groups and as a function of level of educationalachievement can be obtained from the author.
1098DEVENDRA SINGH18-24 Yrs1.025-35 Yrs0.71o LowIncome.•Medium IncomeV High Income36-69 Yrs1.0WHRofTarget FigureFigure6.Mean ratingsforwillingnesstodateandengageinshort-term romantic relationships with target figuresbywomenofvariousages.ures.Raters with higher educational achievement, on the otherhand, exhibited higher preference only when targetfigureshadhigh WHRaswellashigh income. Finally,therater's familyincome (below $60,000 versus above $60,000) interacted withtarget figure's incomeandWHR,butonlyforcoffeeandcon-versation,F(4,580)=3.12,p<.05,and for dating, F(4,580)= 4.47,p <.001. ExaminationofFigure7shows that raterswithalower family income expressed more willingness thanthose withahigher family incometoprefer targets thathadhigher WHRs and higher income levels.It shouldbestressed thatarater'sfinancialstatuswasdefinedon the basis of their family rather than their personalincome.Itisquite possible that women who independently control high orlow material resources attendtodifferent personal characteris-tics of a potential mate.DiscussionIn summary, the desirability of targetfiguresfor various rela-tionships was jointly determinedbyWHRs andfinancialstatus.Target figures with higher WHRsandhigher financial statuswere ratedasmore desirable foralldegrees of relationship. Rat-ings of the targetfigurewithalow WHR in the feminine rangeremained lower than other target figures even whenthefigurewaspresented with highfinancialstatus.Twolimitations of thepresent study shouldbepointedout.First, onlya singleorderofpresentation of targetfigureswas used. Therefore, the possibil-ity of order effects cannot be ruled out. Second,financialstatusof the targetfigureswasdefined on the basis of both occupationtype and incometomake the present study comparable to pre-vious studies investigating the role of income on women's matechoice (Townsend, 1989; Townsend&Levy, 1990). However,the targetfigurewith high incomewasdescribed as "innovativebusinessman," therefore,it is notclear whether preferenceforthat targetfigurewasdue to income or that he was perceived asmore intelligent and creative than the medium and low incometarget figures. Whilethedata donotpermittheevaluationofthis possibility, raters' preferences werenotsolely basedontargetfigure'sincome or perceivedintelligence;thesizeof WHRmoderatedthepreference.Forexample, innovative business-manwasassignedamean rating of 2.39 for choice for marriageif ithad .7WHR,buthigher ratingsifdepicting higher WHR(3.83 for.9WHR; 4.04for1.0 WHR). Thus, itisquite reason-abletoinfer thatahigh financial status does increase male de-sirability, but itdoesnot compensate fora lowWHR.Men needto be attractiveas wellas haveahighfinancialstatus to be max-imally desirabletowomenfor alldegreesofrelationships.Itseems, as predictedbyBussand