Changes for page Studies: Dating

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,5 +1,77 @@
1	1	= Dating =
2	2
	3	+{{expandable summary="Study: Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence from a Speed Dating Experiment"}}
	4	+**Source:** *The Quarterly Journal of Economics*
	5	+**Date of Publication:** *2006*
	6	+**Author(s):** *Raymond Fisman, Sheena S. Iyengar, Emir Kamenica, Itamar Simonson*
	7	+**Title:** *"Gender Differences in Mate Selection: Evidence from a Speed Dating Experiment"*
	8	+**DOI:** Unavailable (retrieved from PDF)
	9	+**Subject Matter:** *Mate Selection, Speed Dating, Gender Differences, Racial Preferences*
	10	+
	11	+{{expandable summary="📊 Key Statistics"}}
	12	+1. **General Observations:**
	13	+ - Men prioritize **physical attractiveness** significantly more than women.
	14	+ - Women place greater weight on **intelligence** and **partner’s race.**
	15	+ - Both men and women prefer partners of **similar race,** but this is stronger among women.
	16	+
	17	+2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
	18	+ - **Women strongly preferred same-race partners** (+14% acceptance rate boost), men showed no such preference.
	19	+ - Men were significantly less likely to select women who were **more ambitious or intelligent** than themselves.
	20	+
	21	+3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
	22	+ - Male selectivity was **invariant to group size.**
	23	+ - Female selectivity **increased sharply** with group size (more options made them more selective).
	24	+ - Women preferred men from **wealthier neighborhoods,** men showed no such socioeconomic preference.
	25	+{{/expandable}}
	26	+
	27	+{{expandable summary="🔬 Findings"}}
	28	+1. **Primary Observations:**
	29	+ - **Men focused on attractiveness; women focused on intelligence and ambition, but not when it exceeded their own.**
	30	+ - Women had a significant racial preference for same-race partners; men did not.
	31	+
	32	+2. **Subgroup Trends:**
	33	+ - Female participants became more selective as the number of potential partners increased.
	34	+ - Males maintained a relatively steady acceptance rate regardless of group size.
	35	+
	36	+3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
	37	+ - Men penalized women who were more ambitious or intelligent than themselves.
	38	+ - Women's increased selectivity in larger dating pools suggests **higher cognitive or social costs per additional date.**
	39	+{{/expandable}}
	40	+
	41	+{{expandable summary="📝 Critique & Observations"}}
	42	+1. **Strengths of the Study:**
	43	+ - Large real-world dataset from controlled speed dating events.
	44	+ - Direct measurement of individual choices, not just final pairings.
	45	+
	46	+2. **Limitations of the Study:**
	47	+ - All participants were Columbia University graduate students, limiting demographic diversity.
	48	+ - Only short-term impressions (4-minute dates) were studied; long-term relationship preferences may differ.
	49	+ - The study did not include a direct test of **implicit bias**—only explicit choices.
	50	+
	51	+3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
	52	+ - Future studies should replicate this with more diverse samples outside elite academic settings.
	53	+ - Longer follow-up on actual dating outcomes would improve the real-world relevance.
	54	+ - Implicit bias measurement would provide a fuller picture of unconscious mate preferences.
	55	+{{/expandable}}
	56	+
	57	+{{expandable summary="📌 Relevance to Subproject"}}
	58	+- This study **empirically confirms that racial preferences persist** in dating decisions, particularly among women.
	59	+- It shows that men penalize women who outperform them on traditionally male attributes like ambition and intelligence, reflecting persistent gender norms.
	60	+- The study undermines the mainstream media narrative that racial preferences are no longer significant in modern dating behavior.
	61	+{{/expandable}}
	62	+
	63	+{{expandable summary="🔍 Suggestions for Further Exploration"}}
	64	+1. Investigate whether these gender and racial mate preferences persist in **online dating environments** post-2010.
	65	+2. Examine **same-race vs. interracial preferences** across non-academic, working-class populations.
	66	+3. Assess whether **female selectivity remains higher** with increasing options in larger-scale, long-term dating markets.
	67	+{{/expandable}}
	68	+
	69	+{{expandable summary="📄 Download Full Study"}}
	70	+[[Download Full Study>>attach:fisman2006.pdf]]
	71	+{{/expandable}}
	72	+{{/expandable}}
	73	+
	74	+
3	3	{{expandable summary="Study: Positioning Multiraciality in Cyberspace – Treatment of Multiracial Daters in an Online Dating Website"}}
4	4	**Source:** *Social Forces*
5	5	**Date of Publication:** *2016*