IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Campus competition and co-ed allure: An institution-level analysis of collegiate dating markets


  • Franklin G. Mixon

    () (Columbus State University)

  • Steven B. Caudill

    () (Rhodes College)


The current study examines the political economy of collegiate dating markets by employing institution-level data from the national colleges and universities included in U.S. News & World Report's Best Colleges 2012. This is a more comprehensive sample than has been used in previous studies and includes 250 colleges and universities across all regions of the United States. We also make use of female student attractiveness ratings from to assess the relationship between the extent of competition among for dates, as captured in the percentage of the student body accounted for by females, and the attractiveness of the female students involved in that competition. Results from OLS, two-stage least squares, ordered probit and simultaneous probit models all converge on the outcome wherein female student attractiveness increases as dating competition becomes more intense. Two of these models also suggest that the percent of a college's student body accounted for by female students does not depend on attractiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Franklin G. Mixon & Steven B. Caudill, 2013. "Campus competition and co-ed allure: An institution-level analysis of collegiate dating markets," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(1), pages 442-453.
  • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-12-00903

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Price, Michael K., 2008. "Fund-raising success and a solicitor's beauty capital: Do blondes raise more funds?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 100(3), pages 351-354, September.
    2. Sean P. Salter & Franklin G. Mixon & Ernest W. King, 2012. "Broker beauty and boon: a study of physical attractiveness and its effect on real estate brokers’ income and productivity," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(10), pages 811-825, May.
    3. Hamermesh, Daniel S. & Parker, Amy, 2005. "Beauty in the classroom: instructors' pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 369-376, August.
    4. Hamermesh, Daniel S. & Meng, Xin & Zhang, Junsen, 2002. "Dress for success--does primping pay?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 361-373, July.
    5. Hamermesh, Daniel S., 2006. "Changing looks and changing "discrimination": The beauty of economists," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(3), pages 405-412, December.
    6. Upadhyaya, Kamal P. & Raymond, Jeannie E. & Mixon, Franklin Jr., 1997. "The economic theory of regulation versus alternative theories for the electric utilities industry: A simultaneous probit model," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 191-202, August.
    7. Gunter J. Hitsch & Ali Hortaçsu & Dan Ariely, 2010. "Matching and Sorting in Online Dating," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 130-163, March.
    8. Hamermesh, Daniel S & Biddle, Jeff E, 1994. "Beauty and the Labor Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1174-1194, December.
    9. Estrella, Arturo, 1998. "A New Measure of Fit for Equations with Dichotomous Dependent Variables," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 16(2), pages 198-205, April.
    10. Pfann, Gerard A. & Biddle, Jeff E. & Hamermesh, Daniel S. & Bosman, Ciska M., 2000. "Business success and businesses' beauty capital," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 201-207, May.
    11. Biddle, Jeff E & Hamermesh, Daniel S, 1998. "Beauty, Productivity, and Discrimination: Lawyers' Looks and Lucre," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 172-201, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    economics of beauty; human capital theory; collegiate dating markets; simultaneous probit modeling;

    JEL classification:

    • D1 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior
    • J0 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-12-00903. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (John P. Conley). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.