TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

137

Different design/methodology, same findings.




https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5519305/ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/per.2087 http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2087

Predicting Romantic Interest at Zero Acquaintance: Evidence of Sex Differences in Trait Perception but Not in Predictors of Interest

Sally G. Olderbak^1, Frederic Malter^2, Pedro Sofio Abril Wolf^3, Daniel N. Jones^4, and Aurelio José Figueredo^5

  1. Ulm University, Ulm, Germany
  2. Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy, Munich, Germany
  3. Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA USA
  4. University of Texas, El Paso, El Paso, TX USA
  5. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ USA

Abstract: We evaluated five competing hypotheses about what predicts romantic interest. Through a half-block quasi-experimental design, a large sample of young adults (i.e., responders; n = 335) viewed videos of opposite-sex persons (i.e., targets) talking about themselves and responders rated the targets’ traits and their romantic interest in the target. We tested whether similarity, dissimilarity, or overall trait levels on mate value, physical attractiveness, life history strategy, and the Big-Five personality factors predicted romantic interest at zero acquaintance, and whether sex acted as a moderator. We tested the responders’ individual perception of the targets’ traits, in addition to the targets’ own self-reported trait levels and a consensus rating of the targets made by the responders. We used polynomial regression with response surface analysis within multilevel modeling to test support for each of the hypotheses. Results suggest a large sex difference in trait perception; when women rated men, they agreed in their perception more often than when men rated women. However, as a predictor of romantic interest, there were no sex differences. Only the responders’ perception of the targets’ physical attractiveness predicted romantic interest; specifically, responders’ who rated the targets’ physical attractiveness as higher than themselves reported more romantic interest.


I'll just skip to an excerpt of their discussion points this time, but as a general rule, it's always recommended not to take anyone's word (or disembodied quote!) about what a given study concludes (including the own authors!). It's always a good exercise to read the full text with a keen eye on the methodology and results to render your own assessment of the data and overall quality and relevance of the study.

Discussion

Summary of Key Findings

Overall, we found sex differences in trait perception, with female responders more often coming to an agreement in their perception of the male targets’ traits than male responders with female targets. However, there were strong halo effects in trait perception for women. A closer examination suggested that the female responders’ ratings of the targets’ Big-Five personality factors were mostly driven by their ratings of the targets’ mate value and slow life history strategy. Finally, we found that of all of the traits and score types assessed, romantic interest was only predicted by the responders’ perception of the targets’ physical attractiveness, with no moderating effect of the responders’ sex. Specifically, responders’ were interested in targets’ who they perceived to be higher than themselves on physical attractiveness. Thus, we found partial support for the third hypothesis (high or higher values on socially desirable traits predicts attraction) and for the fifth hypothesis (readily perceived traits predict attraction) because these hypotheses were only supported for physical attractiveness. We found no support for the first hypothesis (similarity predicts attraction), for the second hypothesis (dissimilarity predicts attraction), or for the fourth hypothesis (sex moderates what predicts attraction). These effects will be discussed in turn in the next sections.

Predictors of Romantic Interest

Partially supported hypotheses In partial support of the third hypothesis, we found participants were attracted to someone higher than themselves on physical attractiveness. That absolute levels of physical attractiveness are an important predictor of romantic interest is heavily supported in the literature, both empirically (e.g., Luo & Zhang, 2009) and theoretically (e.g., Buss, 1989; Sprecher, 1998). However, that the other traits were unrelated to interest is somewhat surprising. In particular, the lack of an effect for life history strategy is surprising given the heritability coefficient of this construct (h2 = .65; Figueredo et al., 2004) and the literature suggesting its importance in dating for men and women (e.g., Olderbak & Figueredo, 2012). Our findings that absolute trait levels for the Big-Five personality factors are unrelated to interest contradict the findings of others studies (e.g., Luo & Zhang, 2009) [see note], however it should be noted that often researchers do not control for perception of physical attractiveness and based on our results, we suggest that this is important to do as it acts as a third-variable.

In a partial support of the fifth hypothesis, we found that physical attractiveness, a trait that both male and female responders could agree on in their ratings of the targets, suggesting that trait could be readily perceived, predicted romantic interest. However, in contrast, the other traits for which male and female responders came to an agreement, even after controlling for halo effects, were unrelated to romantic interest (e.g., extraversion).

Note: the reference to Luo and Zhang (2009) here is with regard to something I chose not to cover in my thread on that study, figuring it was spurious: which is that while male personality did not predict female romantic interest, somewhat surprisingly a few of the female Big Five personality trait categories were found to significantly predict male romantic interest. This study being unable to reproduce that finding supports my suspicion that the finding was probably spurious (as the authors here also suggest).


[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (11 children) | Copy Link

High IQ and blackpilled. I would love to know if these findings change at non-zero acquaintance. And how being unattractive could possibly be a hindrance to acquaintance, as in unattractive people are more likely to have fewer friends of the opposite gender.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

i have 0 friends and everyone is standoffish to me but im not even ugly what the fuck gives, is it cuz im ethnic.

[–]KyfhoMyoba 2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Maybe you're just a tool.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Yea i should just fucking kill myself

[–]KyfhoMyoba 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Bullshit. Stop denying your agency. You are not at the mercy of your DNA. Figure out what you're doing wrong, and fix it.

There is a guy that's about 3 or 4 feet long (I say long, not tall, because he is a quadriplegic) and he's got a girlfriend, HB7, at least. His name, IIRC, is Sean Stephenson. Tony Robbins has spoken about him. If a fucking mutant like him can get a gf, you've got no excuses.

You are doing something wrong, it is within your control, and you can figure out what it is, and you can fix it, motherfucker. No more whining.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

hey hey HEY GUIS. This one giy wone de powerball u win posibal

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

cope

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry OffensiveName8, your submission has been removed from BlackPillScience because your account is new.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]SubsaharanAmericanshitty h-index[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I would love to know if these findings change at non-zero acquaintance.

Paul Eastwick has a paper which sheds some light on this, but it is incredibly limited in its generalizability secondary to using a convenience sample. Nevertheless, in case it may be of interest, I discuss it a little bit here (and include a link). The Eastwick paper's findings are somewhat inconsistent with the 0-acquaintance prefs but it should be noted that with such a limited number of male targets in the Eastwick paper, the between-target rating variance almost certainly did not come close to approximating that of the general population (i.e., including extremes, of which I imagine many blackpilled folks consider themselves to be on one end of). Adding to this, is that generally within-target rating variance is greatest at the midrange of attractiveness (i.e., greater consensus about the extremes). The combination of these factors, plus the caveats stated in the link, substantially limits the interpretation of Eastwick's findings. So, tl;dr: there's still not much out there to robustly address non-zero acquaintance

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I intentionally avoid talking to people unless I have to or if it helps me make money.

[–]Leonidas_79 13 points14 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Personality is a myth. Game and masculine dominance is what’s important.

If you’re Alpha and have abundance, she gets attracted and stays hooked.

[–]Not_My_Real_Acct_ 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

If you’re Alpha and have abundance, she gets attracted and stays hooked.

Yeah I think this is true:

When I was 25 I was probably more attractive than 90% of the guys I knew. I got girls but it was a struggle.

Twenty years later, I'm a fat mess. But girls throw themselves at me every day. Yeah, I know that sounds like I'm larping.

I have a lot of money and I'm really ostentatious about it. Women eat it up.

[–]KyfhoMyoba 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's probably more the ostentatious part than the money part. Test that - i.e., don't talk about or show off your money, just be super extraverted and confident.

Behavioral cues trump genetic cues six ways from Sunday.

Game and frame rule all.

[–]Writing_Weird 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Good hygiene, a light work out routine, genuine interests, ambitions and goals, a job relative to age, transportation, and then personality.

[–]Leonidas_79 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yea it’s how you carry yourself.

[–]Who_watches 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Professor Sub Saharan African with another dime.

[–]SinglehoodVeteran 10 points11 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Physical Attractiveness is the Strongest Predictor of Initial Romantic Interest in Both Sexes

Are there actually people who disagree with this assertion? It's basic fact. Initial romantic interest almost always has to depend on looks, because that's what you first know about a person. It's the first thing you see, the first judgement you can possibly make in most cases. You see the lightning (looks) before you hear the thunder (personality). A man or woman making the determination if a person is attractive to them is definitely a core factor in one's initial interest.

No Evidence Personality Plays Any Role

Personality plays the second role, just not the initial one. Both halves are a necessary component of a budding relationship. You can think someone is pretty damn attractive, but if they open their mouth and nothing but shitty opinions or any kind of misandry/misogyny/racism/etc comes out, then you're going to not want to be around them. Looks are what gets you in the running, but personality determines whether you win the race.

[–]nerocon1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Why don't you post on /r/PurplePillDebate ?

[–]SubsaharanAmericanshitty h-index[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I do, occasionally. I don't post studies there though. Bit of a time commitment and I'm not sure what more I can say about a study.. there's not really much to debate here

[–]NoSexMonk 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

high iq and blackpilled great post bruv

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Sorry OffensiveName8, your submission has been removed from BlackPillScience because your account is new.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]warm20 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

double ouch

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter