The Necessities and Luxuries of Mate Preferences: Testing the Tradeoffs

Norman P. Li. J. Michael Bailey. Douglas T. Kenrick. Joan A. W. Linsenmeier (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2002)

Social exchange and evolutionary models of mate selection incorporate economic assumptions but have not considered a key distinction between necessities and luxuries. This distinction can clarify an apparent paradox: Status and attractiveness, though emphasized by many researchers, are not typically rated highly by research participants. Three studies supported the hypothesis that women and men first ensure sufficient levels of necessities in potential mates before considering many other characteristics rated as more important in prior surveys.

A college woman, for example, may normally interact with men with similar socioeconomic status and career opportunities. When evaluating potential mates, she may not routinely think about social status and earning prospects because most men she encounters are within the range she considers sufficient. Instead, she may pay more attention to factors with greater perceived variation among the men with whom she interacts. Yet if she were comparing men whose economic conditions ranged much lower, the importance of status might quickly rise to the surface (Townsend, 1993). Similarly, a college man typically encounters 18?22-year-old, generally healthy women. This problem also applies to surveys in which traits are ranked (e.g., Buss & Barnes, 1986, Study 2 ). For instance, if asked to rank the importance of food, water, and oxygen, one might choose that exact order in terms of the amount of daily thought processes devoted to obtaining such items (people rarely think about obtaining oxygen because it is abundant). However, the reverse order is true in terms of essentiality to life (i.e., the amount of time one could survive if completely deprived of each item).

Findings obtained from two methodologies and two types of samples offer convergent support for our predictions that women would value status and resources and men would value physical attractiveness much like they would value economic necessities. In Studies 1 and 2, we used a budget allocation framework that allowed us to vary the constraints participants faced in acquiring levels of various characteristics in a mate. When overall choice was most constrained, people tended to allocate the largest proportion of their budgets to hypothesized necessities. At a high budget level, after minimums for these characteristics were met, people allocated less of their budget to necessities and more of their marginal income to other characteristics. In study 3, we used a method that allowed participants to screen hypothetical longterm mates. When making initial inquiries about a candidate, women typically wanted to ensure that a partner was at least average on social status. Men wanted to know first that a woman was at least average on physical attractiveness.

Tutkimus antaa vastauksen Ruman naisen alati askarruttavaan kysymykseen: Kelpaavatko vain kauniit naiset miehille? "En ollenkaan käsitä sitä miksi miehet pitävät rumia naisia huonompina kuin kauniita naisia. Minä kun en pidä rumia miehiä mitenkään huonompina kuin komeita miehiä." Todella rumien naisten asemat pitkäaikaisten parisuhteiden markkinoilla eivät näytä todellakaan kovin ruusuisilta.