Sind die Geschlechterunterschiede für körperliche Attraktivität und gute Einkommensaussichten kleiner in Ländern mit mehr Geschlechtergerechtigkeit?

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
Die Einleitung gibt einen gewissen Überblick:
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).
Und zur Studie:
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
Die Teilnehmerzahl pro Land erscheint mir sehr klein. Da können individuelle Abweichungen natürlich gut durchschlagen. Aber dennoch scheint sich ja eine gewisse Gleichheit rausgestellt zu haben:
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 die Grafik zu den Ergebnissen:
Einkommen Attraktivität Mann Frau

Einkommen Attraktivität Mann Frau

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.

„Wenn er weniger verdient gibt es kein zweites Date“

Im „Express“ fand sich ein Artikel zu einer Umfrage einer Dating App:

Sixty per cent of the 2,000 women surveyed by London dating app The Inner Circle admitted refusing a second date with a guy – after finding he had a lower salary than them.

However men were less concerned with cash – as 96 per cent of them told researchers they were not bothered if they female date was a bigger earning high-flyer.

Den Originalartikel der Datingseite konnte ich leider nicht finden. Zudem heißt es in dem Artikel:

When it comes to going Dutch, 75 per cent of women admitted offering to pay towards a first date meal. But only half of men looking for love said they expected the offer to split the expense from their female date. And men that do suggest ‚going halves‘ may be doing it at their own risk, the independent research uncovered. As 41 per cent of women admitted they would definitely refuse a second date with a man if he „expected them“ to also chip in for the restaurant bill.

David Vermeulen, the founder of The Inner Circle – an invitation-only dating site – said: „The moment the bill arrives on a first date can always be a very tricky situation.

„I may be from the Netherlands, but I would never ‚go dutch‘ on a date. It’s just not the done thing where I am from.

Going dutch“ bedeutet, dass jeder für sich selber zahlt

Da hätten wir also:

  • 60% der befragten Frauen würden nicht mit einem Mann auf ein zweites Date gehen, wenn er weniger verdient als sie
  • 75% der Frauen würden bei einem ersten Date anbieten zu zahlen, 50% der Männer würden das auch erwarten, 41% der Frauen würden nicht auf ein zweites Date gehen, wenn er erwarten würde, dass sie auch etwas zahlt.

Das sind schon recht hohe Zahlen, die Frage wäre natürlich, wie repräsentativ sie sind.

Das konnte ich über die Dating App herausfinden:

The Inner Circle is a selective dating app that connects ambitious, like-minded people.

The Inner Circle started in 2013 as a response to a real life problem we faced when searching for a date. As entertaining as it can be to go through endless profiles, swiping left or right aimlessly, the reality is that the majority of profiles and matches are random and unappealing. It doesn’t represent what we are truly searching for. We decided therefore that quality matters, not quantity.

We found that singles with similar backgrounds and interests are more likely to hit it off. To ensure real people are able to meet like-minded singles, we personally curate and approve each member. This ensures that compatibility and mutual interests prevail. Does this take time? Yes. Is it worth it? Absolutely!

That we’re not your next typical dating app is shown through our exclusive events we host around the world on a monthly basis. In the most sought after locations, we bring online dating to the offline, ensuing that your matches are real, genuine and brought to life.

We’re proud to have created a unique platform that ensures the right people are introduced to each other. So far thousands of members have been successfully matched, and we are just getting started. Get ready to be amazed

Klingt etwas nach einer Dating App für Reich und schön oder zumindest „besser situiert“. Insofern wäre die Frage, ob da die Frauen nicht gerade entsprechend selektiert sind, eben solche, die einen ambitionierten, besser gestellten Mann haben wollen. Das würde die Umfrageergebnisse insofern nicht repräsentativ machen. Dennoch würde immerhin ein deutlicher Geschlechterunterschied übrig bleiben.

 

Wolf of Wall Street: Intrasexuelle Konkurrenz und intersexuelle Selektion als Anreiz

(im Prinzip motiviert er seine Mitarbeiter damit, dass sie Status über Geld aufbauen können und dann alle Frauen mit ihnen schlafen wollen, wenn man es unter dem Gesichtspunkt intrasexueller Konkurrenz unter Männer und intersexueller Selektion sieht, macht er ihnen deutlich, dass sie sich dann ein höherwertiges Signalling mit Statusobjekten leisten können und sie im Wettkampf aufgrund des Geldes weit oben stehen werden)

Männliche Attraktivität und Einkommen

Etwas zu Einkommen und Attraktivität:

About 64% of men and 51% of women report their income. Figure 5.6 shows how these self-reported income measures are related to the members‘ dating outcomes. Income strongly a®ects the success of men, as measured by the number of ¯rst contact e-mails received. While there is no apparent e®ect below an annual income of $50,000, outcomes improve monotonically for income levels above $50,000. Relative to incomes below $50,000, 18The BMI is de¯ned as BMI = 703 £ w=h2; where w is weight in pounds and h is height in inches. 21 the increase in the expected number of ¯rst contacts is at least 32%, and as large as 156% for incomes in excess of $250,000. In contrast to the strong income e®ect for men, the online success of women is at most marginally related to their income. Women in the $35,000- $100,000 income range fare slightly better than women with lower incomes. Higher incomes, however, do not appear to improve outcomes, and are not associated with a statistically di®erent e®ect relative to the $15,000-$25,000 income range.

Quelle:  What Makes You Click: An Empirical Analysis of Online Dating

 

Und aus eine Stellungnahme einer Forscherin:

Researchers have done this* and find that for men there is no amount of income that the woman in the bottom ten percent in terms of appearance can earn to make men prefer her over women in the top 10 percent. That is, looks really matter to men relative to income. For women though, if the man in the bottom ten percent in terms of looks earns more than $248,500, they will prefer him over the more attractive guy earning $60,000. My students often interpret this result as saying that women really care about money, but that is not what it says at all—$186,000 is a huge difference in income. If women didn’t care about looks and only cared about money, the figure would be much, much lower. This says that despite the impression that on the marriage market women really care about income, the evidence suggest that they also care about looks. They just care about income too.

Quelle: Do Women Really Value Income Over Looks in a Mate?

Und schließlich noch:

Three out of four women said they would not wed someone without a job, and 65 percent would feel uncomfortable tying the knot if they themselves were jobless.

But more than 91 percent of single women said they would marry for love over money.

„It is ironic that women place more weight on love than money, yet won’t marry if they or their potential suitor is unemployed,“ said Meghan Casserly, of ForbesWoman which conducted the survey with the website YourTango.com.

Quelle: Women will wed for love, if partner has job

 

Bei dem letzten Zitat handelt es sich natürlich nur um eine Internetbefragung, aber ich denke es gibt die Meinungen vieler Frauen recht gut wieder. Das Problem ist eben, dass eine Frau natürlich aus Liebe heiraten würde, auch wenn derjenige kein Geld hat, dass aber gar kein Geld haben (was meist die Folge ist, wenn man keinen Job hat) dazu führt, dass sich Frauen nicht in einen Verlieben, weil es eben einen niedrigen Status signalisieren KANN. Aber eben nicht muss. Eine Frau kann sich sicherlich zu einem arbeitslosen Mann hingezogen fühlen und in ihn verlieben, wenn er anderweitig Status darstellen kann oder sie denkt, dass seine Arbeitslosigkeit nur ein vorübergehender Zustand sein muss (bis er zB mit seiner Band groß rauskommt).

Die Diskrepanz ist also nur eine solche, wenn man nicht versteht, dass Geld nur ein Symbol für andere Attraktivitätsmerkmale ist. Deswegen zieht auch extremer Reichtum bei Frauen mehr als bei Männern, weil es eben Status signalisieren kann.