1

COM 262 Research Project

By Brittany Shuler & Elise Masquelier Miami University Summer 2013

Abstract Gender roles and degree of attraction are things that we found interesting to test. We are fascinated about what exactly it is that makes a male crazy about a female, and what makes a female in love with a male. We surveyed a diverse group of males and females to support our hypothesis stating: Males have a higher physical attraction level than females, whereas females tend to be more attracted to social and task-oriented categories in an individual. We found the attraction level to be intriguing between the sexes, and wanted to see how the results reflected the social norm. Every couple is different, and this was fairly apparent in our survey results. After a few days of face-to-face surveying in various places around Ohio (Utilizing both the Rubin, Palmgreen & Sypher, 1994 Interpersonal Attraction Scale and the Grohol, J. (2007). Rubins Love Scale), we found that the gap between physical attraction scores between males and females was not as big as we had predicted. In conclusion, our hypothesis of difference directional was partially supported. Our covariation hypothesis was fully supported. Our test we ran for physical attraction was not statistically significant.

Introduction Our topic of interest is the difference in attraction between genders. We were interested in surveying a variety of males and females to see if the gender of an individual truly makes a difference in what that person finds attractive (and their degree of attractiveness). We combined two surveys, The Rubin, Palmgreen & Sypher, 1994 Interpersonal Attraction Scale and the Grohol, 2007 Rubins Love Scale. The hypothesis we tested was that males are more physically attracted, and females are more attracted to task, emotional and social. We were also stating that we thought a big difference between the two genders would be seen. This was important to study for us because life depends on communication and relationships. Relationships, whether romantic or not, usually start with some sort of initial attraction. There is often a reason why an individual is spending time with or giving this person their attention. It could be like what our group likes to call a Kiddie Pool Attraction, which is shallow and is based on how attractive that person looks like in a bikini. We thought that the males we surveyed would have high scores on the kiddie pool also known as physical attraction. It would also be a deeper bond than that an emotional, task, or social attraction. Because this is such a huge part of life, we found it extremely interesting to collect data based on gender and attraction. After all, male and female brains are different and are stimulated by various things. The male brain, for one, has approximately 2.5 times the sexual pursuit area than females (Brizendine, CNN, 2010). We wanted to watch these results pan out and see if we could find support in our thinking. Methods Our sample was a convenient sample. We collected data from Friday to Sunday in Enon, Oxford, and the Cincinnati, Ohio areas. We collected data by first approaching individuals and asking

them to take just a moment for our survey. Then we explained how it would help our research and how much we appreciated that persons time. Our stimulus material was simply the survey itself. We invested in color copies, which made the survey professional, appealing, and stimulating. Instead of looking at a boring survey, we had one that was nice on the eyes as well. We did not have to bribe anyone with any prizes at the end, but instead cordially thanked them for taking part in our survey. Each variable was carefully observed via our survey. On the front page, we had a seven-point scale that ranged from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7). The individual was to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements. The back had a 9point scale, with (1) Not True to (9) Definitely True. We thought that between the fifteen questions on the front and the twelve questions on the back, it was a concise but sweet survey to get desired results. This helped us in getting our number of participants up, because like we mentioned in class, the attention span of our society is decreasing. We had four sub-dimensions: Social (Questions 1-5), Physical (Questions 6-10), Task (Questions 11-15) and the remaining twelve on the back page were questions about that individuals degree of love. Our reliability test on each sub-dimension did not come out as we had expected, but part of this was due to the ratio of males to females who took our survey. Our Cronbachs Alpha results were: Social .818, Physical .865, Task .817, and Love .945. The mean, variance and standard deviation for the sub-dimensions were as follows: Social (20.7, 23.5, 4.9), Physical (26.3, 36.9, 6.0), Task (73.1, 391.1, 19.8). Kurtosis was Social -.409, Physical -.229, Task -.269, and Love came out with -1.17.

Results Our directional difference hypothesis was that men would score higher on attractiveness than womens would. Our covariation hypothesis was individuals reporting higher overall attraction would report high love scores as well. We ran a reliability test on each sub-dimension of the survey and the Cronbachs Alpha results were: Social .818, Physical .865, Task .817, and Love .945. Then we ran frequencies on the entire survey and all sub-dimensions. The mean, variance and standard deviation for the sub dimensions were Social (20.7, 23.5, 4.9), Physical (26.3, 36.9, 6.0), Task (73.1, 391.1, 19.8). Kurtosis was Social -.409, Physical -.229, Task -.269, and Love 1.17. Finally, we ran 4 independent sample t-tests on each scales super variable. The only scale that resulted in (P > .05) was physical attraction. Therefore, this was not statistically significant. So, in conclusion, our directional difference hypothesis was partially supported and our covariation hypothesis was fully supported. Discussion We decided to research the ways that men and women determine attractiveness and how this carries into their relationships based on a few theories. We examined many theories such as: Physical Attractiveness and Dating Choices (Berscheid and Dion, 1971), Pretty Pleases: The Effects of Physical Attractiveness, Race, and Sex on Receiving Help (Benson, Karabenick, & Lerner, 409) and The Magnet Theory, which was published by an unknown source. The most intriguing was the Magnet theory. It states, A healthy male will always prefer an attractive female over a less attractive female no matter how much career success the less attractive one has. We did not fully support our directional difference hypothesis, which stated men would score higher than women on the physical attractiveness scale. We did find that women actually

scored higher. These results from our face-to-face survey were very surprising to us. This means physical attractiveness was more important in a significant other to a woman than it was to a man. We did fully support our covariation hypothesis, which stated that those reporting higher overall attraction would score higher on the love scale. Women scored highest overall on social, physical and task and in return also scored higher on the love scale. Our sample size was 81 subjects divided 52 (male) and 29 (female). We selected participants based on convenience. We had three days to collect data, Friday through Sunday, and we collected data at various times throughout those days. The locations varied from campus to hair salons, extended family cookouts, Buffalo Wild Wings, and various other locations. Even though women had the lower sample size, they scored higher in all sub dimensions; Social, Physical, Task, and Love. We think that part of this may have to do with the vagueness of some of the questions of the scale. Our first page of our survey did not specify who exactly we wanted the survey participants to think about. The directions only mentioned an acquaintance, and we ran into a few females asking very detailed questions on what kind of acquaintance. Is it a hot guy that Ive met once at a bar? Or is it the nerdy computer genius that lives next door? We believe that this thorough analysis made by a few females taking our survey was also a reason for the results we received. We were very confident that women would score high on all levels except Physical Attractiveness. Being that men scored lower on all levels we feel that either they arent as particular when it comes to choosing a partner or that they had less interest in the survey. We dont feel that women rely on physical attractiveness when choosing a partner, but that they are just more particular. As we watched participants fill out the surveys, many took longer than expected and went over their choices. Many also had questions about the survey. If we were to do further researches or re do our current research, we would create a more appropriate and more

in depth question set for social, physical, and task dimensions. We would also use another love scale that we actually debated in-depth on before choosing the one we did for this survey.

References Rubin. , Palmgreen, , & Sypher, (1994). Interpersonal Attraction Scale. ). Communication Research Measures, New York, NY: Gilford Press. Grohol, J. (2007). Rubins Love Scale and Rubins Liking Scale. Psych Central. Retrieved on August 7, 2013, from http://psychcentral.com/lib/rubins-love-scale-and-rubins-likingscale/000792 Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of Romantic Love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 265-273. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/16/2/265.pdf Huston, T., & Levinger, G. (1978). Interpersonal attraction and Relationships. Annual Review Psychology, 29, 115-156. Retrieved from http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.ps.29.020178.000555 Stuart A., K., Richard M., L., & Peter L., B. (1976). Pretty pleases: The effects of physical attractiveness, race, and sex on receiving help . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 409-415. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00221031/7/2 Elaine, W., Ellen, B., Karen, D., & G.William, W. (1971). Physical attractiveness and dating choice: A test of the matching hypothesis. 173-189. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00221031/7/2