Q&A from "Why Do Women Love Jerks?"
Wise Readers, can you learn to un-love Jerks—or at least to become open to Nice Guys? Do women outgrow Jerky charms? Why don’t young people know how to treat a partner? Is America becoming a post-marriage society—and what is that, anyway?
Read on!
From Tara: —How Do I Become Attracted To Nice Guys?!—
As a person who has been consistently attracted to jerks, for me, I have learned it has to do with my attachment style. Learned behavior. It’s weird. I have work to do on myself. It has nothing to do with self-esteem for me. Aloof, hard to handle guys keep things from being boring. The only nice guy I ever dated bored me to death. He was just so… nice. Ugh. I do like a guy with a little spice, but jerkiness is carrying that too far. Learning to differentiate between strong, confident, non-doormat guys and then just complete assholes is a skill I have yet to master. That and I’m a sucker for a pretty face. So, I’m taking myself out of the game for a while til I can figure all this stuff out.
From Lyndsay Snyder: —Are Young Women More Attracted To Jerks?—
I love the article, but I think there is more to it than the financial aspect. I know myself, and plenty of my girlfriends, dated guys who were jerks well before we became adult women considering financial support. Might be interesting to dig a little deeper and see what we’re learning as children and teenagers that attracts us toward the “jerk” types?
Duana’s Response:
Dear Tara and Lyndsay,
Thank you for writing. Agreed, there’s likely a lot more to this than finances. Although women generally seek a man who can and will provide and protect, how a woman goes about finding it (and thus whom she finds attractive) is probably guided to a very large extent by her experience and past.
Tara, if you’ve developed a non-secure attachment style, it’s possible you’re selecting men who represent the unattainable—men likely to fulfill the excitement and disappointment you have come to expect. Yes? No?
Most people most of the time have the same attachment style as their moms did. Attachment style affects a lot of things, including how we behave with partners and how stable the relationship is. I’m guessing it also impacts whom we choose to begin with.
When we are very young, most of us pick someone who feels like home, literally. Securely attached people, for instance, are likely to come from secure moms; and securely attached folks are likely to find “nice” to be exciting, interesting, sustainable—not dull. One hallmark of the securely attached is agreeing with the statement that sex becomes more fulfilling and exciting the longer a relationship lasts.
I think this may be a major reason most women *don’t* like Jerks. Most women and men are securely attached—about 60%. And they’re seeking someone Nice. And not finding that dull. Quite the contrary.
Tara, attachment style can change. It usually happens accidentally, but since you’re invested in working on yourself, you might want to see if attachment is the thing for you—and if so, how you can change it intentionally.
Here’s the link: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/attachment-styles-overcoming-fear-embracing-intimacyat-last.html
Good for you for finding out more about yourself, and acting to improve your future—whatever your past.
And Lyndsay, you’ve brought up something I reaaaalllyyy wanted to say in the article, but didn’t dare because there’s no science at all on it:
I strongly suspect it’s the *youngest* girls and women who find Jerks most appealing. I think that by a woman’s 30s, most of us are way beyond Jerkdom and much more into Mr. Nice Guy.
Why? Well, keeping in mind that most of us gravitate towards what we learned from Mom and/or Dad, beyond our upbringing is the fact that females seek a high-status guy. Thirteen-year-old girls look for him; 18-year-olds and 28-year-olds and 38-year-olds do, too. Etc.
In high school, who are those high-status guys? The Jerks. It’s the Jerks who usually play football; the Jerks who rule the social scene with sarcasm, intimidation and cruel humor; the Jerks who command with their presence and intimidation and popularity.
Over time, though, I suspect that as most women age, we find Jerks less and less likable, nevermind lovable. It’s been interesting to note the number of my own longtime girlfriends who having been attracted to Jerks as young women, want only Mr. Nice Guy now. What changed?
First of all, many of them got emotionally hurt—badly hurt—by Jerks. If a Nice Guy can provide more than a woman can, then Nice Guy will do, economically, once women figure out that the Nice Guy is actually going to do more than just provide. He’s also going to respect, protect, be kind and loving, tell you how lucky he is to have you. After a lot of awful treatment, that feels pretty welcome.
Also, women don’t *only* value resources. Over time, especially, I think we come to value values themselves. Look again at the list of values and qualities Agreeable people possess: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/why-do-women-love-jerks.html
wanting relationships enough to work for them; putting other people first; placing love above achievement, albeit still achieving. Research shows that people who value money more than love are among the most miserable human beings; the top life satisfaction is enjoyed by those who value love far above money.
Maybe over time, we figure out that once our basic needs are met, we’re better off with the guy who offers the most love—the most happiness. Not just the most money.
And so I value, genuinely and deeply and truly, Mr. Nice Guy. Value and love him, and what he represents and brings to our family’s quality of life. And that doesn’t seem so unusual among women past their mid-30’s.
I think, in short, Nice Guys may get a late start…but ultimately, that they finish first in the ways that matter most. And they do just fine economically, too.
From Corvid: —The Fine Line Between Love & Hate—
A former lover of mine once stated that she’d have sex with someone she hated before she would have sex with someone she just mildly disliked. While the above argument you’ve made regarding jerks=financial stability makes total sense from a logical standpoint, I don’t think one can rule out the sometimes confusing emotions one feels when one truly hates someone. Lines can get rather blurry there if the jerk is simply looking for a short-term hook-up…
Duana’s response: —Passion = Intensity—And Are Jerks The Same Thing As Bad Boys?—
Mr. Corvid, your post gets to the core of the issue of Passion. It sounds like your ex-lover preferred a Passion—any Passion—to the humdrumness of everyday or moderate emotions. Hate is a passion every bit as much as love is, and for some, passion in either direction is a whole lot more appealing than any kind of middle-ground.
Your statement about lines blurring when the Jerk seeks a short-term hookup brings up some questions of my own. When I began looking into WWLJ (Why Women Love Jerks), I originally had in mind that Jerks and Bad Boys were the same thing. I thought writing an article on WWLJ would effectively cover WWLBB.
Problem: I’m not so sure that’s true. For instance, Jerks—at least as defined by Disagreeableness—usually have resources, but Bad Boys might be utter slackers who lack any job at all.
Yet Jerks and Bad Boys may have some things in common, such as great looks, a cocky attitude, a sense of fun and surprise, and/or a willingness to take risks that can push the limits and excite the women in their wake.
I’d love for science to—as we say in psychology—operationalize the variables. And then, having defined what Jerkdom and Bad-Boy-ness are, to tackle a series of studies about what the percentages are for the existence of Jerks/Bad Boys; what percentages of women prefer Jerks/Bad Boys to Good/Nice Guys; and which aspects of the woman and of the Jerk/Bad Boy are really most important in shaping a woman’s preference.
Come on, social scientists, hop to it, we’re waiting ;).
From Scott Hanson: —The Jerk/Bad-Boy Distinction—
So, H♥ [Scott’s wife] prompted me to review and consider — not sure if it is to validate her choice, defend my honor, or take notice. I believe the key distinction b/w jerks and bad boys lies in the agreeableness trait. Both are likely to push for what they want, but in different ways. The BB will step on your toes, the jerk will step on your throat. BBs will bring excitement to the party by pushing limits (and rules); jerks will bring anxiety/stress by pushing to get their way. If you don’t follow the BB, he may leave you behind; if you don’t follow the jerk, he may slash your tires. As for H♥, I will say it takes a strong woman to stick with the ride, and I’d never leave her behind — who would be there to pick me up when the plan doesn’t come together. Great article, Duana.
Duana’s response: —Jerks Aren’t Necessarily Rude…or are they?—
Scott, thanks so much for your comment. I think you’ve got valid points about possible differences between Jerks and Bad Boys. Still really wish someone would collect the data on that so we could do more than guess…hint, hint! (Scott’s a social scientist, so that’s for him.)
One of the things that interested me most about Judge and others’ research on Disagreeable men is this: They don’t think Jerky guys get ahead financially by actually being rude. In their words, “The easiest and, we think, most unlikely interpretation of our results is that persistent rudeness increases men’s salaries (Judge et al., in press, p. 35).” http://nd.edu/~cba/Nice—JPSPInPress.pdf
Instead, they give evidence that Disagreeable men may engage in actions that are not so much rude, as self-serving; there is a difference.
To wit, sociopaths (the ultimate Jerks, maybe?) usually make *lower* incomes; if extreme Jerkiness paid well, we’d expect otherwise. Also, Fleeson & Gallagher found in 2009 that Disagreeable folks are usually rude only slightly more than Agreeable people are. Disagreeable guys don’t necessarily dick people over, in other words. Instead, they are aggressive about advocating their own position, say in salary negotiations—which means they put themselves forward without necessarily having to put anyone else down. Also, when we look at the behaviors Jerks are willing to engage in to get promotions and higher salaries, Jerks are just more money-motivated; it doesn’t take rudeness to move far away for better pay, just a willingness to move. Jerks are more prone to doing just that.
The Jerk Perk might also exist for reasons that have little to do with Jerkdom and really have more to do with how *Agreeable* men are perceived. In studies, men who are self-effacing in job situations have been liked less by raters, and have been viewed as less-qualified for jobs, compared to men who are Disagreeable. In general, people are harsher in their judgments of Agreeable men—they find men who are “too nice” to be annoying or push-over-esque. So Nice Guys are sometimes perceived to be incompetent *because* they’re seen as too accommodating.
On the other hand, Tieden found in 2001 that when a job candidate expressed anger during the interview, participants recommended higher pay and higher status for the angry applicants. So maybe it really does pay, salary-wise, to be rude.
From Paula: —Why Don’t Young People Know How To Treat A Mate?—
I think age is a factor, as is obviously your relationship models. I think many people just do not know how to treat other human beings in relationships until we really mature. I once heard relationship radio show hosts say that no one in their twenties knows how to treat a partner. Hearing that helped me forgive my own actions, as well as others. When we’re younger, there seems to be less on the line, and we take bigger social risks without regard to the feelings of others.
From Corvid: —Culture, Jerks, Bad Boys—
Ah, well, I think the thing to consider is whether we could create a definition of bad boy vs. jerk that is pan Homo sapien. Otherwise, how would you account for the cultural variables? I think it is interesting to note that the BBs I have known over the years actively perpetuated that image knowingly— the more successful ones made it seem effortless— but the jerks would probably be either offended or uncaring at the title. I think drive is the big thing. BBs are risk junkies, jerks simply want financial payoff and are willing to take risks and sacrifice relationships to get it. BBs are just as willing to sacrifice money and relationships to get their risks in. I think the line can get blurry there, a stock trader taking huge gambles might, in fact be both.
Duana’s response: —Culture, & What Is Undermining Marriage In America—
Mr. Corvid: Interesting…especially the part about culture and its role.
Paula: Interesting…especially the part about culture and its role.
See, I think the Young Jerk thing you’re writing about, Paula, wherein (as the host you quoted said) nobody in their 20’s knows how to treat a romantic partner, is very culture-specific and also very recent.
In our own culture, as recently as the 1940’s, couples were routinely marrying in their early 20’s…and treating each other well enough to have marriages that not only lasted a lifetime, but that, in research, were by and large found to be very happy.
Around the world right now, there are plenty of places where kids are taught how to behave such that by their late teens, they will be prepared for treating a partner well. This came up just recently in one of my classes, where a student revealed that her arranged marriage was in her late teens to a guy in his early 20’s. They’ve now been wed 15 years. And it’s worked, very happily. Why? Because both their parents had taught them specifically how to be kind and respectful, and because her father had—get this—spied on the future husband, doing everything he could to make sure his potential son-in-law was *not* a Jerk.
Even now, I see plenty of young Americans who are kind, respectful, and want to please a partner. But they often lack the modeling and leadership, either from their parents, society, or both, to pull it off. We need better training, I think…a more formal introduction of what makes for happy relationships; how crucial kindness and respectfulness are to that; and what that looks like. I try to teach it here and in college classes. But I wish it were actually a subject taught in public school, in an age-appropriate way, all along.
Thank you for the thoughts!
Christine’s response: —Too Many Choices Spoil Marital Happiness—
Great topic!
I agree that the older (and wiser) we women get, the more we appreciate Nice Guys. You simply get tired of the work that goes into maintaining a relationship with a BB/Jerk. Most women get burned a few times and learn not to play with fire again.
You bring up an interesting topic re: learned behavior and successful marriages. I’ve been reading many perspectives on the modern western relationship - and why our divorce rates are so astronomically high. And I’m still scratching my head. Why is it across the developing world today, and just a few generations ago in America, people are/were able to stay together longer? And the million dollar question: How can we mimic that behavior today to insure a long and healthy relationship?
As someone who spent two years living in rural Africa, I saw first-hand the psychological effects of eliminating choices: Happiness. Well, not quite happiness—more like contentment and acceptance. People there (including myself) were generally content with all aspects of their lives (including romantic relationships), despite living with what Westerners would consider, no resources. It seems having the freedom of choice really confuses us/can make us unhappy. It’s like a drug you need more of - hence, always chasing the illusive Mr. Perfect (in the form of BB or Jerk).
I know myself, and I’m sure millions of other American women, would love more insight on what we lost culturally that is contributing to the demise of marriage in the Western world.
Duana’s response: —Choice & Culture, Plus A Few Other Factors In Marriage (Dis)Satisfaction—
Dear Christine, great letter!
Why the American marriage has faltered is a vast topic that will require more space than this entry will permit. But some of the research-validated reasons include:
—A move towards greater incivility in public and private life. Relationships can’t thrive without a large well of kindness and respect.
—An extended youth/adolescence where people are expected to be immature.
—A youth culture where young people are told (by the media, often, and also by their friends—the two top sources of relationship information for adolescents and young adults) that they need to have a lot of dating and/or sexual experience to know what they want. In this view, commitment is seen as variously limiting personal freedom, draining resources, unworkable, undesirable, and possibly dangerous.
—Communities’ and parents’ lack of involvement in aiding marriages to thrive in young couples. Once seen as a community project and now seen as something romantic just between two people, marriage needs a village to raise it, just as kids do. This is something the Amish and some other groups still understand. Help from one’s community is help, indeed.
—A lack of positive modeling. Although 57% of first marriages last a lifetime, that means 43% of first marriages don’t; odds of dissolution increase with subsequent unions, particularly if one party brings kids to the relationship (over 60% divorce rate) or if both do (around 70% divorce rate). This means a lot of kids grow up seeing not only one, but two or more divorces.
—Financial freedom. Women just don’t have to take abuse anymore like they used to. Abuse of women is involved in up to 1/3 of divorces. Arguably, those divorces needed to occur; in the past, economics and systems of male dominance and control prevented women from escaping.
—The rise of the no-fault divorce. In every state, as soon as no-fault became available, divorce rates rose.
—The change in values from no-fault divorce. After (not before) the no-fault divorce laws came into being, a number of sociological studies found that American adults became not only more accepting of divorce, and more willing to pursue divorce as an early solution instead of a later remedy for intractable problems, but more likely to recommend divorce as a solution to their friends. Whereas people used to wait out their unhappiness (a strategy that works over 85% of the time), they now actively advocated for dissolution of troubled unions. Today, troubled couples are often told that their divorce would be ‘for the children’s best’—untrue in over half of the cases, since kids are best-served by married parents unless the parents are abusive and/or at each others’ throats with constant argument in front of the kids.
—Another change flowing from no-fault was the rise of greater marital dissatisfaction and less investment in marriage even among the happily wed. That is, when no-fault arose and the divorce rate climbed with it, scientists found that even the *happy* married couples became less happy. Women began investing less in their marriages (ie, by going back to work sooner after a child’s birth, not out of economic necessity at the moment, but to protect themselves in the event their mate should abandon them). As did men (as with men who wanted fewer children in case the marriage didn’t last).
—A rise in the perception of commitment and marriage as just one more choice in a vast array of possible choices—no more important or unimportant than any other choice.
Which brings us to your excellent point, Christine: Too Much Choice does matter, profoundly, in happiness. Your experience in Africa mimics what has been found repeatedly in experiments here: having many choices in any area of life has the ironic impact of creating less happiness/satisfaction. Whether we’re talking about tables or cars or mates, the perception of a lot of choice makes people more stressed and less happy about the choices they make. It’s not merely correlational—it’s causal.
Finally, I’m intrigued and saddened by your turn of phrase, the demise of Western marriage. In some ways, it’s untrue—in others, true. Marriage as an event is not in any danger—Americans are rather fond of getting married, still, and we often do it two or three times. But the idea of marriage as a social contract that extends beyond the two people—the idea that marriage means something to our families and our children and our greater world—is demonstrably slipping away. The cost in terms of happiness to adults and children alike, not to mention financial costs, is great. The USA is now considered by some to be a post-marriage society, not because marriage ceased to exist but because culturally and legally, marriage’s power to create a haven of safety and comfort for adults and children has eroded very significantly.
If you’d like to read more and haven’t yet read it, The Case For Marriage is a research-based book that says it all much better than I have here. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000FC1H6O?ie=UTF8&tag=lovesciencres-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000FC1H6O
Thank you for an important, thought-full letter.
Cheers,
Duana
Do you have a question for Duana? Email her at Duana@lovesciencemedia.com. You’ll get an answer—and if your letter is used on-site, your name and identifying info will be changed!
All material copyrighted by Duana C. Welch, Ph.D., and LoveScience Media, 2012.
Related LoveScience articles:
Why Women Looooove Jerks:
http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/why-do-women-love-jerks.html
Attachment Style~How we got the one we have, and how to become Secure:
http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/qa-from-attachment-styles.html
Liars: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/love-at-first-sight-or-the-truth-about-lies.html
Sexy Sons/Why Women Cheat:
The author wishes to thank the following scientists and sources:
Linda J. Waite, renowned sociologist on marriage, and the book she’s first-author of called The Case For Marriage –for explaining why marriage is really in danger (it’s not what you think!)
Timothy Judge, Beth Livingston, and Charlice Hurst, for their income-personality research on which the long-term relationship part of today’s posting is based. In a series of four studies—three correlational, one experimental—they showed that not only do strangers find Disagreeable men most worthy of promotion to management, but also that Disagreeable men make about 18% more per year than Agreeable men (at least 6 other labs in the past decade have also found agreeableness to be negatively related to income). Judge et al. further found that Disagreeable women make less than even the Agreeable men, and Agreeable women make least of all. Judge and colleagues have been kind enough to provide the new, full paper here: http://nd.edu/~cba/Nice—JPSPInPress.pdf
McCrae and Costa’s Big 5 Personality Traits. Wanna see how you score on Agreeableness—and the other personality dimensions, including Openness to experience; Conscientiousness; Extraversion; and Neuroticism? Go here and test thyself: http://www.123test.com/personality-test/
David Buss and his books on Jealousy and Human Courtship/Mating. Dr. Buss’s explanation of the sexy sons hypothesis and women’s mating strategies was core to my argument regarding women wanting jerks in the short-term.
Share Article Print Article Permalink tagged Attachment Style, First Love / Young Love, Marriage
Reader Comments (2)
Hmmm,, Being the NICE guy,,, Yes it does suck when woman deny you and chase after the POS guy that winds up treating them like crap or abusing them.... Yes it is reciprocal from what they saw growing up or what they observed their MOTHERS go THROUGH with the men in their lives,,, I have found that WOMEN like to feel they can CHANGE the MAN (IN WHICH YOU CAN'T), or make him better.. sure it's great to see your MAN plow through through the weaker people which appears to make him look stronger (WHICH IS A REAL SIGN OF WEAKNESS OR LOW SELF ESTEEM) but then he also uses it on YOU.. To manipulate or control you to do what HE WANTS YOU TO DO,, and YOU BUY INTO IT..BAD BOY SYNDROME is a Fall from what REAL men try to depict.. YES a REAL TOUGH GUY can be in the MILITARY, Bein Law Enforcement all those tough guy roles but can still BE THE NICE GUY and get denied by the woman because he is TOO POLITE or TOO NICE all around... only cure for this I can see is have all young teenage women voulenteer at the BATTERED womens shelter helping all those women and children who have been ABUSED time and TIME again by the BAD BOY and see if that helps...
JMO
Dear Thomas,
You're on the front lines of this as a policeman, seeing women battered every day by the Extreme Jerks and Bad Boys. Hat's off to you. Sadly, what some scientists have found is that when women knowingly choose an abuser--or ignore signs of abuse--or are ignorant that something is abusive--it's often because the woman saw it a lot growing up. It's her roadmap of what she can get, what she deserves.
That learning can be unlearned. I'll leave the links here:
Preventing abuse: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/ignorance-or-ignore-ance-how-to-prevent-abuse.html
Understanding the different types of abusers: http://www.lovesciencemedia.com/love-science-media/when-men-batter-women-how-abuse-ends.html
Thank you again.