1 109 ),, (Fletcher, Tither, O Loughlin, Friesen, & Overall, 2004),, (Meltzer, McNulty, Jackson, & Karney, 2014), (2003),, (2005) Boston,, (20

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "1 109 ),, (Fletcher, Tither, O Loughlin, Friesen, & Overall, 2004),, (Meltzer, McNulty, Jackson, & Karney, 2014), (2003),, (2005) Boston,, (20"

芸凶田
7 years ago
Views:

1 2015, Vol. 47, No.1, Acta Psychologica Sinica DOI: /SP.J * ( 1, ) ( 2, ), (1), ;, (2), ;, (3),, (4),, ; ; ; B849:C91 1, (personal advisements),,,,, ;,, (Alterovitz, & Mendelsohn, 2009; Bereczkei, Voros, Gal, & Bernath, 1997; Cicerello & Sheehan, 1995; Davis, 1990; Deaux & Hanna, 1984; Greenlees & McGrew, 1994; Lance, 1998; Okami & Shakelford, 2001; Smith, Waldorf, & Trembath, 1990; Thiessen, Young, & Burroughs, 1993), Berry Miller (2001) 51 6,,,, ;, Sprecher, Sullivan Hatfield (1994), 12,, (,, : * ( ) :, zhougm@mail.sysu.edu.cn 108

2 1 109 ),, (Fletcher, Tither, O Loughlin, Friesen, & Overall, 2004),, (Meltzer, McNulty, Jackson, & Karney, 2014), (2003),, (2005) Boston,, (2007),, ; (2011),,, (Buss, 1989; Symons, 1979), (Symons, 1979) (Buss, 1989),,, ~18,,,, ;,,,, (Ha, Overbeek, & Engels, 2010) Eastwick Finkel (2008),,, (Eastwick, Eagly, Finkel, & Johnson, 2011),,,, (Buss, 2003;,, 2008),,, (, 2007;,,, 2005); (Hickling, C.Noel, & Yutzler, 1979) (Brase, 2006; La Cerra, 1995) Todosijević, Ljubinković Arančić (2003), Furnham (2009),, (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997),,,,,,,, (Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2010) (Karney & Bradbury, 1997; Gattis, Berns, Simpson, & Christensen, 2004), (Caughlin, Huston, & Houts, 2000),, (Lester, Haig, & Monello, 1989);, (Kelly & Conley, 1987),,,,

3 110 47, (Buss, 1989; Hill, 1945; McGinnis, 1958; Sprecher et al., 1994);,,,,, (Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002),,,,,,,,,,,, ( ), (,, 2005),,,,,, (Lorenzo, Biesanz, & Human, 2010), (Gross & Crofton, 1977; Little, Burt, & Perrett, 2006),,,,,,,,,,,,,, ( 36 ), 9 5, 60 ( 30 ) 20.00, 17~22 ( 1.21); 19.33, 18~23 ( 0.96), , 24, 24 Photoshop,, 24 morphing 10, 10% 95% 5%, , 30, 55% ( ) 15% ( ),, 10 ( 1) 40, 55% ( ), ( M = 4.93, SD = 0.20; M = 4.58, SD = 0.20), t(46) = 1.08, p = 0.22, ; 15% (), ( M = 2.57, SD = 0.18; M = 2.96, SD = 0.18), t(58) = 1.53, p = 0.13, t(29) = 12.94, p < 0.001; t(29) = 15.54, p < % 55%,,,

4 A B (John & Srivastava, 1999), Goldberg (1992) 5 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2.3 (),, ( ) ( ), , (, ), ( ), ( ),,,,, s 9,, 40, 20, ; 20, (block) 20 4 s,, 4s, 9, /, 9,, 4 ( ), 10, 10, 10 4, 9 ( 1 9, ) ,,, SPSS ,, (M = 5.42) (M = 3.09), F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, 2 p = 0.85

5 (2.04) 6.00(1.11) 5.80(1.54) 7.00(1.53) 5.40(2.30) 5.27(1.51) 5.37(1.97) 6.27(1.72) 6.33(1.69) 6.70(1.60) 5.07(2.36) 5.57(2.21) 5.20(2.04) 5.33(1.84) 6.17(1.60) 6.57(1.65) 4.43(2.40) 4.83(2.02) 5.57(2.28) 5.80(1.73) 5.27(1.93) 5.97(1.61) 5.00(2.61) 4.50(2.01) 5.70(2.14) 6.23(1.52) 6.13(1.76) 6.57(2.17) 5.03(1.99) 5.87(2.01) 4.60(1.94) 4.87(1.81) 5.40(1.48) 5.73(1.84) 3.50(1.87) 2.83(1.67) 5.23(2.18) 4.97(2.06) 4.13(2.09) 5.60(2.37) 3.40(1.98) 2.27(1.36) 5.12(1.76) 5.50(1.89) 5.87(2.10) 6.53(1.68) 4.37(2.14) 3.87(1.74) 5.03(2.16) 5.17(1.46) 5.37(2.03) 5.90(2.02) 3.80(1.81) 2.77(1.36) 5.50(2.11) 5.20(1.85) 5.40(2.11) 6.13(1.43) 4.50(2.01) 2.97(1.43) 3.50(1.89) 3.50(1.28) 3.83(1.72) 4.67(1.52) 3.33(1.75) 3.37(1.61) 3.27(1.82) 3.77(1.43) 4.70(1.76) 4.13(1.80) 2.83(1.74) 4.27(1.95) 3.00(1.44) 3.63(1.65) 4.03(1.94) 3.83(1.64) 2.73(1.41) 3.27(1.91) 2.67(1.60) 3.07(1.46) 4.20(1.42) 4.00(1.84) 2.27(1.36) 2.83(1.29) 3.00(1.39) 3.50(1.70) 3.93(1.39) 3.27(1.55) 2.77(1.72) 3.67(2.12) 2.60(1.75) 3.17(1.56) 2.73(1.44) 2.87(1.90) 2.20(1.48) 1.90(1.03) 2.47(1.63) 2.43(1.50) 2.70(1.37) 3.07(1.48) 1.89(1.04) 1.67(0.89) 3.13(1.81) 3.17(1.32) 4.43(1.22) 3.27(1.41) 2.73(1.44) 2.50(1.48) 2.87(1.81) 3.13(1.61) 3.70(1.76) 3.23(1.89) 2.10(1.42) 2.13(1.22) 2.60(1.35) 3.33(1.73) 3.60(1.94) 3.33(1.58) 2.07(1.41) 2.03(1.30) (M = 4.40) (M = 4.10), F(1,58) = 1.27, p = 0.27, 2 p = 0.02, F < 1,, (Gross et al., 1977; Little et al., 2006),, (M = 4.50) (M = 4.01), F(1,58) = 30.49, p < 0.001, 2 p = 0.35,, F(1,58) = 1.97, p = 0.17, 2 p = 0.03,,, F(4,232) = 4.62, p = 0.001, 2 p = 0.07, (p < 0.001)(p < 0.001) (p = 0.007), ( ) ( ) (p = 0.78) (p = 0.19), ( ) ( ) (ps > 0.11) 3.1.2, ,, (M = 5.93) (M = 3.68), F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, 2 p = 0.86 (M = 4.92) (M = 4.69), F(1,58) = 16.80, p = 0.31, 2 p = 0.02,, F(1,58) = 14.69, p < 0.001, 2 p = 0.20,, (ps < 0.001), (2.71) (1.80),, (M = 5.16)

6 1 113 (M = 4.45), F(1,58) = 39.88, p < 0.001, 2 p = 0.41, F(4,232) = 3.06, p = 0.018, 2 p = 0.05,,, F(4,232) = 11.02, p < 0.001, 2 p = 0.16 (p = 0.55) (p = 0.18), (p < 0.001)(p < 0.001)(p = 0.045),,,,,,, F(4,232) = 3.34, p < 0.05, 2 p = 0.05, 5 2,,, ps < 0.01,, (p < 0.001)(p < 0.001), (ps > 0.24);, (p < 0.001)(p < 0.001), (p = 0.051), (ps > 0.49),, 0.054, (ps > 0.05) 3.2,, F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, 2 p = 0.77, (4.26) (2.63), F(1,58) = 7.65, p = 0.008, 2 p = 0.12, (ps < 0.001), ( 1.31, 1.96) 2A,, F(1,58) = , p < 0.001, 2 p = 0.67, (4.12) (2.77), F(1,58) = 16.65, p < 0.001, 2 p = 0.22, (ps < 0.001), ( 1.85, 0.83) 2B 2 (A)(B), F(1,58) = 16.16, p < 0.001, 2 p = 0.22,, (ps < 0.001), ( 1.67, 1.02), ( )(ps < 0.001), ( 1.96, 1.31),, F(4,232) = 3.88, p = 0.005, 2 p = 0.06, F(4,232) = 12.08, p < 0.001, 2 p = 0.17,, (ps < 0.05), ( 2.14)( 1.73)

7 ( 1.44)( 0.95) ( 0.45),,,,, F(4,232) = 2.43, p < 0.05, 2 p = ,,, ps < 0.001,, (ps < 0.05);, (p = 0.906), (ps < 0.05) (ps > 0.24) 4,,,,,,,, (Fletcher et al., 2004; Ha et al., 2010; Meltzer et al., 2014; Sprecher et al., 1994), Li (2002), (, ) (Symons, 1979; Williams, 1975),,,,,,, (Eastwick et al., 2008; Eastwick et al., 2011),,, (Iyengar, Simonson, Fisman, & Mogilner, 2005), (Eastwick et al., 2008),, ; (Eastwick et al., 2011),,,, ;, (Meltzer et al., 2014),,,, Eastwick (2008),,,, (p245),, ;,, (, 2003;,, 2005;, 2007),, (Hickling et al., 1979) ; (Buss, 1989),,,,, (Lorenzo et al., 2010), (Gross et al., 1977; Little et al., 2006); (

8 1 115 ),,, Gross (1977) Little (2006) (, ),,, (, ),,,,, (Botwin et al., 1997; Furnham, 2009) (Malouff et al., 2010),,,, Lester (1989) Kelly (1987),,, (Gattis et al., 2004), (Botwin et al., 1997) ;,, (Nettle, 2005),,,,,,,, Darwin (1859),,,,, Buss (1989) Symons (1979),,,,,,,,,,,,, 5 (1), ;, (2), ;, (3),, (4),,

9 Alterovitz, S. S. R., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (2009). Partner preferences across the life span: Online dating by older adults. Psychology and Aging, 24(2), Bereczkei, T., Voros, S., Gal, A., & Bernath, L. (1997). Resources, attractiveness, family commitment: Reproductive decisions in human mate choice. Ethology, 103(8), Berry, D. S., & Miller, K. M. (2001). When boy meets girl: Attractiveness and the Five-Factor model in opposite-sex interactions. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65(1), Brase, G. L. (2006). Cues of parental investment as a factor in attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(2), Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), Buss, D. M. (2003). The Evolution of Desire (rev. ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. Caughlin, J. P., Huston, T. L., & Houts, R. M. (2000). How does personality matter in marriage? An examination of trait anxiety, interpersonal negativity, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 78(2), 326. Cicerello, A., & Sheehan, E. P. (1995). Personal advertisements: A content analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(4), Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of the species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. Davis, S. (1990). Men as success objects and women as sex objects: A study of personal advertisements. Sex Roles, 23(1-2), Deaux, K., & Hanna, R. (1984). Courtship in the personals column: The influence of gender and sexual orientation. Sex Roles, 11(5-6), 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), Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Finkel, E. J., & Johnson, S. E. (2011). Implicit and explicit preferences for physical attractiveness in a romantic partner: A double dissociation in predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), Fletcher, G. J. O., Tither, J. M., O Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), Furnham, A. (2009). Sex differences in mate selection preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(4), Gattis, K. S., Berns, S., Simpson, L. E., & Christensen, A. (2004). Birds of a feather or strange birds? Ties among personality dimensions, similarity, and marital quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(4), Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers of the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 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), Gross, A. E., & Crofton, C. (1977). What is good is beautiful. Sociometry, 40(1), Ha, T., Overbeek, G., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2010). Effects of attractiveness and social status on dating desire in heterosexual adolescents: An experimental study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(5), Hickling, E. J., Noel, R. C., & Yutzler, F. D. (1979). Attractiveness and occupational status. The Journal of Psychology, 102(1), Hill, R. (1945). Campus values in mate-selection. Journal of Home Economics, 37, Iyengar, S. S., Simonson, I., Fisman, R., & Mogilner, C. (2005, January). I know what I want but can I find it? Examining the dynamic relationship between stated and revealed preferences. Paper presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp ). New York: Guilford. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1997). Neuroticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), La Cerra, M. M. (1995). Evolved mate preferences in women: Psychological adaptations for assessing a man's willingness to invest in offspring. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 55(9 B), Lance, L. M. (1998). Gender differences in heterosexual dating: A content analysis of personal ads. Journal of Men s Studies, 6(3), Lester, D., Haig, C., & Monello, C. (1989). Spouses personality and marital satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(2), Li, C. Q., Cao, H., Zhang, J. X., & Shi, Z. B. (2007). Progress of psychological research on jealousy. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 15(3), , 281. [,,,. (2007).., 15(3), , 281.] Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). What is good is beautiful: Face preference reflects desired personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(6), Liu, Y. F., Su, L. N., & Wang, H.Y. (2011). Women s cues preferences and information processing mode in mate choice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43(1), [,,. (2011).., 43(1), ] Lorenzo, G. L., Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). What is beautiful is good and more accurately understood: Physical attractiveness and accuracy in first impressions of

10 1 117 personality. Psychological Science, 21(12), Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The Five-Factor Model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), McGinnis, R. (1958). Campus values in mate selection: A repeat study. Social Forces, 36(4), Meltzer, A. L., McNulty, J. K., Jackson, G. L., & Karney, B. R. (2014). Sex Differences in the implications of partner physical attractiveness for the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(3), Nettle, D. (2005). An evolutionary approach to the extraversion continuum. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(4), Okami, P., & Shakelford, T. K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, Qian, M. Y., Wang, Y. P., Zhang, X. Y., & Zhu, S. (2003). Changes of mate selection of Chinese women in the last 15 years. Journal of Peking University: Philosophy and Social Sciences, 40(5), [,,,. (2003).. :, 40(5), ] Smith, J.E., Waldorf, V. A., & Trembath, D. L. (1990). Single white male looking for thin, very attractive. Sex Roles, 23(11-12), Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Thiessen, D., Young, R.K., & Burroughs, R. (1993). Lonely hearts advertisements reflect sexually dimorphic mating strategies. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(3), Todosijević, B., Ljubinković, S., & Arančić, A. (2003). Mate selection criteria: A trait desirability assessment study of sex differences in Serbia. Evolutionary Psychology, 1, Williams, G. C. (1975). Sex and evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Yue, G. A., Chen, H., & Zhang, Y. Y. (2005). Verification of evolutionary hypothesis on human mate selection mechanism in cross-culture context. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 37(4), [,,. (2005).., 37(4), ] Yue, G. A., Zhang, Y. Y., & Chen, H. (2005). Studies and disputes on personal advertisements in the west. Advances in Psychological Science, 13(2), [,,. (2005).., 13(2), ] Zhang, X. H., & Chen, H. (2008). Influences of personality characteristics on marriage. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 16(4), [,. (2008).., 16(4), ] The Influence of Facial Attractiveness and Personality Labels on Men and Women s Mate Preference WANG Yuqing 1 ; YAO Pengfei 2 ; ZHOU Guomei 2 ( 1 School of Psychology, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi an , China) ( 2 Department of Psychology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou , China) Abstract As a complex social, cultural and psychological phenomenon, mate selection has in recent years become a hot research topic in both psychology and sociology. Some studies have found that when it comes to mate selection, physical attractiveness of a romantic partner such as appearance, figure are more important to men than they are to women while ability, resources and personality of a romantic partner show an opposite pattern. However, this view has recently been challenged by researchers who propose that a partner s physical attractiveness may be as important to women as it is to men (Eastwick, Eagly, Finkel, & Johnson, 2011; Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Fisman, Iyengar, Kamenica, & Simonson, 2006). Choosing a lover is an important and complicated issue that deserves further study with experimental investigation. The present study manipulated the degree of face attractiveness and personality traits. We evaluated the partner choices made by both men and women. As for face attractiveness and personality traits, people think that beautiful people have more positive qualities, and their unique characteristics or qualities can get more favorable perception (Lorenzo, et al, 2010). On the other hand, people who have positive qualities are often judged as more beautiful (Gross, Crofton, 1977). To understand the influence of facial attractiveness and personality labels on men and women s mate, we included the two independent variables in one experiment and examine their interactive effects on men and women's mate preferences.

11 Chinese male faces and female faces along with Big-Five personality information materials were presented to 30 female students and 30 male students for rating of attractiveness and desirability as a lover (only for opposite-sex photos).the results showed as that: (1) When seeing a photo of a beautiful opposite-sex face, men were more willing to have her as a lover than women. (2) Those people whose photos were labeled with positive personality were more likely chosen as lovers by women. (3) Compared with those labeled with negative personality, photos with positive personality were more likely to be chosen as lovers and such likelihood was clearly increased when the photos were more beautiful. (4) All five dimensions of Big-Five personalities influenced mate preferences of men and women, with the power gradually decreasing from conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness, emotional stability to extroversion. While women preferred extrovert men, whether or not women were extrovert had no effect on men s mate preferences. These findings provide further evidence for understanding sex differences in mate selection. Key words facial attractiveness; Big-Five personality labels; sex differences; mate selection

《心理学报》论文自检报告

《心理学报》论文自检报告心理学报审稿意见与作者回应题目 : 面孔吸引力人格标签对于男女择偶偏好的影响作者 : 王雨晴, 姚鹏飞, 周国梅第一轮首先十分感谢编辑部与两位审稿人的中肯意见和建议下面我们对建议逐一进行了回应 ( 见蓝色字 ) 正文中修改过