Interpersonal trust and market value moderates the bias in women's preferences away from attractive high-status men

Personality and Individual Differences

Volumn 51, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 143-147

  Chu, Simon ^a   Farr, Danielle ^a   Muñoz, Luna C ^a   Lycett, John E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Attractiveness; Interpersonal trust; Market value; Mate choice preferences; Socioeconomic status

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955577304     PISSN: 01918869     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.033     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Aiken L.S., West S.G. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions 1991, Newbury Park, London, Sage.
2. Ambwani S., Strauss J. Love thyself before loving others? A qualitative and quantitative analysis of gender differences in body image and romantic love. Sex Roles 2007, 56(1-2):13-21.
3. Buss D.M. Sex-differences in human mate preferences - Evolutionary hypothesis tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1989, 12(1):1-14.
4. Buss D.M. Desires in human mating. Evolutionary perspectives on human reproductive behavior (vol. 907) 2000, 39-49. New York Academy of Sciences, New York. D. LeCroy, P. Moller (Eds.).
5. Buss D.M., Barnes M. Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986, 50(3):559-570.
6. Buss D.M., Shackelford T.K. Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology 2008, 6(1):134-146.
7. Cash T.F., Theriault J., Annis N.M. Body image in an interpersonal context: Adult attachment, fear of intimacy, and social anxiety. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 2004, 23(1):89-103.
8. Chu S., Hardaker R., Lycett J.E. Too good to be 'true'? The handicap of high socio-economic status in attractive males. Personality and Individual Differences 2007, 42(7):1291-1300.
9. Couch L.L., Jones W.H. Measuring levels of trust. Journal of Research in Personality 1997, 31(3):319-336.
10. Cronbach L.J., Furby L. How should we measure " change" - or should we?. Psychological Bulletin 1970, 74(1):68-80.
11. Dunn M.J., Searle R. Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership on both sex attractiveness ratings. British Journal of Psychology 2010, 101:69-80.
12. Eastwick P.W., Finkel E.J. Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2008, 94(2):245-264.
13. Furnham A. Sex differences in mate selection preferences. Personality and Individual Differences 2009, 47(4):262-267.
14. Gangestad S.W., Thornhill R. The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior 1997, 18(2):69-88.
15. Holmbeck G.N. Post-hoc probing of significant moderational and mediational effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2002, 27(1):87-96.
16. Hopcroft R.L. Sex, status, and reproductive success in the contemporary United States. Evolution and Human Behavior 2006, 27(2):104-120.
17. Landolt M.A., Lalumiere M.L., Quinsey V.L. Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics - an evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology 1995, 16(1):3-23.
18. Li N.P., Bailey J.M., Kenrick D.T., Linsenmeier J.A.W. The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2002, 82(6):947-955.
19. The National Statistics Socio-economic Classification User Manual. (2002). London: Office for National Statistics.
20. Pawlowski B., Dunbar R.I.M. Impact of market value on human mate choice decisions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 1999, 266(1416):281-285.
21. Perusse D. Cultural and reproductive success in industrial-societies - Testing the relationship at the proximate and ultimate levels. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1993, 16(2):267-283.
22. Rotter J.B. A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality 1967, 35:651-665.
23. Trivers R.L. Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 1972, 136-179. Aldine, Chicago, IL. B. Campbell (Ed.).
24. Walster E., Aronson V., Abrahams D., Rottman L. Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1966, 4:508-516.
25. Waynforth D. Differences in time use for mating and nepotistic effort as a function of male attractiveness in rural Belize. Evolution and Human Behavior 1999, 20(1):19-28.
26. Wenzel A., Emerson T. Mate selection in socially anxious and nonanxious individuals. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 2009, 28(3):341-363.