Since there has been quite a bit of interest in the topic, I have decided to publish the second part to my recently begun "Science of Speed Dating" series here after all. If you previously read this evolutionary psychology discussion by fellow blogger Satoshi Kanazawa or stumbled over the original version of this post on my other blog, you will encounter some redundancy (I am sorry about that, but check back in for part 3). Otherwise, or maybe even nonetheless, I hope you will enjoy this post:
By turning speed dating events into social science experiments, psychologists are gaining new insights into human behavior and mate selection. As one neat study by Northwestern University researchers Paul Eastwick and Eli Finkel shows, the one-minute speed-dating encounters can provide social scientists with valuable insights into the strong effects that arbitrary social norms can play on romantic selectivity and perceived desire.
In particular, the study asks whether romantic selectivity may be influenced by a seemingly innocuous procedure; namely which sex rotates around the table at the speed dating event.
Effectively, the study finds that, for either sex, the mere act of physically approaching a potential mate makes the approached prospect appear more attractive. This can be seen nicely in the featured graphs.
However, it is a more particular aspect of this general finding which makes this result so remarkable: By letting women rotate at the speed-dating table one of the better documented effects in social psychology, namely the greater romantic selectivity of women in contrast to men, is reversed.
Numerous studies show evidence of men being far less discriminating about potential mates than are the women they desire. As an example, data collected from other speed-dating experiments show a significant sex-difference regarding perceived attractiveness, perceived chemistry, and willingness to meet again. According to this data, as well as to ample evolutionary theorizing, men are quicker to like women than women are willing to like men.
So it is then quite surprising that the simple change of rules for the speed-dating event - letting women rotate around the table, while men remain seated - would make such a plausible and pervasive effect completely disappear; indeed reverse it.
The interpretation of this finding draws on a number of aspects involved with perception and behavior in romantic contexts, but one big component of the authors' preferred explanatory hypothesis regards the
"subtle mutual influence between the body and the mind".
According to this hypothesis the physical, embodied, act of approaching carries after it a psychological act of approaching; this in the romantic context becomes perceived romantic desire.
Illustrations of this kind of embodied relationship can be found elsewhere in the literature. E.g. pushing down on a table while viewing Chinese symbols makes people rate them as less esthetic, than if they push up from underneath the table; presumably through the mental associations that are related to upwards and downwards movements.
In the speed dating context then, the authors hypothesized that the mere act of approaching might have similar effects. And indeed, their study shows reported increases in self-confidence for the rotating partner in comparison to the partner that remained seated; where differences in self-confidence are obviously very integral to behavior in romantic contexts.
The underlying cognitive process for the embodied-approach idea is always quite fascinating (but generally found elsewhere in psychology and cognitive science): It is as if your mind were observing you as you approach the opposite sex in a romantic context -behavior that usually requires self confidence - and then infers that you must therefore be feeling particularly confident today. Similarly, if you are being approached by many members of the opposite sex, your mind might just infer that you must be particularly attractive and desirable; hence giving you information that would make you behave more selectively.
In addition to this embodied-approach hypothesis, the authors also point out that there also exists a general confound in previous dating experiments, in so far
"that, in [real-life] romantic contexts, men are far more likely to approach women than women are to approach men".
For example, surveys indicate that even progressive thinkers from both sexes expect men to exhibit the more assertive, approach oriented behavior that initiates a romantic relationship. Women, although counted on to signal the "where" and "when" of this behavior (e.g. through eye contact, smiles, or hair flips), are usually assigned a more passive role and are expected to wait for men to approach them. If in the majority of situations, both partners adhere to these norms, it might very well be that the observed sex-differences in selectivity are less "evolutionary hard-wiring" than simply a matter of the sexes fulfilling these (self-image relevant) gender scripts (and thereby expressing the embodied approach scenario).
Although the current study is not entirely conclusive about the magnitude of this gender-norm effect, the authors point out that
"perhaps this factor alone could be sufficient to explain why women tend to be more selective than men. The present results are at least partially consistent with this possibility".
Check back in next week for part 3. And please note my special thanks to Dr. Kanazawa for encouraging me to publish this post, despite having previously posted on the same topic himself.
Main Reference:
Finkel EJ, & Eastwick PW (2009). Arbitrary social norms influence sex differences in romantic selectivity. Psychological science : a journal of the American Psychological Society / APS, 20 (10), 1290-5 PMID: 19754525
