6,480
edits
Scientific Blackpill: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→A man's looks are significantly correlated with his popularity and peer status: Expanded section.
m (→Looks (Life): Added 'A man's looks are significantly correlated with his popularity'.) |
m (→A man's looks are significantly correlated with his popularity and peer status: Expanded section.) |
||
| Line 1,265: | Line 1,265: | ||
*Cowan ML, Little AC. 2013. ''The effects of relationship context and modality on ratings of funniness.'' Personality and Individual Differences. 54(4): 496-500. [[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886912005028 Abstract]] | *Cowan ML, Little AC. 2013. ''The effects of relationship context and modality on ratings of funniness.'' Personality and Individual Differences. 54(4): 496-500. [[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886912005028 Abstract]] | ||
===<span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine, Georgia, Times, serif'; font-size:24px; font-weight: normal;">A man's looks are significantly correlated with his popularity and peer status | ===<span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine, Georgia, Times, serif'; font-size:24px; font-weight: normal;">A man's looks are significantly correlated with his popularity and peer status=== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Anderson et al. conducted three studies to examine to determinants of peer status among college students. The studies used peer ratings of popularity to measure status and compared them to self-reports of the Big Five personality dimensions and observer evaluated physical attractiveness of the subjects, based on observation of video clips of the subjects. | |||
The first study examined (n=48; mean age 20) members of a fraternity at a large Midwestern state university, with social status determined by the other fraternities prominence and number of positions and office each member had held. The factors found to be significantly correlated with social status were extroversion (controlled for physical attractiveness r = .40), physical attractiveness (r = .39), and neuroticism was found to be negatively correlated with status (r = -.26). | |||
There was no significant correlation found between agreeableness and status. | |||
A second study performed on members of a sorority (n=45) with an identical procedure to to first study, found only extraversion (r = .43, controlled for physical attractiveness) was significantly correlated with peer status. | |||
Finally, a third study with a longitudinal design and a unisex sample (n=74) of dormitory residents was conducted. Peer rated status was assessed three times over a year. This study also included self-assessments of peer status, which was found to be be substantially correlated with peer assessed status. Peer status was very stable among the men, with the 'pecking order' among the men clearly being quickly solidified within the first two weeks. | |||
The status ordering among women took much longer to be established (by the 4th month), but was ultimately as stable as the hierarchy found among the men. By the final time the peer status among the men was assessed by the researchers, the only significant factors found to be correlated with peer status were: extraversion(r = .40), Physical Attractiveness (r = .43). Neuroticism was found to be significantly negatively correlated with peer status (r = -.38). | |||
The researchers also found the students intuitions about the personality traits that would aid them in attaining peer status were largely flawed, with the trait they believed would be most important-conscientiousness-not at all related to status attainment. The researchers hypothesis was that physical attractiveness may have been more linked to popularity and status among men because of gender norms rewarding men for sexual success, but sexual success not does not necessarily lead to greater peer acceptance among women. | |||
The Big Five dimension agreeableness, basically being 'nice', was not significantly linked to peer status or popularity among both sexes. | |||
<span style="font-size:125%">'''Quotes:'''</span> | |||
* ''Physically attractive men tended to attain higher status in both the fraternity and dormitory samples with substantial effect sizes(mean r = .42).'' | |||
* ''One surprise in our data was that we did no find any evidence for this relation in either the sorority or the dormitory women (mean r = .10).'' | |||
* ''In combination,these findings offer considerable support for the hypothesis that gender norms about negative emotion are involved: "Real" men are not supposed to feel and act afraid, sad, guilty, or vulnerable, and men who violate these gender expectations are less likely to be granted high status in face-to-face groups.'' | |||
* ''Status was not related to either Conscientiousness or Openness to Experience in any of our studies. These replicated null effects reinforce the view that in the informal social groups we have studies here, status functions differently that in organizational and professional groups,where task performance and achievement play a central role.'' | |||
<span style="font-size:125%">'''References:'''</span> | <span style="font-size:125%">'''References:'''</span> | ||
*Anderson C, John OP, Keltner D, Kring AM. 2001. ''Who Attains Social Status? Effects of Personality and Physical Attractiveness in Social Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.'' 81(1):116-132 [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11474718 Abstract]] | *Anderson C, John OP, Keltner D, Kring AM. 2001. ''Who Attains Social Status? Effects of Personality and Physical Attractiveness in Social Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.'' 81(1):116-132 [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11474718 Abstract]] | ||