Summary and Evaluation of Quantitative Research Paper - Essay Example

? Summary and Evaluation of Quantitative Research Paper Inserts His/Her Inserts Grade Inserts Writer Inserts Date Here (Day, Month, Year) The age old ritual of mating has been a constant source of misery, confusion and frustration for both sexes throughout time. Due to the evolution in technology and the methodology of research we have been able to understand this process slightly better. By carrying out controlled experiments we can finally begin to conclusively evaluate what it is exactly that both sexes find attractive in a partner. However, it appears that what men and women want is not such a mystery after all, and that traditional wisdom formulated on the matter throughout many millennia could very well be true. This is the crux of this article. INTRODUCTION The article by Michael J. Dunn and Robert Searle contains a background to and an elaboration of research conducted in order to assess the physical attractiveness of social status cues to both males and females. The social status cue used in this particular research was a motor car. A sample of population of both genders was asked to rate the attractiveness of the same opposite sex model firstly in a neutral status car (Ford Siesta) and a high status car (Bentley Continental GT). The findings of the research confirmed what we already knew through previously conducted research. Renowned psychologists such as Buss, Symons and Fletcher have studied this matter extensively for many decades. Their scrupulous examinations of the matter yielded results which allowed the creators of this particular to formulate the hypothesis. Previous research clearly identified that particular preferences exist when finding a mate. Although these may not apply to both sexes. Buss in particular carried out a multi-cultural study of mating preferences leaving us with the conclusion that traits that were deemed attractive were indeed universal. To summarise the findings of many researchers including Buss, it can be said that the primary trait considered by males is physical attractiveness while females tend to seek financial wealth and status. Buss also stated that females can be alerted to financial wealth and status of a male through various cues. These are largely dependent on the socio-cultural background of the female and relative to a particular society. For example in the West bank accounts house ownership may be a key indicator. However, this inclination still exists within females from lesser developed societies where bank accounts and house ownership are not as common (Betzig). In Western societies, physically attractive women have a tendency to marry men of a high financial and social status (Andersson). Research has also shown that men and women are clearly cognisant of what the opposite sex finds attractive. Males tend to become competitive and display jealousy on the basis of financial status and wealth (Buss, Shackelford, Choe, Buunk, & Dijkstra, 2005; Park, Wiling, Bunnk, & Massar). They are also more willing to make exorbitant expenditures on luxury items in a bid to impress the opposite gender (Kruger). Females on the other hand, appear to be far more fixated on their physical attractiveness and exhibit hostility and jealous towards other females based on this context (Buss, Park). Conversely, due to the sexual revolution and female empowerment movement of the 1960’s, the West is no longer a society where the male earns and the female is designated to tend to the offspring. Females have become increasingly financially independent and are now in an equal position to acquire financial status cues like cars as males. A survey conducted by Autoroyalty showed that “50.61% of Volvo V70 owners and 61% of BMW Z4 owners were women”. In such circumstances do women continue to display the same preferences? The answer according to research is an unequivocal yes. Females, still continue to place twice as much importance on financial status cues than men (Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick, & Larsen). RESEARCH For the purpose of this particular research, it was decided, that the most appropriate financial status cue would be the automobile. As other than the ownership of property it is the most indicative of wealth. Secondly photographic images of models of both sexes were used as they create less confusion in the mind of the subject rather than a verbal description. It was also predicted that males would not be influenced by financial status cues in their rating of physical attractiveness. Methodology A preliminary sample of 150 students from Cardiff University divided equally between males and females was used to rate the attractiveness of three opposite sex models. A second preliminary sample of 100 participants was used to assess the aesthetic value of the cars. Following this a separate sample of 20 participants was asked to estimate the price of the cars. The main research was conducted on a sample size of 240 (equally divided between male and female) recruited from Cardiff city centre to capture the most hetrogenous sample possible. Two independent variables were used in this research, the gender of the model and the status of the car. All the photographs presented were taken from the same camera (Nikon Coolpix 5200). In addition the age of both the models, adopted facial expressions, lighting conditions and camera distance were the same in each photograph. Research was carried out over a period of four weeks, where willing participants in Cardiff City Centre were issued with photographs depending on their gender of a model in either the neutral class Ford Sierra or the high class Bentley Continental GT. Participants were then asked to arrive at their ratings for the model within a period of one minute RESULTS The study shows that females tended to rate the male model in a high status vehicle far higher than males rated the female model in the same vehicle. The study also showed that males gave a far higher rating to the female model in the neutral status vehicle than the male model received from females in the same context. It was also noted that females are far more conservative in assigning physical attractiveness to males than vice versa. CONCLUSION & EVALUATION Although the hypotheses and the predictions made by the researchers were confirmed as a result of this study. The question remains whether or not this research had any real purpose? Or did it simply confirm what was already known and reaffirm previous research conducted by psychologists on the matter. That male attractiveness can be manipulated through social status cues would not be a surprise to many. Similarly the proposition that males are only attracted towards physical factors would not raise any eyebrows either. This study may be correct in assuming that the male only considers one factor of being of primary importance and that is physical attractiveness. However it ignores the fact that females take into account several factors other than financial wealth and status such as “willingness to invest” (Buss) and the perception of other females towards the male in question (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, Shebilske, and Lundgren). Furthermore, since men tend to ignore visual stimuli that is not based on physical attractiveness (Grammer) it would be interesting to conduct this experiment with females adorned in clothing that could be considered of a higher financial status to conclusively find whether or not this has an effect on men. Despite my criticisms, the experiment was successful in what it set out to achieve and was conducted in a manner that would not hamper the results or create a bias in the minds of the participants. REFERENCES Betzig, L. L. (1986). Despotism and differential reproduction: A Darwinian view of history. Hawthorn, NY: Aldine. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses testing in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49. Buss, D. M. (1992). Mate preference mechanisms: Consequences for partner choice and intrasexual competition. In J. H. Barkhow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 249–266). New York: Oxford University Press. Buss, D. M. (2002). Human mating strategies. Samfundsokonomen, 4, 47–58. Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245–264. Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the prettiest. New York: Random House. Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Boyes, A. D. (2006). Accuracy and bias in romantic relationships: An evolutionary and social psychological analysis. In M. Shaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 189–209). New York/Hove: Psychology Press. Fletcher, G. J. O, Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, L. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 72–89. Gladue, B. A., & Delaney, H. J. (1990). Gender differences in the perception of attractiveness of men and women in bars. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 378–391. Grammer, K. (1989). Human courtship behaviour: Biological basis and cognitive processing. In A. E. Rasa, C. Vogel, & E. Voland (Eds.), The sociobiology of sexual and reproductive strategies (pp. 147–169). London: Chapman and Hall. Graziano,W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Shebilske, L. J., & Lundgren, S. R. (1993). Social influence, sex differences, and judgments of beauty: Putting the interpersonal back in interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 522–531. Greenlees, I. A., & McGrew, W. C. (1994). Sex and age differences in preferences and tactics of mate attraction: Analysis of published advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15(2), 59–72. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 85–102. Hassebrauk, M. (1998). The visual process method: A new method to study physical attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 111–123. Hickling, E., Noel, R., & Yutzler, P. (1979). Attractiveness and occupational status. Journal of Psychology, 102, 71–76. Hill, E., Nocks, E., & Gardner, L. (1987). Manipulation by physical and status displays. Ethology and Sociobiology, 8, 43–154. Jones, R. (2002). Rich, single females on the increase. Gurdian, 10 April 2002. Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., & Feinberg, D. R. (2007). Social transmission of face preferences among humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society, (B), 274, 899–903. Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75–133. Kruger, D. J. (2008). Male financial consumption is associated with higher mating intentions and mating success. Evolutionary Psychology. www.epjournal.net 6(4), 603–612. LaCerra, M. M. (1994). Evolved mate preferences in women: Psychological adaptations for assessing a man’s willingness to invest in offspring. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of California: Santa Barbara, CA. Manor, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & DeWall, C. N. (2007). Adaptive attentional attunement evidence for mating-related perceptual bias. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(1), 28–36. PA Business (2008). http://www.esure.com/news/archieve/wcmprod Park, J. H.,Wieling, B. M., Bunnk, A. P., & Massar, K. (2008). Sex-specific relationship between digit ratio (2D:4D) and romantic jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(4), 1039–1045. Pawlowski, B., & Koziel, S. (2002). The impact of traits offered in personal advertisements on response rates. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 23, 139–149. Penke, L., Todd, P. M., Lenton, A., & Fasolo, B. (2007). How self-assessments can guide human mating decisions. In G. Geher & G. F. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 37–75). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. Read More