Footnote step 1 Extremely users was in fact heterosexual (85%) Footnote dos and you may 1 / 2 of (50%) was in fact in a loyal dating
Means
Just how do individuals create conclusion throughout the exactly who to couple that have whenever they are exposed to unattractive mating prospects? Within this analysis, i investigate exactly how – when real appeal is actually missing – participant’s intercourse and you may dealbreaker/dealmaker advice influence new desirability critiques from enough time-term and you will brief-term friends. I assume (H1) boys (than the ladies) discover also ugly aim more desirable regarding the brief-term framework (especially when combined with some favorable guidance) and you will (H2) ladies in order to maintain low levels interesting into unappealing plans regardless off mating framework otherwise information considering. We including expect that (H3), complete, lady would-be quicker interested than men in possible mates exactly who is substandard during the physical attractiveness. Likewise, we predict that (H4) learning bad facts about unsightly targets want to make targets faster prominent than simply understanding good recommendations (Jonason ainsi que al. 2015, 2020a, b).
Players and functions
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 fast flirting mobile.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 ? = 0.92) and confirmed that these targets were rated on average (M = 2.65, SD = 1.05) below the scale’s midpoint (t = -, p