ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, August 12, 1996 TAG: 9608120081
SECTION: NATL/INTL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: TORONTO
SOURCE: Associated Press
NOTE: Below
IF YOU'RE NOT rich, take heart. A new study shatters the myth that women look to money as a staple concern when considering a mate.
In findings that should cheer up men who aren't rich and anybody who loves a sappy romance story, it turns out the Beatles were right: Guys, money can't buy you love.
When college women chose among hypothetical men to date or marry, the attractiveness of big bucks ranked behind thonesty, good looks and having time for family life.
That emphasizes how misleading a popular notion is about what attracts men and women to each other, said researcher Michael Cunningham of the University of Louisville, in Kentucky.
The theory says men look for physical attractiveness more than women do, while women seek financial resources in a mate. In the popular mind, Cunningham said, that's been boiled down to, ``Men check out women for their figure, and women check out men for their wallet.''
The new finding emphasizes that while women may find financial resources more important than men do, that's not the top draw, Cunningham said. He spoke Sunday at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association during a symposium on what attracts women to men.
Cunningham presented results from three experiments done with college women and men.
In one, 118 women chose from a pool of hypothetical men to date or marry. Each man was assigned various combinations of three traits: He would either get $20,000 a year from a job or $200,000 a year from his parents' winnings in a sweepstakes; he was honest or not; and he was low, medium or high on dominance and competitiveness in tennis.
The top choice was the guy with more money, honesty and medium dominance. But money didn't do any good by itself. It only helped if the guy was honest, too.
In the second study, with 52 men and 54 women, participants chose from three possible people for dates or mates. Photographs showed that the person was either physically attractive or not, and biographies showed the person was either a millionaire or ``barely scraping by,'' and had either a good personality or a bad one.
A good personality included such things as honesty, kindness, dependability and willingness to listen. A bad personality included shiftiness, moodiness, inflexibility and difficulty in understanding another's problems.
``It's basically nice guy versus jerk,'' Cunningham said.
When women were asked to choose a mate with one good trait and two bad ones, half picked the guy with the good personality but low financial status and low physical attractiveness. Twenty-nine percent chose physical attractiveness as the sole selling point, and only 21 percent took wealth.
The rankings were the same when women chose a date.
Men's rankings were the same as women's for a mate, but physical attractiveness beat personality in choosing a date.
When women got a chance to pick somebody with two good traits for a mate, 81 percent went for the guy with good looks plus good personality. Only 11 percent went for wealth plus good personality, and only 8 percent chose good looks plus wealth.
The results were similar when women chose a date.
Men also overwhelmingly chose beauty plus personality for a date or mate.
The third study had 103 women. They were asked to choose among four guys: a handsome rogue who cheated on his partners; an average-looking guy who was loyal, helpful and eager to please; a rich surgeon with little time for his wife or kids; and a $20,000-a-year high-school teacher who loved kids and had lots of time for family life.
And the winner was ... the teacher.
About 60 percent chose him as a mate or date. The wealthy but busy surgeon was picked by only 15 percent as a date or mate.
Harry T. Reis, a psychologist at the University of Rochester in New York, said Cunningham's findings make ``absolutely good sense.''
LENGTH: Medium: 78 linesby CNB