Do Men and Women Exhibit Different Preferences for Mates? A Replication of Eastwick and Finkel (2008)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary theory predicts that men will prefer physically attractive romantic partners, and women will prefer wealthy, high-status partners. This theory is well-supported when examining ideal hypothetical partner preferences, but less support has been found when people interact face-to-face. The present study served as a direct replication of results reported in Eastwick and Finkel (2008). We recruited 307 participants and utilized a speed-dating methodology to allow in-person interactions, then administered follow-up surveys to measure romantic interest over 30 days. Data were analyzed using multilevel modeling and were aggregated using meta-analysis. Consistent with previous findings, our results showed that participants were more romantically interested in potential partners if they were viewed as attractive and good potential earners, and these associations were not moderated by gender. Results suggest that gender differences predicted by evolutionary theory may not hold when people interact with potential romantic partners face-to-face. However, we discuss these results in light of some general methodological limitations and evidence from other lines of research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".