american sociological review 2014 mcclintock 575 604

8/12/2019 American Sociological Review 2014 McClintock 575 604

1/31

http://asr.sagepub.com/AmericanSociological Review

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/79/4/575Theonline version of this article can be foundat:

DOI: 10.1177/0003122414536391

2014 79: 575 originally published online 9 June 2014American Sociological ReviewElizabeth Aura McClintock

Beauty and Status: The Illusion of Exchange in Partner Selection?

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Sociological Association

can be found at:American Sociological ReviewAdditional services and information for

http://asr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://asr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jun 9, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jul 23, 2014Version of Record>>

at SANTA CLARA UNIV on August 9, 2014asr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SANTA CLARA UNIV on August 9, 2014asr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/content/79/4/575http://asr.sagepub.com/content/79/4/575http://asr.sagepub.com/content/79/4/575http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.asanet.org/http://asr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://asr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://asr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://asr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/29/0003122414536391.full.pdfhttp://asr.sagepub.com/content/79/4/575.full.pdfhttp://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://asr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/05/29/0003122414536391.full.pdfhttp://asr.sagepub.com/content/79/4/575.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://asr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://asr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.asanet.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/content/79/4/575http://asr.sagepub.com/


2/31

American Sociological Review2014, Vol. 79(4) 575604 American SociologicalAssociation 2014DOI: 10.1177/0003122414536391http://asr.sagepub.com

This article revisits the claim that individuals

(generally women) of relatively high physical

attractiveness barter their beauty to attract a

partner of higher socioeconomic status. This

beauty-status exchange model is popularized in

the trophy wife stereotype that pretty women

marry high-status men. Yet this popular focus

overlooks the role of matchingselecting a

partner with similar characteristics to oneself

that is well-documented in research on relation-ships (e.g., McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook

2001). I unite the two literatures by modeling

exchange and matching as simultaneous and

competing processes that might vary in

relevance for different types of couples. Identi-

fying the conditions under which couples

exchange beauty and status provides insight

into processes of social mobility and stratifica-

tion. Additionally, beauty-status exchange is

highly relevant to gender inequality and to

sociobiological models of partner selection.

ASRXXX10.1177/0003122414536391AmericanSociological ReviewMcClintock

a

University of Notre Dame

Corresponding Author:Elizabeth Aura McClintock, 810 Flanner Hall,University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556E-mail: [email protected]

Beauty and Status: TheIllusion of Exchange in

Partner Selection?

Elizabeth Aura McClintocka

Abstract

Scholars have long been interested in exchange and matching (assortative mating) in romanticpartner selection. But many analyses of exchange, particularly those that examine beautyand socioeconomic status, fail to control for partners tendency to match each other onthese traits. Because desirable traits in mates are positively correlated between partners andwithin individuals, ignoring matching may exaggerate evidence of cross-trait beauty-statusexchange. Moreover, many prior analyses assume a gendered exchange in which womentrade beauty for mens status, without testing whether men might use handsomeness toattract higher-status women. Nor have prior analyses fully investigated how the prevalenceof beauty-status exchange varies between different types of couples. I use data from theNational Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health Romantic Pair Sample, a large (N= 1,507),nationally representative probability sample of dating, cohabiting, and married couples, toinvestigate how often romantic partners exchange physical attractiveness and socioeconomicstatus, net of matching on these traits. I find that controlling for matching eliminates nearly allevidence of beauty-status exchange. The discussion focuses on the contexts in which beauty-status exchange is most likely and on implications these results have for market-based andsociobiological theories of partner selection.

Keywords

marriage, demography, gender, social stratification, sociobiology

at SANTA CLARA UNIV on August 9, 2014asr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/


3/31

576 American Sociological Review79(4)

Partner selection is important in reproduc-

ing group boundaries and social inequalities

(Gordon 1964; Rosenfeld 2008). Matching on

socioeconomic status compounds inequality:

high-earners partner with other high-earnersand low-earners with other low-earners

(Blossfeld and Buchholz 2009; Schwartz

2010; Schwartz and Mare 2005). However,

under a market model of partner selection, in

which choices are relatively unconstrained by

group boundaries and partners informally

exchange personal attributes, individuals

could leverage a desirable noneconomic trait

to achieve socioeconomic mobility. This

would undermine the tendency for partnerselection to reproduce existing patterns of

inequality. Under the beauty-status exchange

model, physical attractiveness might enable

class mobility for women, although such an

exchange would ensure womens economic

dependency on their husbands.

Indeed, partner selection is closely related

to gender inequality. Norms dictating that the

man be older and more successful in his

career reinforce power inequalities withinmarriage (Presser 1975). Rules prescribing

these and other forms of marital hypergamy

may be weakening, but related stereotypes

that men prioritize a partners appearance and

women prioritize a partners status remain

strong. Such stereotypes are pre-feminist,

ignoring womens economic independence

and their valuation of mens physical attrac-

tiveness. Although these stereotypes may be

derived from both social structural and socio-

biological theories, the sociobiological litera-

ture is especially adamant that men will select

long-term partners on the basis of youth and

beauty, whereas women will select partners

who are good providers (Buss 1990, 1998).

Beauty-status exchange accords with the

popular conception of romantic partner selec-

tion as a competitive market process, a con-

ception widely accepted in both popular

culture and academia. Under the market

model of romantic relationship formation,

individuals negotiate an informal exchange

by trading their own assets for those of their

partner. This market metaphor has been

applied to the exchange of socioeconomic

status for other purportedly desired resources,

such as race (Fu 2001; Kalmijn 1993; Qian

1997; Schoen and Wooldredge 1989; but see

Rosenfeld 2005, 2010), homemaker skills(Becker 1991), youth (Coles and Francesconi

2007; England and McClintock 2009), and

physical attractiveness (Burdett and Coles

2001; Carmalt et al. 2008; Elder 1969; Sassler

and Joyner 2011; Stevens, Owens, and

Schaefer 1990; Taylor and Glenn 1976; Udry

1977). In popular culture, the concept of a

gendered beauty-status exchange, in which an

economically successful man partners with a

beautiful trophy wife, is commonplace.In practice, the related exchange-based the-

ory that individuals of low racial status but

high socioeconomic status partner with those

of high racial status and low socioeconomic

status (status-caste exchange) also bolsters

support for gender-stereotyped models of part-

ner selection. Proponents argue that low-status

white women partner with higher-status black

men (Fu 2001; Kalmijn 1993; Qian 1997; Sch-

oen and Wooldredge 1989) or that minoritywomen exchange beauty and sexual access for

white mens income (Sassler and Joyner 2011).

If this occurs, such couples would undermine

racial boundaries but reinforce female eco-

nomic dependency in marriage.

These market-based exchange models are

difficult to reconcile with the consistent empir-

ical finding that romantic partners tend to

match on many dimensions. In contradiction to

beauty-status exchange theory, economically

successful women partner with economically

successful men (Sweeney and Cancian 2004),

and physically attractive women partner with

physically attractive men (Murstein and

Christy 1976).1I attempt to resolve the empiri-

cal paradox presented by the evidence of

matching on physical attractiveness and on

socioeconomic status with the conflicting lit-

erature affirming beauty-status exchange. I

argue that the positive individual-level correla-

tion between physical attractiveness and socio-

economic status, combined with a tendency for

partners to match on both attractiveness and

status, might be easily misconstrued

http://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/


4/31

McClintock 577

as beauty-status exchange, particularly in

regression models that do not fully account for

matching.

That said, although prior research may rely

on faulty empirical models, it is possible thatbeauty-status exchange occurs in some cou-

ples. Although they are competing forces,

matching and exchange are not mutually

exclusivesome couples might match while

others engage in cross-trait exchange. Prior

research proposes that certain types of cou-

ples, such as less-committed or interracial

couples (Sassler and Joyner 2011), are espe-

cially likely to engage in beauty-status

exchange. My analysis examines the preva-lence of matching and exchange among a

representative sample of young couples and

considers whether any subgroups dispropor-

tionately engage in beauty-status exchange.

Considering the contexts in which beauty-

status exchange might predominate provides

nuanced insight into processes of partner

selection and highlights the differential mean-

ings that couples may attach to their

relationships.

BACKGROUND

Matching in Partner Selection

The strongest force in partner selection is

matching, or assortative mating (in marriage,

endogamy): men and women select partners

with characteristics similar to their own.

Couples tend to be alike in education, age,

race, and religion (Bereczkei and Csanaky

1996; Blackwell and Lichter 2004; Mare

1991; Rosenfeld 2008; Schoen and Cheng

2006; Schoen and Weinick 1993; Stevens

1991). Of most relevance to this study, there

is strong evidence of matching on physical

attractiveness (Berscheid et al. 1971; Carmalt

et al. 2008; Feingold 1988; Kalick and Ham-

ilton 1986; Murstein 1972; Murstein and

Christy 1976; Stevens et al. 1990) and socio-

economic status (Blackwell and Lichter 2004;

Gardyn 2002; Mare 1991; Stevens 1991).

Prior literature suggests at least three

important forces generating matching: (1)

homophily, that is, individuals preferences

for similar (in-group) partners, (2) pressure

from third parties to select similar partners,

and (3) lack of contact with potential dissimi-

lar (out-group) partners (Kalmijn 1998).These explanations are undoubtedly impor-

tant and may suffice to explain matching on

many traits, particularly traits for which pref-

erences vary greatly between individuals. For

these traits, such as religion, no one group is

generally desired more than others. Instead,

individuals want partners of their own group,

whatever that may be. But for other traits,

including income and physical attractiveness,

more is often assumed to be better. For theseconsensually ranked traits, individuals may

prefer partners who are superior to them-

selves over partners who are their equals.

Additionally, in the case of physical attrac-

tiveness, it is not obvious that interested third

parties would object to dissimilarity or that

social-structural barriers prevent contact

between more and less physically attractive

individuals.

A competitive marriage market modelmight explain some degree of matching on

consensually ranked traits, including physical

attractiveness. In a competitive market, every-

one may desire the most beautiful and wealth-

iest partners, but individuals will discover

that the most desirable partner they can attract

is one of their own level of desirability (see

Burdett and Coles 1997, 1999, 2001; Choo

and Siow 2006; Loughran 2002). Still, match-

ing on specific traits is not the only possible

outcome. Individuals might exchange a high

level of one desirable trait for a high level of

a different desirable trait in a partner, engag-

ing in cross-trait exchange while matching on

total desirability.

I am interested in physical attractiveness

and socioeconomic status because they are

often thought to be consensually ranked traits,

and existing theories of partner selection indi-

cate that such traits might be either matched

or exchanged. Despite the inherent tension

between theories purporting beauty-status

exchange and those arguing that couples will

match on these traits, the theories are not



5/31


incompatible. Some couples might match

while others exchange. Individuals might also

seek approximate equality on both beauty and

status but accept a limited tradeoff between

the twosuch as a slightly less-attractivepartner with slightly higher status.

Co-occurrence of Desirable Traits

Analyses endorsing matching and those

endorsing exchange generally overlook the

co-occurrence of (un)desirable traitsthat

beauty and status are positively correlated

within individuals. Perhaps partially because

physically attractive individuals are treatedpreferentially, they enjoy improved school

performance, greater occupational success,

and higher earnings (Clifford and Walster

1973; Hamermesh and Biddle 1994; Haskins

and Ransford 1999; Jackson, Hunter, and

Hodge 1995; Langlois et al. 2000; Rosenblat

2008; Rosenblat and Mobius 2006; Singer

1964; Umberson and Hughes 1987; Wardle,

Waller, and Jarvis 2002). Also, income may

help individuals purchase goods and servicesthat enhance attractiveness, such as dental

care and gym memberships. Some of the

beauty-status correlation might be explained

by rater bias: for example, individuals thought

to be of higher-status nations are rated more

favorably (Kowner 1996).2

The co-occurrence of desirable traits

encourages matching on multiple dimen-

sionscouples who match on one trait tend

toward similarity on related traits. This might

lead to overestimating the strength of match-

ing on any single dimension, considered alone

(Kalmijn 1998). For example, if college grad-

uates are (on average) better-looking than

nongraduates, matching on college status

facilitates matching on attractiveness. More

subtly, because the within-individual co-

occurrence of desirable traits might create a

spurious between-partner cross-trait correla-

tion of beauty and status, a bias toward

observing mens status and womens beauty

might cause matching to be misidentified as

exchange. If couples match on college status

and on attractiveness, college-educated men

would have prettier wives than less-educated

men (and college-educated women would

have handsomer husbands). Because physi-

cally attractive men and women average

higher socioeconomic status, partner match-ing on status or attractiveness (or on both

traits) would create a positive correlation

between womens physical attractiveness and

mens socioeconomic status, and between

mens attractiveness and womens status,

even in the absence of beauty-status exchange.

In models that assume men value attrac-

tiveness and women value status, couples

would appear to engage in beauty-status

exchange even when they match. For exam-ple, a high-earning man married to a pretty

wife might be interpreted as beauty-status

exchange by a researcher who only observes

male status and female beautybut if the

man is handsome and his wife a high-earner,

then the couple is matched on both traits.

Most prior studies of beauty-status exchange

assume a gendered importance of beauty and

status, overlooking mens attractiveness and

womens status and potentially misidentify-ing matching as exchange. Analyses assum-

ing a stereotypically gendered importance of

beauty and status could thus erroneously, and

unintentionally, perpetuate these very stereo-

types. Also, because most prior studies

assume gendered exchange, it is unclear

whether patterns of beauty-status exchange

(insofar as they exist after controlling for

matching) are gender-symmetric.

Evidence of Exchange

Despite strong evidence of matching on phys-

ical attractiveness (Carmalt et al. 2008; Fein-

gold 1988; Murstein 1972; Murstein and

Christy 1976; Stevens et al. 1990) and on

socioeconomic status (Blackwell and Lichter

2004; Gardyn 2002; Mare 1991; Stevens et al.

1990), prior studies argue that physical attrac-

tiveness is traded for socioeconomic status

(Bjerk 2009; Carmalt et al. 2008; Elder 1969;

Taylor and Glenn 1976; Udry 1977). Specifi-

cally, early studies of beauty-status exchange

in partner selection propose a gendered



6/31

McClintock 579

exchange of womensbeauty for mensstatus.

Such studies find that both physical attrac-

tiveness and education help a woman achieve

upward mobility through marriage (defined

as marrying a man of higher occupationalstatus than her father [Elder 1969; Udry

1977]) and help her marry a man of high

occupational status, in absolute terms (Taylor

and Glenn 1976). However, these analyses

exclude mens physical attractiveness and

therefore do not address how the co-occur-

rence of desirable traits within individuals

might encourage matching and might also

generate the illusion of exchange.3 Control-

ling for bothpartners physical attractivenessmay not eliminate the relationship between

female beauty and male status, but it should at

least reduce this relationship substantially.

A recent article using the National Longi-

tudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add

Health) Romantic Pair data, a nationally rep-

resentative sample of young adult dating,

cohabiting, and marital partners, finds that for

both genders, personal assets including edu-

cation predict having a physically attractivepartner (Carmalt et al. 2008). The authors

interpret this as evidence of cross-trait beauty-

education exchange, but they fail to control

for the partners education. Because educa-

tion is strongly associated with physical

attractiveness within individuals (beauty and

education co-occur), it is unclear from this

study whether education is exchanged to

attain an attractive partner or whether the

findings are spurious and result from match-

ing. Therefore, I use the same data to evaluate

patterns of beauty-status exchange while con-

trolling for matching.

Some individuals certainly intend to trade

high levels of one trait for high levels of a dif-

ferent trait. Personal and online dating adver-

tisements are often couched in deal-making

language (Alterovitz and Mendelsohn 2009;

Davis 1990; Harrison and Saeed 1977). These

advertisements imply that some women hope

to trade their physical attractiveness for mens

financial security, and some men hope to trade

their socioeconomic status for a physically

attractive but lower-status partner. But

experimental studies indicate that women (and

men) will not compromise on physical attrac-

tiveness (Li et al. 2002; Li and Kenrick 2006;

Sprecher 1989). In practice, individuals might

be unwilling to make the cross-trait exchangesthat they anticipated making. Moreover,

women and men pursuing a gendered beauty-

status exchange in their advertisements might

be overlooking the importance of class-based

cultural compatibility. They may ultimately

value cultural similarity more than similarity

on tangible measures of status (income or

degree attainment) (Kalmijn 1994), but they

may realize the cultural importance of socio-

economic status only after meeting status-disparate dates. For example, a man might

attach little importance to a prospective wifes

income or educational attainment per se, but

he might discover that the women with whom

he is most interpersonally compatible are

women of his own socioeconomic status.

Is More of a Good Thing AlwaysBetter?

Prior studies espousing beauty-status

exchange implicitly assume that physical

attractiveness and social status are consensu-

ally ranked traits: that is, these traits can be

measured and partners with higher levels are

generally more desired (e.g., Elder 1969;

Taylor and Glenn 1976). Socioeconomic sta-

tus is an abstract concept, but it is often

approximated by education, income, or occu-

pation-tangible and quantifiable characteris-

tics. Despite some inevitable subjectivity in

evaluating physical attractiveness, prior stud-

ies report high inter-rater consensus (Langlois

et al. 2000; Murstein 1972). In the United

States, there may be racial differences in ideal

body shape (Cohn and Adler 1992; Lovejoy

2001; Webb, Looby, and Fults-McMurtery

2004), but assessment of facial attractiveness

does not vary by race (Cunningham et al.

1995; Moss, Miller, and Page 1975). Attrac-

tiveness and status are thus quantifiable.

However, neither men nor women report

attaching much importance to either trait. For

example, when asked to rank the importance



7/31


of 76 traits in a romantic partner, no measures

of appearance or socioeconomic status made

the top 10 (Buss and Barnes 1986). This and

similar studies find that men value appear-

ance more than women, whereas womenvalue socioeconomic indicators more than

men, but neither gender ranks physical attrac-

tiveness or socioeconomic status highly

(Furnham 2009; Howard, Blumstein, and

Schwartz 1987; Nevid 1984). (This gender

difference may be declining in recent cohorts

[Buss et al. 2001; Regan and Joshi 2003].)

In contrast to self-reported preferences,

experimental studies find that physical attrac-

tiveness is highly valued by both genders, andthat women also value mens socioeconomic

status (Li et al. 2002; Li and Kenrick 2006;

Sprecher 1989). Similarly, recent speed-

dating studies find that physical attractiveness

and earnings potential are both strong predic-

tors of attraction (Eastwick and Finkel 2008;

Fisman et al. 2006; Luo and Zhang 2009).

Consistent with these findings, women and

men using an online-dating website valued

physical attractiveness highly (Hitsch, Hort-acsu, and Ariely 2010). Evidence from speed-

dating and online-dating studies is mixed

regarding gender differences in the relative

importance of attractiveness and earnings

potential.

Arguably, acted preferences in experi-

ments and real dating situations may be more

genuine indicators of true preferences than

are stated preferences (McClintock 2011)

and acted preferences indicate that when it

comes to beauty and status in romantic part-

ners, more is better. This is a necessary but

not sufficient condition for exchange to occur.

Exchange requires not only that these traits

are valued, but also that they are substituta-

ble. Yet individuals might be unwilling to

compromise on one dimension (e.g., by

accepting a homely partner), even when com-

pensated on another dimension (if the homely

partner were high-status). Indeed, acted pref-

erences suggest that both genders consider

physical attractiveness a necessity and disre-

gard potential partners who fail their attrac-

tiveness criteria (see Li and Kenrick 2006).

Union Status and Duration

Most studies purporting beauty-status

exchange restrict their analysis to married

couples. Only the most recent of these articles(Carmalt et al. 2008) uses dating, cohabiting,

and married couples. I use these same data,

the National Longitudinal Study of Adoles-

cent Health Romantic Pair sample (2001 to

2002;N= 1,507). Insofar as commitment can

be assumed to increase as couples move from

dating to cohabitation to marriage, couples in

more committed relationships are more simi-

lar in race, education, and other traits (Black-

well and Lichter 2004; Joyner and Kao 2005).Individuals may hold looser partner criteria

for short-term relationships, and dissimilar

couples may face higher dissolution rates

(McClintock 2010; Wang, Kao, and Joyner

2006). If beauty-status exchange is a form of

dissimilarity that increases instability, it would

be most prevalent in dating couples, less

prevalent among cohabiters, and least preva-

lent among married couples. Likewise,

beauty-status exchange would be less com-mon in relationships of longer duration. In

addition to winnowing (the selective disso-

lution of less similar couples), romantic part-

ners may grow more similar over time due to

shared lifestyle (e.g., eating habits, exercise,

or encouragement to earn a higher degree).

However, entering into a beauty-status

exchange is most rational if one anticipates

marriage, because it is in marriage that eco-

nomic resources are most often shared. If so,

exchange would be most prevalent among

married couples, because not all dating and

cohabiting couples anticipate marriage. Cohab-

iting couples would be especially unlikely to

exchange beauty and status, because they are

generally more egalitarian than married cou-

ples (Brines and Joyner 1999) and are less

likely to pool resources (Hamplova and Le

Bourdais 2009). Indeed, some research sug-

gests that patterns of exchange evident among

married couples are not viable among cohabit-

ers, including the exchange of housework for

economic support (Brines and Joyner 1999)

and the exchange of racial caste for



8/31

McClintock 581

socioeconomic status (Blackwell and Lichter

2000; but see Rosenfeld 2005). If my analysis

produces evidence of beauty-status exchange,

differences in its prevalence by union status

(dating, cohabiting, married) might clarifywhether it is a source of instability or a viable

long-term strategy.

Interracial Couples

In a classic variant of cross-trait exchange in

partner selection, individuals of low racial

status but high socioeconomic status partner

with those of high racial status but low socio-

economic status (Davis 1941; Fu 2001;Kalmijn 1993; Merton 1941; Schoen and

Wooldredge 1989). In practice, race-status

(status-caste) exchange, like beauty-status

exchange, is gender-stereotypical: lower-

status white women are thought to partner with

higher-status black men (Fu 2001; Kalmijn

1993; Qian 1997; Schoen and Wooldredge

1989). Although not entirely analogous to

beauty-status exchange (individuals desire

partners of higher status and greater beauty,but generally prefer partners of their own race

[Yancey 2009]), race-status exchange theory

suggests that interracial couples might be

uniquely prone to engage in cross-trait

exchange. Indeed, Sassler and Joyner (2011)

find that minority women exchange beauty

and sexual access for white mens social sta-

tus (but their test is incomplete because they

omit mensphysical attractiveness).

However, just as beauty-status exchange

conflicts with couple matching on beauty and

status, race-status exchange conflicts with

matching on race and status. Empirical sup-

port for race-status exchange is mixed and

controversial (Gullickson and Fu 2010;

Kalmijn 2010; Rosenfeld 2005, 2010). It is

beyond the scope of this article to test whether

couples engage in race-status exchange. I do,

however, consider whether patterns of beauty-

status exchange might differ for interracial

couples. Part A of the online supplement

(http://asr.sagepub.com/supplemental)

addresses beauty-status exchange among

interracial couples in greater depth.

HYPOTHESES

Prior research demonstrates some support for

the theory that individuals trade one desirable

trait to obtain a partner with more of a differ-ent desirable trait, but in the case of beauty

and status there is stronger evidence in sup-

port of matching. I expect that patterns of

beauty-status exchange found in earlier stud-

ies are, at least in part, artifacts of matching

on partner traits not controlled for in the

model.However, prior research proposes that

the prevalence of beauty-status exchange may

differ for certain subgroups, such as interra-

cial and less-committed couples.Understanding the prevalence of beauty-

status exchange is important for theoretical

conceptions of partner selection and for ste-

reotypes regarding the importance of beauty

and status for women and men. Gendered

beauty-status exchange is the most prominent

example of cross-trait exchange in the part-

ner market, especially in popular culture.

Questioning the frequency of cross-trait

exchange in a context in which it is generallyassumed to occur does not challenge the mar-

ket model in all contexts, but it weakens its

status as thepredominantparadigm for under-

standing partner selection processes. Addi-

tionally, if there is no evidence of gendered

beauty-status exchange, this challenges the

evolutionary model of partner selection and

discredits common assumptions about wom-

ens and mens priorities for partners. Finally,

understanding the social contexts in which

beauty-status exchange may occur provides

insight into the varying meanings of young-

adult romantic relationships.

DATA AND MEASURES

Data

I use data from the 2001 to 2002 National

Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health

Romantic Pair sample, a supplementary data-

set to the 1994 to 2008 National Longitudinal

Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health).

Add Health is a nationally representative,



9/31


longitudinal survey of adolescents in grades 7

through 12 at the initial interview (Chantala

2006; Harris et al. 2009). In the third wave of

data collection (Wave III), respondents, who

were mainly in their early 20s, providedinformation on romantic relationships. From

current relationships of minimum three-

months duration, approximately 500 dating,

500 cohabiting, and 500 marriage partners

were selected to complete a slightly modified

version of the Wave III interview. These

1,507 couples (3,014 individuals) make up

the Romantic Pair sample.

Women in the Romantic Pair sample aver-

age about 22 years old and men average about23.5 years. Except for Carmalt and colleagues

(2008) who use these same data, prior analyses

use small convenience samples (Elder 1969;

Stevens et al. 1990) or datasets that measure

only one partners attractiveness (Elder 1969;

Taylor and Glenn 1976; Udry 1977). Respond-

ents in the Romantic Pair data are equivalent in

age to at least two of the samples used previ-

ouslyCarmalt and colleagues (2008) and

Stevens and colleagues (1990). The samplesused by Udry (1977) and Taylor and Glenn

(1976) benefit from substantial age variation

(25 to 40 years), but they measure only one

partners physical attractiveness, and attrac-

tiveness ratings were often made several years

after marriage. Thus, although the Romantic

Pair data may not be ideal due to the samples

young average age and limited age-range (18

to 43 years), it improves upon datasets used in

prior analyses. Like prior analyses, this study

inevitably excludes single individuals; supple-

mental analyses suggest that attractiveness and

status promote partnering (see Part B in the

online supplement).

Measures

Add Health interviewers rated respondents

physical attractiveness using five levels: (1)

very unattractive to (5) very attractive. An

average of several observers ratings is ideal,

but prior studies indicate high inter-rater reli-

ability in evaluating attractiveness (Langlois

et al. 2000; Murstein 1972). In the Add Health

data, interviewers ratings are positively and

significantly correlated across waves: the cor-

relation between Wave I and Wave III ratings

(six to seven years apart) is .17 (p < .001);

between Wave II and Wave III ratings (fiveyears apart), the correlation is .20 (p< .001).

When the same interviewer rated both part-

ners, there is no evidence of unconsciously

exaggerating their similarity. Indeed, the cor-

relation of her and his physical attractiveness is

slightly lower when both partners were inter-

viewed by the same interviewer (not shown).

Interviewers also rated respondents

grooming and personality attractiveness on

five-level scales, yielding a three-item per-sonal attractiveness index (physical, groom-

ing, personality). I primarily present models

using the single-item measure of physical

attractiveness, but results using the index are

similar. Body mass index (BMI) is a ratio of

height to weight approximating thinness or

overweight. Self-rated healthranges from (1)

fair or poor to (4) excellent.

Years of educationrefers to years of com-

pleted education. Among respondents, 17 per-cent of men and 25 percent of women were

enrolled in college full-time, but only in 11

percent of couples were both partners full-

time students. Expected/completed college

graduation status is a dichotomous variable

indicating whether a respondent was a college

graduate or enrolled in a four-year degree

program versus having never attended college

or having dropped out. This variable addresses

right-censoring.

To measuresocioeconomic status,I use the

Duncan Socioeconomic Index (SEI; Ruggles

et al. 2010), a measure of occupational pres-

tige that I obtained from U.S. Census data

from the Integrated Public Use Microdata

Series (IPUMS; Minnesota Population Center

2013). I use both current and forecast (future)

SEI. To create forecast SEI, I regressed Wave

IV SEI (five years later; available only for

original respondents) on race, age, educational

attainment, current SEI, picture-vocabulary

test score at Wave III, parental income, paren-

tal education, and parental SEI. I estimated

models separately by gender. I then used



10/31


11/31


Log-linear and negative binomial regres-

sion models are also particularly appropriate

for identifying patterns of matching or

exchange. Controlling for the distribution of

beauty and status among partnered men andwomen, these models test which pairings are

overrepresented in the data (e.g., whether

beautiful low-status women are disproportion-

ately paired with unattractive high-status

men). Parameters directly model the tendency

for partners to match (by having equal levels

of a given trait) or exchange (when one part-

ner has a higher level of one trait and the other

partner has a higher level of another trait).

The Current Analysis

I begin by describing the co-occurrence of

desirable traits at the individual and couple

level to illustrate the importance of including

complete information on both partners char-

acteristics in regression models testing

exchange theories. To search for evidence of

exchange, I examine the differences between

partners endowments of desirable traits.Finally, because it is couples who differ on a

given trait that might engage in cross-trait

exchange, I look for patterns of exchange

among this subgroup of couples.

I next consider multivariate regression

models, estimating models that ignore match-

ing and the within-individual correlation of

desirable traits and then adding variables to

fully control for these forces. Consistent with

prior work, I estimate models separately by

gender. All models include age, race, preg-

nancy status, relationship duration, and union

status. Next, to test for exchange more

directly, I estimate regression models using

difference measures (his minus her level of

each trait). Finally, I estimate negative bino-

mial regression models, a generalization of

log-linear models that are preferred when

data are scarce and over-dispersion is prob-

lematic (King 1989; Long 1997; Long and

Freese 2006). In these data, relatively few

couples have disparate levels of attractiveness

and socioeconomic statusdata are scarce in

these cells. I use various measures and model

specifications to test the robustness of results.

I primarily present results using the entire

sample, but some key results are also pre-

sented for subgroups suspected of engaging

in beauty-status exchangecouples who dif-

fer on attractiveness (N = 810) or collegestatus (N= 242), minority-female white-male

couples (N = 95), and couples involving a

working-class-origin woman (N= 1,146) or a

five-year or larger age gap favoring the man

(N = 206). I also discuss models estimated

separately by union status; models that inter-

act the effects of interest with union status,

relationship duration, class background, and

race; and models restricted to couples in the

top 25th percentile of the age distribution(women 23 to 40 years and men 24 to 43

years, N = 378), non-student couples (N =

1,341), couples interviewed by the same

interviewer (N= 1,305), and minority-white

couples (N= 209).

Although no one variable is missing for a

large number of cases, many cases are miss-

ing data on at least one variable. Dropping

cases with missing data would reduce the

sample size to 1,408 and would likely intro-duce bias (Acock 2005). I use the ICE (Impu-

tation by Chained Equations) procedure in the

statistical software program Stata 10.1

(Royston 2004) to impute missing data using

switching regression, an iterative multivaria-

ble regression technique. I show results from

regression models estimated using the MIM

procedure in Stata 10.1 (Royston 2004).

Descriptive statistics and regression models

calculated by dropping cases with missing

data are similar to those using MIM (not

shown).

RESULTS

Sample Characteristics

Table 1 presents summary statistics on all

variables, by gender. Women are rated more

physically attractive than men. This gender

difference in physical attractiveness exists in

the full Add Health sample (including among

single individuals; see Table S3 in the online

supplement), perhaps because women invest

more in personal care and cosmetics. If women



12/31

McClintock 585

in prior cohorts were rated as more attractive

than men, this may have created the illusion of

exchange. In prior cohorts, many women mar-

ried higher-status men simply because, on

average, men had more education and higher

occupational status than did women. Even if

all couples sought equality in physical attrac-

tiveness and status, men would have had

higher status while women would have been

more attractive. But this would have resulted

from gender differences in average endow-

ments of attractiveness and status rather than

from a beauty-for-status exchange. In con-

trast, in these data women surpass men in

educational attainment and occupational sta-

tus (SEI). This gender reversal reflects changes

in the general populationwomen now earn

more college degrees than men (DiPrete and

Table 1. Mean Characteristics by Gender; National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent HealthRomantic Pair Sample (2001 to 2002); N= 1,507

Women Men

Mean orProportion SD Mean orProportion SD

Attractiveness

Physical attractivenessa 3.63*** .86 3.44 .75

Personal attractiveness indexa 3.67*** .69 3.48 .62

Body mass index (BMI) 26.49*** 6.67 27.15 5.64

Self-rated healthb 2.92*** .87 3.10 .84

Socioeconomic Status

Expected college graduatec .27*** .22

Years of completed education 12.96** 1.96 12.74 1.98

Current Duncan socioeconomic index (SEI)d 28.66 27.34 28.31 24.89

Forecast Duncan socioeconomic index (SEI)d 46.94*** 8.74 39.69 11.73 Current income ($10,000s) 11.96*** 17.69 19.69 22.65

Forecast income ($10,000s) 29.46*** 12.91 46.83 13.09

Working-class social originse .76 .74

Demographic Characteristics

Age (years) 21.85*** 2.37 23.48 3.30

Race

White .59 .59

Black .17 .18

Other .24 .23

Pregnant .07

Relationship CharacteristicsRelationship duration (months) 38.66 26.66 38.29 26.76

Married .36 .36

Cohabiting .36 .36

Dating .28 .28

Note:Descriptive statistics use multiple imputed datasets to estimate missing values.aScored from 1 (very physically unattractive) to 5 (very physically attractive). The personalattractiveness index reflects respondents average rating on three measures of attractiveness: physical,personality, and grooming.

bFrom (1) fair or poor to (4) excellent.cThis dichotomous variable indicates respondents who have completed a four-year college degree or are

currently enrolled in a four-year degree program.dA measure of occupational prestige. Ratings range from 0 (low) to 96 (high). Forecast SEI is projectedSEI at Wave IV when respondents will be in their late 20s.eI define individuals of working-class social origins as having a father who worked in an occupationwith a Hollingshead rank of four or lower.*p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001;p-values indicate significant gender differences (two-tailed tests).

http://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/http://asr.sagepub.com/


13/31


Table 2. Within-Individual Correlation of Desirable Characteristics; National LongitudinalStudy of Adolescent Health Romantic Pair Sample (2001 to 2002); N= 1,507

Women Men

Correlation of HerAttractiveness and

Her Status

Correlation of HisAttractivenessand His Status

Attractiveness EDUd GRADe SEIf INCg EDUd GRADe SEIf INCg

Physical attractiveness .127***a .155***a .175***a .065*a .166***a .156***a .132***a .096***a

Personal attractivenessindex

.179***b .186***b .222***b .104***b .230***b .179***b .197***b .120***b

BMI, reverse-codedc .140***b .207***b .207***b .043b .015b .071**b .011b .028b

Self-rated health .200***a .191***a .167***a .102***a .172***a .166***a .124*a .102***a

Note:Descriptive statistics use multiple imputed datasets to estimate missing values.aCorrelations and significance tests involving one or more ordinal variables are calculated usingSpearmans Rho.

bCorrelations and significance tests involving only interval variables are calculated using Pearsonscorrelation.cBody mass index. Reverse-coded so that higher values indicate thinner (normatively more desirable)physiques.dEDU is years of completed education.eGRAD is expected college graduation status.fSEI is projected future occupational status.gINC is projected future income.*p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001 (two-tailed tests).

Buchman 2006), and single, childless, young

women out-earn their male counterparts

(Wiseman 2010). These gender differences in

education and occupational status observed in

the Add Health data are also evident among

respondents of a similar age in the 2000 U.S.

Census (authors calculations; not shown).

Co-occurrence of Desirable Traits

Table 2 demonstrates that the various dimen-

sions of desirability are strongly and posi-

tively correlated within individuals. Because

physically attractive individuals tend to be

high in socioeconomic status (and vice versa),

partner matching on one or both of these traits

might generate the illusion of cross-trait

between-partner exchange. The within-indi-

vidual correlations between desirable traits are

not strong enough to preclude exchange, butthey are strong enough to generate spurious

evidence of exchange. Additionally, when

desirable traits co-occur, matching on any one

trait encourages matching on related traits.

Between-Partner Similarity

Table 3 displays strong evidence of matching on

physical attractiveness, education, and occupa-

tional status (SEI). The correlations between her

and his expected college graduation status

(.575), years of completed education (.557), and

SEI (.546) are especially strong. The between-

partner correlation of attractiveness (.256) is

similar in magnitude to equivalent correlationsin all other samples known to the author (Barelds

et al. 2011; Stevens et al. 1990). None of the

statistically significant between-partner within-

trait correlations are negative, as predicted by an

exchange model in which high-status but

homely individuals are paired with low-status

but good-looking partners.

The various measures of one partners

desirability are also positively and signifi-

cantly correlated with other measures of theother partners desirability. For example, the

correlation between her physical attractive-

ness and his years of completed education is

.186 (p< .001). Prior studies present similar



14/31

587

Table3.

Betw

een-PartnerCorrelationofW

omensandMensCharacteristics;NationalLongitudinalS

tudyofAdolescentHealthRo

manticPair

Sample(200

1to2002);N=1,5

07

MalePartnersCharacteristics

Attractiveness

SocioeconomicStatus

FemalePartnersCharacteristics

ATT

RACT

PER

BM

I

HEALTH

EDU

GRAD

SEI

INC

Attractiveness

Physicalattractiveness(ATTRACT)

.256***a

.297***a

.070**a

.099***a

.186***a

.142***a

.130***a

.057a

Personalatt

ractivenessindex(PER)

.306***a

.386***b

.050b

.123***a

.190***b

.145***b

.165***b

.087**b

BMI,reverse-codedc

.134***a

.134***b

.266***b

.138***a

.182***b

.191***b

.164***b

.112***b

Self-ratedhealth(HEALTH)

.104***a

.133***a

.044a

.172***a

.182***a

.157***a

.145***a

.111***a

SocioeconomicStatus

Yearsofcom

pletededucation(EDU)

.143***a

.188***b

.0

06b

.140***a

.557***b

.456***b

.450***b

.308***b

Expectedco

llegegraduate(GRAD)

.119***a

.150***b

.058*b

.147***a

.499***b

.575***b

.481***b

.295***b

Forecastsocioeconomicindex(SEI)

.141***a

.176***b

.048b

.099***a

.525***b

.555***b

.546***b

.351***b

Forecastinc

ome(INC)

.080**a

.108***b

.036b

.066*a

.358***b

.333***b

.373***b

.330***b

Note:Descriptivestatisticsusemultipleimputeddatasetstoestimatemissingva

lues.

aCorrelationsandsignificancetestsinvolvingoneormoreordinalvariablesarec

alculatedusingSpearmansRho.

bCorrelationsandsignificancetestsinvolvingonlyintervalvariablesarecalculatedusingPearsonscorrelation.

cBodymassin

dex.

Reverse-codedsothathighe

rvaluesindicatethinner(normat

ivelymoredesirable)physiques.

*p

american sociological review 2014 mcclintock 575 604

Documents