broken down into various related facets. Robert Emmons13 distinguishes between leadership/authority (those who enjoy being a leader and being seen as an authority), self-absorption/self-admiration (those who admire their own physical appearance and personality), superiority/arrogance (those who overestimate their own abilities), and exploitativeness/entitlement (those who enjoy manipulating and exploiting others and expect favors from others). Even though these four facets are moderately related to one another, there still is a lot of variability amongst narcissists in terms of how they express narcissism. Also, each of these facets lies on a continuum in the general population. In other words, all of us are at least a little bit narcissistic!
All of these facets of narcissism can be quite adaptive to an individual in achieving his or her goals. As we’ve pointed out repeatedly throughout this book, adaptive does not mean the same thing as socially desirable. Each facet of narcissism can cause great harm to others. Also, some facets may be more adaptive than others. Some researchers have argued that the exploitativeness/entitlement facet of narcissism may be the most maladaptive facet of narcissism.14
Narcissists tend to be attracted to the short-term mating scene just as much as they are to the transient social scene. In fact, some researchers have argued that narcissists are so well suited to the short-term mating domain that narcissism may have evolved for this purpose!
An emerging hypothesis by Nicholas Holtzman and Michael Strube15 makes the case that narcissism emerged as a particular form of dominance about 1.5 million years ago when variation in mating strategies emerged. They note that narcissism involves many adaptive traits and that the viability of short-term mating, through the process of evolution, shaped narcissism. In support of their argument, they cite three main links to narcissism.
First, Holtzman and Strube note that narcissism and attractiveness tend to be associated. To be sure, some studies have suggested that narcissists have positive illusions about themselves that are not always correct.16 For instance, April Bleske-Rechek, Mark Remiker, and Jonathan Baker17 found that even though narcissists thought they were hot stuff, outside judges did not rate those high in narcissism any different in physical attractiveness than those lower in narcissism. Still, narcissists will rejoice in the streets when they hear that looking across a great number of studies in total, conducted on more than 1,000 people, there does seem to be a relationship between physical attractiveness and narcissism (although they probably won’t be surprised!). Even though the relationship is small, it’s still substantial when you consider that the correlation is about as high as what is typically found between other personality traits and attractiveness. Of course, the link here between narcissism and attractiveness doesn’t explain why narcissists tend to be considered more attractive. Are their bodies more attractive, or is it just all the ornamention?18
Recent research suggests it is their “physically attractive veneer” that is attractive, not their unadorned bodies. Consider a study conducted by Simine Vazire, Laura Naumann, Peter Rentfrow, and Samuel Gosling.19 They found that narcissists put a lot more preparation into their appearance; wore fashionable, stylish, and expensive clothing; appeared cheerful; and were rated as more attractive at first sight compared with those scoring lower in narcissism. They also found effects unique to each gender. Female narcissists applied more make-up, plucked their eyebrows more, and revealed more cleavage than females scoring lower in narcissism, and male narcissists ditched their eyeglasses and pumped up their muscles more compared with the less narcissist males in their study.
The attraction of narcissists is not purely physical. Although narcissists do not fare well in terms of long-term relationships, they can initially be quite striking and attractive as social partners. Del Paulhus20 found that after the first roughly 2½-hour student work group session, narcissists were rated as more agreeable, conscientious, open-minded, competent, entertaining, and well-adjusted by the other members of the group. After the seventh session, though, narcissists were rated by the other members of the group as less agreeable, less well adjusted, less warm, and more hostile and arrogant. What a contrast to what the group members thought of the very same narcissistic individuals on the first day!
As S. Mark Young and Drew Pinksy note, narcissists’ “extraverted behavior and desire to be liked can make them enjoyable to work with initially” because they “tend to create drama and, thus, are entertaining to watch, especially in competitive situations.”21 No doubt, narcissists can be fun (if not sometimes excruciating) to watch on reality TV. But what exactly is so attractive about narcissists, at least initially, that explains their popularity? What cues are they broadcasting? Which facets of the narcissist are most related to their popularity, sometimes even celebrity, status?22
In a series of four very clever studies, Mitja Back, Stefan Schmukle, and Boris Egloff23 sought to determine why narcissists are popular at “zero acquaintance.” They propose that narcissists are more popular at first sight because of the cues they produce. They investigated four cues in particular, which they hypothesized, based on prior research,24 would be related to the popularity of narcissists at first sight. In the researcher’s own words:
… we assume that narcissism predicts all of the four relevant cue domains—attractiveness, from their flashy and neat attire; interpersonal warmth, from their charming glances at strangers; competence, from their self-assured behavior; and humor, from their witty verbal expressions. As a result, they thus should enjoy greater initial popularity than non-narcissists. (Berscheid & Reis, 1998, p. 134)
Indeed, people often describe narcissists as having a “charismatic air,” which usually comprises attractiveness, competence, interpersonal warmth, and humor. Their first study involved 73 freshman psychology students who had never met each other before. At the beginning of an introductory session, each student was randomly assigned a seat number. Then, one by one, students took turns in a round-robin fashion going to a marked spot on the floor and introducing themselves, after which the other freshman evaluated how likeable they found the person and the extent to which they would like to get to know the person. Each introduction was videotaped, and four groups of independent observers rated various physical cues, nonverbal body cues, nonverbal facial cues, and verbal cues of the speaker that were hypothesized by the researchers to relate to attraction. After all the students gave their introductions and the session was over, the students were given a number of surveys to fill out at home, including a self-report narcissism questionnaire.
Narcissists tended to be more liked at first sight, and they exhibited neater and flashier appearances, more charming facial expressions, more self-assured body movement, and more humorous verbal expressions. Perhaps most revealing, though, is that not all facets of narcissism were equally predictive of popularity. In fact, the leadership/authority facet was almost completely unrelated to first impressions. Their most disturbing finding is that the facet that most strongly predicted popularity was the exploitativeness/entitlement facet. Additionally, although all of the facets of narcissism were substantially related to all of the cues that were rated by the observers, the exploitativeness/entitlement facet had more consistent and stronger correlations with the cues than any of the other facets!
In three other studies, the researchers found a striking consistency in this pattern of results. Narcissists with a sense of entitlement and a tendency to exploit others tended to be more popular at first sight for uninvolved perceivers who just watched the video of the introduction and were thus exposed to the full information of the target’s behaviors but did not have to actually make an introduction themselves (Study 2), perceivers who were only given physical and nonverbal information of the speaker (no audio condition, Study 3), and perceivers who just had physical information only (body-only condition, Study 4).
In each of these conditions, all the cues that were available were all that were necessary to produce the same pattern of results. For instance, in the body-only condition (Study 4), flashy and neat clothing was all that was needed to show a correlation between the exploitativeness/entitlement facet of narcissism and popularity. In other words, when the only cue was fancy dress, fancy dress predicted popularity, and those with this style of dress tended to score higher in the exploitativeness/entitlement facet of narcissism.
In another study, the same researchers25 used the Social Relations Lens Model methodology26 (see Chapter 5) to assess the most popular students in an introductory class in Germany. Each student’s self-introduction was evaluated by the rest of the freshman on two dimensions: liking (“How likable do you find this person?” “Would you like to get to know this person?”) and meta-perceptions of initial liking (“How likable will this person find you?” “Will this person like to get to know you?”).
Each freshman was also given a packet of questionnaires to complete at home, including measures of personality. Among other personality traits, the personality battery included 35 items related to self-centered values (e.g., social power, forgiveness, success, courtesy, ambition), which were combined to form an overall dimension of self-centered versus self-transcendent values. Afterward, all videotapes were coded by independent observers for observable physical, nonverbal, and audible cues.
Those high in neuroticism and low in self-esteem expected to be disliked, when in reality neither neuroticism nor self-esteem were related to popularity. It seems, then, that neurotic people and those with low self-esteem have inaccurate perceptions of reality. Extraverts, on the other hand, were more liked and were also expected to like others more. In reality though, extraversion was not related to being a liker or expecting to be liked.
Most alarmingly, those who reported more self-centered values were more liked and were also expected to like others more. In reality, self-centered people actually disliked others more, evaluating their peers more negatively! Therefore, although self-centered people may be perceived as more friendly, they are actually less friendly. Why were extraverts and self-centered individuals evaluated more positively? What cues were they broadcasting that influenced their popularity?
Extraversion was related to cues that had a positive effect on popularity: fashionable appearance; speedy, energetic, and self-assured body movements; friendly facial expressions; strong voice; and original self-introductions. Interestingly, those with self-centered values tended to display very similar cues. Prior research has linked the popularity of the extravert to their desire to captivate the attention of others and to their expressive behaviors, verbal humor, and fashionable dress.27 This study shows that extraverts and self-centered people share similar behavioral cues. These cues appear to be related to emotional expressiveness and social dominance.28 Extraverts and self-centered people both are signaling these traits, and these traits influence popularity.
People are very quick at detecting extraversion, and a number of narcissists are bound to fall through the cracks with such rapid assessment. Prior research has shown that people accurately perceive extraversion even after being exposed to a face for only 50 milliseconds.29 Consistent with the study by Back and colleagues,30 signals such as cheerfulness and positive facial expressions were particularly related to extraversion. Independent of personality, the researchers also found that friendliness of facial expression (amount of smiling) and pleasantness of voice were the best predictors of liking and meta-perceptions. Unsurprisingly, prior research has also found that smiling plays an important role in attraction, especially among women.31
Narcissism is also associated with attention-getting behaviors that may specifically excite sexual desire among potential short-term mates. Narcissists do use more sexual language in their everyday life. Nicholas Holtzman, Simine Vazire, and Matthias Mehl32 set out to find out what happens when you stick audio recorders on a bunch of narcissists in the general population and listen to them naturally go about their day. What do narcissists sound like?
First, the researchers administered a self-report scale of narcissism with items such as “Everybody likes to hear my stories.” Then participants wore a small, pocket-sized digital audio recorder for 4 days during their waking hours. Every 12.5 minutes, the recorder recorded 30-second snippets of audio from their environment. Participants had no clue as to when the recorder was on.
The researchers then transcribed the audio and submitted the transcriptions to a well-validated psychological text analysis program. They focused their analysis on variables particularly related to narcissism: extraverted acts (talking, being in a group, and socializing), disagreeable acts (using swear words or anger words), academic disengagement (class attendance), and sexual language use (e.g., “naked”).
The researchers found that narcissism was correlated with extraverted acts, being especially predictive of being in a group, socializing with others, and talking about friends. These correlations were much stronger among female narcissists and remained significant after controlling for extraversion, suggesting that there is something unique about narcissism that predicts extraverted acts above and beyond the personality trait of extraversion (see Chapter 3).
Narcissism was also positively related to engagement in disagreeable behaviors, including arguing, using swear words, and using anger words. For both genders, narcissists high in exploitativeness/entitlement were the most disagreeable lot.
As the researchers note, this combination of high extraversion and low agreeableness in narcissists has both benefits and disadvantages:
Specifically, while most narcissists (especially women in this particular sample) exhibit many extraverted behaviors that are likely to make a good first impression (e.g., socializing, talking about friends), they also exhibit disagreeable behaviors, which probably helps to explain the difficulties they have maintaining favorable reputations over time. (Holtzman, Vazire, & Mehl, 2010, p. 482)
Although the total narcissism composite was not related to class attendance, the exploitativeness/entitlement facet of narcissism was positively related to academic disengagement in both men and women. This link remained after controlling for the personality trait of conscientiousness. This supports the notion that the exploitativeness/entitlement facet is the most maladaptive facet of narcissism. As the researchers put it, this correlation
… suggests a mechanism by which self-enhancement is associated with academic disengagement over time … inflated self-importance may lead to shirking academic obligations, which may potentially contribute to disappointing academic outcomes. (Holtzman, Vazire, & Mehl, 2010, p. 482)
Narcissism was also positively correlated with a greater use of sexual language. As an example, one male narcissist was heard on the audio recorder saying, “Hey we can watch porn on the go. Laptop yes,” whereas a female narcissist was much more direct, noting, “I want, like, elaborate sex.” This link was strongest among narcissists high in exploitativeness/entitlement and leadership/authority and remained even after controlling for potential overlap with the use of anger and swear words that had sexual connotations. The researchers note that this “impulsive sexual strategy” is “consistent with the view that narcissists tend to be impulsive and seek short-term gains.”33 The use of sexually explicit language may be part of the narcissist’s short-term mating strategy. By signaling to everyone his or her strategy, the narcissist makes it crystal clear what he or she is looking for: potential mates who share the same mating strategy (see Chapter 2).
Narcissists are also more sexually coercive. They have more fantasies about coercion and sadism compared with non-narcissists, and they report actually engaging in coercive and sadistic sexual behaviors.34 Narcissists tend to look at sexual behavior as chances for manipulation and power over the other person.35
Indeed, the language and demeanor of narcissism are often geared toward one objective: to maintain power in an interaction. One study found that “conversational narcissism” involves boasting, refocusing the topic of the conversation on the self, exaggerating hand and body movements, using a loud tone of voice, and showing disinterest by “glazing over” when others speak.36 In the language of Malamuth’s Confluence Model,37 narcissists tend to have an antagonistic sexual and social strategy.38
In the sexual realm, promiscuity is a key strategy that allows narcissists to maintain control. Narcissists are keen at employing the principle of least interest, in which the partner with the least interest in a relationship has the greatest power. Promiscuity also helps narcissists in being able to always search for a better deal.39 In fact, when narcissists think their partner is committed, they are more willing to cheat, presumably because they feel as though they are more likely to get away with it.40 Narcissists get a rush out of getting away with high-risk behaviors such as cheating on their partner or convincing partners to do things they wouldn’t normally do, such as engaging in anal sex.41
Because narcissists tend to feel so entitled to having mates, they can get quite aggressive when sexually rejected, punishing the person who sexually rejects them.42 Narcissists also display aggression when socially rejected. This aggression-rejection link was explored by Jean Twenge and W. Keith Campbell43 in their fascinating paper, “Isn’t It Fun to Get the Respect that We’re Going to Deserve? Narcissism, Social Rejection, and Aggression.” They found across four studies that those scoring higher in narcissism tended to display more anger and aggression after experiencing social rejection, even punishing (i.e., administering a white noise burst) innocent bystanders!
Daniel Jones and Delroy Paulhus44 found similar results. Those scoring high in narcissism were more likely to punish (i.e., send a white noise burst) to those who gave them negative feedback on an essay (“This is the worst essay I have ever read!”). Narcissism was not related to aggression in the positive feedback condition (“No comments, great essay!”). Interestingly, the researchers found that those scoring higher on psychopathy were more likely to display aggression in response to physical provocation (receiving a blast of loud white noise) but not personal insult. Therefore, narcissists seem to be particularly likely to show aggression in response to threats to their ego.
Narcissism peaks in adolescence,45 and levels of narcissism and entitlement are particularly high among the current generation in individualistic cultures like the United States.46 But can narcissism in adolescence be adaptive in young adulthood?
In a sample of 807 undergraduates and their family members, Patrick Hill and Brent Roberts47 found that narcissism and all its components were related to age: the older the participants, the less they reported engaging in narcissistic behaviors. Narcissism was more strongly related to life satisfaction among the students (aged 18 to 25 years) than among their adult participants. Their findings were particularly informative when narcissism was broken down. The relation between life satisfaction and leadership/authority and grandiose exhibitionism were more positive for younger than older participants. In contrast, entitlement/exploitativeness was associated with lower levels of life satisfaction regardless of age.
How were narcissists perceived across the life span? Narcissists weren’t seen as very open to new experiences at any age. Those scoring high in leadership/ authority and grandiose exhibitionism were perceived as more extraverted across the life span. Adult mothers scoring high in narcissism were perceived as less agreeable and conscientious, and more neurotic, whereas these correlations weren’t significant among the students. The differences between the students and mothers were particularly strong when looking at neuroticism.
Therefore, there appear to be developmental periods in which narcissism is more prominent and may provide greater benefits to life satisfaction. An inflated sense of self may be beneficial for the transition to adulthood, as a coping mechanism to get through the rocky period of adolescence when emerging adults are just beginning to form their own, unique identities. Society expects adults, however, to give up their narcissistic grandiosity of the past in order to promote social well-being and become a positive contributor to society. From an evolutionary perspective, Holtzman and Strube48 argue that adolescent peaks may be an indicator that narcissism may have evolved as a result of reproductive success. Most adolescents have not yet acquired the resources required for high social standing in society; therefore, in adolescence, narcissistic behaviors may be a more direct path to reproductive success.
Narcissism can also be adaptive in adulthood, depending on the career. There is some evidence that rates of narcissism differ depending on the career. Young and Pinksy49 found that celebrities are significantly more narcissistic than MBA students as well as the general population. Even among celebrities, there are differences in narcissism. Reality television personalities are the most narcissistic, followed by comedians, actors, and musicians. Because Young and Pinsky did not find a relationship between narcissism and the amount of experience in the entertainment industry, it is probable that celebrities have narcissistic tendencies before entering the industry. Therefore, another important line of further research is to investigate individual differences in narcissism and the roles to which different people are attracted.
Can narcissists change? Even though narcissism does show some heritability, the influence of learning and contextual factors in the development of mating strategies is crucial (also see Chapter 3).50 Also, there are still very active debates in the field about how narcissism develops.51 An important future line of research will be to investigate both the genetic and societal factors that affect narcissism and the contextual factors that determine whether the traits and behaviors associated with narcissism are more or less likely to display themselves.
Some things are clear: Narcissists possess a number of attractive traits (e.g., verbal intelligence, humor, confidence) and sexually coercive tactics that can increase their chances of short-term mating success but they also possess traits (e.g., aggression, entitlement) that make long-term relationships difficult to maintain. Narcissists are adept at applying many of the principles of mating intelligence. They have style, charm, confidence, humor, and verbal wit. Therefore, even though in the case of narcissists there may be a dark side beneath (especially for those scoring high on exploitativeness/entitlement), there still are benefits of these traits for mating, particularly in short-term social situations.
Emmons noted a number of paradoxes of narcissism.52 More recent findings have helped solve some paradoxes in the field.53 One paradox concerns the adaptive value of narcissism. How can the most maladaptive facet (exploitativeness/entitlement) of an already maladaptive interpersonal trait (narcissism) also be the most effective trait in impressing others? Back and colleagues54 speculated that, paradoxically, the positive feedback that narcissists receive at first acquaintance may confirm their superiority and strengthen their search for similar situations that will allow them to get similar responses. As these researchers noted, “being admired by others is like a drug for narcissists.” This behavior often hinders them from sticking with social contexts for a longer period of time, often causing dysfunction in longer-term relationships. Although it may seem like a vicious cycle, this may not be a problem for narcissists, who don’t tend to be all that interested in maintaining deep, meaningful, long-term relationships anyhow.
Most narcissists don’t care about the long-term (they tend to be more impulsive anyway), but their desire to exploit others and their sense of entitlement is adaptive for them in the short-term, even if it hurts others. Indeed, Back and colleagues55 showed that narcissists scoring high on the exploitativeness/entitlement facet are more popular at zero acquaintance. As the researchers noted, considerations of the different facets of narcissism and of the varied situational circumstances that these facets can display (short-term vs. long-term) can be combined to more fully understand the social consequences of narcissism.
Another paradox, which Emmons56 called the narcissistic paradox, is the narcissists’ tendency to devalue others while at the same time needing the admiration of others. In their desire for self-affirmation, however, they destroy the very bonds that they crave.57 Back and colleagues noted that narcissists can “solve” the paradox by only relying on positive feedback from those with zero acquaintance whom they do not have to value: “Because others truly like narcissists at first sight, they contribute to the maintenance of the narcissists’ most paradoxical mindset.”58
Another paradox lies in the developmental pathway to narcissism, especially the role of parental reactions. Which type of parent contributes to the narcissistic child: the parent who overvalues the child (as some researchers have speculated) or the parent who undervalues the child (as other researchers have speculated)? A combination of both overvaluation and devaluation can contribute to narcissism.59 The overvaluation-devaluation combination has been suggested by Freud and has received some recent empirical support.60
A fourth and final paradox noted by Back and colleagues61 is the narcissist’s lack of insight. These researchers suggest that it is this short-term positive feedback that contributes to the narcissists’ lack of self-criticism because they just don’t see a need for it. Because they don’t get support in the long run, their self is perpetually vulnerable, making immediate admiration even more of a necessity.
Narcissists aren’t the only socially undesirable individuals who have recently been studied under the psychologist’s microscope. Machiavellian individuals are manipulative and opportunistic, and psychopaths are impulsive, thrill seeking, and prone to lying. Both traits are associated with lower levels of empathy and emotional intelligence.62 After all, empathy involves “feelings that are more congruent with another’s situation than with one’s own situation,”63 and this requires self-sacrifice.
The ability to automatically feel empathy for others is strongly tied to emotional intelligence and is crucial in facilitating harmonious relationships (see Chapter 7). Like narcissism, psychopathy has multiple facets that vary in the general population.64 A common distinction is made between primary and secondary psychopathy. Primary psychopathy consists of the affective and interpersonal aspects of psychopathy, such as callousness, fearlessness, manipulation, lying, high self-esteem (although this may not represent genuine self-esteem, as we discuss later), and social dominance; whereas secondary psychopathy consists of the antisocial aspects of psychopathy, including impulsivity, boredom susceptibility, and aggression. Those with higher levels of secondary psychopathy tend to be more anxious and introverted and tend to display lower levels of self-esteem than those scoring higher in primary psychopathy.
Recent, interesting research examined the question of whether Machiavellianism and psychopathy were related to inappropriate empathic responses to the facial expressions of others in a nonclinical population. Farah Ali, Ines Amorim, and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic65 found that those with higher levels of primary psychopathy and Machiavellianism tended to experience more positive affect when looking at sad images. When they presented pictures that were emotionally neutral, however, those with higher levels of secondary psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and anxiety tended to experience more negative affect.
In terms of emotional intelligence, they found that those with higher levels of self-reported emotional intelligence tended to score lower in secondary psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and anxiety and engaged in positive affect in response to the neutral images. Interestingly, there was no significant relation (either positive or negative) between emotional intelligence and primary psychopathy. They also found sex differences: males, in general, had higher scores on primary psychopathy and Machiavellianism than females.
These results are consistent with another recent study on the links among Machiavellianism, emotional intelligence, and Theory of Mind.66 The researchers studied 109 primary school children and found that Machiavellianism and social and emotional understanding were negatively related to each other. Further analyses showed that increased levels of emotional and social understanding did not lead to manipulation in social encounters among the girls in the sample, whereas this was not the case for boys in the sample.
Another recent study conducted by Farah Ali and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic67 found that females, on average, show lower levels of primary psychopathy (but not secondary psychopathy) and Machiavellianism compared with males. The researchers also found that females showed reduced levels of short-term mating, consistent with other results reviewed in this book (see Chapter 5). Those scoring higher on Machiavellianism tended to show more of a short-term mating orientation but also tended to score lower in life satisfaction and intimacy.
Primary psychopathy was also positively related to promiscuity, but was not related to life satisfaction (either positively or negatively). Secondary psychopathy, on the other hand, was negatively related to intimacy and life satisfaction. Surprisingly, primary psychopathy was positively associated with all three components of Robert Sternberg’s theory of love: intimacy, passion, and commitment! To explain this very counterintuitive finding, the researchers noted that because people with psychopathic traits are experts at manipulating people, they may report being closer to their partner with the goal of manipulating them better. As psychopathy expert Robert Hare68 notes, psychopaths “recognize and turn to their own advantage the hang-ups and self-doubts that most people have.”
Indeed, those scoring higher in psychopathy in the general population are better at perceiving victim vulnerability and most likely use the same set of coercive tactics that narcissists employ. In a study conducted by Sarah Wheeler, Angela Book, and Kimberly Costello,69 47 male students watched 12 short video clips of people (8 men and 4 women) walking and provided an estimate of each person’s vulnerability to being mugged. Those scoring higher on a self-report scale of psychopathy tended to have greater accuracy in assessing vulnerability to victimization. The results of Ali and Chamorro-Premuzic’s study70 reinforce the importance of distinguishing primary psychopathy from secondary psychopathy in a nonclinical population.71 Both primary and secondary psychopathy are associated with coercive behaviors, but individuals with primary psychopathic traits tend to be more extraverted and have higher levels of confidence and self-esteem, a difference that plays out in the mating domain.
Psychopaths are not just opportunistic. They also are highly impulsive. It’s important to distinguish between different forms of impulsivity, however. Scott Dickman72 differentiates between two different forms: functional and dysfunctional impulsivity. Functional impulsivity is related to idea generation, enthusiasm, adventurousness, and the ability to make quick decisions. On the other hand, dysfunctional impulsivity is related to erratic disorderliness, distraction, and inaccurate decision making. In a sample of undergraduates and adults, Daniel Jones and Delroy Paulhus73 found that both narcissistic and psychopathic individuals tended to show higher levels of overall impulsivity.
More telling, though, were correlations with different types of impulsivity. Psychopathy was primarily associated with dysfunctional impulsivity, whereas narcissism was primarily related to functional impulsivity. Machiavellianism was unrelated to either type of impulsivity. This research is consistent with research showing that psychopaths lack the ability to inhibit their antisocial impulses. The lack of relation between impulsivity and Machiavellianism is interesting and suggests that Machiavellian individuals may have an advantage over psychopaths and narcissists when trying to achieve their selfish goals because their moderate impulsive control may allow them to “refrain from counterproductive behaviors despite their selfish intentions.”74
This combination of opportunism and dysfunctional impulsivity often leads those scoring high in psychopathy to engage in riskier sexual practices. Risky sexual behaviors are those that are associated with a variety of negative health and social consequences, including sexually transmitted diseases and unplanned pregnancies. Examples include having sex without a condom and having sex while intoxicated. A recent study of college students investigated the relationship between the various components of subclinical psychopathy and engagement in risky sexual behaviors.75 The researchers distinguished between a fearless dominance component of psychopathy (i.e., primary psychopathy) and an impulsive antisociality component of psychopathy (i.e., secondary psychopathy). Fearless dominance consists of traits such as social potency, stress immunity, and fearlessness, whereas impulsive antisociality consists of traits such as carefree nonplanfulness, impulsive nonconformity, Machiavellian egocentricity, and blame externalization.
Although the researchers found that impulsive antisociality was associated with risky sexual behaviors for both men and women, fearless dominance was associated with risky sexual behaviors only for the men in the sample. The researchers also administered a self-report measure of sensation seeking and found that when fearless dominance, impulsive antisociality, and sensation seeking were all entered into the same equation, only impulsive antisociality remained a significant predictor of risky sexual behaviors. This suggests that the trait of impulsive antisociality is a key driving force toward engagement in risky sexual behaviors.
These findings are consistent with other research showing that people with lower levels of self-control have greater trouble restraining sexual behavior76 and with research showing that people with attention deficit disorder (a condition associated with lower levels of self-control) also tend to engage in risky sexual behaviors.77 These findings are also consistent with those of Jonason and Tost,78 who found across two studies that psychopathy is associated with multiple measures of self-control, including a tendency to discount future consequences, and high rates of attention deficit disorder. Psychopathy was also related to a fast life history strategy (see Chapter 3). Note that this research doesn’t mean that a person with a fast life history strategy or attention deficit disorder is necessarily going to be socially deviant. These are just correlations. Both traits, however, are associated with greater impulsivity, which permits such risky behaviors.
Can anything be done to reduce engagement in risky sexual behaviors? Jones and Paulhus79 suggest that self-regulation exercises, such as practicing using one’s nondominant hand for everyday activities,80 could decrease risky sexual behaviors in men and women high in impulsive antisociality. Such interventions may not be easy among more clinical psychopaths, however. Psychopaths have very low levels of self-control and do not have much of a conscience for their actions.81 As we’ve noted before, research suggests that a set of brain areas located in the frontal lobe of humans support self-control processes. These “executive functions” enable humans to plan, inhibit, or delay responding.82 The extent to which these areas of the brain light up in an individual predicts whether that person is likely to follow the rule norms of society or engage in a wide variety of risky behaviors.83 Research shows that a lack of positive peer influence, antisocial behavior, deficits in self-control, impulsivity, lack of future orientation, and risk taking all relate to systematic deficits in performance-based measures of executive functioning.84
Psychopaths do not just lack self-control, though. They also seem to have emotional deficits that make it difficult for them to empathize with the pain of others (even if they can read others well enough to exploit their weaknesses). This lack of empathy is found among those high in Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, partially explaining why these three traits significantly correlate with each other in the general population.
Recently, researchers have painted a larger portrait of the collection of traits and behaviors of socially undesirable individuals. This “Dark Triad” includes Machiavellianism, subclinical narcissism, and subclinical psychopathy.85 Each one of these traits has its own distinctive flavor and social engagement style that is adaptive in certain situations but maladaptive in others.86 For instance, narcissism is the “lighter cousin” of psychopathy87 because it involves manipulation tactics oriented more toward social rewards and can involve soft tactics such as offering compliments, whereas psychopathy involves more hard tactics such as threats.88 Even though all three Dark Triad traits are partially separable, they are all positively correlated with one another and with low agreeableness and low empathy. Taken together, these three traits represent a social style geared toward exploiting others in short-term social contexts.
In fact, the Dark Triad may have evolved through the course of human evolution as an effective short-term mating strategy.89 At least, this is what researchers argue in a recent study.90 In a sample of 224 undergraduates, Peter Jonason, Norman Li, Gregory Webster, and David Schmitt found that the Dark Triad was significantly correlated with various dimensions of short-term mating, such as having more sexual partners and more desire for short-term flings. Consistent with the other research presented in this chapter and with parental investment theory, higher rates of the Dark Triad were found in the males in their sample. This study (along with nearly every other one presented in this chapter) was conducted with college students, so the extent to which this difference between males and females holds across a wider age range remains to be seen.
A number of recent studies have investigated the personality profile of those scoring high on the Dark Triad, including genetic relationships between Big Five personality traits and the Dark Triad.91 Across two studies, Peter Jonason, Norman Li, and Emily Teicher92 investigated the psychological profile typical of those scoring high in the Dark Triad traits. In their first study, they found that those scoring high in the Dark Triad traits tended to be more extraverted and open to experience and to have higher self-esteem. They also tended to be less agreeable, less neurotic, and less conscientious. In their second study, they assessed self-reported altruism and had participants allocate dollar amounts to themselves and others across a number of different scenarios. Based on their allocation patterns, participants were identified as either prosocial, a competitor, or an individualist. Unsurprisingly, those scoring high on the Dark Triad tended to be individualistic and competitive.
In another series of recent studies, Peter Jonason, Bryan Koenig, and Jeremy Tost93 applied life history theory (see Chapter 3) to understanding the Dark Triad. They found across multiple studies that the college-aged men in their sample, on average, tended to have a faster life history strategy than women. They also found that a measure of life history strategy was positively related to a composite measure of the Dark Triad, but this correlation was primarily driven by the psychopathy component of the Dark Triad: the Dark Triad was no longer associated with Machiavellianism, nor narcissism, once psychopathy was taken into account.
This psychopathy link was replicated in another study of theirs in which those higher in psychopathy tended to report engaging in more risk-taking behaviors in their lives, and also engaged in more risk-taking during the actual experiment by choosing a smaller reward that day over a larger one in a year. Two common threads running across all three components of the Dark Triad were confidence in predicting future outcomes and openness to short-term mating. Therefore, the common theme among the three components of the Dark Triad is opportunism.
Research also shows that those scoring high in the Dark Triad traits are characterized by a distinct style of love.94 Researchers have identified six love styles, each one representing a different approach or drive in regard to serious romantic relationships.95 These styles include eros (relating to passionate physical and emotional intimacy), ludus (relating to game playing and a motivation for conquest), pragma (relating to cerebral, practical concerns such as career goals), storage (relating to a relationship as an outgrowth of friendship and similarity), agape (relating to selflessness), and mania (relating to insecure attachment and obsession). Each of these love styles has been related to relationship satisfaction.96
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Peter Jonason and Bryan Kavanagh97 found that those scoring high on the Dark Triad traits tend to report higher levels of both the ludus and pragma love styles. This suggests that those scoring high on the Dark Triad traits tend to view love as a game and love with their head instead of their heart. This finding is consistent with the emotional, empathic, and Theory of Mind deficits of those higher in narcissism and Machiavellianism that we mentioned earlier. As Jonason and Kavanagh put it, “Individuals who score high on the Dark Triad may not pursue ‘love’ relationships because of their affections for someone but, instead, the usefulness they see the other person serving.”98 Again, they found in their college sample that men scored higher than women in the Dark Triad traits.
Further analysis localized ludus to the psychopathy component of the Dark Triad. Consistent with the findings of Jonason and Kavanagh, earlier research showed that those with higher levels of psychopathy use more cortical areas of their brain when processing affective stimuli,99 suggesting that psychopaths do indeed process emotional stimuli with their head rather than their heart. To summarize their findings, the researchers note that the Dark Triad “appears to be characterized by a heartless, game-playing love style.”100 As for why this particular link between ludus and psychopathy exists, the researchers speculated that game playing may be particularly prevalent among those scoring high in psychopathy for a number of reasons, including providing the excitement and sensation they crave and keeping people at arm’s length so that they are freer to pursue a short-term mating style.
Additional studies have shed light on how those scoring high in the Dark Triad traits obtain their short-term mating goals. Jonason, Li, and Buss101 found that scores on the Dark Triad were correlated with rates of poaching (i.e., stealing) mates from others for new relationships and being poached by others for short-term relationships, long-term affairs, and long-term relationships. As the researchers noted, these findings may explain the higher number of sexual partners of high scorers in Dark Triad traits.102 By being willing to steal partners and leave their own relationships, this opportunism can lead to many new romantic or sexual partners.
Of course, there are costs to scoring high on the Dark Triad. The researchers found that Dark Triad individuals tended to have their own mates stolen by others (presumably by fellow Dark Triad individuals) and that Dark Triad individuals tend to engage in a wide variety of mate-retention tactics (which tend to serve the purpose of manipulating a mate to stay in the current relationship), but most pronounced were tactics characterized by aggression toward others or the partner, appearance enhancements, and resource display.
How can Dark Triad individuals be so successful in a short-term mating context when they have such low emotional intelligence? This paradox is resolved by understanding that there are different components of emotional intelligence, empathy, and Theory of Mind. In a recent paper, Michael Wai and Niko Tiliopoulos103 looked at the empathic nature of Dark Triad individuals. They distinguished between two types of empathy: cognitive empathy and affective empathy. Cognitive empathy involves the ability to figure out the emotional states of others without feeling any emotional contagion (i.e., without being able to feel what they are feeling). In contrast, affective empathy involves sharing an emotional reaction in response to others’ emotions. This form of empathy facilitates altruistic behaviors. Prior research shows that individuals with high-functioning autism are impaired in cognitive empathy but do not differ from “neurotypical” people in emotional empathy.104 The exact reverse appears to be true for Dark Triad individuals.
Wai and Tiliopoulos105 had 139 university students complete personality measures of the Dark Triad, and they also gave them a test of empathy. In the empathy test, they had the students view a series of images of individuals with different facial expressions. For each picture, they were asked to rate how they felt toward the person. This was their measure of affective empathy. They also had people select which emotions they believed each of the images expressed, and their answers were scored on how correctly they identified the emotion that was being expressed. This was their measure of cognitive empathy.
Those scoring high in narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy all reported a positive feeling when looking at sad faces. They seemed to actually be happy when others were sad. Interestingly, only narcissists were accurate at recognizing anger. Therefore, out of the three Dark Triad traits, narcissists appear to stand out as having enhanced cognitive empathy. This is interesting considering narcissism is tied most heavily to extraversion and a desire to engage in social interactions. Perhaps their enhanced cognitive empathy facilitates superficial, short-term interpersonal interactions and relationships.
Cognitive empathy is only one component of Theory of Mind. The social-perceptual component of Theory of Mind involves the ability to determine the mental states of others using immediately available nonverbal cues (e.g., eyes, face, hand gestures). This maps to the cognitive empathy component and is measured by the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test. This component of Theory of Mind shows up earlier in development and is related to the right hemisphere medial temporal and orbitofrontal regions of the brain. In contrast, the social-cognitive component of Theory of Mind (not to be confused with cognitive empathy) involves the ability to reason about the mental state of others and to use that reasoning to predict or explain their behavior. This ability involves inferring what others know or believe to be true apart from what you know or believe to be true. This is a later developing skill and is more strongly dependent on linguistic capacities. This component of Theory of Mind draws on left hemisphere circuitry involving medial frontal areas and the temporoparietal junction. Daniel Nettle and Bethany Liddle106 found a relationship between agreeableness and the social-cognitive component of Theory of Mind, but not the social-perceptual component. It appears that the agreeable, compassionate, altruistic aspect of our human nature is more strongly associated with the higher-level, social-cognitive component of Theory of Mind.
Other research conducted by Elizabeth Austin and her colleagues107 showed that the only element of emotional intelligence Machiavellian individuals aren’t impaired on is the perceiving dimension, which involves the lower-level, perceptual ability to decipher emotions in faces and pictures. Not only that, but they show a relatively stronger ability to manage the emotions of others than to manage their own emotions. This may be related to their empathy and perspective-taking deficits: they cannot spontaneously feel what others are feeling, but even if they could, they would have difficulty labeling or figuring out what the emotions mean. Additionally, Machiavellian individuals endorse emotionally manipulative behavior. So, according to their own perceptions, they are really good at manipulating others.
Zsofia Esperger and Tamas Bereczkei108 in Hungary wondered whether Machiavellian individuals mentalize more often than others. Even though their emotional intelligence is impaired, are they still cognitively strategizing, scheming, and trying to infer the intentions of others much more so than those who are less Machiavellian? To measure spontaneous mentalization, they had 112 university students look at 12 pictures depicting everyday situations. The students were asked to write two or three sentences about each picture. The responses were then automatically coded by a computer, which looked for words and sentences that represented mentalization. They found large individual differences in spontaneous mentalization: some people just weren’t motivated to constantly try to mentalize the people in the pictures, whereas other just couldn’t stop mentalizing! In fact, those scoring high on a measure of Machiavellianism tended to focus more strongly on the mental state of others than those who were less Machiavellian. They concluded that “using spontaneous mentalization, people with an inclination to manipulate others may always try to be one step ahead of the other and gain important knowledge that can later be profitable in deceit and fraud.”109
Taken together, the evidence points to a clear conclusion: Dark Triad individuals obtain a higher number of sexual partners through a combination of strategies, including enhanced charm and style, ability to read emotional cues from behavior, constant strategizing and mentalization, persistence, opportunism, coercive sexual tactics, and reduced levels of empathy and self-control. Clearly, those scoring high on the Dark Triad are not well suited for maintaining a committed, loving, mutually beneficial long-term relationship. But then again, most of them are not looking for intimacy. Those scoring high on the Dark Triad are well suited to exploitative, short-term social situations.
Are these tactics the only routes to mating success? Many young men may believe that the only way to be successful in the mating domain is to adopt the strategies of the Dark Triad. Let’s put these findings in perspective as we make a crucial distinction between dominance and prestige and show how there are multiple paths to mating success.
One striking similarity across all of the studies we’ve explored here is the sample: college students. Most college students have not had the years of expertise that enable them to achieve success in a domain. This is important to keep in mind because the attainment of social status, and the mating benefits that come along with it, can be accomplished through compassion and cooperation just as much (if not more so) than through aggression and intimidation.
Just looking at the social structure of grade school, it’s easy to assume that dominance is the only route to social status. It would seem as though Dark Triad bullies who use intimidation, coercion, and fear-inducing tactics are the only ones who rise in the status hierarchy. Unlike other species, however, humans have many alternative routes to high social status that don’t rely on dominance.110 Beyond school, on the stage of life, knowledge has societal impact, and those with high prestige tend to be recognized for their skills, success, and knowledge. Also, as a result of family wealth, people can be born into a position of high social status without even having to lift a finger in aggression.
Many scholars across ethnography, ethology, sociology, and sociolinguistics believe that two main routes to social status—dominance and prestige—arose in evolutionary history at different times and for different purposes.111 Other lines of research support the distinction between dominance and prestige. Self-report measures of dominance and prestige are beginning to be distinguished at both the behavioral level112 and the hormonal level.113 Among the Tsimané (a small-scale Amazonian society), dominance as ranked by peers is positively related to physical size, whereas prestige as ranked by peers is positively associated with hunting ability, generosity, and number of allies.114
Of course, the usefulness of employing a dominance or prestige strategy depends on an individual’s own set of mental and physical dispositions as well as particular situation. Individuals who possess the physical ability to intimidate others or enforce threats and who live in cultures or environments (e.g., prison) that promote the use of coercive techniques may be more oriented toward dominance. Those who have the mental skills to acquire culturally valued information and skills and find themselves in social situations that don’t form dominance hierarchies may be oriented toward prestige.
It would have been too costly for our ancestors to have to consciously figure out in every situation which social status strategy to employ; such a process would be inefficient and error prone, and could easily give rise to self-doubt (how often has your meta-cognitive awareness caused a drop in your ability to accomplish a task smoothly?). Instead, nature would have selected psychological mechanisms that would automatically calculate the relative costs and benefits of employing a given strategy and would only give the result of this complex calculation in the form of powerful emotions. One of the most powerful evolved emotions tied to social status is pride. The bulk of the evidence suggests that pride evolved to motivate people to increase social status and to display the traits and behaviors associated with high social status. But just as there are multiple routes to social status, pride also takes multiple forms, and each form may have evolved along a different path.115
Hubristic pride is fueled by arrogance and conceit and is associated with antisocial behaviors, rocky relationships, low levels of conscientiousness and high levels of disagreeableness, neuroticism, narcissism, and poor mental health outcomes.116 Hubristic pride, along with its associated subjective feelings of superiority and arrogance, may facilitate dominance by motivating behaviors such as aggression, hostility, and manipulation. Individuals scoring high on the Dark Triad tend to have a hubristic form of pride.
Authentic pride, on the other hand, is fueled by the emotional rush of accomplishment, confidence, and success and is associated with prosocial and achievement-oriented behaviors, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, satisfying interpersonal relationships, and positive mental health. Authentic pride is associated with genuine self-esteem, or the aspect of self-esteem that remains after taking narcissism into account. Authentic pride, along with its associated subjective feelings of confidence and accomplishment, may facilitate behaviors that are associated with attaining prestige. People who are confident, agreeable, hard working, energetic, kind, empathic, nondogmatic, and high in genuine self-esteem would draw inspiration from others and would want to be emulated by others.117 Will Smith is a good example of someone high in authentic pride.
In a recent set of studies of undergraduates and varsity-level athletes, Joey T. Cheng, Jessica Tracy, and Joseph Henrich118 at the University of British Columbia explored the notion that the two facets of pride involve distinct forms of status. Self-reported dominance was associated with lower levels of genuine self-esteem, social acceptance, and agreeableness and with higher levels of self-aggrandizing narcissism, aggression, extraversion, agency, and conscientiousness. Those with higher levels of self-reported dominance were rated by their peers as higher in athleticism and leadership and lower in altruism, cooperativeness, helpfulness, ethicality, and morality.
Self-reported prestige was associated with lower levels of aggression and neuroticism and higher levels of genuine self-esteem, social acceptance, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and GPA and was weakly related to self-aggrandizing narcissism. Those with higher levels of self-reported prestige were rated by their peers as being more capable advisors and leaders as well as being more intellectual, athletic, socially skilled, altruistic, cooperative, helpful, ethical, and moral.
The results of the Cheng and colleagues study support the notion that dominance and prestige, along with the distinct sets of emotions and traits associated with each, represent two different paths to attaining and maintaining social status. The distinction between dominance and prestige is important when considering whether nice guys finish last. Perhaps women like the confident, assertive, and ambitious traits of the man high in prestige while disdaining the aggressive and selfish aspects of the man high in dominance.
Enough speculation on what women want. Let’s finally dive right into that literature showing what women actually want.
Now that we have examined the traits and behaviors of socially undesirable individuals, and put dominance in its proper perspective (that’s right, we dominated dominance!), let’s finally look at what women actually want. We know that women around the world report a preference for the nice guy on self-reported surveys. But perhaps they are only stating the socially desirable option. Maybe when it comes right down to it, women choose the bad boy.119
Recently, researchers have attempted to address this issue by having women in the laboratory make actual decisions about whom they would date with the aim of answering questions like, Are most women attracted to truly bad men, or are they just attracted to the traits that come along for the ride (assertiveness, extraversion, fearlessness, etc.)? Is it possible to pinpoint exactly what aspects of the bad boy are so appealing? In reviewing this literature, we’ll start with the foundational evidence and move through to the latest research.
In one of the earliest sets of studies conducted on this topic, Edward Sadalla, Douglas Kenrick, and Beth Vershure120 presented their participants with videotaped and written scenarios depicting two men interacting with each other. They varied on whether the male acted dominant or nondominant. Their idea of nondominance seemed to be one of submissiveness. For instance, here’s an excerpt of a scenario in which the male was depicted as dominant:
John is 5’10” tall, 165 lbs. He has been playing tennis for one year and is currently enrolled in an intermediate tennis class. Despite his limited amount of training he is a very coordinated tennis player, who has won 60% of his matches. His serve is very strong and his returns are extremely powerful. In addition to his physical abilities, he has the mental qualities that lead to success in tennis. He is extremely competitive, refusing to yield against opponents who have been playing much longer. All of his movements tend to communicate dominance and authority. He tends to psychologically dominate his opponents, forcing them off their games and into mental mistakes. (Sadalla, Kenrick, & Vershure, 1987, p. 733)
In contrast, here’s an excerpt of a scenario in which the same tennis player is instead depicted as nondominant (the first three lines are the same):
… His serve and his returns are consistent and well placed. Although he plays well, he prefers to play for fun rather than to win. He is not particularly competitive and tends to yield to opponents who have been playing tennis much longer. He is easily thrown off his game by opponents who play with great authority. Strong opponents are able to psychologically dominate him, sometimes forcing him off his game. He enjoys the game of tennis but avoids highly competitive situations. (Sadalla, Kenrick, & Vershure, 1987, p. 733)
It probably will come as no surprise, but the researchers found across four studies that, compared with the nondominance scenarios, the dominance scenarios were considered more sexually attractive. (Scenarios that depicted dominant females were not considered more or less sexually attractive than scenarios that depicted nondominant females.)
One of these studies is of particular note because it found that aggressive and domineering tendencies did not increase sexual attractiveness among males or females. Therefore, what the researchers refer to as “dominance” seems to be well aligned with what we described in the previous section as prestige. In sum, the researchers found that men who displayed dominance in the context of a skilled competition were considered more sexually attractive than men who were submissive in competition.
We know what you are thinking: Well, duh! Of course she is going to pick the strong and confident guy over the wimp! Good point. Jerry Burger and Mica Cosby121 thought of the same thing and designed a series of experiments with additional experimental conditions, to better pinpoint what is going on here.
In their first study, 118 female undergraduates read the same descriptions of John the tennis player (dominant or wimpy) that Sadalla, Kenrick, and Vershure122 used, but they also added a control condition in which participants only read the first three sentences of the description (which just gave his height, weight, and experience, mentioned his coordination, and revealed his percentage of wins).
As expected, undergraduate women found dominant John more sexually appealing than wimpy John. However, the John depicted in the control condition had the highest ratings of sexiness of them all. This does not mean that woman actually found the John in the control condition the sexiest, just that they found the John depicted in the other scenarios as less sexy.
In their second study, the researchers fiddled with the descriptors of John. In the dominant condition, participants read a short description of John that included some basic information about John (e.g., major, hobbies), and they also read that a recent personality test found that John’s five most prominent traits are aggressive, assertive, confident, demanding, and dominant. Those in the nondominant condition read the same paragraph but were told that John’s five most prominent personality characteristics were easygoing, quiet, sensitive, shy, and submissive. Those in the control condition only read the short paragraph but were not told anything about John’s personality.
Participants reading about either a dominant or a nondominant male rated that person as a less desirable date and romantic partner than did women reading about John in the control condition. Also, dominant John was seen as significantly less desirable as a date than nondominant John. However, nondominant John was seen as less sexually attractive than the John depicted in the other two conditions. Ratings of dominant John in terms of sexual attractiveness were essentially the same as ratings of John depicted in the control condition. Therefore, women drew a distinction between the kind of man they find sexually attractive and the kind they would want to date and have as a romantic partner.
In their third and final experiment, they asked participants to indicate which of the adjectives used to describe John are ideal for a date as well as for a romantic partner. They found that only 1 woman out of the 50 undergraduates in their sample identified “dominant” as one of the traits she sought in either an ideal date or a romantic partner. For the rest of the dominant adjectives, the two big winners were confident (72% sought this trait for an ideal date, 74% sought this trait for an ideal romantic partner) and assertive (48% sought this trait for an ideal date, 36% sought this trait for an ideal romantic partner). Not one woman wanted a demanding male, and only 12% wanted an aggressive person for a date and romantic partner.
In terms of the nondominant adjectives, the big winners were easygoing (68% sought this trait for an ideal date, 64% sought this trait for an ideal romantic partner) and sensitive (76% sought this trait for an ideal date and ideal romantic partner). Not one woman wanted a submissive male for either a date or romance. Other low-ranked nondominant adjectives were shy (2% for dating, 0% for romantic) and quiet (4% for ideal, 2% for romantic).
Considering the results of these studies in total, it seems like the ideal man (for a date or romantic partner) is one who is assertive, confident, easygoing, and sensitive, without being aggressive, demanding, dominant, quiet, shy, or submissive. Again, this fits the profile of the prestigious man, as described in the last section.
Other research findings are all variations of the same basic theme. Lauri Jensen-Campbell, William Graziano, and Stephen West123 found across three studies that it wasn’t dominance alone, but rather the interaction of dominance and prosocial behaviors, that women reported were particularly sexually attractive. In other words, dominance only increased sexual attraction when the person was already high in agreeableness and altruism.
The same was found in a more recent study. Jeffrey Snyder, Lee Kirkpatrick, and Clark Barrett124 reported that although male dominance was attractive to females (for both a short-term affair and a long-term relationship) in the context of male-male competitions (athletics), women did not find men attractive who used dominance (force or threat of force) while competing for leadership in informal decision making among peers. According to the researchers, this suggests that women are attuned to cues that suggest that the male will direct his aggression toward her, with dominance toward competitors considered more attractive than dominance toward friends or coalition members.
What can we conclude from these studies? It seems that women do not like “jerks” per se, but instead they like men who are strong and confident. Dominant men who show their displays of dominance within a context of competition are considered attractive, but flat-out jerks who signal that they might use aggression and dominance toward peers in situations in which it’s important to work together are considered unattractive. Kindness is not the opposite of assertiveness: both traits can exist in the same person.
In fact, it appears that those with both assertiveness and kindness are considered the sexiest for both a short-term and long-term affair. Thus, it seems that a prestigious man, not a dominant man, is a woman’s dream. Although there is some overlap between dominant and prestigious men (prestigious men, like dominant men, tend to be confident, achievement oriented, and extraverted), prestigious men also are self-assured, caring, helpful, and genuinely high in self-esteem.
Many popular male sex symbols are prestigious, including the actor George Clooney and the R & B singer Maxwell. SBK went to a Maxwell concert recently at Madison Square Garden, and women were literally throwing their panties on stage as he confidently and genuinely professed his love and caring for the women in the audience. Or take one of our favorite superheroes: Superman. The Man of Steel is the epitome of the prestigious man, whereas his arch nemesis, Lex Luther, is the epitome of the dominant man. Superman isn’t loud and obnoxious, but rather has a quiet confidence about him. He is also assertive, talented, and prosocial. In contrast, Luther is a fast talker and is domineering, aggressive, and scrupulous. He’s also not very prosocial: his goal is the destruction of the planet. Who gets the most sexual offers and ultimately ends up dating the highest-quality woman? Hint: It’s not Lex Luther.
Let’s get something straight: The polar opposite of a bad boy is not a nice guy, but an overly-nice guy. The difference is in the desperation. Nice guys call when they say they will. Overly-nice guys call every 20 minutes. “to thank you for just being you, Kristin.” (“My name is Kristine,” their prey corrects.) Going out with an overly-nice guy is like being beaten to death with a Hallmark card.
—Advice Goddess Amy Alkon (2000)
A clear picture is starting to emerge here. When women say they like “bad boys,” they seem to mean they like men who are physically attractive, exciting, assertive, and funny. As an example, consider this vignette:
Not long ago, I watched my friend Laney, an assistant county prosecutor who spends her days putting criminals behind bars, try to choose between a sweet guy who sent her poems and flowers and petted her cats, and a guy who wore sunglasses indoors and found a way to hit on every woman who came his way. Laney fell madly in love with the second guy.
“But the first guy adores you,” I said. “I don’t even think the second guy even likes you very much.”
“Sorry,” she said, “but the first guy is dull.”
(Hollandsworth, 1994, p. 121, as cited in Urbaniak & Kilmann, 2003)
In contrast, when women refer to “nice guys,” they seem to really mean overly nice guys. Recent research suggests that jerks are just as disliked as those who are too nice. In one study, participants took part in a computerized public goods game.125 They were then given fake information about each of the group members and given the option of expelling group members from an upcoming round of the same game. Not only were people expelled when they contributed less than they consumed, but also, to the researcher’s surprise, those who contributed more than they consumed were the most likely ones to be voted out of the group.
Why did the generous folks receive such harsh treatment? The researchers suggest it may have been because they were being overly generous. In particular, additional studies suggested two main reasons why unselfish contributors were also unpopular. One reason is how unselfish contributors made others feel. When people contributed too much, others felt pressure to do the same, and this comparison incited feelings of inferiority. Another reason is that the generous folks were seen as “rule breakers” who were not following the “appropriate norms” set up by the public-good context. The reasoning behind expelling the generous was different from the reasoning behind expelling the free riders. The free riders were expelled because they were thought of as being asocial and “destructive.”
These researchers’ findings may be applicable to the mating domain. Perhaps the woman higher in self-esteem and maturity is not as affected by the overly nice guy, whereas the woman who is less secure may be more prone to feel inferior by the overly nice guy. Perhaps she does not even feel worthy of such attention.
Certainly, reasonable levels of altruism can increase social status,126 and kindness can even increase physical attractiveness (also see Chapter 4).127 At the same time, the Parks and Stone (2010) study is consistent with other research showing that people in general are not too fond of those who are extremely competent,128 those who offer too much help,129 and those who stick too strongly to a moral position.130
In fact, there may just be an optimal level of assertiveness for most people, what psychologist Daniel Ames131 refers to as the “right touch.” Ames defines interpersonal assertiveness as the extent to which a person speaks up, defends, and pursues his or her personal interests. In Ames’s review of the literature,132 he shows a link between interpersonal assertiveness and effectiveness. For instance, there are few great leaders and managers who have extreme levels of assertiveness, whereas bad leaders and managers are well represented among both the low and high ends of the assertiveness spectrum.
Given these findings, why do people continue to display extremely low and high levels of interpersonal assertiveness? Some researchers argue that people just have little interest in changing.133 As Ames notes,
… highly assertive people push hard, this logic goes, because they habitually want to win and they care less about others; unassertive people yield because they typically just want to get along. (Ames, 2008a, p. 383)
But Ames suggests another reason: lack of self-awareness. Perhaps people just are not aware how they are being perceived by others because they are not receiving the critical feedback necessary to change. In support of this idea, Ames showed that “assertiveness expectancies”—or how pessimistic or optimistic people are about the impact of being assertive—plays a crucial role in determining their assertiveness levels.
In the mating domain, the “right touch” may be just as difficult to reach, but this balancing act seems well worth the effort. As Ames notes, a person’s level of assertiveness is likely to cut across multiple domains in their life, with important consequences:
… when individuals strike the wrong balance, they are likely to do so across contexts and may often be unaware that their behavior is seen as wide of the mark. (2008a, p. 384)
Is there any hope for the jerks and the overly nice guys out there? Perhaps. We think Ames’s recommendations are just as apropos to the mating domain. He suggested that it’s possible to calibrate your assertiveness levels by constantly testing and revising your expectancies, which can lead to more appropriate and adaptive responses. For instance, those very high in assertiveness could try to curb their enthusiasm about the consequences of their aggression, whereas those very low in assertiveness can work on achievement and sense of worth.
Another reason overly nice guys may be considered less attractive to women is because that they may appear too available. As Amy Alkon wrote:
To fully understand bad boy allure (beyond the ever-present element of surprise), open your economics book to page one: “Supply And Demand.” Bad boys are in demand because they make themselves scarce, thus driving up their value. They’re like half-naked people. Half-naked people are generally sexier than totally naked people because the suggestion of what could be is usually better than what actually is. Truth be told, if a woman ever got as much of a bad boy as she thought she wanted, it would be only moments before she stopped sitting by the phone waiting for him not to call. (Alkon, 2000)
Bad boys may be attractive because their aloof, nonchalance air signals that they have many other options to consider. In support of this idea, Christine Stanik, Robert Kurzban, and Phoebe Ellsworth134 found that women’s ratings of men’s attractiveness increased after they were told that the men had rejected their previous partner (no such effect was found among men). Other data back up this point, such as Back and colleagues’ 2011 study, we mentioned in Chapter 5, in which shy men in a speed-dating context tended to be less choosy, flirted less, and were less popular. Therefore, assertiveness may also signal choosiness.
Throughout this book, we’ve noted the importance of distinguishing short-term and long-term mating strategies. Perhaps women who are looking for a short-term affair are just looking for a good time and care less about traits that signal good parenting skills. Instead, we’d expect woman with short-term mating goals to be particularly attracted to cues of good genes. Indeed, the women in the Burger and Cosby135 study made a distinction between the traits they found sexually attractive and the traits they sought in a date and romantic partner.
Geoffrey Urbaniak and Peter Kilmann136 attempted to get to the bottom of this. Across two studies, female undergraduates read a story about a woman named Susan who was participating in a game show that was similar to the TV show “The Dating Game.” Susan is presented with two potential mates: Todd or Michael. In the “Nice Todd” condition, Todd gave responses that signaled that he is a nice guy: kind, attentive, and emotionally expressive. For instance, in one response, Todd said, “A real man is someone who is in touch with his feelings and those of his partner.” In the “Middle Todd” condition, Todd gave neutral responses, such as, “A real man knows what he wants and he knows how to get it. Someone who works hard and plays hard, and is good to the women he loves.” In the “Jerk Todd” condition, Todd gave answers that were insensitive, self-absorbed, and macho, such as, “Someone who knows who he is, but keeps other people guessing and on their toes—he doesn’t go in for all that touchy-feely stuff.” In all three conditions, Todd is competing against Michael, whose responses are always neutral.
In their first study, they found that Nice Todd was chosen the most frequently, followed by Middle Todd, followed by Jerk Todd. This pattern was the same when the women were asked whom they would choose for themselves. Nice Todd was considered as more desirable as a marriage partner, steady boyfriend, platonic friend, and sexual partner and was perceived as more intelligent, kind, and considerate and less assertive.
Niceness had no relation to being perceived as exciting, easygoing, sincere, or funny—mating intelligence skills that most likely signal good genes. Indeed, the perceived traits of exciting, easygoing, and funny tended to go together and were more important for those in the neutral condition. Also, when Todd was portrayed as more physically attractive, he was also perceived as having an exciting personality, being easygoing, and being funny. Therefore, a “halo effect” in terms of other good-genes qualities was exhibited for those depicted as physically attractive.
In their second study, participants could now see Todd and Michael. The investigators presented the same scenarios, and the female undergraduates viewed photographs of both Todd and Michael and manipulated their levels of physical attractiveness. Even though niceness and attractiveness independently affected the participants’ choices, niceness was the strongest factor. The same pattern was found when the participants were asked whom they would choose for themselves. Physical attractiveness had an additional effect, in that if the man was attractive and nice, he was considered more desirable (duh!). Interestingly, though, physical attractiveness did not help Jerk Todd. Neutral but lesser attractive Mike was picked more than physically attractive but Jerk Todd. Also, niceness was the strongest predictor when it came to desirability for more serious relationships, whereas physical attractiveness was more important when it came to desirability for more casual, sexual relationships.
The same researchers conducted a follow-up study and found in a sample of 191 male college students that those who reported lower levels of agreeableness tended to have more casual, sexual relationships, but the effect weakened when it came to committed and romantic relationships.137 Regan and Berscheid138 also found that although sensitivity, honesty, and kindness are preferred characteristics in a marriage partner, physical attractiveness is the most desired trait in a sexual partner, with nice-guy traits having much less importance.
These studies are quite consistent with evolutionary theory, which predicts that indicators of good genes (e.g., assertive, funny, physically attractive) are more attractive in a short-term mating context, whereas signs of good parenting potential (e.g., kind, considerate) are more valued in a long-term mating context. Of course, if the guy has both good genes and good parenting skills, all the better. But if the physically attractive jerk is pitted against the homely nice guy, niceness wins. In neither a short-term nor long-term mating context does it help to be an all-out jerk.
Bad boys appeal to three types of women: Thrill-seeker girls, girls who can’t commit, and “Near Zeros”—girls who aren’t operating on a full tank of self-esteem. (Alkon, 2000) Another crucial component of understanding mating intelligence is individual differences. From this perspective, the pertinent question is not “What do women want?” but “What do some women want”?
For most of the participants in the Urbaniak and Kilmann study,139 niceness was the most important factor in the participants’ decisions. However, a minority of the participants reported they would choose the less nice guy for themselves even though they thought that Susan should choose the nice guy. Some women even chose the less nice guy for both Susan and themselves.
Here are two reports from actual women in the study:
• “[Susan should choose Michael because …] He seems like a nice guy who would be there if she needed him. [But I would choose Neutral Todd for myself] because I always go for the wilder type of guy.”
• “The only reason why I choose [Jerk] Todd is because I am always attracted to the men that are leaders, secure, and I hate the mushy stuff. I felt that Michael was more the nice guy, which is great … but, I am just not attracted to that personality to the extreme.”
Other studies have found meaningful individual differences in a preference for a nice guy versus a bad boy. A study conducted by Herold and Milhausen in 1999 found that 56% of the 165 university women in the sample reported that they knew of other women who had the choice of dating the nice but sexually inexperienced guy but chose to date the sexually experienced but not so nice guy instead. In their own sample, although 54% of the women chose John, an inexperienced, nice, but somewhat shy guy, over Mike, an attractive, fun guy who had sex with 10 women, that number was far from 100%. In fact, there were common patterns among the women who preferred the bad boy. Women who preferred Mike over John tended to place more emphasis on the importance of sex, had more sexual partners in total, and were more accepting of men who had many sexual partners. Herold and Milhausen suggested that bad boys may do particularly well with highly sexually experienced women looking for casual, short-term flings. Therefore, a person’s level of sociosexuality matters in terms of their mate preferences (see Chapter 3). In contrast, although nice guys may have a lower total number of sexual partners, they do tend to be preferred for friendships and deep, intimate connections. As the researchers note, “In this context, nice guys do not always finish last.”140
Sexism is another key factor. According to Ambivalent Sexism Theory,141 there are two distinct forms of sexism: hostile sexism (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS). Hostile sexism involves negative attitudes toward women and explicit desire to maintain male privilege in the face of threats to patriarchal power. In contrast, benevolent sexism is more chivalrous and paternalistic, seemingly more positive but in reality perpetuating traditional gender roles. Various studies have found that sexism does play a role in mate preferences.142
In a recent study, Jeffrey Hall and Melanie Canterberry143 came up with a measure of “assertive strategies” by combing through two popular books written by “speed-seduction gurus” (The Game and The Pickup Artist). Based on their own interpretation of the techniques, they came up with a 14-item scale assessing three particular “assertive courtship strategies”: competition (e.g., “compete with other men who are interested in her/you”), teasing or “negging” (e.g., “picks on her/your appearance or behavior”), and isolation (e.g., “try to get her/you alone”). They found that sociosexuality was associated with a preference for assertive strategies. In particular, men high in sociosexuality were more likely to employ assertive strategies, and women high in sociosexuality were more likely to be receptive to assertive strategies.
Sexism also mattered. In both the college and adult samples, women scoring high in hostile and benevolent sexism traits were more receptive to assertive courtship strategies. Among college students, there was an interaction: women with a combination of high sociosexuality and high hostile sexism preferred men’s dominant courtship strategy the most. Only in the adult sample, however, was male sexism related to the use of assertive strategies, with a positive association between hostile sexism and assertive strategy use. The researchers suggest that assertive courtship strategies may be a form of mutual identification of similarly sexist attitudes, with people preferring courtship strategies that match their same “courtship script.” The study also highlights the importance of sociosexuality in mate preferences, and the importance of looking at different age groups (college vs. adults) when studying courtship strategies. Many of these assertive courtship behaviors may be more prevalent in college, lowering the variation in courtship strategies and making it more difficult for researchers to find an effect. It would also be interesting to see the effect of assertive courtship strategy use by females.
Both sociosexuality and sexism are tied to a nexus of other individual difference variables that we have been discussing throughout this book, such as life history strategy and attachment style (see Chapter 3). Those with a fast life history strategy and an insecure attachment style tend to have higher levels of sociosexuality. In general, those living the fast life tend to mate with those living the fast life, and those living a slower life tend to mate with those living the slower life.144 Although life history strategy predicts relationship satisfaction, the influence of life history strategy decreases over the duration of the relationship, when other variables become more important.
In regard to attachment style, unsurprisingly, securely attached people tend to go well together.145 Among insecurely attached individuals, even though a dismissive-avoidant/anxious-preoccupied pairing tends to get off to a rocky start, these kinds of relationships do tend to be surprisingly stable over 3 years.146 This dismissive-anxious pairing seems to a do a better job predicting relationship satisfaction than anxious-anxious or avoidant-avoidant pairings (which are very rare pairings). The picture of the detached, avoidant, “cool” James Dean and the anxiously attached Marilyn Monroe perfectly captures this research finding.
Other individual differences may be at play here and should be explored in future research. Such variables could include a care-taking personality (perhaps nurturing women are particularly susceptible to bad boys because they think they can change their bad ways), self-esteem (perhaps women with low levels of self-esteem are also particularly susceptible to bad boys because bad boys are good at exploiting their insecurities), and sensation seeking (perhaps two people high in sensation seeking go well together because the relationship provides the excitement both partners crave). As you may recall in Chapter 5, Meston and Buss147 found that women have sex for many different reasons, including darker reasons (e.g., “I wanted to be used or degraded”). Perhaps some of these individual differences variables can help explain some of those varied reasons. We suspect that many of these variables are related to each other, and with preferences for a more dominant versus agreeable partner. An exciting future line of research will be to pinpoint which factors are more important than others by including all of the relevant traits in the same study.
In addition to individual differences, another major theme of this book is contextual factors (see Chapter 5). Whether a woman is attracted to nice-guy traits or bad-boy traits may depend on where she is in her ovulatory cycle. Gangestad and co-workers148 had 237 normally ovulating women watch 1-minute videotapes of men compete for a potential lunch date. Women then rated each man’s level of attractiveness for a short-term and a long-term mate. They found that displays of social presence (consisting of composure, presentation as athletic, eye contact, lack of self-deprecation, lack of downward gaze, and lack of nice-guy self-presentation) and direct intrasexual competitiveness (consisting of derogation of competitor, direct intrasexual competitive tactics, lack of laughing, and lack of mentioning a nice personality) increased on high-fertility days relative to low-fertility days, but only in a short-term (not long-term) mating context.
Another important contextual factor is age. If you recall (see Chapter 5), women between the ages of 27 and 45 years have more of a sex drive than any other age group. Therefore, it would be interesting to test whether women within this age group also are particularly in search of bad boys with good genes, as evolutionary theory would predict.
Although there are sex differences in preference for a nice guy versus bad boy, there are also important individual differences as well as contextual factors. All of these levels of analysis are crucial aspects of mating intelligence.
Although this book isn’t about the actual act of intercourse (see The Guide to Getting It On! by Paul Joannides, 2009, for an excellent guide in this department), we would be remiss if we didn’t note that when it comes to sex, nice guys may actually finish last—in a good way! Galinsky and Sonenstein149 analyzed 3,200 students, aged 18 to 26 years, who had taken part in the third wave of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Overall, they found that men were more likely than women to report having had orgasms during sex (87% of men compared with 47% of women). Men, on average, were also more likely to enjoy giving oral sex than women were. Therefore, men might not be as selfish in bed as stereotypes might have it.
In terms of individual differences though, high self-esteem, autonomy, and empathy were associated with greater total sexual pleasure (frequency of orgasm, enjoyment level for giving and receiving oral sex) in females, whereas only empathy was associated with total sexual pleasure among the men in the study. Among men, autonomy was positively correlated to the frequency of orgasm, whereas self-esteem was linked to the enjoyment of giving oral sex. The researchers suggest that those with higher levels of empathy are more responsive to their partner’s needs, and their partner is thus more responsive in return. Therefore, it seems as though nice guys may finish last where it really counts—in the bedroom.
Based on all of the evidence, we can make some reasonable conclusions. As a first pass, we can say this: If you define success in terms of sheer number of sexual partners, jerks do finish first, but if you define success in terms of relationship quality, nice guys have the clear advantage. With that said, there are a number of qualifications.
Just because bad boys have a higher number of sexual partners, it does not prove that women are attracted to the aggressive and manipulative aspects of bad boys. Correlation doesn’t equal causation. We have demonstrated that there are a number of reasons why the correlation may exist:
1. Bad boys are more interested in short-term encounters so pursue them more frequently.
2. Bad boys use sexually coercive techniques to acquire mates.
3. Bad boys tend to display traits and behaviors (e.g., confidence, assertiveness, exciting and unpredictable personality) that are attractive at first sight.
Taken together, the research studies suggest that women are in fact not attracted to these aggressive and manipulative characteristics. When women say they like the bad boy, they tend to mean his exciting, unpredictable personality. On the other hand, when women refer to nice guys, they tend to mean traits relating to being overly nice and submissive (e.g., neediness, desperation, lack of self-confidence). Niceness is not the opposite of assertiveness. Both can coexist in the same person.
Individual differences and contextual factors are at play, however. Women with higher levels of sociosexuality are less interested in cues of “good dad” (e.g., agreeableness) and are more interested in cues of “good genes.” Women at peak fertility during their ovulatory cycle are more interested in cues of assertiveness and less interested in agreeableness. Women with a long-term mating strategy do want a man who has it all but tend to value kindness and understanding above all else. In no cases, though, are women attracted to aggression and hostility. Assertiveness can be distinguished from aggression.
Finally, there are multiple paths to mating success. In fact, guys who strike the right balance of assertiveness and agreeableness—who display high levels of mating intelligence, skill, creativity, and prosocial behaviors—are most attractive for both short-term and long-term relationships.
Based on all the evidence, we think we can give some sensible advice to both men and women.
If you are looking for a good man but find yourself constantly ending up with narcissists, here are some tips:
• Understand the narcissistic mindset. Narcissists are easy to spot and easy to avoid. Once you understand the narcissists’ mindset and what drives them, you realize just how predictable they really are. Beware of:
• Men who talk about themselves, name drop, or spend more time in the mirror than you do.
• Men who put others down, especially inferiors and strangers.
• Men who always need to be the center of attention and outshine you.
• Men who react too harshly to criticism and see criticism where it doesn’t even exist.
• Men who act entitled to you.
• Slow down. Relationships with narcissists start off with a bang (literally) but fizzle out fast. Relationships with good guys may take more time to develop but may ultimately be more satisfying and exciting. If you’re looking for a long-term relationship, don’t put so much stock in your initial attraction, and be open-minded to guys who may not be as flashy.
• Assess him in multiple contexts. Sometimes extraverts can be very hard to distinguish from narcissists at first encounter. If you are attracted to a guy at first encounter, assess him in multiple contexts before getting in too deep.
• Ask for a dating resume. If he has had a lot of failed relationships, or has no balls because they have been cut off by a prior mate, that’s not a good sign.
• Listen to your friends. If your friends stopped hanging out with you because they don’t want to go anywhere near your new boyfriend, that’s an important sign. If everyone else thinks you are dating a self-absorbed narcissist, you probably are.
• Look at where you are going to find a mate. If you frequent bars and clubs, you are more likely to encounter narcissists on the prowl. Avoid breeding grounds for narcissists.
• Give nice guys a chance. Stable and secure guys don’t tend to wear flashy, neon lights on their shirts. If a guy looks like he’s genuinely interested in you and is being nice, don’t automatically assume the guy is “weak.” Some of the most self-assured and cocky guys are the most narcissistic, and many guys with the worst “game” make for the most satisfying and exciting relationship partners.
• Examine why you are attracted to narcissists. “If you are searching for an ambitious and exciting man who is not ‘too nice,’ you are likely to be drawn to many narcissists. Also, if you are always looking for excitement rather than emotional closeness you are more likely to be drawn to narcissists,” notes psychologist W. Keith Campbell.150 What narcissistic need of yours do narcissists exploit? Understanding why you date narcissistic men will help you make significant changes to your life.
• Examine why bad boys tend to be attracted to you. A body of research suggests that there are certain body language cues that are more prominent among those vulnerable to victimization.151 For instance, Grayson and Stein152 found that potential victims differed from nonvictims with respect to five motion cues: longer or shorter strides, nonlateral weight shifts, gestured versus postural movements, and foot movement (potential victims tended to lift their feet higher while walking). A key factor in victimization seems to be nonverbal cues of dominance versus submissiveness.153 Can anything be done? Prison psychologist Mariso Mauro, who deals with criminals and people with psychopathic traits, notes that: “besides one’s walk, individuals can purposefully project dominance thereby potentially decreasing perceived vulnerability by increasing eye contact, decreasing the use of small body movements of the hand and feet, and increasing large body movements or changes in postural positioning.”154
• Don’t let narcissists get into your head. Narcissists are really good at exploiting people’s emotional weaknesses and insecurities. If you find yourself constantly questioning yourself and feeling guilty for things your partners really should be guilty for doing, this is a sign the narcissist’s tactics have succeeded. Recognize this, and don’t let his mind games get into your head.
• Get out as soon as you can. If you do find yourself in a relationship with a narcissist, don’t try to change him. Remember, he enjoys being a narcissist. Be prepared to cut off the relationship swiftly and abruptly. The more emotionally attached you get, the harder it will be to leave the relationship and the easier it will be for the narcissistic to manipulate you.
• Take responsibility for your situation. “Understand the situation you are in does not reflect your personality, and you can change your circumstance,” notes Campbell.155 “Responsibility is the ability to respond.”
If you aren’t getting the mating results you want, hold off on becoming a card-carrying narcissist. You may only need to make some minor adjustments. Here are some tips:
• Dial-down your eagerness. Hold your horses, cowboy. Women want quality men, and quality men don’t act desperate. It is simple supply and demand: the more a guy acts like he’s in short supply, the more women will demand him.
• Be more playful. You may be boring dates and scaring women away because you are too serious and anxious. Try watching some comedy before going out to get yourself in a playful frame of mind.
• Be more assertive. If you are constantly being put into the “friend zone,” perhaps you are not being assertive enough about what you want. There is a difference between dominance and assertiveness. Get out of your comfort zone by making bold romantic gestures. They won’t always work out, but at least it gives the girl a chance to see you in the way you want her to see you. If you are nervous, remember: women find honesty sexy.
• Be authentic. Don’t try to be the kind of man you think women want, but play up your own unique strengths. A healthy dose of self-promotion is okay. Own yourself. Women can tell when you are trying to be someone you aren’t. Jerks don’t try to be nice guys, so why should nice guys try to be jerks?
• Get out of your head. Instead of worrying about following a set of rules that puts you too much in your own head and creates unnecessary anxiety, direct your attention to the external world. Ask a woman questions and genuinely care about her answers. Women like to be understood and will appreciate that you care about what they have to say. Too much self-focus will come across as unattractive.
• Do good things for others. Smile at strangers. Help grannies cross the street. Volunteer at a homeless shelter. Do Habitat for Humanity. Learn a culturally valued skill and become really good at it. Instead of trying to manufacture attraction, work on genuinely becoming the type of man women want. Then attraction will come naturally as a result.
• Be flexible. There are aspects of the Dark Triad that the nice guy can learn, without being a bad person. It is possible to have multiple social strategies at your disposal, one agentic and measured by the Dark Triad, and one prosocial, measured with altruistic behavior, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.156 There certainly are times when an altruistic, cooperative orientation is essential (e.g., when forming meaningful reciprocal relationships and developing a skill that helps humanity) and times when you may want to adopt an agentic social strategy (e.g., when you want to hold your ground on your beliefs and maintain your self-respect, or in quickly bouncing back from rejection).
• If you are tired of the fast life, dial down the signals that you are looking for a short-term affair (e.g., sexual language, approaching every woman in sight) and work on your empathy and relationship skills. Also, try acquiring socially valuable skills that help others.
We do not purport to have settled all these issues once and for all. At the very least, we hope we brought you closer to understanding the truth and opened up further avenues for research. Do assholes really finish first? Because it’s such a complicated question, with so many caveats, this question will no doubt continue to be debated and argued for the rest of humanity. Nonetheless, based on all the evidence, the most reasonable conclusion is that, yes, assholes may finish first, but prestigious men stay there.