desired relationship length affect mate preferences Derek Herrmann, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

How gender, financial situation, and desired relationship length affect mate preferences Derek Herrmann, Sunthud Pornprasertmanit, & Rebecca Nemecek

Evolutionary psychology (Larsen & Buss, 2008) • Mate preferences based on humans’ evolutionary past – Males • Reproduce with a single act • More concerned with ‘spreading their seed’ • Look for attractiveness in females – Females • Reproduce and gestate in nine months • More concerned with care and nurture of offspring • Look for resources to provide in males

Gender • Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield (1994) – Rated characteristics based on importance to marriage on a 1-7 scale (Long-term Relationship) • Physical attractiveness — males > females • Earning potential: females > males – Females want mates to have steady job. – Males want mates to have lower earning potential – Females want mates to have higher education

Financial situation • Stone, Shackelford, & Buss (2008) – Correlations between development level of countries and mate preference – Very low negative relationship between development level and physical attractiveness – Negative relationship between development level and financial prospect

Desired relationship length • Greitemeyer (2005) – Given descriptions and photographs of ‘current partners’ and alternative potential partners and rated based on five options – Males — preference for attractiveness across all options – Females — preference for higher SES • Attractiveness was high for all but the ‘mate - switching’ option

Desired Relationship Length • Li & Kenrick (2006) – People are more likely to select mates from physical attractiveness in short-term mates – In long-term mates • Females concerns financial potentials • Males still concerns physical attractiveness

Current study • Examine effects of three variables on mate preferences – Gender – Participants’ financial situation – Desired relationship length • Mate preferences based only on – Physical attractiveness – Financial situation – Similar personality characteristics

Hypotheses • Regardless of length of relationship or status, men will be more concerned with physical attractiveness than women • Women will look for physical attractiveness in short-term relationships, while they will be more concerned with status in long-term relationships • Those who are rich will not be as concerned with status

Method • 70 participants in both gender • Between-subjects IV: Gender • Within-subjects IVs: – Long-term (Intend to marry) and Short-term (One- night stand) – High ($150,000 per year) or Low ($15,000 per year) social status • DVs: Rating of mate preferences: Physical Attractiveness and Social Status

Procedure • Spending Stars (13 Stars) 100 %tile 1 Star = 10 th percentile Making first two factors not perfect correlated 50 %tile 0 %tile Physical Attractiveness Social Status Warmth/trustworthiness

Protocol Counter-balancing Demographic Rating Mate Rating Mate Rating Mate Rating Mate Variables Preference Preference Preference Preference Sex Short-term Long-term Short-term Long-term Ethnicity High SES Low SES High SES Low SES Age Estimate time: 15 minutes

Analysis • Mixed Design ANOVA: One-between (Gender) and Two-within (Duration and Social Status) • Dependent variables: Physical Attractiveness and Social Status

Expected Result • Possible significant three-way interaction – For social level mate preferences Social Level Social Level Female Female Male Male Duration Duration Short Long Short Long High SES participants Low SES participants

Expected Result • Not significant three-way interaction in physical attractiveness • Significant two-way interaction in – Duration & Sex Physical Attractiveness Social Level Male Female Female Male Duration Duration Short Long Short Long

Expected Result • Main effect – Gender • Male > Female in Physical attractiveness • Female > Male in Social Level – Duration • Long < Short in Physical attractiveness • Long > Short in Social Level – Participants’ social level • High = Low in Physical attractiveness • High < Low in Social Level

Result 10 9 8 Physical Attractiveness Physical Mates’ Social 7 Attractiveness Status 6 5 Gender Male > Female ns Female 4 Male 3 Expected Short > Long Short > Long 2 Relationship 1 0 Ps’ Social Status ns ns Short-term Long-term Gender * ER See graph ns Expected Duration 3.5 Gender * PSS ns ns 3 ER * PSS ns See graph 2.5 Social Status 2 Gender * ER * ns ns 30K 1.5 PSS 150K 1 0.5 0 Short-term Long-term Expected Duration

Discussion • Hypothesis: Physical Attractiveness 10 Physical Attractiveness 9 8 Physical Attractiveness Male 7 6 5 Female 4 Female Male 3 2 1 0 Duration Short-term Long-term Short Long Expected Duration