Are Men More Shallow Than Women? | What The Data Says

Men rate looks a bit higher on average, women rate resources a bit higher on average, and “shallow” depends on the situation and what’s being measured.

People toss around “shallow” when dating feels unfair. You see a pattern, you get burned, and your brain tries to make it make sense fast. So the question comes up: are men more shallow than women?

A clean answer needs two things. First, a clear meaning for “shallow.” Second, real data that matches that meaning. Lots of debates skip both. They mix “what people say they want” with “what people choose,” then treat it like proof.

This article keeps it grounded. You’ll see what researchers can measure, where the gaps show up, and where the stereotype falls apart once real choices get messy.

Are Men More Shallow Than Women? What The Data Measures

“Shallow” usually means “overweighting surface traits.” Most often, that means looks. Sometimes it also means status markers: job title, money, popularity, height, age, brand signals, or follower count.

Research tends to measure this in a few ways:

• Stated preferences: what people report valuing in a partner.
• Revealed preferences: what people pick when choices are real and limited.
• Messaging and matching behavior: who people reach out to, reply to, and meet.
• Trade-offs: what people sacrifice when they can’t get everything they want.

Those measures don’t always match. Someone can claim they care about “personality most,” then swipe on photos in a split second. That doesn’t mean they lied. It can mean the setup rewards fast visual sorting, or that photos act like a filter before deeper traits get a chance.

What Studies Often Find About Looks And Other Surface Traits

Across many datasets, men tend to rate physical attractiveness higher than women do when asked about an ideal long-term partner. A well-known speed-dating field study also found men’s “yes” decisions tracked partner attractiveness more strongly than women’s did, while women put more weight on other traits in that setup. You can read the original paper PDF via Columbia Business School’s speed-dating experiment paper.

At the same time, women are not “above” surface sorting. In many modern dating markets, looks drive outcomes for everyone. A 2024 study using a swipe-style design and conjoint methods found physical attractiveness dominated selection outcomes compared with other profile traits. See the paper page on ScienceDirect’s profile-trait conjoint study.

So what’s the real pattern? Two things can both be true:

• Men, on average, place a bit more weight on looks when describing what they want.
• In many real selection systems, looks carry a lot of weight for both men and women.

That second point matters because it changes the “shallow” story. If the system pushes quick sorting, many people will act “shallow” even if they don’t love that about themselves.

Why “Shallow” Feels Different Depending On Where You Date

Dating apps are photo-first by design. They turn people into a stack of options. That makes surface filters feel louder. In person, you get voice, timing, warmth, humor, and small gestures. On an app, the photo carries a huge load because it’s the first gate.

Large-scale online dating research shows that men and women both adjust preferences and messaging patterns based on the market they’re in and the options they see. An open-access paper on eHarmony messaging patterns over time is a useful look at how behavior shifts in a real platform dataset: Computational courtship in online dating (open access).

One more twist: “shallow” can mean “picky,” and pickiness can be shaped by demand. In spaces where one group gets more incoming attention, that group can filter harder. That filtering can look like vanity from the outside, even when it’s plain triage.

When Men Look “Shallow” And When Women Look “Shallow”

People usually notice what hurts them. Men often notice being judged on money, job status, or height. Women often notice being judged on looks, youth, or body shape. Both can feel brutal.

Some patterns show up often enough that they’re worth naming without turning them into a universal rule:

• Men can be more direct about looks in early screening, both in self-reports and in some speed-dating setups.
• Women can be more direct about stability markers like earning capacity in self-reports and in some selection contexts.
• Both sexes respond to attractiveness cues in systems where photos are the main signal.
• Both sexes change behavior with age, goals, and options in ways that don’t fit a single stereotype.

A large replication paper (PDF) reports that women tend to rate earning capacity higher and men tend to rate physical attractiveness higher across a wide sample, while also testing how that pattern relates to gender equality measures. If you want the details, see the University of Glasgow replication PDF.

That still doesn’t settle the “shallow” label, because a preference is not the same as a moral flaw. A preference can be shallow, deep, practical, or all three at once, depending on context.

What People Say Versus What They Pick

Here’s a common mismatch: people say they want traits that sound good in public. Then their actual picks lean toward what feels good in the moment. That gap is not limited to men or women. It’s a human problem.

Speed dating is useful here because it forces real trade-offs fast. In the Columbia speed-dating study, participants had to decide in the room, not in theory. In app swiping studies, participants face a similar pressure, with even less information than in person.

When your inputs are thin, your brain leans on what it can see. That pushes surface sorting. It can make decent people act colder than they are in normal life.

Shallow Versus Practical: A Clear Way To Tell The Difference

“Shallow” is often used as a weapon. So it helps to split it into two buckets:

• Practical filters: traits tied to day-to-day fit, safety, shared goals, and long-term reliability.
• Status display filters: traits used mainly to impress others or to win a social comparison game.

Looks can land in either bucket. Attraction matters in romantic relationships. That’s practical. Still, treating looks as the only trait that counts, or talking to people like they’re disposable, is where “shallow” starts to fit.

Status can land in either bucket too. Wanting a partner who can pay their bills is practical. Refusing someone who earns less but lives responsibly can be status chasing.

Traits Often Labeled “Shallow” And What Research Can Actually Show

Trait Or Filter	What Large Datasets Often Show	A Fair Read Of That Pattern
Physical Attractiveness	Strong driver of early selection, especially in photo-first systems	Attraction is real; the “shallow” line is treating it as the only gate
Earning Capacity	Women rate it higher on average in many surveys	Can be about stability; can also be about status display
Height	Often affects matching odds in app markets	Can be a preference; it can also be a rigid rule that shrinks options
Age	Often used as a fast screen in apps and matchmaking	Life-stage fit can matter; extreme age filters can be about image
Education	Linked to matching patterns and long-term pairing	Can reflect shared habits and plans, not “snobbery” by default
Social Status Signals	Luxury cues can raise interest in some settings	Some people chase clout; many just want a stable lifestyle match
Body Shape	Often affects first impressions across sexes	Health and attraction can matter; cruelty about bodies is the red line
Follower Count Or Fame	Can shift attention in online spaces	This is closer to pure status sorting than most other filters

Notice what the table does not say. It doesn’t claim one sex is “worse.” It shows that people use surface signals when the system makes deeper signals hard to see.

Why The Same Preference Can Look Different In Men And Women

If a man says, “I want someone I’m drawn to,” people may label it shallow fast. If a woman says, “I want someone stable,” people may label it calculating. Both reactions miss the middle ground.

Many preferences are socially legible. You can spot them and judge them from the outside. That creates double standards:

• Men get judged for caring about looks, even when attraction is a normal part of dating.
• Women get judged for caring about money, even when stability is a normal part of planning a life.

Where the critique holds is behavior, not preference. If someone treats people like interchangeable products, that’s shallow behavior. If someone is kind, direct, and consistent while still having standards, that’s just dating.

What To Watch For If You Want A Real Answer In Your Own Life

General averages won’t help much if you’re trying to pick a partner or stop repeating a pattern. So here are practical checks that work for any gender.

Check How Fast They Discard People

Standards are fine. Discarding people with contempt is not. Watch the tone when they talk about past dates. Watch how they treat someone they’re not trying to impress.

Check Whether Their Filters Match Their Goals

Someone who wants a long-term relationship but screens only by photos is likely to keep getting thin matches. Someone who wants a casual fling but expects instant emotional depth will also stay frustrated.

Check For “Shopping” Energy

Some people treat dating like a catalog. They keep swiping because they want the rush of options, not a person. That pattern can show up in men and women. It’s easier to spot than you’d think: lots of talking, little follow-through, always “keeping options open.”

Common Myths That Inflate The Stereotype

Myth: Men Only Care About Looks

Men often care about looks early, but many also care about warmth, loyalty, humor, and how life feels together. In real pairing patterns, shared habits and day-to-day compatibility matter a lot. Dating systems that show you only a photo hide that reality.

Myth: Women Only Care About Money

Many women care about stability, not a bank account as a trophy. When you’re thinking about housing, kids, or caregiving, reliability is not shallow. Still, chasing status symbols can happen, and it can happen in any gender.

Myth: If You’re Not “Shallow,” You’ll Date Anyone

That’s not kindness. That’s self-erasure. Healthy standards exist. The line is how you treat people who don’t meet them.

A Practical Checklist For Calling Something “Shallow”

Question	If The Answer Is “Yes”	What To Do Next
Do they reduce people to one trait?	That’s shallow behavior	Step back and watch for repeat patterns
Do they show contempt when rejecting someone?	That’s a character flag	Don’t argue; limit access to you
Do they demand traits they don’t try to match?	That’s entitlement	Ask for consistency, then see what changes
Do their standards shift based on who’s watching?	Status display is driving choices	Pay attention to how they act in private
Do they choose partners who look good but treat them poorly?	They may be chasing validation	Offer honesty once; don’t play rescuer
Do they treat dates like endless auditions?	They may be hooked on options	Set clear pacing: meet, decide, move on

So, Are Men Or Women More Shallow In Dating?

The fairest answer is boring, and that’s a good sign. Men, on average, report placing a bit more weight on looks. Women, on average, report placing a bit more weight on earning capacity. In many real dating systems, looks dominate early choices for both men and women, since they’re the loudest signal available.

If you’re looking for who’s “more shallow,” you’ll miss the part that helps: the situation often shapes the behavior. Photo-first apps reward surface sorting. In-person settings let deeper traits show up sooner. Market imbalance changes who filters harder.

If you want a useful takeaway, focus on behavior: respect, follow-through, and how someone handles rejection. Shallow behavior is not a gender trait. It’s a habit. And habits can change, or they can be filtered out of your life.