Characteristics of the Opposite Gender Heterosexual Males and Females Consider Important for Partner - Research Paper Example

?Research Proposal Finding someone to spend the rest of one’s life with is something most people desire. Some have even assessed their own preferences for their potential partners and whenever they meet someone, refer to this list if the person is “qualified”. Some have very high standards in their choices that nobody comes to par and they end up alone. Men and women hold different views on mate selection. This study aims to explore those differences, specifically on the traits they hold dear in prospective partners. Research Question: "What characteristics of the opposite gender do heterosexual males and females consider most important for sexual and marriage partners?. What gender traits contribute to these gender differences in preference pattern. " Literature Review: Gender differences in mate selection have been studied well over the years and large-scale researches have been conducted to demystify what men and women actually seek in their potential love partners. Many theories have been conceptualized based on the findings of the researches. Cross-cultural evidence proves that men tend to place more value on physical attractiveness while women seek earning potential and possession of resources as valuable traits of potential romantic partners. (Buss et al, 1990). Matlin (2008) explains this gender difference in trait preferences for a partner as based on an evolutionary psychology approach. According to this approach, people’s preferences have roots in evolution where men prefer young, attractive, healthy-looking women who are likely to pass on men’s genes to the next generation. On the other hand, women are drawn to men who are economically stable to ensure that their future children are well provided for (Matlin, 2008). This is consistent with the findings of Sakalli-Ugurlu (2003) where women were found to be more concerned about the future security of their future families than men are. Women were also found to value a partner’s ambition, industriousness and social dominance as well as emotional stability and family orientation more than men do. Women also prefer more than men a partner’s capacity for emotional intimacy and kindness, but it is accepted that such traits may be considered luxuries rather than necessities (Li, Bailey, Kendrick and Linsenmeier, 2002). These preference for so-called luxuries are held more by more affluent women in western cultures than women in poorer and more traditional cultures (Geary, Virgil and Byrd-Craven, 2004). Men consistently have admitted their primary preference for a partner’s youth and physical attractiveness as well as a mate’s chastity and sexual fidelity (Buss et al, 2001). This may be explained by the social structural theories. In most cultures, women view marriage as a ticket to material comfort so they search for potential husbands based on their economic potentials and resources. However, as cultures evolve, women have become more empowered in creating their own material abundance through their careers and as they gain economic equality with men, they now focus less on a potential mate’s resources and status and more on aforementioned relationship “luxuries” such as kindness, honesty and a sense of humor. This theory is backed up by Eagly & Wood (1999) who found that the structural features of societies may dictate mate preferences. For example, gender differences in preferences for a mate’s earning potential (men) and homemaking skills (women) may be strongly influenced by the economic status held by men and women in various societies. Following the tradition of large-scale studies of Buss (1990) and Eagly and Wood (1999), Lippa (2007) was likewise engaged in a more modern study involving an internet survey sponsored by BBC, wherein over 200,000 participants ranked their preferred traits in potential mates. The 23 trait choices were age, ambition, communication skills, dependability, domestic skills, face attractiveness, fitness, fondness for children, hands, health, honesty, humor, industriousness, intelligence, kindness, money, all round good looks, parenting abilities, prosperity, religion, social status, teeth, and values. Overall, men ranked their top nine trait preferences as intelligence, overall good looks, humor, honesty, face attractiveness, kindness, values, communication skills, and dependability. The order for women was: humor, intelligence, honesty, kindness, values, communication skills, dependability, overall good looks, and face attractiveness. If good looks and facial attractiveness are removed from these lists, then the orders for men and women were quite similar (Lippa, 2007). The preferred trait of physical attractiveness may transcend any structural variations in societies but may be more likely linked to a biological basis (Eagly & Wood, 1999). Lippa (2007) also theorized that men in societies high on gender development tended to prefer intelligence in a mate more than men in societies low on gender development. His explanation was that in societies where women were encouraged to earn for themselves and contribute to the family, men valued women’s intelligence. On the contrary, in societies where women tend to stay home and care for the family, men do not place as high a premium on women’s intelligence. According to Regan & Berscheid (1997), men and women rate physical attractiveness and good health as top two characteristics desired in a potential sexual partner. Women rate attentiveness, sense of humor and overall personality as the following desired traits. Men rate overall personality, attentiveness and self-confidence as the following desired traits. However, when they were asked to rate their desired characteristics of potential marriage partners, they had totally different answers. For women, honesty or trustworthiness rank as the first desired characteristic in a potential spouse, followed by sensitivity, overall personality, intelligence and attentiveness. Men found overall personality to be the best desired characteristic in a potential spouse followed by honesty or trustworthiness, physical attractiveness, intelligence and good health (Matlin, 2008) Levine, Aune & Park (2006) claim that the preferences people possess for certain characteristics in romantic partners guide them in their choices in initiating and intensifying a romantic relationship. Factors such as proximity, similarity, physical attractiveness, complementarity, possession of resources and quality of communication are widely accepted as antecedents of attraction. (Levine, Aune & Park, 2006). This same article expounds on the love styles identified by Lee (1977) to understand romantic relationships namely Eros, Storge, Ludus, Agape, Pragma, and Mania. Eros is the kind of love that highly values romance, as physical attraction is early, if not immediate and both partners experience a strong intensity of emotions, commitment to each other and may initiate sexual intimacy early in their relationship. Storge is the romantic love that may develop from a deep friendship. The relationship is considered strong and enduring. Ludus is the kind relationship that sees love as just a game. Deception and Manipulation are the rules and multiple partners are accepted alternatives. There is no room for jealousy, commitment and strong emotional attachments. Agape love is other-centered and altruistic. It is non-demanding, caring and tolerant of the partner. Pragma is ruled by logic and reason. It is analytic and considers a lot of pragmatic reasons as a foundation of love. Lastly, Mania is the obsessive kind of love characterized by dependence, uncertainly, jealousy and emotional upheaval. The manic lover needs reassurance all the time that the partner loves him or her. It suggested that the love style an individual is prone to in the early stages of a romance dictates his or her preferences for certain characteristics in a romantic partner. These preferences are likely to guide the individual towards initiation and intensification of the relationship. This theory was tested on three exploratory studies with Study 1 having subjects rate and rank 14 characteristics of prospective romantic partners, Study 2 having subject’s rate initiation and intensification strategies and Study 3 investigating the association between love styles and ratings of secret tests among individuals currently involved in a romantic relationship. Data gathered from the studies contribute to the growing body of literature that suggests that love styles are associated with individual differences and needs in communication and relationships when it comes to romance. Studies on the onset of romantic experiences have yielded rich information on how young men and women are attracted to the opposite sex in their adolescent years. Feiring (1996) conducted a study that investigated the effects of early romantic experiences among adolescents, as this is the time interest for the opposite sex usually commences. Such experiences are claimed to play a significant role in developing the self and its ability for intimacy with significant others. It also influences future romantic involvements and marriage in adulthood. Girls were expected to emphasize the interpersonal aspects of romantic relationships such as commitment and self-disclosure, whereas boys focus more on their partners' physical attractiveness and sexual relations. As the relationship progresses, common interests and values and then interpersonal compatibility becomes essential (Feiring, 1996). In heterosexual adult love relationships, women are more likely than men say that their relationship is based on friendship. They also experience a wider range of both positive and negative emotions such as commitment, liking and satisfaction for positive emotions and sadness, depression, hurt and loneliness for negative emotions. However, both men and women share the same insights in enumerating the essential features of their relationships such as trust, caring, honesty and respect. They also report similar strategies in maintaining their romantic relationships (Matlin, 2008). Research Methods: This research will make use of qualitative methodology involving case studies of successful couples in romantic relationships. Selected couples will be interviewed of the traits and characteristics that attracted them to their partners. Criteria for choice of interview respondents for the case studies are length, and depth of their relationship that may have landed in marriage or a long-term committed partnership. Search for participants will be commenced in church communities, which are likely places where romantic couples have stayed strong in their commitment to each other, following the advocacies of their church. Winter (2000) argues that with qualitative research, there may be no hypothesis or standardized or accepted tests involved. The participants’ answers to the questions posed by the researcher are enough. As long as they are truthful in their answers then they may be considered valid (Butt, 1992). “In the case of the human sciences it is the congruence of our text of understanding with the lived reality of persons (Eisner & Peshkin, 1990 pp. 97-98). This means that validity would depend on how well we represent the perceptions, feelings, thinking, experience of persons, the breadth, depth and interrelations of issues, concerns and themes (Butt, 1992). This particular research will adhere to Heron’s (1988) more formal view of validity in human research which is the cross-referencing the participants’ sharing of their personal experiences with the research derived from literature. The interviews will be recorded and transcribed in verbatim for qualitative analysis. Bowen’s (2005) analysis of interview transcripts identified patterns in the data by means of thematic codes. This means there will be themes in the interview data that may surface, examples of which are trait preferences when seeking their mates, how these traits have helped in the relationship, etc. Patton (1980) explains “Inductive analysis means that the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis come from the data; they emerge out of the data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis” (p. 306). Bowen’s analysis of data entailed studying the patterns that emerge, making logical associations with the interview questions and reference to the review of literature. He details the process of deriving his research findings as thus: “At successive stages, themes moved from a low level of abstraction to become major, overarching themes rooted in the concrete evidence provided by the data. These emerging themes together with a substantive-formal theory of “development-focused collaboration” became the major findings of my study.” This research will adopt the same analysis. Proposed Results: The researcher expects to gather useful data from the couples selected for the interviews/ case studies. They will be asked what initial traits they sought in a prospective partner and upon finding one, what traits of their partner attracted them. They will also be asked to recount how these traits contributed to the development of their relationship. Since the couples will be talking about their mates, it is expected that they will be very supportive and cooperative in their participation. It will also be interesting to them to know or validate what attracted their partners to them in the first place and what made them fall in love with each other. Apart from boosting self-esteem, it is also expected that the interview process will rekindle in the couples memories of how their relationship began and lead to positive outcomes for their relationship. Discussion: This study attempts to answer the research questions: “What characteristics of the opposite gender do heterosexual males and females consider most important for sexual and marriage partners?. What gender traits contribute to these gender differences in preference pattern? " In recruiting participants for this study, it is important to find actual couples who have gone through the mate selection process to that they will be able to answer the research question with wisdom based on their experiences. It is this wisdom that will be documented and shared with the readers of this study and the researcher’s contribution to the evolving literature on gender differences in mate selection and heterosexual relationship dynamics. The significance of this study falls on the participants’ personal anecdotal narratives of their experiences and their own views regarding why they possessed trait preferences for their mates. Previous studies relied on survey questionnaires with no elaboration of the participants’ responses to the questionnaires and it is only the authors’ interpretations of the results based on their own research from existing literature. For this study, the participants themselves will provide the information to answer the research questions based on their own lived experiences. Although this study may only employ a limited number of participants, the richness of their experiences will be treated as valuable information that can be contributory to the growing research literature. Conclusion It is often believed that for every person, there is one person meant for him/her. Some people believe that special someone will just come unannounced while others believe in actively seeking that one true love. In any case, each person has some preferences for a potential life partner and no matter who we are, no matter what gender we belong to, what is common is our need for someone whom we can establish a loving relationship with and spend the rest of our life with. Mate selection begins with satisfying one’s trait preferences in a potential partner. Although the first thing one can see is a person’s physical appearance, one should not stop at that surface but should go beyond it and search for the true beauty that person has. Although physical attractiveness and material possessions possessed by a potential mate help, in the long run, it is what is inside the person that matters in a long-term, committed relationship. References Bowen, G.A. (2005) “Preparing a Qualitative Research-Based Dissertation: Lessons Learned”, The Qualitative Report Volume 10 Number 2 June 2005 208-222. Retrieved on March 30, 2011 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR10-2/bowen.pdf Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco- Villasenor, A., et al. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5–47. Butt, R. (1992) On Being Personal About the Collective. A paper presented at A.E.R.A., San Francisco, April 20-24, 1992. Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J.(2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491–503.Eisner, E.W. & Peshkin (Eds.) (1990) Qualitative Inquiry in Educaation. New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press. Eagly, A. H., &Wood,W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423. Feiring, C. (1996) “Concepts of Romance in 15-Year-Old Adolescents”, Journal Of Research On Adolescence, 6(2), 181-200 Geary, D. C., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. The Journal of Sex Research, 41, 27–42. Heron, J (1988) Validity in Cooperative Inquiry. In P. Reason (Ed). Human Inquiry in Action. (pp. 40-59) Lee, J. A. (1977). A typology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 173–182. Levine, T.R., Aune, K.S. & Park, H.S. (2006) “Love Styles and Communication in Relationships: Partner Preferences, Initiation, and Intensification”. Communication Quarterly Vol. 54, No. 4, November 2006, pp. 465–486 Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A.W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries ofmate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955. Lippa, R.A. (2007) The Preferred Traits of Mates in a Cross-National Study of Heterosexual and Homosexual Men and Women: An Examination of Biological and Cultural Influences, Arch Sex Behav., 36:193–208 Matlin, M.W. (2008) The Psychology of Women, 6th Ed., Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Regan, P.C. & Berscheid, E. (1997) Gender differences in characteristics desired in a potential sexual and marriage partner. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 9, 32. Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., (2003) “How Do Romantic Relationship Satisfaction, Gender Stereotypes and Gender Relate to Future Time Orientation in Romantic Relationships?”, The Journal of Psychology, 137(3), 294- 303 Winter, G. (2000) “A Comparative Discussion of the Notion of 'Validity' in Qualitative and Quantitative Research”, The Qualitative Report, Volume 4, Numbers 3 & 4, March, 2000. Retrieved on March 30, 2011 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/winter.html Read More