How Men Think About Attraction
Last reviewed by the Men Women Psychology editorial team.
The evidence
What the research actually shows
Survey research does find an average difference in stated priorities. Buss's (1989) large cross-cultural study reported that men, on average, place somewhat more emphasis on physical attractiveness when describing what they want, while women weight cues like resources somewhat more. These are group-level tendencies with wide overlap, not universal rules, and they describe what people say they want.
What people say, however, often differs from what moves them in person. Eastwick and Finkel (2008) found that in speed-dating studies, men's stated preference for looks did not reliably predict who they were actually drawn to once they met someone face to face. Live attraction was driven by chemistry and connection that the survey preferences failed to forecast — for men and women alike.
Similarity also plays a large role. Montoya and Horton's (2013) meta-analysis on the similarity-attraction effect found that perceiving someone as similar in values and outlook reliably increases liking. Beyond an initial spark, men commonly report being drawn to people who feel compatible, easy to talk to, and warm — qualities that have little to do with appearance and a lot to do with fit. None of these patterns is unique to men.
The mechanism
Why this happens
Initial visual attraction is fast and somewhat automatic, which is part of why it gets overemphasized. A man may notice physical appeal first simply because it registers quickly, but that first impression is often a doorway rather than the destination. What sustains attraction tends to involve personality, responsiveness, and shared ground that only emerge over time.
Stated preferences are shaped by stereotypes and what feels socially expected to say, which is one reason they diverge from real behavior. A man might report prioritizing looks because that is the cultural script for men, yet find himself genuinely drawn to someone for their humor, warmth, or competence. The gap between the script and the experience is well documented.
Attraction also functions as part of a broader bonding process, not a standalone judgment of appearance. Feeling at ease, understood, and compatible deepens pull in ways that pure aesthetics cannot. This is why many men describe attraction growing as they get to know someone, sometimes well beyond what the first glance suggested.
In practice
What this looks like in real life
A man might describe his 'type' in physical terms, then end up genuinely drawn to someone who does not match that description at all — because the connection, ease, and shared sense of humor created a pull the stated type never accounted for.
Kindness and warmth frequently shift how attractive someone seems over time. A person a man found pleasant but not striking at first can become markedly more appealing as their character shows, illustrating how attraction is rarely fixed at first sight.
Competence and passion can be powerfully attractive in ways unrelated to looks. Many men report being drawn to someone who is good at what they do or alive with interest in something, finding that energy and capability magnetic in a way a photograph could never capture.
Myth vs. evidence
What most people get wrong about this
The biggest misconception is that men think about attraction in purely physical terms and little else. Research suggests stated emphasis on looks does not reliably predict real-life attraction, and qualities like warmth, similarity, and competence carry substantial weight once people actually interact.
A second error is treating men's survey answers as the full truth of what draws them. People are often poor at predicting their own attraction, and the gap between stated preferences and lived chemistry is large. Taking the stereotype at face value misreads how attraction actually works for many men.
Why it matters
What this means for relationships
Understanding that attraction is more than appearance can ease a lot of needless insecurity. Since warmth, compatibility, and connection reliably shape and sustain attraction, qualities that grow over time often matter more for a lasting bond than a first impression does. The spark frequently deepens rather than fades when there is genuine fit.
It also helps to hold stated 'types' loosely. Because real attraction so often diverges from what men say they want, both partners benefit from staying open to chemistry that does not match a checklist. Connection built through interaction tends to outlast attraction based on looks alone.
Where it varies
The nuance
These are averages, and the overlap between men and women is large. Janet Hyde's gender similarities hypothesis (2005) shows that on most psychological measures the sexes are far more alike than different. The stated emphasis on looks is a modest average difference, and in live attraction the predictive gap between the sexes largely shrinks.
How any individual man thinks about attraction depends heavily on personality, values, and life stage rather than gender alone. Some weight looks more, others far less; what someone wants at twenty often differs from what draws them at forty. Culture and personal history shape these priorities as much as anything biological.
Questions people ask about this
Do men think about attraction mostly in terms of looks?
Survey research suggests men, on average, state somewhat more emphasis on physical attractiveness than women do. But studies of real-life attraction find those stated preferences poorly predict who men are actually drawn to in person, where warmth, similarity, and connection carry substantial weight.
Why don't men's stated preferences match who they're attracted to?
Research like Eastwick and Finkel's speed-dating work suggests people are often poor at predicting their own attraction, and stated preferences are shaped by stereotypes. In person, chemistry and compatibility drive attraction in ways that survey answers about looks fail to forecast, for men and women alike.
What besides looks do men find attractive?
Research points to kindness, warmth, competence, humor, and especially similarity in values and outlook. The similarity-attraction effect is well documented: feeling compatible and at ease with someone reliably increases liking, often more than appearance does once people actually interact.
Can attraction grow over time for men?
Often, yes. Many men report attraction deepening as they get to know someone, since warmth, character, and compatibility tend to emerge over time rather than at first glance. Initial visual appeal is frequently a doorway, with connection sustaining and even increasing the pull afterward.
Is it true that men only care about a partner's appearance?
Research suggests not. While men may notice physical appeal quickly, studies find it does not reliably predict lasting attraction, and qualities like warmth and compatibility matter a great deal. Taking the looks stereotype at face value misreads how attraction works for many men.
Does a man having a 'type' mean much?
Often less than it sounds. Because real attraction so frequently diverges from stated preferences, many men end up drawn to people who do not match their described type at all. A 'type' tends to be a rough self-description rather than a reliable guide to who will actually create a connection.
Research sources
These references point to the published research and established frameworks behind this page. They are provided for further reading; see our research methodology for how sources are selected.
- Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49.
- Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245–264.
- Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2013). A meta-analytic investigation of the processes underlying the similarity-attraction effect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(1), 64–94.
- Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592.