Table of Contents
2015 study: men are slightly less attracted to intelligent women, despite what they say
Six experiments by Park and colleagues (2015) examined men’s stated versus observed attraction to intelligent women. When evaluating hypothetical or physically distant profiles, men reported preferring partners who were smarter than themselves.
However, in live, face-to-face interactions, where a female confederate had just outperformed them on a cognitive task, men showed a modest decrease in romantic interest.
In Study 3a, those men also rated their own masculinity lower when the woman remained nearby (F(1, 67) = 8.02, p = .006), and a mediation analysis indicated that this temporary dip in self-rated masculinity partially explained the reduced attraction. The decrease in attraction corresponded to an average drop of 0.5 points on a 7-point scale.
The authors describe these findings as preliminary, note that they derive from American undergraduate samples, and call for further replication and more sensitive measures.
Media framing and why the cause is smaller than the headlines
Media sensationalism often exaggerates these findings, using exaggerated language around these topics.
The author of the mentioned article says “apparently because the men’s sense of masculinity took a temporary hit“. The mechanism of the “masculinity hit” does exist in the scientific paper, but the mainstream media amplified it using more dramatic language (“intimidate”, “male ego too intimidated”) than the data actually supports.
The experiments show a modest and context-dependent effect: when a man is seated face-to-face with a woman who just outperformed him on a test, he tends to reduce his romantic interest in her on average.
In one of these studies (Study 3a), the authors measured masculinity self-assessment right after the test: men who were outperformed felt less masculine when the woman remained physically near them (F = 8.02, p = .006). A mediation analysis suggests that this drop in masculinity partially explains the decline in attraction.
The authors themselves describe these findings as “preliminary” and call for more refined measurements and replications.
The masculinity-hit hypothesis remains cautious, limited to American college students, and does not appear in every experimental setup. However:
- Glamour (2015): “Smart Women Intimidate Men, Says New Study”. This replaces “temporary drop in masculinity” with a more loaded term (“intimidate”), which suggests fear or a global threat rather than brief discomfort.
- MedicalDaily (2015): “Male Ego Too Intimidated By Smart Women”. This speaks of the “ego” and lasting intimidation, whereas the scientific article describes a momentary and partially mediating fluctuation.
- Psychology Today (2021): “… apparently because the men’s sense of masculinity took a temporary hit”. This stays closer to the original wording but fails to mention that the authors consider the effect preliminary and that it does not appear in every study.
(Psychological) Distance Makes the Heart Grow Fonder: Effects of Psychological Distance and Relative Intelligence on Men’s Attraction to Women – 2015
Six lab and field experiments (total N ≈ 650) showed that American male undergraduates admired highly intelligent women in the abstract, but when a woman sitting next to them outscored them on a reasoning test they reported slightly lower romantic interest and sat farther away. A follow-up mediation in Study 3a linked the attraction dip (-0.5 points on a 7-point scale) to a brief fall in self-rated masculinity (F = 8.02, p = .006). The authors labelled the effect preliminary and called for broader samples and subtler measures.
2021 study: girlfriend success barely dents male self-esteem
Three preregistered replications and a meta-analysis by Hawkins, Lesick and Zell re-tested whether thinking about a girlfriend’s success lowers men’s self-esteem. Across nearly 600 participants, writing about a partner’s achievement produced no reliable drop in implicit self-esteem; the pooled effect was d ≈ 0.13, about 78 % smaller than the original 2013 estimate.
The authors conclude that merely imagining a woman’s success has a negligible impact, and any discomfort is likely confined to men who are already dissatisfied with their relationship. They call for future work with bigger samples and behavioral outcomes.
Implicit Self-Esteem Following a Romantic Partner’s Success: Three Replications and a Meta-Analysis – 2021
Hawkins, Lesick and Zell reran the classic “partner-success” writing task three times (N = 598) and pooled the results. Men’s implicit self-esteem fell only trivially after recalling a girlfriend’s success (meta-analytic d ≈ 0.13, 78 % smaller than the original 2013 effect). Exploratory tests suggested the tiny dip appeared mainly in men already low in relationship satisfaction. The authors conclude that merely thinking about a partner’s success has negligible impact on male ego.
2022-2023 study: women’s higher status helps, unless they surpass their partner
Vink and colleagues surveyed 314 Dutch women and followed 112 of them for 14 days. Climbing the status ladder (income, education, occupational prestige) generally improved relationship quality and women’s well-being and . Yet the pattern reversed when a woman’s status clearly exceeded her male partner’s: relationship satisfaction fell, and traditional-minded women considered cutting work hours, while egalitarian women experienced guilt instead.
All Is Nice and Well Unless She Outshines Him: Higher Social Status Benefits Women’s Well-Being and Relationship Quality but Not if They Surpass Their Male Partner – 2022
Vink and colleagues combined a cross-sectional survey (N = 314 Dutch women) with a 14-day diary (N = 112). Greater education, income and occupational prestige generally boosted women’s happiness and couple quality. Yet among women whose status clearly exceeded their male partner’s, satisfaction reversed: traditional-minded women considered cutting work hours, while egalitarian women felt guilt. The authors argue that backlash is conditional on gender-role beliefs, not inevitable.
2024 study: speed-dating shows little match between stated and revealed preferences
Zhao, Sidari, Lee and Zietsch ran a high-powered speed-dating event with 1 145 singles and followed it with computer simulations. Only 4 of 9 traits, including intelligence, showed any link between what participants claimed to want and whom they actually liked, and those links were tiny. Further statistical tests suggested most apparent correspondences were artefacts of analysing one trait at a time when attraction is multivariate.
The authors conclude that detecting real trait-by-trait matching is inherently difficult; people’s lists of “must-haves” rarely predict who excites them in person.
Speed-Dating and Simulation Data Explain the Discrepancy Between Stated and Revealed Mate Preferences – 2024
Zhao, Sidari, Lee and Zietsch ran 171 speed-dating sessions with 1 145 adults, then modelled the design in computer simulations. Only 4 of 9 traits—including intelligence—showed any detectable link between what participants said they wanted and whom they actually liked, and those links were tiny. Simulations showed that when attraction depends on many traits at once, single-trait correlations are expected to be near zero. The paper concludes that lists of “ideal qualities” are poor predictors of real-life chemistry.
2024 study: Men prefer attractive women over intelligent women in online swipes
Witmer, Rosenbusch and Meral used conjoint analysis on 5 340 swipe decisions from 445 German dating-app users. Improving a profile photo by one standard deviation raised match odds by about 20 %, whereas an equivalent boost to perceived intelligence increased matches by only 2 %. Intelligence finished fifth—behind attractiveness, height, job prestige and bio quality.
Both men and women showed the same pattern, suggesting that rapid, image-driven contexts minimise the role of cognitive traits in first-pass attraction.
The Relative Importance of Looks, Height, Job, Bio, Intelligence, and Homophily in Online Dating: A Conjoint Analysis – 2024 (online-first 2024, print 2025)
Witmer, Rosenbusch and Meral analysed 5 340 swipe choices made by 445 dating-app users in Germany. Varying six profile attributes independently, they found that improving photo attractiveness by one standard deviation raised match odds by ≈20 %, whereas an equivalent boost to perceived intelligence raised matches by only ≈2 %. Both men and women ranked intelligence fifth—well behind looks, height, job prestige and profile-text quality. The authors conclude that rapid, image-driven contexts give intelligence little room to influence first-pass attraction
0 Comments