Tipp: Wer jetzt alle fragt, was sie sich wünschen, der hat bis Weihnachten auch alles zusammen.
Eine interessante Studie:
On average, women show stronger preferences for mates with good earning capacity than men do, while men show stronger preferences for physically attractive mates than women do. Studies reporting that sex differences in mate preferences are smaller in countries with greater gender equality have been interpreted as evidence that these sex differences in mate preferences are caused by the different roles society imposes on men and women. Here we attempted to replicate previously reported links between sex differences inmate preferences and country-level measures of gender inequality in a sample of 3073 participants from 36 countries.Although women preferred mates with good earning capacity more than men did and men preferred physically attractive mates more than women did, we found little evidence that these sex differences were smaller in countries with greater gender equality. Although one analysis suggested that the sex difference in preferences for good earning capacity was smaller in countries with greater gender equality, this effect was not significant when controlling for Galton’s problem or when correcting for multiple comparisons. Collectively, these results provide little support for the social roles account of sex differences in mate preferences
Sex differences in human mate preferences have been widely reported in the literature on human mating strategies. That women tend to show stronger preferences for long-term mates with good earning capacity than men do, while men tend to show stronger preferences for physically attractive mates than women do, is a particularly robust finding (see Buss & Schmitt, 2018 for a recent review). Since these sex differences have been reported for many different cultures (Buss et al., 1990; Buss & Schmitt, 2018), some researchers have suggested they most likely reflect evolved preferences for the types of mates that will maximize an individual’s reproductive fitness (Buss et al., 1990; Buss & Schmitt, 2018; Lippa, 2007)Social role theory presents an alternative to this evolved preferences explanation for sex differences in preferences for good earning capacity and physical attractiveness (Eagly & Wood, 1999). Under social role theory, these sex differences are hypothesized to reflect the effects of the different social roles imposed on men and women (Eagly & Wood, 1999). Support for this account comes from reanalyses of early work on sex differences in mate preferences (Buss et al., 1990) that suggested sex differences in preferences for good earning capacity and domestic skills (housekeeping and cooking), but not physical attractiveness, were smaller in countries that scored higher on United Nations’ measures of gender equality (Eagly & Wood, 1999). Although, these results were partially replicated by Zentner and Mitura (2012) and Kasser and Sharma (1999). Gangestad et al. (2006) suggested Eagly and Wood’s (1999) findings for gender inequality were an artifact of ‘Galton’s problem’ (i.e., autocorrelation across geographically close regions).
Following previous research on differences in behavior among countries (e.g., Lee et al., 2018), only responses from countries for which we had more than 9 participants were analyzed. This left us with a sample of 2986 participants from 36 countries for the ranking task, and 2524 participants from 30 countries for the rating data. Trait-rankings were reverse scored so that higher scores for a given trait indicated stronger preferences. Preferences were analyzed using mixed-effect models. Analyses were run using R version
Figure 1 summarizes men’s and women’s preferences for good earning capacity, physical attractiveness, and domestic skills in potential mates as
assessed by responses on the trait-rating and trait-ranking tasks. Womenshowed stronger preferences for good earning capacity than men did for both ratings (estimate = -0.55, t = -11.16, p < .001) and rankings (estimate = -1.63, t = -5.96, p = .024). Men showed stronger preferences for physical attractiveness than women did for both ratings (estimate = 0.42, t = 9.25, p= .003) and rankings (estimate = 1.38, t = 7.90, p = .001). There were no significant effects of participant sex on the desirability of domestic skills in a potential mate for either ratings (estimate = 0.02, t = 0.52, p = .63) or rankings (estimate = 0.22, t =1.40, p = .26).
Und eine Aufgliederung nach dem Rank der der jeweiligen Eigenschaft zugewiesen wird in Bezug auf die Wichtigkeit in der Bewertung als Partner:
Bei Männern sieht man gut, dass Aussehen einen sehr hohen Stellenwert hat, Einkommen einen geringere, bei Frauen ist die Verteilung „breiter“
Dann wurde ein Vergleich mit Gleichberechtigungsindizes vorgenommen:
We repeated each of the models described above, this time including either Gender Inequality Index (GII) or Gender Development Index (GDI) as
additional predictors, along with their two-way interactions with participant sex and participant age. Of the twelve models testing for possible effects of gender inequality, none showed a significant interaction between gender equality and participant sex (all absolute estimates < 0.65, all absolute ts < 2.10, all p > .051).
Das passt gut zu den oben zitierten anderen Studien.
Ich denke die Studie wäre noch interessanter gewesen, wenn sie es nicht lediglich abgefragt hätten, sondern bestimmte Bilder von Männern mit bestimmten Angaben zu ihnen (Hilfskoch/einfacher Arbeiter oder Manager/leitender Angestellter) versehen hätten und dann Attraktivitätsbewertungen durchgeführt hätten oder andere Tests, die nicht nur auf die eigene Bewertung abstellen. Aber dennoch eine interessante Studie.