Footnote step 1 Very members was basically heterosexual (85%) Footnote 2 and you will half of (50%) was indeed inside a loyal matchmaking

Means

Just how do individuals build conclusion throughout the just who to pair having whenever he or she is met with unappealing mating prospects? Within investigation, i look at the how – when real interest is actually absent – participant’s gender and you can dealbreaker/dealmaker pointers influence new desirability reviews off a lot of time-name and you may short-name mates. I assume (H1) guys (as compared to women) to acquire even unappealing aim more appealing on the small-title perspective (particularly when combined with specific advantdecadesssous pointers) and you will (H2) girls to maintain lower levels of great interest with the ugly aim regardless off mating framework otherwise pointers provided. I including assume that (H3), total, female would-be shorter interested than simply boys when you look at the prospective friends who is actually substandard during the actual attractiveness. Additionally, we anticipate you to definitely (H4) learning bad information about unsightly goals should make plans quicker common than simply training positive information (Jonason ainsi que al. 2015, 2020a, b).

Participants and functions

Participants were 186 undergraduate students (48 men) aged 18 to 59 (M = , SD = 7.26) from a public university in Australia who received course credit for completing an online survey on “individual differences in relationship ple size (None?tailed ? 150) to detect the effect size of change in interest (our focal variable) in response to learning “dealbreakers” and “dealmakers” (Cohen’s d ? 0.40; Jonason et al. 2020a, b). Footnote 3 On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Participants were informed of the details of the study and provided tick-box consent. They were randomly assigned to either a dealbreaker (n = 95; e.g., “This person gets angry easily.”, “This person has a sexually transmitted infection.”) or dealmaker (n = 91; e.g., “This person is successful at work.”, “This person is kind to strangers.”) condition where characteristics for both classes of information (for the full list see Jonason et al. 2020b, Appendix A) were presented in randomized fashion in an ultra-brief vignette fashion (i.e., a single sentence) and paired with eight pictures (randomized for order and pairing so that a different characteristic from the assigned condition was randomly paired with one of each of the eight pictures presented) of men or women (matched for sexual orientation) from the Chicago Face Database (Ma et al. 2015). Participants were given instructions (i.e., “You will now be presented with pictures of different people. Below each picture, you will see a statement describing the person in the picture. Please note that the statement below each picture applies to the person in the picture.”) and then shown one picture of a target paired with one characteristic at a time. Participants were asked to rate the desirability (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely) of the targets for a “long-term (romantic)” and “short-term (casual sex)” relationship, as well as how physically attractive (1 = far below average; 7 = far above average) the target was as a check on our stimuli and selection process. Footnote 4 The pictures we used were of men (Mage = , SDage = 5.89, Rangeage = to ) and women (Mage = , SDage = 5.02, Rangeage = to ) who appeared to have Caucasian ethnicity (to control for self- vs. other-race effects; Rhodes et al. 2005; van den Berghe and Frost 1986), who had a neutral facial expression (to control for effects of affect; Mehu et al. 2008; Morrison et al. 2013; Penton-Voak and Chang 2008), and who were pre-rated for attractiveness (1 = not at all; 7 = extremely) by independent judges from the database to be between 3 and 4 (M = 3.32, SD = 0.20, Range = 3.03 to 3.69; any lower was considered unrealistically unattractive). We found considerable agreement among our participants across the eight photos (Cronbach’s ? = 0.92) and confirmed that these targets were rated on average (M = 2.65, SD = 1.05) below the scale’s midpoint (t = -, p