Men tend to want the woman they see in front of them, while women want the man other women see: Are women more interested in men who are already in a relationship? Female and male participants who were single or in a relationship viewed information about an opposite-sex other and indicated their interest in pursuing this target. Half of the participants were told that the target was single and half read that the target was currently in a relationship. The results showed that only single women were more interested in pursuing an attached target rather than a single target. …
This study was of college undergraduates ONLY. Cute study, but essentially worthless as to what [all] women want/desire. College kids are generally more promiscuous - which this study may confirm.
It can be helpful, when reading results like these and thinking about certain human dynamics, to pretend there are really three genders: Females, Alpha males and Beta males.
In most human societies until the advent of birth control and hygeinic abortion, about 80-90% of women reproduced in each generation, whereas around 40-50% of men did. (You have many more female ancestors than you have male ancestors.) As long as a woman is healthy, she is deemed a candidate for reproduction, whereas a man has to meet much higher standards to get a woman to commit the serious resources it costs her to bear and care for children.
A man with another woman is more likely to be Alpha, very obviously. The best reproductive strategy for a woman is to get the committmentt of a Beta male, and the sperm of an Alpha. Her children will be cared for by the Beta and her sons will be more likely to be Alpha themselves and therefore reproduce. This is genetically and economically maximal.
It's very risky socially, of course. If the ruse is discovered, she risks ostracization and maybe even death (via jealous husband). So this acts as a cap on female behavior of this kind, but the rewards for this behavior are also very high and so it remains as a viable strategy.
It's an even better strategy if women remain utterly baffled as to their own behavior. Hence the proliferation of just-so stories that justify women's poaching instincts, or explanations which manage to shift the blame for poaching behavior back onto the man, or "self-esteem issues" or other betes-noires.
The sample size was 150 people, all undergraduates at the college in which the experiment was done. Like many psychology experiments, it's difficult to draw any conclusions when the sample size is so low.
Also, I'd like to know (wasn't mentioned in the paper) what else the woman was told about the man. Usually in studies like this they mention 10 attributes so the attention is not brought to the one they're studying. They could've done height, hobbies, background,or whatever. Maybe they did do this right, but it's not mentioned.
I always had a girlfriend of some sort in high school and college. The woman who I married once asked me why whenever a period of time came up in past and she asked me who my girlfriend was, I always had an answer. I told her that if there was not any woman in particular I wanted, I would date the girls that came after me. When she asked me why, I told her that I had figured out that when I wanted to go after a girl, they were always more interested in me knowing that I had a girlfriend already. I think in the woman's mind, that fact puts a minimum fitness on the man, thinking well how bad can he be if someone else likes him now.
Anyhow always worked for, and it generally meant I got some sex on a regular basis even when not deeply attracted to a particular woman at the time. Before you think too poorly of me, I have been married for 23 years and have never strayed. Not once.
Couldn't the results of the poaching study be interpreted to indicate women (unconsciosly?) view attached men as more likely to commit than the unattached?
>An attached man signals desirability, therefore more attractive to a woman, who goes (relatively) for quality.
At first I didn't even want to see this, but in retrospect I can think of a lot of attractive married men I've known. But there's a kind of ethical shutdown and I would never even consider pursuing them. It goes beyond a conscious decision and I just see them a bit differently. (Can have a bit of a safe flirtation mind you but it's very small. :))
Maybe men also have that experience and that's another reason less of them "poach". Men are very territorial and indeed may see it as protecting another man's property or territory.
Why do blogs written about male and female relationships always get like three times as many comments? Are Robin's readers really that insightful when it comes to matters of the opposite sex? Or are we all so obsessed with finding causality patterns that we delusionaly believe we have knowledge and insight into the greatest economic puzzle ever-the human female?
As a loyal reader of OB, I like to think it's the former.
This is generally a problem with psychology experiments that deal with dating, hooking up, and relationships. Most of these experiments use college students because they're the easiest subjects to get your hands on when you work at a college.
In some studies I read about (in a psychology class, incidentally), this sample bias completely altered the results. One major study linking social status to male attractiveness got blown apart when it was repeated with groups of different socio-economic statuses. It turns out that women tend to find guys of similar economic and intellectual backgrounds more attractive. So the original study's result showing that women liked lawyers and doctors over mechanics and lumberjacks was a result of the women surveyed being the above-average-intellect, middle-class to upper-middle-class girls you find at a typical college, whereas the girls who didn't go to college (and were thus not a part of the sample group) preferred the mechanics and lumberjacks.
They control for it by not providing information on it. Since it's difficult to determine without specific information, it can't be a confounding variable (yes, I realize you're kidding)
I suspect that men have a harder time retaining a girlfriend than women have retaining a boyfriend. If it's easier for a girl to enter a relationship than for a guy to enter a relationship, then the relationship status of the guy provides more information. Currently having a girlfriend indicates that one is a (at least somewhat) capable boyfriend. By contrast, almost any girl is capable of finding a guy willing to be her boyfriend, so long as she's at least somewhat attractive and not insane. Guys will put up with more shit from a somewhat attractive girlfriend than girls will from a somewhat attractive boyfriend. Therefore, a guy's relationship status tells more about his non-physical characteristics than a girl's relationship status.
On a baser level, female attention to a guy is social proof that the guy is attractive. If I'm talking to an attractive woman and flirting with her and she's interested, then that tells other women that I must be interesting. By contrast, a moderately attractive woman will have piles of guys paying attention to her even if she's totally boring, so all that male attention says about an even marginally attractive woman is that she's attractive.
Research on animal mating (e.g., fish, birds) has shown that female animals are more likely to choose a male that has already been chosen by other females … Research on human preferences does show that women rate men as more desirable when they are surrounded by other women, compared to being alone or surrounded by other men
For a certain model (agreeable or not) this is called 'pre-selection', and it's a sort of a shortcut: if other woman chose a man, it implies it's valuable.
Yes, exactly. This is a trivial example of female hypergamy vs. male polygamy. An attached woman is harder to get, therefore less attractive to a male, who goes (relatively) for volume. An attached man signals desirability, therefore more attractive to a woman, who goes (relatively) for quality.
This study was of college undergraduates ONLY. Cute study, but essentially worthless as to what [all] women want/desire. College kids are generally more promiscuous - which this study may confirm.
It can be helpful, when reading results like these and thinking about certain human dynamics, to pretend there are really three genders: Females, Alpha males and Beta males.
In most human societies until the advent of birth control and hygeinic abortion, about 80-90% of women reproduced in each generation, whereas around 40-50% of men did. (You have many more female ancestors than you have male ancestors.) As long as a woman is healthy, she is deemed a candidate for reproduction, whereas a man has to meet much higher standards to get a woman to commit the serious resources it costs her to bear and care for children.
A man with another woman is more likely to be Alpha, very obviously. The best reproductive strategy for a woman is to get the committmentt of a Beta male, and the sperm of an Alpha. Her children will be cared for by the Beta and her sons will be more likely to be Alpha themselves and therefore reproduce. This is genetically and economically maximal.
It's very risky socially, of course. If the ruse is discovered, she risks ostracization and maybe even death (via jealous husband). So this acts as a cap on female behavior of this kind, but the rewards for this behavior are also very high and so it remains as a viable strategy.
It's an even better strategy if women remain utterly baffled as to their own behavior. Hence the proliferation of just-so stories that justify women's poaching instincts, or explanations which manage to shift the blame for poaching behavior back onto the man, or "self-esteem issues" or other betes-noires.
The sample size was 150 people, all undergraduates at the college in which the experiment was done. Like many psychology experiments, it's difficult to draw any conclusions when the sample size is so low.
Also, I'd like to know (wasn't mentioned in the paper) what else the woman was told about the man. Usually in studies like this they mention 10 attributes so the attention is not brought to the one they're studying. They could've done height, hobbies, background,or whatever. Maybe they did do this right, but it's not mentioned.
"Why do blogs written about male and female relationships always get like three times as many comments?"
Gender is the mind-killer.
Being a man or a woman makes everyone feel expert on it.
I hope this comment is added to every blog post on the Internet that quotes a study.
I always had a girlfriend of some sort in high school and college. The woman who I married once asked me why whenever a period of time came up in past and she asked me who my girlfriend was, I always had an answer. I told her that if there was not any woman in particular I wanted, I would date the girls that came after me. When she asked me why, I told her that I had figured out that when I wanted to go after a girl, they were always more interested in me knowing that I had a girlfriend already. I think in the woman's mind, that fact puts a minimum fitness on the man, thinking well how bad can he be if someone else likes him now.
Anyhow always worked for, and it generally meant I got some sex on a regular basis even when not deeply attracted to a particular woman at the time. Before you think too poorly of me, I have been married for 23 years and have never strayed. Not once.
This reminds me of a joke I once read.
Q) Why did the economist turn down the man's offer of a date?A) Because he was single.
Couldn't the results of the poaching study be interpreted to indicate women (unconsciosly?) view attached men as more likely to commit than the unattached?
>An attached man signals desirability, therefore more attractive to a woman, who goes (relatively) for quality.
At first I didn't even want to see this, but in retrospect I can think of a lot of attractive married men I've known. But there's a kind of ethical shutdown and I would never even consider pursuing them. It goes beyond a conscious decision and I just see them a bit differently. (Can have a bit of a safe flirtation mind you but it's very small. :))
Maybe men also have that experience and that's another reason less of them "poach". Men are very territorial and indeed may see it as protecting another man's property or territory.
Why do blogs written about male and female relationships always get like three times as many comments? Are Robin's readers really that insightful when it comes to matters of the opposite sex? Or are we all so obsessed with finding causality patterns that we delusionaly believe we have knowledge and insight into the greatest economic puzzle ever-the human female?
As a loyal reader of OB, I like to think it's the former.
This is generally a problem with psychology experiments that deal with dating, hooking up, and relationships. Most of these experiments use college students because they're the easiest subjects to get your hands on when you work at a college.
In some studies I read about (in a psychology class, incidentally), this sample bias completely altered the results. One major study linking social status to male attractiveness got blown apart when it was repeated with groups of different socio-economic statuses. It turns out that women tend to find guys of similar economic and intellectual backgrounds more attractive. So the original study's result showing that women liked lawyers and doctors over mechanics and lumberjacks was a result of the women surveyed being the above-average-intellect, middle-class to upper-middle-class girls you find at a typical college, whereas the girls who didn't go to college (and were thus not a part of the sample group) preferred the mechanics and lumberjacks.
They control for it by not providing information on it. Since it's difficult to determine without specific information, it can't be a confounding variable (yes, I realize you're kidding)
I suspect that men have a harder time retaining a girlfriend than women have retaining a boyfriend. If it's easier for a girl to enter a relationship than for a guy to enter a relationship, then the relationship status of the guy provides more information. Currently having a girlfriend indicates that one is a (at least somewhat) capable boyfriend. By contrast, almost any girl is capable of finding a guy willing to be her boyfriend, so long as she's at least somewhat attractive and not insane. Guys will put up with more shit from a somewhat attractive girlfriend than girls will from a somewhat attractive boyfriend. Therefore, a guy's relationship status tells more about his non-physical characteristics than a girl's relationship status.
On a baser level, female attention to a guy is social proof that the guy is attractive. If I'm talking to an attractive woman and flirting with her and she's interested, then that tells other women that I must be interesting. By contrast, a moderately attractive woman will have piles of guys paying attention to her even if she's totally boring, so all that male attention says about an even marginally attractive woman is that she's attractive.
Research on animal mating (e.g., fish, birds) has shown that female animals are more likely to choose a male that has already been chosen by other females … Research on human preferences does show that women rate men as more desirable when they are surrounded by other women, compared to being alone or surrounded by other men
For a certain model (agreeable or not) this is called 'pre-selection', and it's a sort of a shortcut: if other woman chose a man, it implies it's valuable.
Yes, exactly. This is a trivial example of female hypergamy vs. male polygamy. An attached woman is harder to get, therefore less attractive to a male, who goes (relatively) for volume. An attached man signals desirability, therefore more attractive to a woman, who goes (relatively) for quality.