TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

26

Sex-differentiated effects of physical attractiveness on romantic desire: a highly powered, preregistered study in a photograph evaluation context (doi.org)

submitted by NubhumanSigger


[–]NubhumanSigger 1 points [recovered]  (9 children) | Copy Link

Eastwick and co back at it again with the brutal blackpills.

The current registered report used very large samples of both participants (N = 1,204) and stimuli photographs (N = 593) to test the sex difference in the attractiveness-desire association. The sex difference emerged with objective assessments of attractiveness from independent raters (approximately q = .13, a small effect) but not with participants’ own assessments of attractiveness (q = .00). Various other moderators that have been summoned to explain cross-study variability in prior research received no support (e.g. the sex difference was not larger in serious relationship contexts, the low-to-moderate range of attractiveness, etc.).

Things to take away

  1. Woman's attractiveness is more homogeneous than men's.

  2. Physical attractiveness inspires romantic desire in both genders equally.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Homogeneous means women are all attracted to the same thing, whereas men find more women attractive?

[–]NubhumanSigger 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

Women's attractiveness is more set in stone, whereas men's is more varied.

If you get 100 men to rate a bunch of women, they are likely going to agree slightly more than vice versa.

Of course, this isn't to say men's attractiveness cannot be objectively decided either. There are simply more ways a man can appear physically attractive.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

There are simply more ways a man can appear physically attractive.

do you mean more ways a woman can appear attractive

[–]NubhumanSigger 1 points [recovered]  (3 children) | Copy Link

The opposite.

[–]mslxn 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It means the opposite of how you're interpreting it. This is why a background in statistics is important in evaluating studies. The study combined with data we have on women's selectivity (95% of men being unattractive, 5% being attractive) means that there are vastly more ways they can be unattractive, not attractive.

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

Your description of this study makes no sense to anyone

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

Precisely.

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

Dios mio

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

Instead of top 50 / bottom 50, I wish they would have done top 10, bottom 90 in their 'moderator analysis.' Would have been more interesting. Of course, anyone who's on this subreddit should know that a slightly higher rater agreement among men does not mean anything significant in terms of rater agreement in the real world. Unless, of course, one wants to challenge the idea that women are attracted to a much narrower portion of the opposite sex.

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

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