Download to read offline
Mating Strategies
- 1. Comparison of Male& Female Mating Strategies Cassandra Jonas, Emily Edwards, Rochanda Jones, Lindsay Indiana State University Department of Psychology • Independent t-test to compare male and female Discussion rankings was used. • Physical Traits (mutual • Males perceive physical characteristics as more attraction, age, height, body important than females. structure, facial beauty, and body beauty) • Females prefer their mate to be financial secure while males did not find it that important. • Financial Prospects (education, ambition, finance, and Possible Confounds similar education) • Only college students were used. Education may not • Personality (mood, empathy, desire for be as important to non-college participants. children, dependable, kind/caring) • A questionnaire was the method in collecting the data. • Similarity (similar interests, similar There is a possibility of lying on a questionnaire. It is religion, similar politics, and similar also possible that males and females unconsciously education) pick certain traits. Results Future Research Physical Traits: Female Male • Men rated Physical Traits more important than • Survey participants with a more diverse background females. and educational experience. Financial Prospects: • Include a wider population. Physical Financial Financial Physical • Females rates financial prospects more important Traits Prospects Prospects Traits • Compare short-term and long-term relationships in than males. regards to the preferred traits. Personality: • Men and women rated personality traits the same. Methods References Participants Similarity: • 48 college students (18-27 years old) • Men and women rated similar interests as the Buss, D. M. (2002). Human mating strategies. The • 23 males, 25 females same. Socioeconomist, 4, 47-58. • Average age = 21 years old Category Mean Std. Sig. t • 30 participants in a Deviation (2-tail) Cofer, J.C., Perilloux, ., & Bus, D. M. (2012). More than relationship, 28 single Physical M(54.6) M(11.3) .022 * -2.36 just a pretty face: men’s priority shifts toward bodily Traits F(63.5) F(14.2) attractiveness in short-term versus long-term mating Procedure Financial M(40.6) M(9.3) .040 * 2.12 contexts. Evolution & Human Behavior, 31, 348-353. • 2 part questionnaire Prospects F(35.1) F(8.3) • 1st part asked Personalit M(56.3) M(11.5) .92 -.10 y F(56.7) F(9.7) Stewart, S., Stinnett, H., Rosenfeld, L.B. (2000). Sex gender, age, relationship differences in desired characteristics of short-term and Similarity M(52.0) M(9.4) .26 1.15 status, sexual orientation, & F(48.2) F(9.2) long-term relationship partners. Journal of Social & relationship type *Represents significance level of >.05 (significant) Personal Relationships, 17(6), 844-853. • 2nd part asked participant to rank 19 characteristics Tadinac, M., Hromatko, I. (2006). Strangers in the night 70 _____Facial Beauty or love forever: characteristics and preferences of short _____Body Attractiveness 65 _____Education & Intelligent vs. long-term relationship seekers. Psychological _____Dependable 60 Topics, 15(2), 261-276. _____Kind/caring _____Good financial prospects 55 _____Ambition Welling, L. M., Jones, C. B., DeBruine, L. M., Smith, F. _____Chastity 50 G., Feinberg, D. R., Little, A. C., Al-Dujaili, E. A. _____Similar education Females _____Similar interest 45 (2008). Men report stronger attraction to femininity in Males _____Similar religious background 40 women’s faces when their testosterone levels are high. _____Desire for children _____Mutual attraction/love Hormones & Behavior, 54(5), 704-708. _____Pleasing Disposition (mood) 35 _____Similar political views _____Age 30 Widaman, K. F., Tucker, J.S., & Salinas, C. (1991). _____Agreeableness (ability to empathize) Physical Financial Personality Similarity Beauty is more than skin deep: components of _____Height _____Body structure Traits Prospects attractiveness. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 12(4), 423-439.