6,353
edits
Scientific Blackpill: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Looks are most important in speed dating
| Line 2,342: | Line 2,342: | ||
* ''This finding, however, appears to be inconsistent with the widely accepted finding in evolutionary research indicating a fundamental sex difference in their preferences for long-term partners ... evolutionary research does suggest that these sex differences in mating preferences tend to diminish or even disappear when short-term mating contexts are primed.'' | * ''This finding, however, appears to be inconsistent with the widely accepted finding in evolutionary research indicating a fundamental sex difference in their preferences for long-term partners ... evolutionary research does suggest that these sex differences in mating preferences tend to diminish or even disappear when short-term mating contexts are primed.'' | ||
* ''In our particular case, it seems that women’s attraction feeling is dominated by partners’ physical attractiveness, just as their male counterparts, even though it is possible that when prompted to think about preferences for a potential mate, women would give priority considerations to characteristics like earning potential.'' | * ''In our particular case, it seems that women’s attraction feeling is dominated by partners’ physical attractiveness, just as their male counterparts, even though it is possible that when prompted to think about preferences for a potential mate, women would give priority considerations to characteristics like earning potential.'' | ||
<span style="font-size:125%">'''Discussion:'''</span> | |||
It is important to note that speed dating studies often examine the variance in romantic outcomes attributed to three factors: the actor, target, and dyadic interaction effects. In the speed dating context, this essentially means the proportion of variance attributable to the actor (the observation, or an individual, and their preferences, state, and level of choosiness), the target (their partner and their characteristics), and the dyadic effect (an additive effect that is attributable to the interaction between the two partners, essentially "chemistry"). Any other sources of variance are due to measurement error. | |||
In this study, it was found that, for women, the self effect had an average of 35%; partner effect averaging 25%; finally, relationship effect accounted for an average of 39% of the variance. Essentially this means the dyadic interactions between the participants accounted for most of the women's likelihood of choosing the partner for a future date and her reported attraction to him. The second strongest was the effects of the female herself and then finally the effect of her male partner. This means that while objective looks strongly predict initial attraction (Olderbak et al., 2017) and are the largest individual predictive factor of romantic success in such contexts, in reality, the state and characteristics of the female partner and the level of "chemistry" between the two daters seems to play an even stronger role in driving actual outcomes. | |||
In terms of the dyadic factor that one would naturally think would be most predictive of speed dating outcomes, reciprocity, it was found that the effects of mutual liking were actually relatively weak in predicting dating outcomes (though the effect seemed to strengthen when people had been informed their partner had chosen them, suggesting conscious knowledge of a romantic prospects mutual liking of oneself is necessary to drive strong reciprocity effects). That means that much more of this variance can potentially be explicable by factors such as individual preferences in looks, perceived (and not actual) similarity on behalf of both partners, perceived SMV, mutual attachment styles, fear of rejection, looksmatching (though evidence for this is pretty weak, at least in terms of ideal preferences), and unexamined partner traits that may be predictive of sexual attractiveness (the so-called "[[X-Factor Theory|factor X]]" of dating). | |||
Regarding the target effects driving female attraction, it seems likely that general choosiness and state (mood, affect) would be the most potent factors that would predict their odds of selecting a particular male. | |||
<span style="font-size:125%">'''References:'''</span> | <span style="font-size:125%">'''References:'''</span> | ||
* | * Luo S, Zhang G. 2009. ''What leads to romantic attraction: similarity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study.'' J Pers. 77(4): 933-64. [[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19558447 Abstract]] | ||
* Olderbak SG, Malter F, Wolf PSA, Jones DN, Figueredo AJ. 2017. ''Predicting Romantic Interest at Zero Acquaintance: Evidence of Sex Differences in Trait Perception but Not in Predictors of Interest.'' European Journal of Personality. 31(1): 42-62. [[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/per.2087 Abstract]] | |||
===<span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine, Georgia, Times, serif'; font-size: 24px; line-height: 1.2; font-weight: normal;" id="Looks_are_most_important_to_women_in_video_dating">Looks are most important in video dating</span>=== | ===<span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine, Georgia, Times, serif'; font-size: 24px; line-height: 1.2; font-weight: normal;" id="Looks_are_most_important_to_women_in_video_dating">Looks are most important in video dating</span>=== | ||