Gender Similarity in Interpersonal Attraction in a Simulated Online Dating Context Sierra Peters and Hannah Salzsieder St

https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN23.4.320

What Makes You Swipe Right?: Gender Similarity in Interpersonal Attraction in a Simulated Online Dating Context Sierra Peters and Hannah Salzsieder St. Norbert College

ABSTRACT. Online dating is quickly becoming one of the most popular ways to select a prospective dating partner. With this in mind, we examined 2 factors influencing interpersonal attraction and deliberate evaluations of a partner, facial attractiveness and ambition, in a simulated online dating context. College-age participants viewed an online dating profile that depicted either a more or a less physically attractive college-age individual of the other sex and described the individual as either more ambitious or less ambitious. Participants then completed a brief likeability questionnaire to measure their interpersonal attraction to the person in the profile. Participants rated the profile higher (more favorably) on the scale of interpersonal attraction when it displayed a more physically attractive person, F(1, 116) = 23.68, p < .001, η2 = .16. Participants also rated the profile higher when the autobiography depicted a more ambitious person, F(1, 116) = 20.92, p < .001, η2 = .16. None of the interactions were significant. This investigation highlighted gender similarity by demonstrating that both women and men viewed physical attractiveness and ambition as desirable characteristics when selecting a potential dating partner.

riendships and romantic relationships, unlike online dating, which is not present in traditional family ties, are chosen and develop over time. dating, involves creating a dating profile in which F They have their start in initial encounters individuals present certain aspects of who they and first impressions. Favorable impressions may are. Goffman’s (1959), The Presentation of Self in lead to interpersonal attraction. Initial attraction Everyday Life, discussed two different manners in may deepen into a long lasting relationship. In which people present themselves: as performers the case of romantic relationships, the nature of and as characters. Whitty (2007) investigated how first encounters is changing. In the past, people people presented themselves online and judged often met for the first time face-to-face, whether at others’ online self-presentations. She conducted work or school, at church or a bar, or through an a series of interviews with 30 women and 30 men introduction from a mutual friend. Technology has who had experience with online dating. She found changed that. Online dating is quickly becoming that participants created online dating profiles one of the most popular ways to meet a prospective in the manner of a performer (Goffman, 1959). dating partner (Pew Research Center, 2016). Participants acknowledged the importance of As the name would suggest, a major difference “selling themselves” (writing their profiles in a way between online dating and traditional dating is that would appear attractive to others). Participants the setting in which it takes place. In the age of FALL 2018 admitted to misrepresenting themselves with the online dating, first impressions are no longer PSI CHI goal of being perceived as more attractive to others JOURNAL OF face-to-face but instead consist of one or multiple PSYCHOLOGICAL photos and a brief autobiography. A key feature of Faculty mentor: Stuart Korshavn, PhD RESEARCH

(Whitty, 2007). The processes of self-presentation (Saegert, Swap, & Zajonc, 1973). Saegert et al. and impression formation may be different in (1973) conducted two studies testing the mere online and traditional dating. The misrepresenta- exposure effect and context. Mere exposure was tion that occurs in the context of online dating can manipulated by varying the number of interactions make it difficult to separate fact from fiction. participants had with each other. Context was Another practice in online dating that dif- manipulated by having participants drink either fers from face-to-face dating is communication. pleasant or unpleasant tasting beverages. The Nonverbal communication is an important part results showed that attraction increased with the of impression formation and attraction (Givens, number of interactions, regardless of the context. 1978). However, nonverbal cues present in face-to- Another factor influencing interpersonal face dating such as tone of voice, gestures, posture, attraction is similarity (Montoya & Horton, 2013; and mannerisms are not present in electronic Reid & Davis, 2013). Individuals often choose message exchanges. In online dating, communica- to date those who are similar to them in some tion is also asynchronous. Because people are not way including sharing demographic, physical, physically together when communicating, there personality, and attitude characteristics. A study are often delays between messages. Traditional and examining interpersonal attraction and similarity online dating encompass differing contexts and (Reid & Davis, 2013) found that participants were practices. Thus, it is important to determine if the more attracted to partners who, when they first same variables, which are important in face-to-face met, held similar attitudes to their own and also to dating, have an effect on online dating. partners who, over time, changed their attitudes to be more like the participants’. Another inves- Factors Influencing Attraction tigation of interpersonal attraction and similarity It is both natural and healthy for human beings (Tidwell & Eastwick, 2012) found that perceived to form romantic relationships with others (Buss, similarity was a stronger predictor of attraction 1989; Diener & Oishi, 2005; House, Landis, & than actual similarity. The researchers found this Umberson, 1988). Psychological and evolutionary for specifically perceived similarity (e.g., certain factors play a role in influencing the selection of traits and attitudes) as well as general perceived a potential dating partner. Psychological factors similarity (e.g., how similar individuals felt overall). that influence attraction include proximity, mere This may be attributable to people’s tendency to exposure, similarity, type of relationship, verbal use their schemas to infer additional information communication patterns, and desirable personality about others such as similarity among other traits traits such as ambition. and attitudes not specifically mentioned. Proximity and physical closeness increase The type of relationship desired (e.g., short- the likelihood of forming relationships (Priest & term vs. long-term or romantic vs. friendship) also Sawyer, 1967). People have more frequent encoun- influences attraction and selection of a potential ters with those who are close by. In a classic study dating partner. Regan and Joshi (2003) investigated examining the effect of proximity on interpersonal ideal partner preferences among adolescents, the attraction, Priest and Sawyer (1967) studied the age when romantic attraction and dating often interactions of students in a dormitory for two emerges. Their results indicated that young people semesters. The closer in proximity that students have different preferences depending on the lived to their peers, the more they recognized length of the relationship. When considering the and liked (were interpersonally attracted to) their ideal long-term partner, adolescents emphasized peers. Even in the second semester when students intrinsic qualities such as intelligence and humor. recognized peers who lived on the other side of the When considering the ideal short-term partner, building, those peers were still liked less than peers however, adolescents emphasized externally who lived closer to the students. The results showed visible attributes such as physical attractiveness that proximity was a strong predictor of attraction and attributes related to sex drive. The long-term (Priest & Sawyer, 1967). and short-term preferences found in the present A phenomenon that often results from study supported previous findings about adult proximity is mere exposure. Mere exposure is a preferences as well (Regan & Joshi, 2003). In FALL 2018 phenomenon by which more frequent exposure another study examining preferences for differ- PSI CHI to and familiarity with a stimulus (e.g., an object, ent relationship types (Sprecher & Regan, 2002), JOURNAL OF person, song) lead to greater liking of that stimulus women and men generally preferred several PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

desirable traits including kindness, expressiveness, extreme or exaggerated facial features can be seen and a sense of humor. However, they desired a as attractive, so long as bilateral symmetry is present higher level of these desirable traits in a romantic (Eisenthal et al., 2006). partner than in a friend. People also preferred a Physical attractiveness has been shown to be date or romantic partner to have a higher level of one of the strongest predictors of interpersonal physical attractiveness than they preferred a friend attraction. Although physical attractiveness tends to have. to be considered more important by men, it is Previous research has suggested that com- also a strong predictor of attraction for women. munication patterns play in attraction. Wright, Physical attractiveness is such an important factor in Bates, and Ferguson (2007) examined the effects of dating because the level of physical attractiveness is stereotypically masculine and feminine communica- immediately visible to others. Other characteristics tion patterns on attraction. The results indicated such as a sense of humor and intelligence can take that both women and men showed a preference for time to discern, whereas good looks are detected stereotypically feminine patterns of communication instantaneously. First impressions are important such as offering empathy and support, sharing when selecting a potential dating partner, and experiences, and asking questions. Women strongly physical attractiveness has a large effect on this preferred this open pattern of communication, and initial reaction (Olivola, Eastwick, Finkel, Ariely, & men slightly favored this pattern, suggesting gender Todorov, 2011). convergence. Gender differences occurred only in In a classic summary of early research on intensity of attraction toward this communication interpersonal attraction, Byrne and Griffitt (1973) pattern (Wright et al., 2007). discussed common determinants of attraction. Along with psychological factors, researchers Much of the experimental work they reviewed dem- and theorists have considered evolutionary fac- onstrated that physical attractiveness was positively tors that may influence attractions. Evolutionary related to interpersonal attraction. When a target factors that influence the selection of a potential photo was presented, both women and men rated mate include resource possession, reproductive more physically attractive photos higher on a scale capability, and physical attractiveness. Women of interpersonal attraction (Byrne, London, & tend to prefer a mate who possesses resources or Reeves, 1968). Byrne and Griffitt (1973) concluded is likely to acquire resources. These resources can that physical attractiveness was an important factor help offspring survive. Thus, women are attracted in selecting short-term dating partners as well as to men who demonstrate characteristics associated long-term spouses. Although physical attractive- with resource acquisition such as industriousness, ness is a stronger factor for men, both women earning capacity, and ambition. Across cultures, and men valued attractiveness when selecting a women value ambition in a mate more than men romantic partner (Stroebe, Insko, Thompson, & do (Buss, 1989; Eagly & Wood, 1999). In contrast, Layton, 1971). There was also a positive relation- men tend to prefer a mate who has reproductive ship between prestige and interpersonal attraction capability. Thus, men are attracted to women who (Bond, Byrne, & Diamond, 1968) as well as intel- possess characteristics associated with fertility lectual competence and interpersonal attraction such as youth and physical attractiveness (a sign (Griffitt & Jackson, 1970). of health). Crosscultural research (Eagly & Wood, 1999) offered strong support for the prediction Overview of Present Research that males value physical attractiveness more than Li et al. (2013) conducted four studies to examine women do. Although traits considered as attrac- whether people’s mate preferences (favoring tive can vary across cultures such as weight and particular traits) predicted actual attraction to skin color, some characteristics related to physical and choice of a date in the early stages of dating. attractiveness are universal. For example, traits asso- Before each study began, participants filled out a ciated with youth and fertility such as smooth skin, questionnaire indicating the importance of social full lips, and muscle tone are considered attractive status and physical attractiveness in a potential date across many cultures (Buss, 1989; Eisenthal, Dror, (mate preference). In the first two experiments, FALL 2018 & Ruppin, 2006). Typically, average faces are seen researchers manipulated social status and physical as more attractive because unusual facial features attractiveness in an online messaging paradigm. PSI CHI JOURNAL OF can be associated with hereditary disease or repro- In the second two experiments, the same variables PSYCHOLOGICAL ductive problems. There is also some evidence that were manipulated in a speed-dating paradigm. After RESEARCH

322 COPYRIGHT 2018 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 23, NO. 4/ISSN 2325-7342) Peters and Salzsieder | Interpersonal Attraction interacting with the potential dates, participants confident they were of themselves, which in turn filled out a survey about how attracted they were influenced their personal descriptions. As a result to the person, and if they would be interested in of this mediating relationship, the investigators going on a date with him or her. Li et al. predicted concluded that online dating does not provide a that physical attractiveness would influence men’s context that would level the playing field of dating. romantic interest more than women’s, and that Lee, Dubbs, Von Hippel, Brooks, and Zietseh social status would influence women’s romantic (2014) created a simulation of online dating. interest more than men’s. The results supported They investigated how multiple variables affected both of their hypotheses. In the pre-study survey, women’s and men’s mate preferences in an online men rated physical attractiveness as more important dating context. The investigators hypothesized than women did, and women rated social status as that facial attractiveness, perceived femininity or more important than men did. Physical attractive- masculinity, perceived intelligence, and whether ness increased both men’s and women’s evaluations participants were asked to consider the profile in of the potential dates, with whom they interacted in the context of a long-term or short-term relation- the online messaging and speed dating simulations, ship, would influence participants’ interpersonal but it was considered (marginally) more important attraction and mate selection. They created by men. Social status increased women’s evaluation simulated online dating profiles to study the effects of the potential dates, with whom they interacted of these variables. Each stimulus included a facial in the simulations, but not men’s. photo and a brief personal description. The profiles In an investigation of actual online dating varied on four dimensions: facial attractiveness, profiles, Brand, Bynatsos, D’Orazio, and DeShong perceived femininity or masculinity, perceived (2012) were interested in whether the online intelligence, and short-term versus long-term dating environment would level the playing field relationship considerations. The investigators also by allowing less attractive individuals to showcase surveyed participants on a set of demographic their appealing personalities. The researchers variables in order to take the potential effect of hypothesized that the more attractive a person those variables into consideration. They found was, the more attractive their personal description that all of the manipulated variables contributed would be rated. In order to test their hypothesis, the to the participants’ mate preference and interper- researchers recruited female participants to rate a sonal attraction to the target in the dating profile. number of male dating profiles. Each participant Greater masculinization of men’s profiles and evaluated 25 photos and 25 autobiographies from greater feminization of women’s profiles increased actual dating profiles. The photos and autobi- the ratings of attraction to the target. Perceived ographies from each profile were separated and intelligence also increased ratings of attraction rated by different judges. Participants rated the to the target. An interaction showed that women photos and autobiographies on attractiveness. who were rated as more attractive received higher Participants were also asked to evaluate the profiles interpersonal attraction scores when they had an on how kind, confident, intelligent, and funny intelligent statement in their profile, compared to they thought the target was, in order to examine women who were rated as less attractive. This was if those variables had an influence on how profiles the sole interaction in the study, but the remaining were rated. The investigators assessed the relation- variables had independent and additive effects. ship between attractiveness in the photos and in Sritharan, Heilpern, Wilbur, and Gawronski the personal descriptions from the profiles. They (2010) conducted an online dating simulation found that photo attractiveness and personal to examine two of the variables that influence description attractiveness were correlated. Those impression formation and interpersonal attraction who were rated as more physically attractive also during the online dating process. They hypothesized had personal descriptions that were rated as more that facial attractiveness and self-described attractive, even though different judges rated each ambition would influence deliberate evaluations target’s autobiography and pictures. This finding of a potential dating partner in an online dating supported the hypothesis that more attractive context. The participants (100 heterosexual female men’s autobiographies would also be rated as more college students) viewed one of four possible FALL 2018 attractive. The researchers believed that perceived online dating profiles, which varied by high or low PSI CHI confidence was a mediating variable. The more attractiveness, and high or low ambition. Deliberate JOURNAL OF aware men were of their attractiveness, the more evaluations were obtained. Participants completed PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

a 5-item likability questionnaire about the target larger for women. The researchers concluded that in the profile. Spontaneous evaluations were also female ambition may be a “turn off” for men, and obtained. Participants viewed a prime stimulus (the that women with ambitious job titles may intimidate attractive or unattractive photo from the impression less ambitious men (Shames et al., 2017). Fisman, formation task) followed by a Chinese ideograph. Iyengar, Kamenica, and Simonsin (2006) found that Then, the participants rated the Chinese ideograph men avoid women with high levels of ambition as as more or less pleasant than the average. In 30 potential mates, especially when the men believe trials, the attractive photo was presented before the women’s ambition exceeds their own. the Chinese ideograph, in 30 trials, the unattractive An alternative explanation to consider is a photo was presented before the Chinese ideograph, socioeconomic model, where economic realities and in 30 trials, a gray square was presented are considered. In the United States, single-earning before the Chinese ideograph. Self-described households cannot get along well in today’s eco- ambition was not manipulated in the spontaneous nomic reality (Pew Research Center, 2015), so evaluation task. The results indicated a main effect men in the United States may set aside traditional of attractiveness on spontaneous evaluations and a gender roles in order to meet their economic main effect of both attractiveness and ambition on needs. For an average-sized family in the United deliberate evaluations. The investigators concluded States to be considered a member of the middle that both physical attractiveness and ambition have class in 2014, it needed to earn at least $48,347 an effect on the selection of a dating partner. annually. On average, dual-earner households earned $102,400, whereas single earner households The Present Study only earned $55,000. Therefore, the average single This investigation was partially modeled after the earner household barely met the threshold for the study conducted by Sritharan et al. (2010). This middle class. Although the average single-earner investigation replicated the impression forming household qualified as middle class, they likely still task and the deliberate evaluation measure. The experienced economic disadvantage. Each partner current investigation examined the effects of physi- has wage-earning potential, and in order to support cal attractiveness and ambition on both men’s and a middle class household and quality standard women’s evaluations of a potential dating partner, of living today in the United States, dual-earner whereas the original study relied on only female households are almost necessary (Pew Research participants. Further, the present study offers a Center, 2015). different cultural context because it was conducted Additionally, traditional gender roles of the in the Midwestern United States, and the Sritharan man as the breadwinner and the woman as the et al. study was conducted in Canada. housewife are shifting. In 1970 in the United States, We predicted that both facial attractiveness and only 40.7% of adult women were in the workforce. self-described ambition would have an effect on In 2009, this increased by more than 19% to 59.7% both women’s and men’s deliberate evaluations of a (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Therefore, potential dating partner. We predicted that physical because of the current economic demands and attractiveness would have a larger effect on men’s more women in the workforce (a possible indicator evaluations than women’s, because of the associa- of changing gender roles), American men’s reaction between reproductive capability and physical tions to ambitious women may be more positive attractiveness (Buss, 1989; Eagly & Wood, 1999). We than they once were. If the socioeconomic model predicted that ambition would be valued slightly is the better explanation, men would be as inter- more by women than men because of the associa- personally attracted to ambitious women as women tion between earning capacity and ambition (Buss, were to ambitious men. 1989; Eagly & Wood, 1999). Based on traditional sex roles, which hold the man as the breadwinner of the Method household, male participants may actually be intimi- Participants and Design dated by ambitious women. A study by Shames, The procedure of this study was modeled, in part, Frankel, and Farjood (2017) investigated women’s after the procedure described by Sritharan et al. FALL 2018 political ambition and its influence on attraction. (2010). Participants were a convenience sample The results indicated that both women and men consisting of 116 heterosexual college students, PSI CHI JOURNAL OF labeled with the job title “politician” were rated ages 18–22 (65 women and 51 men). Many par- PSYCHOLOGICAL as less attractive, but this effect was significantly ticipants took part in the study in exchange for RESEARCH

324 COPYRIGHT 2018 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 23, NO. 4/ISSN 2325-7342) Peters and Salzsieder | Interpersonal Attraction credit in a variety of different courses offered and that their participation would end as soon as at the college. The remaining participants were they left the experimental session. After informed recruited by word of mouth or through student consent was obtained, the investigator asked organizations and received no compensation. All participants to take a seat in a small room with a participants were recruited from a small, private, computer that displayed the impression formation four-year, primarily undergraduate, highly resi- task on the screen. Participants were asked to view dential college located in the upper Midwestern the dating profile that appeared on the screen and United States. Among the undergraduate student then answer a questionnaire about their opinion population from which participants were drawn, the of the person in the profile. Participants viewed average age of the young women was 19.77 years one of four dating profiles of the other sex target (SD = 1.21) and the average age of the young men for one minute. After viewing the profile, the task was 19.70 (SD = 1.22). Additionally, 87% identi- advanced automatically and prompted participants fied as European American and 13% identified to complete the 5-item likeability questionnaire as students of color. In regards to religion, 41% used in Sritharan et al. (2010). After participants of undergraduates identified as Roman Catholic, completed the survey, they were debriefed, thanked, 21% as Protestant, and 38% identified as another and dismissed. religious tradition, no religious tradition, or religious tradition not known. Participants were Impression Formation Task randomly assigned to one of four experimental The impression formation task was modeled after conditions in a 2 (ambition) x 2 (physical attractive- the task used by Sritharan et al. (2010). During ness) between-subjects design. Participants viewed the impression formation task, participants viewed a profile including either a more ambitious or less one of four hypothetical online dating profiles for ambitious autobiography and either a more physi- one minute. The profile displayed a target of the cally attractive or less physically attractive photo. other sex named either Nick or Nicole. The profile The number of participants in each condition is was a similar format to that of popular dating apps presented in Table 1. and websites. The target’s name was displayed on the left side of the profile, with the target’s age Measures (Nick 22; Nicole 20), occupation (student), and Deliberate evaluations of the potential dating distance from the participant (10 miles away) below. partner’s profile were measured with the same A brief autobiography was displayed under this 5-item likeability questionnaire used in the study information. The autobiography in every condition conducted by Sritharan et al. (2010). The survey began with basic neutral information about the included the following questions: (a) “How much target including height (Nick 6’0”; Nicole 5’6”), do you like the person in the profile you have just physicality (fit), hobbies (spending time with fam- seen?” (b) “Would you like to go out on a date with ily and friends), favorite food (pizza), zodiac sign this person?” (c) “Would you like to be friends (Gemini), and preferences regarding smoking with this person?” (d) “Do you think this person is nice?” and (e) “Would you like to get to know this TABLE 1 person better?” Each question was answered on a Number of Participants and Descriptive Statistics for Likability scale that ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). Scores by Participant Sex and Target Characteristics The ratings from each question on the likeability Target Descriptive questionnaire were then added together to form Participant Characteristics N Statistics Sex a composite score. A higher composite score indi- Attractiveness Ambition M SD Range cated a more favorable evaluation and increased High 17 20.88 5.19 10–28 interpersonal attraction to the target in the profile. High Low 16 16.75 5.43 09–25 Women Procedure High 16 16.44 6.37 04–21 Low Before beginning the study, institutional review Low 16 12.13 5.18 10–25 board approval (FWA #00015576) was given. High 12 20.17 4.18 11–24 High At the beginning of each experimental session, Low 12 16.08 3.94 11–20 participants were greeted and then completed Men High 14 15.86 2.98 04–18 an informed consent form. All participants were Low made aware that the study was a dating simulation Low 13 11.54 4.58 04–18

(never) and drinking (occasionally with friends). researchers chose to omit this question from the The information included in the beginning of the measure for subsequent analysis, which increased autobiography was based on the neutral informa- the internal consistency slightly, α = .91. Scores on tion used in Sritharan et al., as well as research on the revised 4-item likeability questionnaire could the autobiographies of real profiles on common range from 0 (a score of 0 on all four questions) apps and websites. The rest of the autobiography to 28 (a score of 7 on all four questions). Means, was manipulated to describe Nick or Nicole either standard deviations, and ranges of scores on the as more ambitious or as less ambitious, depending likeability questionnaire are presented in Table 1. on the condition. Ambition was manipulated using A 2 (sex of participant) x 2 (ambition) x 2 the same information used in the Sritharan et al. (physical attractiveness) univariate analysis of study. In the high ambition condition, the target’s variance was conducted to assess the differences in autobiography said that the target was applying the scores on the likeability questionnaire between to several law schools and working hard to keep women and men among the four dating profile up good grades. In the low ambition condition, conditions. Participants who viewed the facially the target’s autobiography said that at one time attractive target rated the profile higher on the like- the target was going to apply to law school, but ability questionnaire than participants who viewed decided against it because it was too competitive. the facially less attractive target, F(1,116) = 23.68, The low ambition autobiography also indicated that p < .001, η2 = .16. Participants who read the ambi- education was unimportant to the target. tious autobiography rated the profile higher on the The photograph showing the head and shoul- likeability questionnaire than participants who read ders of the target was displayed to the right of the the less ambitious autobiography, F(1,116) = 20.92, name and autobiography. The photograph on the p < .001, η2 = .16. The main effect of participant sex profile was chosen to be more or less attractive. In was not significant, nor were any of the interactions the more facially attractive condition, a photo was between the three variables (all p’s > .49). Facial featured that had been previously rated as more attractiveness and ambition had independent and attractive by a convenience sample of twelve 18–22- additive effects on interpersonal attraction for year-old heterosexual members of the other sex who both women and men. Women and men rated did not participate in the study. The judges rated targets higher on the measure of interpersonal eight photographs of the other sex. The photo of attraction who were more physically attractive and the more facially attractive man received an average who characterized themselves as more ambitious. rating of 8.1 out of 10, which was the highest rating out of the eight photographs. The photo of the Discussion less facially attractive man received a mean rating The present study investigated the effect of facial of 3.9 out of 10, which was the lowest rating out of attractiveness and ambition on a deliberate measure the eight photographs. The same rating procedure of interpersonal attraction in a simulated online was used for the photos of women. The photo of dating context. As hypothesized, both women the more facially attractive woman received a mean and men rated the simulated profile higher on rating of 7.0 out of 10, and the photo of the less a measure of interpersonal attraction when the facially attractive women received a mean rating 3.0 autobiography described the individual as ambi- out of 10. The photos that appeared in the profiles tious than when the autobiography described were selected because they received markedly dif- the individual as less ambitious. Women and men ferent ratings of attractiveness (8.1 vs. 3.9; 7.0 vs. 3.0 also rated the simulated profile higher when the respectively). Neither was rated as extraordinarily photo displayed a physically attractive individual attractive (e.g., a rating of 10) or unattractive (e.g., than when the photo displayed a less physically a rating of 1). attractive individual. The effects of ambition and physical attractiveness on interpersonal attraction Results were independent and comparable. The interactive The internal consistency of the interpersonal effect of physical attractiveness and ambition was attraction index was examined using Cronbach’s α. not statistically significant. The magnitude of their FALL 2018 Although the internal consistency among the five effects on interpersonal attraction was comparable items was strong, α = .88, the question “Do you think as indicated by their identical effect sizes. However, PSI CHI JOURNAL OF this person is nice?” had a markedly lower corrected the prediction that physical attractiveness would PSYCHOLOGICAL item-total correlation (0.42) than the others. The have a greater effect on interpersonal attraction RESEARCH

326 COPYRIGHT 2018 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 23, NO. 4/ISSN 2325-7342) Peters and Salzsieder | Interpersonal Attraction for men while ambition would have a greater attractive photos higher on an interpersonal attrac- effect for women was not supported. The effect tion scale. of both variables on interpersonal attraction was Although much of the interpersonal attrac- comparable for women and men. tion and mate selection literature has highlighted There are a few different explanations that can gender differences (Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, account for the results of this study. An evolutionary & Kenrick, 2002; Evans & Brase, 2007; Mardhekar theory of interpersonal attraction helps explain & Aradhye, 2010; Townsend & Wasserman, 1998; the main effect of facial attractiveness. Physical Wiederman, 1993), the present study offered sup- attractiveness is an indicator of good health and port for gender congruence. Women and men may reproductive capability for both sexes (Buss, 1989; actually value many of the same characteristics when Eagly & Wood, 1999). A socioeconomic model selecting a potential mate. Wright et al. (2007) helps explain the main effect for ambition because found that women and men both preferred their ambition is an indicator of resource acquisition partners to have a stereotypically feminine com- and financial success (Buss, 1989; Eagly & Wood, munication pattern. Cramer, Schaeffer, and Reid 1999). Each partner has wage-earning potential, (1996) also found evidence for gender similarity in and dual-earning households are almost necessary mate selection. The results indicated that possessing today in the United States (Pew Research Center, traits associated with reproductive success (women 2015). Thus, an ambitious partner is desirable for who are attractive and sexually responsive; men who both women and men. are college-educated with a good earning capacity) A trait perspective can be used to explain the leads to gender convergence in mate preferences. main effect of ambition. People associate traits They used sexual strategies theory as an explanation with either a positive or negative feeling through for this convergence. Sexual strategies theory asserts a process of classical conditioning. According that women and men must solve both common to research conducted by Anderson (1968), the and gender-specific problems for short-term as well trait ambition has a positive connotation. A list of as long-term mates. Thus, both women and men personality-trait words was rated for likeability, prefer mates who possess traits that offer a solution and ambition was ranked 59 out of 555 on that list. to a common mating problem, reproductive success Thus, someone who lacks ambition in one aspect (Cramer et al., 1996). of life such as not applying to law school may lack There were several limitations to this inves- ambition in other aspects of life such as work or tigation. The study was only a simulation and vacationing. Lacking ambition has a negative con- participants were aware of this. Participants did notation and can be associated with other negative not arrange a date with any of the targets. This traits such as being lazy, which was ranked 469 out hindered the experimental realism of the study. of 555 using Anderson’s likeability scale. The effect Participant characteristics such as additional of ambition on attraction can also be explained by demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral data specific perceived similarity (Tidwell & Earwick, were not collected. It cannot be determined if 2012). All participants in the study were college any participant characteristic was associated with students. Ambition is related to participation in a preference for a more ambitious or attractive college and furthering one’s education. Thus, the potential dating partner. This study only tested ambitious autobiography, which included applying college-age individuals in one region of the to law school as an indicator of ambition, might United States, which limited the ability to draw have also tapped into specific perceived similarity conclusions about individuals in other age groups (e.g., participant and target sharing the trait of and regions. A self-report measure was used to ambition). measure interpersonal attraction, which hindered These findings were also consistent with previ- validity. The self-report measure of preferences ous research. Sritharan et al. (2010) also found may not be correlated with the actual behavior of a main effect for ambition and a main effect for the participants. Participants’ implicit evaluations physical attractiveness. Lee et al. (2014) found that were not measured. The stimuli could be seen as multiple variables including facial attractiveness a limitation because only two different photos and had an effect on interpersonal attraction. Byrne two different autobiographies were presented. FALL 2018 and Griffitt (1973), summarizing earlier research, Including multiple high and low attractiveness PSI CHI reported that, in studies where a target photo photos and a variety of different ambition-related JOURNAL OF was displayed, participants rated more physically autobiographies could increase generalizability PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

because participants would respond to a variety of https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025907 indicators of attractiveness and ambition. Bond, M., Byrne, D., & Diamond, M. J. (1968). Effect of occupational prestige and attitude similarity on attraction as a function of assumed similarity of The findings from this investigation suggest attitude. Psychological Reports, 23, 1167–1172. possibilities for future research. It would be https://doi:10.2466/pr0.1968.23.3f.1167 advantageous to conduct a field study to increase Brand, R. J., Bonatsos, A., D’Orazio, R., & DeShong, H. (2012). What is beautiful is good, even online: Correlations between photo attractiveness and external validity. Researchers could post profiles text attractiveness in men’s online dating profiles. Computers in Human on actual dating websites or applications and Behavior, 28, 166–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.023 observe a variety of behaviors such as swiping right, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, The Economics Daily. (2011). Women in the labor force, 1970–2009. Retrieved from sending a message, or trying to stage a meeting. A https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110105.htm field study would be able to study not just prefer- Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary ence, but actual behavior that takes initiative and hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992 might lead to an encounter. If a trait perspective Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and is the best explanation, other characteristics, aside gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement from ambition and the traits connected with the levels. Personal Relationships, 9, 271–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00018 attractiveness stereotype, could be studied to see Byrne, D., & Griffitt, W. (1973). Interpersonal attraction. Annual Review of if women and men value them equally and to see Psychology, 24, 317–336. if they influence interpersonal attraction. For https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.24.020173.001533 Byrne, D., London, O., & Reeves, K. (1968). The effects of physical attractiveness, example, there is research to support humor’s sex, and attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of influence on attraction in traditional dating Personality, 36, 259–271. https://doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1968.tb01473.x (Murstein & Brust, 1985; Sprecher & Regan, 2002). Cramer, R. E, Schaeffer, J. T., & Reid, S. (1996). Identifying the ideal mate: More evidence for male-female convergence. Current Psychology, 15, 157–167. Researchers could investigate whether humor is https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02686948 typically used in online dating profiles as a strategy Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2005). The nonobvious social psychology of happiness. to attract a mate. They could also examine whether Psychological Inquiry, 16, 162–167. https://doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1604_04 Eagly, H., Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: humor conveyed in online dating profiles effectively Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, influences interpersonal attraction, and if the effect 408–423. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408 is similar for both women and men. Eisenthal, Y., Dror, G., & Ruppin, E. (2006). Facial attractiveness: Beauty and the machine. Neural Computation, 18, 119–142. There are practical and theoretical implications https://dx.doi.org.snc.idm.oclc.org/10.1162/089976606774841602 of the study’s findings. The findings add to the Evans, K., & Brase, G. L. (2007). Assessing sex differences and similarities in understanding of how potential dating partners are mate preferences: Above and beyond demand characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 781–791. selected in an online context. The results provide https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507081471 an optimistic view for individuals who are not both Fisman, R. J., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender physically attractive and ambitious. Having both differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 673–697. qualities is better, but not necessarily imperative https://doi.org/10.7916/D8FB585Z to spark interpersonal attraction. Profiles that Givens, D. B. (1978). The nonverbal basis of attraction: Flirtation, courtship, and displayed the target as physically attractive but less seduction. Psychiatry: Journal for The Study of Interpersonal Processes, 41, 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1978.11023994 ambitious or ambitious but less physically attractive Goffman, E. (1959).The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: still received moderately favorable scores of inter- Anchor Books personal attraction on the likeability questionnaire. Griffitt, W., & Jackson, T. (1970). Influence of information about ability and non-ability on personnel selection decisions. Psychological Reports, 27, These findings also demonstrate that women and 959–962. https://doi:10.2466/pr0.1970.27.3.959 men place similar value on ambition and physical House, J., Landis, K., Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. attractiveness when evaluating a potential partner, Science, 241, 540–545. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3399889 Lee, A. J., Dubbs, S. L., Von Hippel, W., Brooks, R. C., & Zietsch, B. P. (2014). A whereas a lot of current research highlights gender multivariate approach to human mate preferences. Evolution and Human differences (Buunk et al., 2002; Evans & Brase, Behavior, 35, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.01.003 2007; Mardhekar & Aradhye, 2010; Townsend & Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Sng, O., Fletcher, G. J. O., Valentine, K. A., Jiang, Y. F., & Balliet, D. (2013). Mate preferences do predict attraction and choices Wasserman, 1998; Wiederman, 1993). The pres- in the early stages of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social ent research highlights gender similarities. This Psychology, 105, 757–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033777 differs from what popular stereotypes suggest. This Mardhekar, V., & Aradhye, C. (2010). Mate preferences among college students with special reference to gender differences.Journal of Psychosocial research shows that women and men value the same Research, 5(1), 1–7. traits (ambition and physical attractiveness) when Montoya, M., & Horton, S. (2013). A meta-analytic investigation of the processes selecting a potential dating partner. underlying the similarity-attraction effect. Journal of Social and Personal FALL 2018 Relationships, 30, 64–94. https://dx.doi.org.snc.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0265407512452989 PSI CHI References Murstein, I., & Brust, G. (1985). Humor and interpersonal attraction. Journal of JOURNAL OF Anderson, N. H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Personality Assessment, 49, 637–640. PSYCHOLOGICAL Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 272–279. http://dx.doi.org.snc.idm.oclc.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4906_12 RESEARCH

Olivola, C., Eastwick, P., Finkel, E., Ariely, D., & Todorov, A. (2011). A picture is Stroebe, W., Insko, C. A., Thompson, V. D., & Layton, B. D. (1971). Effects of worth a thousand inferences: Appearance-based first impressions predict physical attractiveness, attitude similarity, and sex on various aspects of later selection and mate choice. Advances in Consumer Research, 39, interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 276–277. Retrieved from 79–91. https://doi:10.1037/h0030710 http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1010197/volumes/v39/NA-39 Tidwell, N. D., & Eastwick, P. W. (2012). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts Pew Research Center, Social & Demographic Trends. (2015). The American initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed-dating middle class is losing ground. Retrieved from paradigm. Personal Relationships, 20, 199–215. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01405.x is-losing-ground/ Townsend, J. M., & Wasserman, T. (1998). Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences Pew Research Center (2016, February 29). 5 facts about online dating. Retrieved in assessment and criteria. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 171–191. from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/29/5-facts-about- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00008-7 online-dating/ Whitty, M. T. (2007). Revealing the ‘real’ me, searching for the ‘actual’ you: Priest, R. F., & Sawyer, J. (1967). Proximity and peership: Bases of balance in Presentations of self on an Internet dating site. Computers in Human interpersonal attraction. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 633–649. Behavior, 24, 1707–1723, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.07.002 http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/224400 Regan, P. C., & Joshi, A. (2003). Ideal partner preferences among adolescents. Wiederman, M. W. (1993). Evolved gender differences in mate preferences: Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 13–20. Evidence from personal advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.1.13 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(93)90003-Z Reid, C. A., Davis, J. L., & Green, J. D. (2013). The power of change: Interpersonal Wright, R. R., Bates, S. C., & Ferguson, T. J. (2007). Effects of gender attraction as a function of attitude similarity and attitude alignment. The communication patterns on opposite gender attraction. Psi Chi Journal of Journal of Social Psychology, 153, 700–719. Undergraduate Research, 12, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.824404 https://doi.org/10.24839/1089-4136.JN12.3.87 Saegert, S., Swap, W., & Zajonc, R. B. (1973). Exposure, context, and interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, Author Note. Sierra Peters, https://orcid.org/0000-0001- 234–242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0033965 9168-2008, Department of Psychology, St. Norbert College; Shames, S. L., Frankel, L. L., & Farjood, N. (2017). Romance, sexual attraction, Hannah Salzsieder, Department of Psychology, St. Norbert and women’s political ambition: Initial findings from two experiments. College. Sexuality and Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 21, 1177–1196. The authors thank Stuart Korshavn for his assistance in http://dx.doi.org.snc.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s12119-017-9443-9 planning this study and for his feedback throughout the Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more experimental process. They also thank Kameko Halfmann than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. for assisting in determining the method for presenting the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 463–481. stimuli and collecting data. Special thanks to Psi Chi Journal https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407502019004048 reviewers for their support. Sritharan, R., Heilpern, K., Wilbur, C. J., & Gawronski, B. (2010). I think I like you: Correspondence concerning this article should be Spontaneous and deliberate evaluations of potential romantic partners addressed to Sierra Peters, Department of Psychology, in an online dating context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, St. Norbert College, De Pere WI, 54115. 1062–1077. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.703 E-mail: [email protected]

FALL 2018