ABSTRACT

Name: John E. Edlund Department: Psychology

Title: Sex, Lies, and Partner Choice: An Investigation into Perceived Mate Value and
Its Factor Structure, Content, Concurrent, Convergent, and Discriminant
Validities

W
Major: Psychology
IE Degree: Doctor of Philosophy
EV

Approved by: Date:

PR

Dissertation Director

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

 ABSTRACT

Mate value is an important concept in both the assortative mating and

evolutionary psychology literatures. A valid self-report measure of mate value would

be of tremendous utility to evolutionary psychology and beyond. To this end, three

studies investigated the factor structure and validity of the Mate Value Inventory as

W
well as the validity of the Mate Value Single Item Scale. Study one tested five

possible factor structures for the MVI with a five-factor structure providing the best fit
IE
to the data. Additional data validated the five-factor MVI and the MVSIS by looking
EV
at content, concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validities. Study two applied the

validated MVI and the MVSIS to the domain of mating preferences. Components of

mate value moderated ideal and minimum mate characteristics as well as some of the
PR

ways in which a participant designed a mate under budgetary constraints. Study three

applied the MVI and MVSIS to the domain of sex differences in jealousy and

investigated whether mate value would moderate jealous responses to imagined

infidelities. Several components of mate value moderated jealous responses to

different jealousy scenarios. In conclusion, although the MVI and MVSIS have some

evidence of validity and provide some utility as moderators in two evolutionary

psychology domains, much work remains to be done in obtaining a truly valid self-

report measure of mate value.

 NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

SEX, LIES, AND PARTNER CHOICE: AN INVESTIGATION INTO PERCEIVED

MATE VALUE AND ITS FACTOR STRUCTURE, CONTENT, CONCURRENT,

CONVERGENT, AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITIES

W
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IE
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE

EV
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
PR

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

BY

JOHN E. EDLUND

Copyright 2008 John E. Edlund

DEKALB, ILLINOIS

AUGUST 2008
 UMI Number: 3335045

INFORMATION TO USERS

W
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
IE
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
EV
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
PR

UMI
UMI Microform 3335045
Copyright 2008 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 E. Eisenhower Parkway
PO Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
 W
IE
EV

Certification: In accordance with departmental and Graduate

PR

School policies, this dissertation is accepted in

partial fulfillment of degree requirements.

Dissertation Director

ANY USE OF MATERIAL CONTAINED

HEREIN MUST BE DULY ACKNOWLEDGED.
THE AUTHOR'S PERMISSION MUST BE OBTAINED
IF ANY PORTION IS TO BE PUBLISHED OR
INCLUDED IN A PUBLICATION.

7-2 i o'J
Date
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to Professors Brad Sagarin,

John Skowronski, David Buller, and Lisa Finkelstein for their assistance in preparation

of this manuscript. The author also gratefully acknowledges the support of his research

team, without whom this research would not have been possible.

W
IE
EV
PR
 DEDICATION

To my friends and family

W
IE
EV
PR
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF FIGURES xii

LIST OF APPENDICES xiii

Chapter

W
1. INTRODUCTION 1

Parental Investment and Sexual Selection

IE 3

2. MATE PREFERENCES 5
EV
Gender Differences in Preferences 6

Changing Strategies, Changing Preferences 11

Mate Attraction 13
PR

Mate Necessities 14

3. ASSORTATIVE MATING AND MATE VALUE 16

4. EXISTING PERCEIVED MATE VALUE SCALES 22

Mate Value Inventory (MVI) 22

Mate Value Single-Item Scale (MVSIS) 24

Other Approaches 25

5. VALIDATION OF MATE VALUE SCALES 26

Factor Structure 26
 vi

Chapter 5 Page

Potential Models 27

Assessing Models 34

Validation 39

Content Validity 39

Concurrent Validity 40

W
Attractiveness 40

Intelligence IE 41

Health 41
EV
Ability to Provide Resources 42

Partner's Mate Value 42

Convergent Validity 43
PR

MVSIS 43

Emotional Expressivity 43

Likeability 44

Sexual Attitudes 44

Self-Esteem 45

Discriminant Validity 46

Social Desirability 46

Exploratory Measure 47

Big Five 47
 vii

Chapter Page

6. STUDY ONE METHOD 48

Participants 48

Materials 48

Procedure 49

7. STUDY ONE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 51

W
Reliability Analysis 51

Factor Structure of the Mate Value Inventory

IE 51

Other Factor Analyses 54

EV
Concurrent Validity 55

Convergent Validity 57

Discriminant Validity 59
PR

Exploratory Relationships 60

Discussion 62

8. STUDY TWO 66

Background 66

Participants 68

Procedure 68

9. STUDY TWO RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 70

Preliminary Scale Investigation 70

Ideal and Minimum Mate Qualities 71

 viii

Chapter 9 Page

Tangible Factor Results 73

Friendliness 73

Physical Attractiveness 74

Status 74

Health 75

W
Family Orientation 75

Mate Value Single-Item Scale

IE 76

Self-Esteem 76
EV
Abstract Factor Results 77

Designing an Ideal Mate Budgeting Task 77

Budget Item: Creativity 78

PR

Budget Item: Friendliness 79

Budget Item: Intelligence 82

Budget Item: Interesting Personality 83

Budget Item: Kindness 84

Budget Item: Liveliness 84

Budget Item: Attractiveness 85

Budget Item: Romance 86

Budget Item: Sense of Humor 87

Budget Item: Special Non Work Talents 88

 ix

Chapter 9 Page

Budget Item: Social Level 88

Budget Item: Work Ethic 89

Budget Item: Yearly Income 89

Discussion 90

10. STUDY THREE 96

W
Background 96

Participants IE 98

Materials 99
EV
Procedure 101

11. STUDY THREE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 102

Preliminary Scale Investigation 102

PR

Jealous Reactions to Infidelity 103

Discussion 116

12. GENERAL DISCUSSION 119

Reliability and Factor Structure 119

Concurrent Validity 121

Convergent Validity 123

Discriminant Validity 125

Big Five Personality Factors 126

Mate Value Single Item Scale 126

 X

Chapter 12 Page

Nonbudgeted Mate Design Task 127

Budgeted Mate Design Task 129

Study Three 132

Summary 135

13. IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS 136

W
BIBLIOGRAPHY 141

APPENDICES IE 151
EV
PR
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Percentages Requested in a Partner - Tangible Factor 72

2. Percentages Requested in a Partner - Abstract Factor 73

3. Raw Allocations Across Budgetary Items and Levels

W
in Study Two 80

4. Percentage of Total Available Allocations Across

Budgetary Items and Levels in Study Two
IE 81

5. Interaction Between Budgetary Level and

Gender in Friendliness 82
EV
6. Interaction Between Budgetary Level and
Gender in Attractiveness 86

7. Jealousy Scenario by Gender Interaction from Study Three 106

PR
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. One-Factor Model 28

2. Two-Factor Model 30

3. Three-Factor Model 32

W
4. Five-Factor Model 35

5. Five-Factor Model with the Higher Order Factor

IE 37

6. Interaction Between Scenario, Gender, and Friendliness 108

EV
7. Interaction Between Scenario, Gender, and Status Ill

8. Interaction Between Scenario, Gender, and MVSIS 114

PR
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A. MATE VALUE INVENTORY 151

B. MATE VALUE SINGLE ITEM SCALE 153

C. ATTRACTIVENESS RATING SCALE 155

D. PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS INVENTORY 157

W
E. SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS ITEMS 159

F. BERKLEY EMOTIONAL EXPRESSIVITY SCALE

IE 161

G. THE MODIFIED REYSEN LIKEABILITY INDEX 163

EV
H. SOCIOSEXUAL ORIENTATION INVENTORY 165

I. RELATIONSHIP EXCLUSIVITY SUBSCALE 168

J. THE ROSENBERG SELF-ESTEEM SCALE 170

PR

K. MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE 172

L. BIG FIVE INVENTORY 175

M. DEMOGRAPHICS 178

N. MINIMUM AND IDEAL MATE CHARACTERISTICS 180

O. MATE PREFERENCES BUDGETING TASK 182

P. JEALOUSY SCENARIOS 184

 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Whom do we choose to mate with and why? Human mating has been a topic of

interest to philosophers and scientists alike for many years. Numerous studies have

investigated men's and women's sexual strategies (e.g., Haselton, Buss, Oubaid, &

W
Angleitner, 2005; Schmitt, Shackelford, & Buss, 2001), preferences for short-term

mates (e.g., Schmitt, 2005; Symons, 1979; Wiederman & DuBois, 1998), and
IE
preferences for long-term mates (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Buss, Shackelford,
EV
Kirkpatrick, & Larsen, 2001). Most of the research has illustrated differences between

men and women (e.g., mate selection criteria [Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhaur, &

Kenrick, 2002], mate retention tactics [Buss & Shackelford, 1997], reactions to
PR

infidelity [Edlund, Heider, Scherer, Fare, & Sagarin, 2006], whereas a smaller number

of studies have focused primarily on the similarities between the genders (e.g., causes

of marital dissolution [Betzig, 1989]).

A major area of research that incorporates all of these aspects of mating

psychology is the theory of assortative mating. Assortative mating is based on the idea

of mate worth or value (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). Specifically, it refers to the

proclivity for individuals to be in a long-term relationship with someone who is of

approximately equivalent mate value. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in

numerous animal species, e.g., barn swallows (Safran & McGraw, 2004), budgerigars
(Moravec, Streidter, & Burley, 2006), guppies (Kolluru & Grether, 2005), lake perch

(Behrmann-Godel, Gerlach, & Eckmann, 2006; see also Butlin & Tregenza, 1997), as

well as in humans (e.g., Luo & Klohnen, 2005; Watson, Klohnen, Casillas, Nus

Simms, Hiag, & Berry, 2004).

Given the importance of mate value to the theory of assortative mating, it is

surprising that there is no validated measure of self-reported mate value in humans.

Currently, two self-report measures of self-perceived mate value exist (Brase & Guy,

W
2004; Kirsner, Figueredo, & Jacobs, 2003); however, neither of these scales has been

properly validated. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the construct of

IE
self-perceived mate value while attempting to validate the existing measures. Once

validated, two studies will use these self-perceived mate value scales as moderators in
EV
existing lines of evolutionary psychological research.

This dissertation first outlines some of the important groundwork theories in

PR

evolutionary psychology. Next, I review past research on mate preferences before

turning to a discussion of assortative mating in humans. From there, I discuss the

existing perceived mate value scales and the validation work that remains to be done.

Subsequently, I discuss the methods and results of my first validation study. From

there, I discuss a study applying the mate value moderator to the domain of mate

preferences. In my third study, I apply the moderator to the domain of human sexual

jealousy. I conclude with several chapters in which I discuss the overall conclusions

about the utility of the MVI and MVSIS and discuss limitations and future directions

of research.
 3

Parental Investment and Sexual Selection

The theories of parental investment and sexual selection provide the

foundation for many evolutionary psychology theories. Parental investment theory

(Trivers, 1972) suggests that men and women should follow different mating

strategies based on their different levels of parental investment. Parental investment is

defined as the activities that an individual engages in to ensure the survival of their

W
offspring to a reproductive age (and beyond). Typically, this investment comes as a

cost to future reproductive success. According to parental investment theory, in

IE
species where there are differential amounts of parental investment between the sexes,

there is greater competition for access to mates among the lesser investing sex and
EV
greater choosiness amongst the greater investing sex. In humans, men have the smaller

minimum investment associated with creating an offspring, whereas women have a

PR

much larger minimum investment associated with gestating the offspring. As such,

women tend to be choosier than men about potential mates and there is greater

competition among men for access to women than among women for access to men.

It is noteworthy that in humans males tend to invest more than in most other

mammalian species (Geary, 2000). When looking at isolated societies such as the

Ache (Hill & Hurtado, 1996), there is significant evidence that a father's parental

investment leads to greater survivability of offspring. However, the mechanism that

underlies this finding is still under debate (Buller, 2005; Geary, 2000).
 4

Sexual selection (Darwin, 1871) is the selection of traits (physiological or

behavioral) that increase an organism's chances of reproductive success. There are

two mechanisms for how this can take place: besting intrasexual competitors or being

preferentially chosen as a mate by the opposite sex. Besting intrasexual competitors

occurs in animals (e.g., elk, baboons) and humans in direct competition. Preferential

choice can take many forms depending on the species. An example in the animal

kingdom is increased plumage in peacocks (Cronin, 1991). In humans this can take the

W
form of women's preference for dominant men (Sadalla, Kenrick, & Vershure, 1987).

IE
EV
PR
 CHAPTER TWO

MATE PREFERENCES

One critical distinction when discussing mating is the difference between

short-term and long-term mating strategies. In humans, short-term mating

relationships are typically defined by researchers as lasting less than a week, many

W
times existing for only one day (Daly & Wilson, 1988). Long-term mating is often

characterized by researchers as a formal reproductive alliance, such as marriage;

IE
however, other researchers (Buunk, Dijstra, Fethchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002) believe
EV
that long-term mating does not need such a formal alliance. These researchers believe

that serious dating and engagements also qualify as long-term relationships. In

between these two extremes occur intermediate levels of commitment such as dating,
PR

or moderate-length affairs (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).

From an evolutionary perspective, there are trade-offs for both men and

women between the various involvement levels (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad &

Simpson, 2000; Geary, Vigil, & Byrd-Craven, 2004). When men adopt a short-term

mating strategy they get the benefits of increased reproduction potential (as they can

potentially mate with many partners in a short-term fashion) and no parental

investment, but they incur the costs of some resource investment and increased risk of

sexually transmitted disease. Women in a short-term context might obtain the benefits

of getting good genes from a mate (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997) and accrue
 6

resources, but incur the costs of having reduced value as a mate (as promiscuity is a

negatively valued trait in long-term contexts), higher risk of STDs, and the risk of

unwanted pregnancy if the strategy is adopted for nonprocreative purposes, such as

resource acquisition. Men, when they adopt a long-term strategy, gain the benefits of

increased paternal certainty, sexual companionship, and social companionship.

However, adopting the long-term strategy potentially carries the costs of heavy

parental investment, heavy relationship investment, and restricted sexual opportunity.

W
Women, when adopting a long-term strategy, get the benefits of significant resources

from a mate and increased paternal involvement. However, adopting a long-term

IE
strategy leads to the costs of restricted sexual opportunity and sexual obligation to

their mate.
EV

Gender Differences in Preferences

PR

Using a national (United States) probability sample, Sprecher, Sullivan, and

Hatfield (1994) found that women were more likely than men to be willing to marry

an older individual, someone who was not good looking, someone who earned more

than they did, and someone who had more education. Men were more likely to be

willing to marry someone younger, someone who did not have a job, and someone

who earned less. These preferences were of a large magnitude and the use of a

representative sample provides highly generalizable results.

 7

Cross-cultural studies have found similar gender differences in preferences for

marriage partners. Hatfield and Sprecher (1995) investigated preferences for marriage

partners in three different cultures (United States, Russia, and Japan). They found that

men tended to prefer mates who were physically attractive (which attests to

reproductive value), whereas women tended to prefer mates who possessed money,

status, and position (which attests to a potential for resource acquisition). It was also

found that men tended to report being less choosy (willingness to accept an overall

W
lower quality mate) in a marriage partner than women reported being.

Buss (1989) investigated mate preferences in 37 different cultures, which

IE
spanned six continents. He found that women valued "good financial prospect," "good

earning capacity," and ambition-industriousness more than men did. Men valued
EV
physical attractiveness, chastity, and youth (relative to the respondent) more than

women did. This study was a global investigation, which Buss uses to suggest that
PR

these differences are a human universal.

The sex difference in age preferences has been well replicated (Buss, 1989;

Feingold, 1990, 1992; Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield, 1994). However, Kenrick and

Keefe (1992) showed that the relationship between age preferences of mates was

moderated by the age of individual. Using multiple methods and sample locations,

they replicated the traditional result of women preferring older men. In women, this

effect was present in younger women and older women at approximately the same

magnitude. In men, when collapsing across ages, they replicated the traditional finding

that men preferred younger women. However, when broken down by age groups, the
 8

preference for younger women was not present in the youngest men. Instead, this

preference became increasingly prevalent in older men. The authors suggest that this is

reflective of men's preference for reproductively fertile women. For young men, this

leads to a preference for slightly older women (a 25-year-old woman is more fertile at

that moment than a 16-year-old woman), whereas as men age, the maximally fertile

women become increasing younger than the men.

Another prevalent difference between men and women is the number of sexual

W
partners they would want in a lifetime. Buss and Schmitt (1993) found that men

reported wanting to have a greater number of sexual partners than women reported
IE
wanting in both short-term (1 month) or long-term (lifetime) contexts. While this

effect has been well replicated (Rothspan & Read, 1996; Schmitt & 118 members,
EV
2003), the average comparison could be hiding meaningful variability in the data.

Pedersen, Miller, Putcha-Bhagvatula, and Yang (2002) found that when looking at
PR

median responses, there was no sex difference in number of partners wanted. The

authors suggest that when the outliers (which are more prevalent in men) are excluded,

the sex difference in number of partners desired is eliminated, thus explaining the

phenomenon without the need to posit an evolutionary mechanism. Furthermore, they

showed that nearly everyone (98.9% of men, 99.2% of women) wanted to settle down

with one exclusive partner sometime in the next five years. This suggests that while

there are some sex differences, the similarities between the sexes are greater than the

differences.