Predicting Romantic Interest at Zero Acquaintance: Evidence of Sex Differences in Trait Perception but Not in Predictors of Interest

Abstract

We evaluated five competing hypotheses about what predicts romantic interest. Through a half-block quasi-experimental design, a large sample of young adults (i.e., responders; n = 335) viewed videos of opposite-sex persons (i.e., targets) talking about themselves and responders rated the targets’ traits and their romantic interest in the target. We tested whether similarity, dissimilarity, or overall trait levels on mate value, physical attractiveness, life history strategy, and the Big-Five personality factors predicted romantic interest at zero acquaintance, and whether sex acted as a moderator. We tested the responders’ individual perception of the targets’ traits, in addition to the targets’ own self-reported trait levels and a consensus rating of the targets made by the responders. We used polynomial regression with response surface analysis within multilevel modeling to test support for each of the hypotheses. Results suggest a large sex difference in trait perception; when women rated men, they agreed in their perception more often than when men rated women. However, as a predictor of romantic interest, there were no sex differences. Only the responders’ perception of the targets’ physical attractiveness predicted romantic interest; specifically, responders’ who rated the targets’ physical attractiveness as higher than themselves reported more romantic interest.

Preprint of "The Impact of Mate Value in First and Subsequent Real-Life Romantic Encounters"

“…Most studies that investigated matching on physical attractiveness in initial romantic encounters, however, found no support for the Matching Hypothesis (e.g., Curran & Lippold, 1975; Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Huston, 1973; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005; Lee et al, 2008;Olderbak et al, 2017; Walster et al, 1966; see also Kalick & Hamilton, 1986; Luo & Zhang, 2009; Taylor et al, 2011; Van Straaten et al, 2009).…”

“…This Running head: MATE VALUE AND REAL-LIFE ROMANTIC ENCOUNTERS 7 supposition was proposed as a consequence of the findings from studies on physical attractiveness that did not find support for the Matching Hypothesis. Almost all of these studies instead found a positive main effect of a potential partner's physical attractiveness:The higher a potential partner's physical attractiveness, the higher were participants' romantic attraction, interest in another date, and likelihood of initiating contact with this potential partner (e.g., Berscheid et al, 1971; Curran & Lippold, 1975; Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Fletcher, Kerr, Li, & Valentine, 2014; Hitsch, Hortaçsu, & Ariely, 2005; Huston, 1973; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005; Lee et al, 2008; Luo & Zhang, 2009;Olderbak et al, 2017; Stroebe, Insko, Thompson, & Layton, 1971; Walster et al, 1966; see also Asendorpf et al, 2011;Montoya, 2008). However, as deduced above, the crucial question is whether these findings also hold for global mate value.…”

“…Past research for example has demonstrated that people feel more romantically attracted to and are more likely to go on a second date with potential partners who are similar to themselves in attitudes, interests, and values (e.g., Byrne, Ervin, & Lamberth, 1970;Sprecher & Duck, 1994). In addition, an extensive set of studies investigated the Matching Hypothesis for the construct of physical attractiveness (e.g., Berscheid et al, 1971; Curran & Lippold, 1975; Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Folkes, 1982; Huston, 1973; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005; Lee, Loewenstein, Ariely, Hong, & Young, 2008;Montoya, 2008;Olderbak et al, 2017; Van Straaten et al, 2009; Walster et al, 1966).The findings from this line of research have been mixed, with a few studies finding evidence for the Matching Hypothesis-such as increased romantic attraction, more approach behavior, and a higher likelihood of initiating or continuing contact with potential partners with similar physical attractiveness Folkes, 1982;Montoya, 2008; Taylor et al, 2011; Van Straaten et al, 2009). Most studies that investigated matching on physical attractiveness in initial romantic encounters, however, found no support for the Matching Hypothesis (e.g., Curran & Lippold, 1975; Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Huston, 1973; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005; Lee et al, 2008;Olderbak et al, 2017; Walster et al, 1966; see also Kalick & Hamilton, 1986; Luo & Zhang, 2009; Taylor et al, 2011; Van Straaten et al, 2009).…”

“…Two competing theoretical assumptions about this influence dominate the field: the idea that individuals feel attracted to and select potential partners who are similar to themselves in mate value versus the idea that individuals feel attracted to and select potential partners with a high mate value (e.g., Olderbak, Malter, Wolf, Jones, & Figueredo, 2017;Penke et al, 2008; Taylor, Fiore, Mendelsohn, & Cheshire, 2011; Van Straaten, Engels, Finkenauer, & Holland, 2009; see also Ellis & Kelley, 1999). Prior empirical examinations of these hypotheses have predominantly focused on specific aspects of mate value (especially physical attractiveness; e.g., Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971; Curran & Lippold, 1975;Montoya, 2008; Van Straaten et al., 2009; Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966), but only a few studies so far have investigated global mate value-and these few studies revealed mixed evidence regarding the two hypotheses Lemay & Wolf, 2016;Olderbak et al, 2017; Taylor et al, 2011; Todd, Penke, Fasolo, & Lenton, 2007). Thus, in order to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of two dating partners' mate values on these dating partners' romantic attraction to each other, the present study provides a systematic examination of both hypotheses for global mate value in a real-life dating context.…”

“…In addition, an extensive set of studies investigated the Matching Hypothesis for the construct of physical attractiveness (e.g., Berscheid et al, 1971; Curran & Lippold, 1975; Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Folkes, 1982; Huston, 1973; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005; Lee, Loewenstein, Ariely, Hong, & Young, 2008;Montoya, 2008;Olderbak et al, 2017; Van Straaten et al, 2009; Walster et al, 1966).…”