Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association
Chicago, 2002
Participants formed impressions of hypothetical friendship, dating and marriage partners. Intrinsic qualities (personality and commitment) were more important determinants of preferences than were extrinsic qualities (attractiveness and income). Participants preferred androgynous partners over gender-typed partners, suggesting an egalitarian gender-role preference in partner choices. Commitment was especially important, in that high-commitment partners were preferred over low-commitment partners, even when the high-commitment partners were less attractive and had lower income than the low-commitment partners. The effects of commitment level influenced marriage preferences, but not friendship or dating preferences. Minimal support for evolutionary theory was obtained in that the only sex difference observed was that men preferred good-looking partners more than did women. The results were more supportive of social constructionist theory, indicating that the sexes are more alike than different in the emphasis on commitment and egalitarian gender-roles as the most-sought qualities in partners.
Introduction
n Determinants of women’s partner choices
n sexual vs. marriage partners (Desrochers, 1995)
n Comparing men and women’s partner choices
n a limited number of determinants of romantic attraction (Sprecher, 1989)
n Evolutionary theorists stress sex differences
n Men seek attractive women with child-bearing potential, while women seek committed partners who will provide security (Pines, 1998)
n Social Constructionist theorists stress similarities
n The sexes are more alike than different in the qualities they seek in a partner (e.g. Regan & Berscheid, 1997)
n Simultaneously examined:
n multiple intrinsic and extrinsic determinants of attraction
n three types of partner choices
n both men and women participants included for comparison
n Examined gender differences/similarities in effects of:
n attractiveness/income (extrinsic qualities)
n personality/commitment (intrinsic qualities)
n Compared the effects of factors in three partner types:
n Friend
n Dating
n Marriage
n Masculine Traits
n Feminine Traits
n Commitment Level
n Physical Attractiveness
n Income Level
n Masculinity/Femininity: Low (scores < 20); High (scores > 80)
n Commitment: Low (< 20); High (> 80)
n Income: Low (< $20,000/year); High ( > $80,000/year)
n Attractiveness: “Average” (scores near 50); “Good-looking” (> 80)
Profile No. 2
|
CHARACTERISTICS |
SCORE |
|
Independent |
84 |
|
Ambitious |
86 |
|
Gentle |
14 |
|
Sympathetic |
16 |
|
Physical Appearance |
46 |
|
Commitment |
83 |
|
Yearly Income |
$17ks |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at All Extremely Likely Likely
· The 32 profiles were converted to a web form which was posted on a web site.
· Radio boxes were placed above the numbers on the 7-point Likert scales.
· Participants clicked one box to indicate how likely they would be to choose this TP.
All participants rated all 32 TP profiles within a given target category.
n P’s assumed each profile described a member of the opposite sex
n P’s were assigned to one of the three TP evaluation conditions:
n Friend
n Date
n Spouse
n P’s formed impressions of each TP as either a potential friend, dating partner or marriage partner
n P’s indicated how likely they would be to select each TP as a partner using the 7-point Likert scales
n 3(Target Type) x 2 (Participant Sex) x 2 (Femininity) x 2 (Masculinity) x 2 (Commitment) x 2 (Attractiveness) x 2 (Income) Mixed Model ANOVA , with Target Type & Participant Sex as between-groups factors and Femininity, Masculinity, Commitment, Attractiveness & Income as within-groups factors
The results of a 3 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 mixed model ANOVA conducted on the choice likelihood scores are summarized in Table 1.
|
Table 1. Summary of Significant Effects |
||
|
Effect |
Fa |
Eta2 |
|
Femininity |
501.02* |
0.81 |
|
Masculinity |
305.43* |
0.72 |
|
Commitment |
296.73* |
0.71 |
|
Attractiveness |
119.08* |
0.50 |
|
Income |
51.04* |
0.30 |
|
Commitment x Appearance |
56.00* |
0.32 |
|
Masculinity x Femininity |
44.06* |
0.27 |
|
Commitment x Income |
23.38* |
0.16 |
|
Appearance x Participant Sex |
29.05* |
0.19 |
|
Commitment x Target |
13.14* |
0.18 |
|
aAll df = 1,119 except Com x Target ( df = 2,119). *p < .001 |
||
Main Effects
n Significant main effects were obtained for all target person qualities, indicating that P's were more likely to choose targets scoring high on femininity, masculinity, commitment, physical attractiveness, and income than targets scoring low on these qualities.
n Although the extrinsic qualities (attractiveness and income) did significantly influence partner choices, partial eta2 values indicated that the intrinsic qualities (feminine/masculine traits and commitment) were more important determinants of choices than were the attractiveness and income factors.
Interaction Effects
§ Numerous significant interaction effects were obtained on the likelihood choices. The pattern of results in these interactions further demonstrates the overriding importance of commitment level relative to that of income level or physical attractiveness in partner choices. Indeed, it will be seen in the following figures that high-commitment partners were preferred over low-commitment partners, even when the high-commitment partners were less attractive and had lower income than the did low-commitment partners.
Results of comparisons of cell means relevant to the Masculinity x Femininity interaction are depicted in Figure 1.
§ The above figure shows that participants were more likely to choose androgynous (high-feminine/high-masculine) target persons than either gender-typed or undifferentiated targets. Further, there was no preference for masculine gender-typed (high-masculine/low feminine) targets vs. feminine gender-typed (low-masculine/high-feminine) targets, and both of these were preferred over undifferentiated partners.
§ Results of comparisons of cell means relevant to the Commitment x Income interaction are depicted in Figure 2.
§ The above figure indicates that target income level only affected responses to high-commitment targets. That is, given two high-commitment targets, participants were more likely to choose the high-income over the low-income target. However, target income did not affect choices between low-commitment targets. That is, given two low-commitment targets, participants were not more likely to choose the high-income over the low-income target. Of particular interest is that participants were more likely to choose low-income/high-commitment partners than high-income/low-commitment target persons.
§ Results of comparisons of cell means relevant to the Commitment x Attractiveness interaction are depicted in Figure 3.
§ The above figure reveals a pattern similar to that observed in the previous interaction. As with income level, attractiveness only affected responses to high-commitment targets. That is, given two high-commitment targets, participants were more likely to choose the good-looking over the average-looking target. However, target attractiveness did not affect choices between low-commitment targets. That is, given two low-commitment targets, participants were not more likely to choose the good-looking target over the average-looking target. Here also it is noteworthy that participants were more likely to choose average-looking/high-commitment partners than good-looking/low-commitment target persons.
§ Results of comparisons of cell means relevant to the Target Category x Commitment interaction are depicted in Figure 4.
n Thus, college students seem to value intrinsic qualities of potential partners (personality and commitment) more than extrinsic qualities (attractiveness and income)
n Minimal support for evolutionary theory
n only sex difference found was that men preferred good-looking partners more than did women
n However, women did not prefer high-income partners more than did men
n Absence of other sex differences indicate that women and men are more alike than different in partner choices, supporting social constructionist theory
n Masculine-typed TP’s were not most preferred by women, nor were feminine-typed targets most preferred by men
n Androgynous partners were preferred over gender-typed partners