Class6 - From Last Time … Mate Preferences • Survey results find consistent sex differences Men stronger preferences for physical

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–6. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: From Last Time … Mate Preferences • Survey results find consistent sex differences: Men stronger preferences for physical attractiveness, women stronger preferences for resource possession, etc. (e.g., Buss, 1989) • However, the traits that show sex differences usually not rated/ranked among most important for either sex (near middle or bottom of ranking lists) Mate Preference Issues • Kind-understanding and Intelligent rated consistently most important by both men and women across many studies • If predictions from parental investment theory are correct, shouldn’t attractiveness (for men) and income (for women) be rated more important than they are? • Methodological problems with rating/ranking lists of traits: – May only be imagining restricted pools of individuals: if think about your own preferences, what pool of people do you imagine? – Example: may rank “creativity” more important than income, but may be picturing only people with college educations in the potential pool of mates (may not picture people who never finished high school) – Threshold effects: Say creativity is very important if the person is above a minimum threshold of physical attractiveness: how rate/rank traits in this case? What is more important, creativity or attractiveness? Budget and Trade-off Methods • “Budget” methods can make these issues explicit to subjects by forcing them to consider the entire range of possible mates • Li et al. (2002) Budget Method : – Subjects allocated 20 “mate dollars” where $1 = 10% increment on that trait (spend $8 and get 80 th percentile for that trait) – After finish spending $20, given 20 more, then 20 more again. – Traits are physical attractiveness, social level, creativity, kindness, and liveliness • Li et al. (2002) hypothesized that women consider social status (resource holding) a necessity and men consider physical attractiveness a necessity – Necessity is defined as something spend most on given small budget – Essentially means that getting a minimum amount of these traits is crucial in a mate, before considering other characteristics Results of Budget Study Low Budget High Budget Women Men Women Men Physical Attractiveness 20.6 31.3 18.9 24.3 Social Level 27.2 18.3 22.3 19.8 Creativity 8.4 9.9 17 19.3 Kindness 26.5 26.8 23.4 21.9 Liveliness 17.3 13.7 18.3 14.7 Conclusions from Budget Study • Using a trade-off method, resource control became the...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/07/2009 for the course PSYCH 146 taught by Professor Rooney during the Fall '09 term at UCSB.

Page1 / 24

Class6 - From Last Time … Mate Preferences • Survey results find consistent sex differences Men stronger preferences for physical

This preview shows document pages 1 - 6. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online