Do Bad Boys Finish First? an Investigation of a Lay Theory of Heterosexual Women's Mate Preferences
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations Dissertations and Theses July 2016 Do Bad Boys Finish First? An Investigation of a Lay Theory of Heterosexual Women's Mate Preferences Casey J. DeBuse University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2 Part of the Social Psychology Commons Recommended Citation DeBuse, Casey J., "Do Bad Boys Finish First? An Investigation of a Lay Theory of Heterosexual Women's Mate Preferences" (2016). Doctoral Dissertations. 641. https://doi.org/10.7275/8342561.0 https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/641 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DO BAD BOYS FINISH FIRST? AN INVESTIGATION OF A LAY THEORY OF HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN’S MATE PREFERENCES A Dissertation Presented by CASEY J. DEBUSE Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY May 2016 Psychological and Brain Sciences Social Psychology Quantitative Methods © Copyright by Casey J. DeBuse 2016 All Rights Reserved DO BAD BOYS FINISH FIRST? AN INVESTIGATION OF A LAY THEORY OF HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN’S MATE PREFERENCES A Dissertation Presented by CASEY J. DEBUSE Approved as to style and content by: _________________________________________________ Paula R. Pietromonaco, Chair _________________________________________________ Brian A. Lickel, Member _________________________________________________ Sally I. Powers, Member _________________________________________________ Lynnette Leidy Sievert, Member _____________________________________________ Harold D. Grotevant, Department Chair Psychological and Brain Sciences DEDICATION To my dad: living proof that heroes exist. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee members for their wisdom, flexibility, patience, and support; Dr. Lindsey Beck, Valentina Wigozki, and the Growth in Early Marriage lab at UMass for their feedback and support; and Dr. John Lydon and his lab for sharing the images used in this research. v ABSTRACT DO BAD BOYS FINISH FIRST? AN INVESTIGATION OF A LAY THEORY OF HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN’S MATE PREFERENCES MAY 2016 CASEY J. DEBUSE, B.S., COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY M.S., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST PH.D., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Directed by: Professor Paula R. Pietromonaco The notion that heterosexual women are romantically interested in “bad boys” is a pervasive lay theory of close relationships in U.S. culture. The current research investigated women’s perceptions of bad boys and individual differences in their romantic interest in bad boys. Three studies recruited heterosexual female participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk website. Study 1 asked participants to rate their associations of a list of trait adjectives with the bad boy and other prototypes (the “hero,” “nice guy,” and “loser”). Paired comparisons indicated that supportiveness and social dominance traits discriminated among prototypes. Study 2 asked participants to rate their romantic interest in profiles derived from these traits and multilevel models revealed that greater trait attachment anxiety predicted more interest in less supportive prototypes (i.e., bad boy and loser), greater trait attachment avoidance predicted less interest in the ideal prototype (i.e., hero), and associations with self-esteem, sociosexual orientation, and menstrual cycle phase differed by type of interest (sexual or relationship). Study 3 asked participants to complete attachment primes and rate the same profiles. Multilevel models indicated that the avoidant prime decreased sexual interest in supportive prototypes (the vi hero and nice guy) relative to other primes, while the anxious prime increased relationship interest in socially dominant prototypes (the hero and bad boy) relative to the avoidant prime; however, these results were qualified by trait attachment. The research provides evidence that women’s individual differences relate to less-than-ideal mate choice and that alterations in their state of mind can influence their choices as well. vii CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. v ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xvi CHAPTER 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1 Poor Mate Choice ............................................................................................................ 2 Current Research ............................................................................................................. 4 2. STUDY 1 ........................................................................................................................ 7 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7 Method .......................................................................................................................... 12 Results ........................................................................................................................... 15 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 16 3. STUDY 2 ...................................................................................................................... 18 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 18 Method .......................................................................................................................... 25 Results ........................................................................................................................... 31 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 39 viii 4. STUDY 3 ...................................................................................................................... 42 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 42 Method .......................................................................................................................... 43 Results ........................................................................................................................... 45 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 50 5. GENERAL DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 53 Limitations and Future Directions ................................................................................ 56 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 59 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................. 153 APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................. 155 APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................. 156 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 157 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Women’s ratings of prototypical partners’ traits .................................................. 60 2. Factor loadings of the six attraction rating items with two higher-order factors .................................................................................................................... 61 3. Study 2 model predicting differences in women’s sexual interest in male prototypes from adult attachment, sociosexual orientation (SOI), and self-esteem, using the bad boy as the reference ........................................................................ 62 4. Study 2 model predicting differences in women’s sexual interest in male prototypes from adult attachment, sociosexual orientation (SOI), and self-esteem, using the hero as the reference .............................................................................. 63 5. Study 2 model predicting differences in women’s sexual interest in male prototypes from adult attachment, sociosexual orientation (SOI), and self-esteem, using the loser as the reference ............................................................................. 64 6. Study 2 model predicting differences in women’s sexual interest in male prototypes from adult attachment, sociosexual orientation (SOI), and self-esteem, using the nice guy as the reference ......................................................................