new research shows looks beat brains in dating

If you’ve ever suspected that the first thumb-swipe is mostly about the photo, new data says you’re not wrong.

A study highlighted by PsyPost reports that physical appearance dwarfs other traits—like intelligence, job, height, or the quality of your bio—when it comes to who actually gets selected on dating apps.

That’s not the cheeriest news for those of us who labor over witty prompts and carefully curated book stacks in the background of our pics. But it is clarifying.

Below, I break down what the researchers found, how they tested it, and what this does (and doesn’t) mean for real-world dating—and for our self-worth.

What the study actually found

The headline result is blunt: a bump in perceived physical attractiveness meaningfully increases the odds of being chosen; improvements in other traits barely move the needle.

In the analysis summarized by PsyPost, a one standard-deviation rise in attractiveness (roughly going from “average” to clearly above average) increased selection odds by about 20%.

Meanwhile, comparable boosts in intelligence or the charm of a short biography nudged decisions by only a couple of percentage points. Even height and job, long thought to loom large, had much smaller effects than looks.

One surprise: men and women behaved similarly. The longstanding story that men chase looks and women prioritize status or intelligence didn’t show up in this real-time choosing task.

As University of Amsterdam researcher Jessika Witmer told PsyPost, when people made actual choices in a realistic scenario, “gender differences almost disappeared and both men and women prioritized physical attractiveness over other attributes.” That quote tracks with the study’s main finding as PsyPost reports it.

How the research was done

Here’s why this one matters more than your typical “top turn-ons” survey. The team didn’t just ask participants what they value. They used a conjoint design—commonly used in marketing—to infer priorities from behavior.

Participants (445 dating-app users in Germany, ages 18–35) completed a series of swiping scenarios.

Each scenario showed three profiles that varied, in a tightly controlled way, on a set of traits: an image (face and torso), height, job, an IQ score, and a short bio.

Because those features were systematically shuffled across profiles, the researchers could estimate the unique, independent weight of each factor on the decision to match.

In total, they analyzed 5,340 decisions. That volume let them quantify, rather than merely speculate about, the relative impact of looks versus everything else. 

Why this feels different from what people say they want

We’ve all heard friends insist a clever bio or a prestigious job is what “really” counts. And in long-term relationships, deeper traits often do take center stage. But the early gatekeeping of swiping is uniquely visual.

The researchers explicitly set out to cut through the gap between self-report and behavior—the things we think (or want to believe) we value versus what our fingers actually do on a phone.

As noted by PsyPost’s summary, prior field studies were mostly correlational or relied on self-reports; this design gets closer to causal weight by observing choices in a controlled-yet-realistic context.

In plain English: when the task is “pick one person from three cards on your screen,” your eyes lead.

The gender story that didn’t show up

I’ll admit, I expected at least a small gender split. Decades of evolutionary-psychology framing has primed us to think men and women prioritize different things.

Yet in this dataset, the differences were negligible. That matters for how we coach ourselves and others. We sometimes tell women to emphasize career markers or men to focus on gym selfies.

This evidence suggests the early-choice playing field is more similar than we assume—everyone’s attention is captured by the image first, and then other traits trail behind.

Important caveats (don’t skip these)

No single study should define your dating strategy or your self-worth. There are limitations worth holding alongside the headlines:

Stimuli and context. The photos were standardized (face-and-torso) and, according to PsyPost, created with AI tools and pre-rated for attractiveness. That helps isolate the effect of looks but may miss the messy richness of real photos—movement, warmth, humor, style, or context cues that matter in the wild.

Short-term decisions vs. long-term outcomes. The study captures initial match decisions, not relationship satisfaction or longevity. Plenty of research outside this paper shows that kindness, reliability, and shared values become critical beyond the first swipe. (For balance, you can see broader context in mainstream write-ups like this ZME Science explainer of the same dataset, which underscores the “first-stage” nature of the effect.) 

Self-perception bias. The “homophily” angles—how similar you are in height, intelligence, or attractiveness—came from self-reports. Self-estimates are noisy. The authors acknowledge that, even though the similarity effects were small compared with the dominant role of appearance.

These caveats don’t undo the main point. They just keep it grounded: this is about initial selection under app-like conditions, not a grand pronouncement on human love.

So… what should a thoughtful dater do with this?

First, I won’t sugarcoat it: if the early gate is overwhelmingly visual, we should treat photos as part of the message, not vanity.

That doesn’t mean “be someone you’re not,” nor does it mean conforming to a narrow beauty ideal. It means being intentional. Good light. Clear framing. A genuine expression. A photo that looks like you on a good day.

If you can, ask a friend to choose the top two—most of us are terrible at picking our own best shot.

Second, invest in what the image conveys, not just the face. Even in highly visual environments, tiny cues can telegraph warmth, energy, or approachability.

A relaxed posture, clothing that fits the context you actually enjoy (hiking boots for the trail runner, a plant-filled kitchen for the home cook), and—my personal favorite—photos that show you in the act of a real hobby.

Those cues won’t erase the visual hierarchy, but they can give like-minded people a reason to pause before they swipe.

Third, remember that early-stage bias says nothing about your worth or your potential for connection. A swipe is not a referendum on your lovability. It’s a millisecond reaction inside a designed attention funnel. Once you’re past the gateway, deeper traits can and do matter.

I’ve seen this repeatedly—friends who struggled to get matches found that when someone did meet them, values and chemistry drove the outcome.

Finally, hold space for mixed feelings. Is the dominance of looks depressing? Maybe. But it’s also an honest accounting of how we behave under a particular set of constraints. With that clarity, you’re better equipped to decide how (or whether) to play the app game.

What this means culturally

Dating apps didn’t invent the primacy of looks; they sped it up and made it measurable. In a feed, every second is a judgment, and every judgment is logged.

That visibility can make us anxious about optimizing the wrong things—obsessing over micro-aesthetics rather than building a life that feels good from the inside.

There’s a healthier reframing here. If you use apps, treat the first photo like a cover letter: concise, intentional, respectful of the medium. Then put the bulk of your energy into conversations and dates that show who you are.

And equally valid: opt out or reduce reliance on apps if the format doesn’t honor what you value. The study doesn’t say apps are the path; it tells us what happens on this path.

A note on the “brains vs. beauty” trap

The most unhelpful takeaway would be, “So smarts and character don’t matter.” They do—just not in the swiping moment.

Even the researchers emphasize limits to what their design can tell us about why a photo works, or what traits predict satisfaction once two people actually meet.

For those longer arcs, there’s plenty of evidence that qualities like warmth, trust, and reliability become decisive. The PsyPost piece also flags that many other factors likely play a role and deserve study. In other words, don’t overfit your life to one stage of the funnel.

Bottom line

On dating apps, the image gets you through the door. The rest of you keeps you in the room. If you’re going to swipe, choose photos with care and kindness toward yourself. Then move quickly into spaces—messages, calls, actual dates—where your full self can breathe.

What’s Your Plant-Powered Archetype?

Ever wonder what your everyday habits say about your deeper purpose—and how they ripple out to impact the planet?

This 90-second quiz reveals the plant-powered role you’re here to play, and the tiny shift that makes it even more powerful.

12 fun questions. Instant results. Surprisingly accurate.