Color poster with text, graphs, and tables.Past research has documented systematic similarities and differences in men's and women's mate preferences and mating orientation. However, one area of mating research that relationship scientists know little about is change over time in individuals' mating orientations and preferences.  To address this knowledge gap, this study involved surveying broad samples of students at the University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire.University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire Office of Research and Sponsored Programs

Ryan, Danielle

English

MINDS@UW  (Univ.  of Wisconsin)

AGE VARIATION IN MATING STRATEGIES AND MATE PREFERENCES AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTSDanielle Ryan and April  Bleske-Rechek, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire0123456Freshmen Mid-Career SeniorLong-Term Mating OrientationMale FemaleAcross both sex and college status, long-term mating orientation was high(M = 5.47, SD = .78). Women scored significantly higher than men did onlong-term mating orientation, F(1,751) = 22.33, p < .001, partial η = .03.Post hoc comparisons showed that women are significantly higher thanmen at both freshman (p < .001) and senior (p < .001) levels but not at themid-career level (p = .26). Across sex, college status was not significantlyassociated with long-term mating orientation, F(2,751) = .49, p = .61,partial η = .001.0123456Freshmen Mid-Career SeniorShort-Term Mating OrientationMale FemaleMen scored significantly higher than women did on short-term matingorientation, F(1,748) = 91.52, p < .001, partial η = .11. This sex differencewas significant at each point in college (all ps < .001). Across sex, collegestatus was associated with short-term mating orientation, F(2,748) = 5.81,p = .003, partial η = .02. Freshmen were significantly lower in short-termmating orientation than both mid-career and senior students were (bothps < .001). However, post hoc comparisons revealed that whereasfreshman women were lower in STMO than both mid-career and seniorwomen were (all ps < .03), freshman men only differed from mid-careermen (p =.01) and not from seniors (p = .18).RESULTSBACKGROUNDMETHODOverviewWe collected responses from a representativesample of undergraduate students (487women, 267 male). Of these, 264 were in theirfreshman year, 140 were “mid-career”(sophomores and juniors), and 350 wereapproaching graduation (seniors and beyond).The mean age was 20.67 years (SD = 3.34).All participants completed measures of theirattitudes toward both long- and short-termmating, experience with long- and short-termrelationships, and preferred mate qualities.Mating Attitudes and ExperiencesParticipants completed Jackson andKirkpatrick’s (2007) measure of short-termand long-term mating orientation. They werealso asked to report sexual activity, includingnumber of long-term relationship partners (4months or more), number of one-time sexpartners ever, and number of sex partners inthe last year.Mate PreferencesParticipants completed a task in which theywere allotted 50 “mate dollars” towardconceptualizing the ideal romantic partner.They distributed their limited mate dollarbudget across the following characteristics:ambition, desire for children, emotionalstability, faithfulness, intelligence, physicalattractiveness, potential for financial success,sense of humor, similar values, and socialpopularity.0123Freshmen Mid-Career SeniorNumber of Sex Partners in the Past YearMale FemaleSex was not significantly associated with reported number of sex partnersin the past year, F(1,748) = .50, p = .48, partial η = .001. Pairwisecomparisons confirmed there were no sex differences within any level ofcollege status (all ps > .46). However, college status was significantlyassociated with number of sex partners, F(2,748) = 8.23, p < .001, partial η= .02. Post hoc comparisons showed that seniors reported significantlyhigher number of sex partners than freshmen students did, both acrosssexes and within each sex (all ps < .01). There were no differencesbetween mid-career and senior students (all ps > .21).Variation between the sexesPast research has documented systematicsimilarities and differences in men’s andwomen’s mate preferences and matingorientations (attitudes toward long-termpartnerships and short-term sexualrelationships).Prominent between-sex similarities include ashared emphasis on finding a long-termpartner, particularly one that is faithful andloving (Buss, 1989).Prominent between-sex differences includemen’s greater emphasis on physicalattractiveness and greater willingness toengage in short-term mating (Buss, 1989;Schmitt, 2005).Variation across agesRelationship scientists currently know littleabout change over time in individuals’ matingorientations and preferences.Despite this lack of knowledge, collegestudents do have consistent sharedassumptions regarding their peers’ matingstrategies and preferences. According to onestudy, college students expect their peers tobecome less oriented toward opportunisticsex and physical appearance as they progressthrough college (Bleske-Rechek at al., 2009).In this study we found support for manyprevious findings regarding between-sexsimilarities and differences. We also providedpreliminary insight into age variation (and lackthereof) in mating strategies and preferences.012345678910Freshmen Mid-Career SeniorMate Dollars Allotted to Physical AttractivenessMale Female012345678910Freshmen Mid-Career SeniorMate Dollars Allotted to Emotional StabilityMale Female012345678910Freshmen Mid-Career SeniorMate Dollars Allotted to AmbitionMale Female012345678910Freshmen Mid-Career SeniorMate Dollars Allotted to Potential for Financial SuccessMale FemaleM AT E  P R E F E R E N C E S :  A G E  A N D  S E X  VA R I AT I O N  I N  H O W  S T U D E N T S  S P E N D  T H E I R  “ M AT E  D O L L A R S ”Differences in college students’ mate dollar allotments as a function of college level* Indicates significant differences among levels of college status. See corresponding graph for more information about this age variation.Men value these traits significantly more than women do, all ps < .05 (pictured left and above)Levels Combined Freshmen Mid-Career Seniors df F pIntelligence * 6.15 (1.82) 5.85 (1.69) 6.17 (1.90) 6.37 (1.86) 2 5.73 .003Emotional Stability * 5.27 (2.13) 5.00 (1.96) 5.24 (2.39) 5.50 (2.13) 2 3.83 .02Physical Attractiveness * 5.15 (2.13) 5.17 (2.05) 5.60 (2.26) 4.96 (2.13) 2 3.95 .02Women value these traits significantly more than men do, all ps < .05 (pictured right and above)Levels Combined Freshmen Mid-Career Seniors df F pSimilar Values † 5.66 (2.41) 5.63 (2.39) 5.42 (2.69) 5.79 (2.31) 2 1.06 .35Ambition  * 4.73 (2.26) 4.42 (2.09) 4.81 (2.51) 4.95 (2.32) 2 3.87 .02Desire for Children * 4.13 (2.52) 4.64 (2.42) 4.00 (2.54) 3.79 (2.52) 2 8.34 .000Potential for Financial Success * 3.63 (2.31) 3.93 (2.35) 3.72 (2.34) 3.36 (2.24) 2 4.33 .01No sex differences or age differences for these traits (not pictured)Levels Combined Freshmen Mid-Career Seniors df F pFaithfulness † 7.88 (2.27) 8.06 (2.10) 7.86 (2.51) 7.73 (2.30) 2 1.46 .23Sense of Humor † 5.77 (2.17) 5.73 (2.23) 5.87 (2.29) 5.75 (2.08) 2 .17 .84Social Popularity † 1.73 (1.76) 1.74 (1.70) 1.50 (1.67) 1.81 (1.84) 2 1.33 .27† Not displayed as a graph.Values in parentheses represent standard deviations. M AT E  AT T I T U D E S :  S H O R T - T E R M  A N D  L O N G - T E R M  M AT I N G  O R I E N TAT I O N S  A N D  E X P E R I E N C E SS E L E C T  R E F E R E N C E SD I S C U S S I O NKey FindingsOur data show many examples of systematic variation by sexand age in accordance with previous research. Overall, bothsexes report a stronger orientation toward long-term mating(M = 5.47, SD = .78) than toward short-term mating (M = 2.12,SD = 1.67). Women were significantly higher in long-termmating orientation than men were, and an orientation towardshort-term sexual relationships was more popular among menthan among women.Attitudes toward long-term mating did not vary with age. Also,only freshmen were unique in their attitude toward short-termrelationships and their number of sex partners in the past year.These results suggest that after students fully enter the collegeyears – a time for sexual and romantic exploration (Arnett,2000) – age is no longer a predictor of sexual attitudes orbehaviors. Also, the age variation among students regardingthe total one-time sex partners is to be expected due to thecumulative nature of the variable.At every age, both men and women allotted more mate dollarsto faithfulness than to any other characteristic. They alsotended to allot the fewest dollars to social popularity. Men‘sallotments reflected a higher interest in physical attractivenessand emotional stability than women’s did, whereas women’sreflected a higher interest in ambition, potential for financialsuccess, and desire for children than men’s allotments did.We did find that some traits are more valued by olderstudents than by younger students, specifically intelligence,emotional stability, and ambition. These findings coincide withthe assumption that the mate preferences of emerging adultsare maturing as they age (Bleske-Rechek, et al., 2009). Thelower interest in physical attractiveness among senior studentscompared to mid-careers (p = .006) also aligns with the beliefthat young adults become less interested in physicalappearance as they age and (presumably) mature.However, results are mixed. Desire for children was actuallyhigher among freshmen than among mid-careers (p = .05) andseniors (p < .001 ), which does not support the assumptionthat emerging adults become more family-focused as they age.LimitationsIt should be noted that these data are cross-sectional. Withoutlongitudinal data, we cannot assume that these changes aredue to individual growth or change as opposed to cohorteffects, which could be operating in the current comparison.0123Freshmen Mid-Career SeniorNumber of One-time Sex PartnersMale FemaleSex was not significantly associated with reported number of sex partnersin the past year, F(1,743) = .1.16, p = .28, partial η = .002. Pairwisecomparisons confirmed there were no sex differences within any level ofcollege status (all ps > .07). However, college status was significantlyassociated with number of sex partners, F(2,743) = 9.21, p < .001, partial η= .02. Post hoc comparisons showed that seniors reported significantlymore one-time sex partners than freshman students did, both across sexesand within each sex (all ps < .034). Among men, seniors also reportedsignificantly more partners than mid-career students did (p = .02).012345678910Freshmen Mid-Career SeniorMate Dollars Allotted to IntelligenceMale Female012345678910Freshmen Mid-Career SeniorMate Dollars Allotted to Desire for ChildrenMale FemaleWe thank the Office of Research and SponsoredPrograms at UWEC for supporting this research,numerous faculty and IAS who facilitated datacollection, and Learning & Technology Servicesat UWEC for printing this poster.Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.Bleske-Rechek, A., VandenHeuvel, B., & Vander Wyst, M. (2009). Age variation in mating strategies and mate preferences: Beliefs versus reality. Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 179-205.Buss, D. M.  (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brian Sciences, 12, 1-49.Petersen, J. L. & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993-2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 21-38.Schmitt, D. P., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Are men really more “oriented” toward short-term mating than women? Psychology, Evolution, and Gender, 3, 211-239.

Age Variation in Mating Strategies and Mate Preferences Among College Students

http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1793/64501

Age Variation in Mating Strategies and Mate Preferences Among College Students

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

MINDS@UW (Univ. of Wisconsin)