Posted on 12/21/2004 3:59:39 PM PST by beavus
ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Men are more likely to want to marry women who are their assistants at work rather than their colleagues or bosses, a University of Michigan study finds.
The study, published in the current issue of Evolution and Human Behavior, highlights the importance of relational dominance in mate selection and discusses the evolutionary utility of male concerns about mating with dominant females.
"These findings provide empirical support for the widespread belief that powerful women are at a disadvantage in the marriage market because men may prefer to marry less accomplished women," said Stephanie Brown, lead author of the study and a social psychologist at the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR).
For the study, supported in part by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health, Brown and co-author Brian Lewis from UCLA tested 120 male and 208 female undergraduates by asking them to rate their attraction and desire to affiliate with a man and a woman they were said to know from work.
"Imagine that you have just taken a job and that Jennifer (or John) is your immediate supervisor (or your peer, or your assistant)," study participants were told as they were shown a photo of a male or a female.
After seeing the photo and hearing the description of the person's role at work in relation to their own, participants were asked to use a 9-point Likert scale (1 is not at all, 9 is very much) to rate the extent to which they would enjoy going to a party with Jennifer or John, exercising with the person, dating the person and marrying the person.
Brown and Lewis found that males, but not females, were most strongly attracted to subordinate partners for high-investment activities such as marriage and dating.
"Our results demonstrate that male preference for subordinate women increases as the investment in the relationship increases," Brown said. "This pattern is consistent with the possibility that there were reproductive advantages for males who preferred to form long-term relationships with relatively subordinate partners.
"Given that female infidelity is a severe reproductive threat to males only when investment is high, a preference for subordinate partners may provide adaptive benefits to males in the context of only long-term, investing relationships---not one-night stands."
According to Brown, who is affiliated with the ISR Evolution and Human Adaptation Program, the current findings are consistent with earlier research showing that expressions of vulnerability enhance female attractiveness. "Our results also provide further explanation for why males might attend to dominance-linked characteristics of women such as relative age or income, and why adult males typically prefer partners who are younger and make less money."
For more information on the ISR Evolution and Human Adaptation Program, visit: http://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/ehap/
Yes, there is. The "more accomplished" or "less accomplished" terms refer to hierarchical structure in the company which circles back to the article.
I am not sure about that because of the privacy policies in regards to the grades, but I did get questions from fellow male students in the past as "I seem to have difficulty in the class, can I study with you?" :-)
No. I dissented to the statement which stipulated that women defer the decisions to males every time a decision is a close call.
Well, just WHO does one defer to on the respective "close calls" of "pizza or chinese," or "getting the house down the shore or the Poconos?" (ok, maybe that's a rhetorical question)
Even in a "balanced" relationship, most women prefer to depend on the man (example: Bush) to make the tough decision -- if not in the least, weigh in heavily on the matter.
Tell me the truth -- isn't there a component of disrespect by a woman for a man (example: Bubba) who is all too willing to yield most of the decision-making to a woman?
Women are attracted to what the authors of the article refer to as "power" and "accomplishment". In our time, women have been liberated (or whatever you want to call it) to become what they desire in men. A somewhat unexpected, but perfectly understandable, byproduct is the expectation of women who pay the price to acquire "power" or "accomplishments" that they will now be attractive to men, in the way that such men are attractive to women (and to these women in particular).
But of course, this is not so for the most part. These mens achievements are an aspect of their masculinity. Their masculinity is why they do the things they do.
To be attracted to themselves, in effect, is either narcissistic or homoerotic, but either way does not form the basis for a long-term successful heterosexual partnership.
Hence, the next step-"men have to change".
Except, no, they don't-and "change" so fundamental is utopian to the point of fantasy.
It's not that men are attracted to "weaker" women or "less accomplished" women. But men are not, for the most part, attracted to themselves (despite what you may read in the papers). The entire biological basis of sex is attraction to the other, and that's what the female partnership-track attorneys and doctors are not providing to most men.
Oh. Ever think of getting out of Kennedyville?
You've outted me as a dominate male now.
You can't take pictures with a ring!
Just tell us you haven't done so from the confines of a "closet."
Bad connotations and all that ;-)
I was trying to be a sensitive male but my wife Laura Earl told on me as a TV remote grabbing beer drinking redneck butthole.
I just outed you as a TV remote control freak. You're outing yourself about everything else. :)
Oh. Well you started it!
:-D
Heh! You forgot to add 'freakin' neanderthal' to your resume.
No need. See the official list? Look at the 10th one.
Metrosexual : Stupid men that can make up their mind to be fags
Heterosexual : Normal men
Homosexual : AIDS candidates
Ruralsexual : Country folk, attract with good cooking
Rednecksexual : Male Cowboys, attract with sheep wool, Foreplay = "Brace yourself honey"
DontGetNosexual : celibate male (poor guys)
Alltoosexual : thinking about sex too much
Robosexual : Sold in catalogs and online
Neandersexual : See ConspiracyGuy
Forgetosexual : Possibly senile male heterosexual (who stops thinking about sex ?? )
Suburbansexual : Metrosexual with a small SUV
Quatrosexual : Having sex with all Sex In the City Girls (see doctor post haste)
; )
The great majority of couples I've known over the years where the woman insisted on keeping her last name or hyphenating it with her husband's have ended in divorce. Just an observation. I wonder if there are statistics on such marriages.
You made me throw up a little into my mouth....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.