New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Certain Personality Types Are Likely to Make a “Foodie Call”

Some people go on dates just to score a free meal—a phenomenon known as a “foodie call.” But it takes a certain personality type. Karen Hopkin reports. 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When it comes to the ritual act of dating, participants often have very different expectations. Some hope to meet their soul mate. Others seek companionship. Some are looking for a good time and think that springing for a meal entitles them to one. And now a new study finds that some women say that, now and again, they just want to score some lobster tails. 

The finding is in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. [Brian Collisson, Jennifer L. Howell and Trista Harig, Foodie calls: when women date men for a free meal (rather than a relationship)]

“You’re probably wondering how we came up with this idea.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Brian Collisson, a social psychologist at Azusa Pacific University in California. Collisson says he’s always been intrigued, in a scientific sense, by romantic relationships.

So when one of his co-authors—Trista Harig, also at Azusa Pacific—told him about this interesting new phenomenon that Maxim magazine had nicknamed a “foodie call”:

“We were curious to explore how often women date men for food rather than a relationship.”

In this study, the researchers focused on heterosexual women—in part because, based on longstanding cultural expectations, men often pick up the tab, particularly on a first date.

In a pair of online surveys, the researchers asked more than 1,000 women: Have you ever agreed to date someone you were not interested in a relationship with because he might pay for your meal?

“We found that approximately 23 to 33 percent of women surveyed had engaged in a ‘foodie call.’” 

Of those who admitted to having swiped right for the free eats, the majority claimed to have done so only occasionally or rarely. But about a quarter admitted accepting the restaurant outing with greater frequency.

The respondents most likely to engage in this type of dating-for-dinner behavior were those who endorsed traditional gender-role beliefs and who scored high on a personality test designed to detect what’s called the Dark Triad.

“The dark triad refers to subclinical levels of psychopathy—which is a lack of remorse and empathy and perspective taking—Machiavellianism—which is where you purposely manipulate others for your own self-benefit—and narcissism, which is a grandiose and over-the-top self-love.” 

With that as a checklist, it might be possible to avoid the users who are in it for pasta—rather than possibilities. 

—Karen Hopkin 

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe