Scissors Sistah

Footnote step one Very participants was indeed heterosexual (85%) Footnote 2 and half (50%) was in fact during the a loyal relationships

Footnote step one Very participants was indeed heterosexual (85%) Footnote 2 and half (50%) was in fact during the a loyal relationships

Method

How can people generate decisions on the just who so you’re able to pair with whenever he’s met with ugly mating prospects? Inside research, we look at the exactly how – whenever real interest try missing – participant’s sex and you may dealbreaker/dealmaker suggestions dictate new desirability studies from enough time-term and you may small-title friends. We expect (H1) guys (compared to females) to obtain also ugly goals more appealing from the short-term perspective (specially when paired with some good recommendations) and (H2) women to maintain lower levels of interest toward ugly plans regardless of out-of mating context or pointers considering. We also expect you to definitely (H3), total, lady would-be less curious than just males within the prospective mates who try substandard inside physical attractiveness. At exactly the same time, i predict that (H4) understanding negative factual statements about unattractive objectives should make needs smaller fashionable than simply training good suggestions (Jonason ainsi que al. 2015, 2020a, b).

Members and procedures

Participants were 186 undergraduate students (48 men) aged 18 to 59 (M = , SD = 7.26) from a public university in Australia who received course credit for completing an online survey on “individual differences in relationship ple size (None?tailed ? 150) to detect the effect size of change in interest (our focal variable) in response to learning “dealbreakers” and “dealmakers” (Cohen’s d ? 0.40; Jonason et al. 2020a, b). Footnote 3 On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Participants were informed of the details of the study and provided tick-box consent. They were randomly assigned to either a dealbreaker (n = 95; e.g., “This person gets angry easily.”, “This person has a sexually transmitted infection.”) or dealmaker (n = 91; e.g., “This person is successful at work.”, “This person is kind to strangers.”) condition where characteristics for both classes of information (for the full list see Jonason et al. 2020b, Appendix A) were presented in randomized fashion in an ultra-brief vignette fashion (i.e., a single sentence) and paired with eight pictures (randomized for order and pairing so that a different characteristic from the assigned condition was randomly paired with one of each of the eight pictures presented) of men or women (matched for sexual orientation) from the Chicago Face Database (Ma et al. 2015). Participants were given instructions (i.e., “You will now be presented with pictures of different people. Below each picture, you will see a statement describing the person in the picture. Please note that the statement below each picture applies to the person in the picture.”) and then shown one picture of a target paired with one characteristic at a time. Participants were asked to rate the desirability (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely) of the targets for a “long-term (romantic)” and “short-term (casual sex)” relationship, as well as how physically attractive (1 = far below average; 7 = far above average) the target was as a check on our stimuli and selection process. Footnote 4 The pictures we used were of men (Mage = , SDage = 5.89, Rangeage = to ) and women (Mage = , SDage = 5.02, Rangeage = to ) who appeared to have Caucasian ethnicity (to control for self- vs. other-race effects; Rhodes et al. 2005; van den Berghe and Frost 1986), who had a neutral facial expression (to control for effects of affect; Mehu et al. 2008; Morrison et al. 2013; Penton-Voak and Chang 2008), and who were pre-rated for attractiveness (1 = not at all; 7 = extremely) by independent judges from the database to be between 3 and 4 (M = 3.32, SD = 0.20, Range = 3.03 to 3.69; any lower was considered unrealistically unattractive). We found considerable agreement among our participants across the eight photos (Cronbach’s bicupid reviews ? = 0.92) and confirmed that these targets were rated on average (M = 2.65, SD = 1.05) below the scale’s midpoint (t = -, p

Post a Comment