Exploring Self Perceived Mate Value

EXPLORING SELF-PERCEIVED MATE VALUE

Monica Renee G. Policarpio

De La Salle University

1

ABSTRACT

The author would like to explore the association between objective mate value and personality in

self perceived mate value. General population were sampled and the results indicate that

objective mate value (i.e. assessment of attractiveness compared to others when a standard

theoretically characteristics are met) does not affect their self perceived mate value (i.e. their

assessment to themselves as attractive considering especially with the confidence of attracting

prospective mate). Neuroticism is consistent with the prediction that it is negatively correlated

with self perceived mate value. Only the conscientiousness revealed to have an interaction with

objective mate value. The prediction that extraversion and agreeableness will be affecting the

self perceived mate value revealed unsupported in this study, however the agreeableness showed

a significant positive relation with self perceived mate value while the extraversion is did not

show a significant relationship with self perceived mate value. The author would like to suggest

in exploring further the cultural context that may have resulted a distinction of result apart from

the wide array of researches in western literature in the lens of evolutionary psychology

approach.

Introduction

Evolutionary psychology has a huge basis from Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural

selection. It implies that we have evolved and developed adaptive characteristics to survive in an

environment. We are a product of ancestors with the integrated problem-solving skills

(adaptations) that were shaped by natural selection over evolutionary time, somewhat to promote

the survival of genes which therefore requires reproduction. In other words, people will invest

2

their resources to the best accessible reproductive partner or choose a partner that will provide

the resources to sustain their descendants.

It has been speculated that the personality factors represented by five-factor model may have

captured a role in solving a variety of social adaptive problems (Buss, 1989, 1990). Selecting a

mate is one of the social adaptive problems. Acquiring a mate who will coordinate and

synchronize action in attaining mutual goals requires attempted solutions. A possible and

attempted solution is to impose highly indispensable and important qualities that a mate should

or ideally have.

So what is Self-Perceived Mate Value?

There are two aspects in our behavior that pertains to our decision in mating. One is mate choice

which refers to the factors that influence one’s mating efforts in selection of a target partner.

Then another is the process of deciding how one should allocate their resources (e.g. time,

energy, finances) when mating which is called mating tactics. These aspects affect mate value, a

person’s estimate of own value as a partner in a reproductive relationship (see also Barkow,

1989; Kenrick, et. al, 1993; Keisler and Baral, 1970; Tooby and Cosmides, 1990; Trivers, 1972).

Review of Related Literature

Vast researches could the explore how to successfully attract a particular partner or could also

examine how one influence their own mate value to attract the best mate possible. The author

3

will be focusing only on the self-assessment of one’s own mate value by considering their

characteristics implied in Mate Value Inventory (Kirsner et. al. 2003) and Big 5 personality

factors. Other variety influencing self assessment such as sociometer (e.g. self esteem) (Brase et.

al. 2004) and biological influences (e.g. menstrual cycle) (Beaulieu, 2007; Millar, 2013) which

are believed to affect the self perceived mate value are excluded in the scope of this study.

Theoretically, definition of mate value by Waynforth (2001) is ‘the total value of the

characteristics that an individual possesses in terms of the potential contribution to his or her

mate’s reproductive success’). The reproductive success however does not apply to those who

biologically cannot reproduce, to those who prefer not to bear a child and to homosexual partners

who fosters a child. Thus definition does not cover its explanation in the said population. While

in Kirsner, Figuerdo, and Jacobs (2003) proposed definition that ‘mate value is the genetic

quality or fitness of oneself as a sexual partner, which is displayed through observable

characteristics’, does not cover one’s self assessment but relies on how other people objectively

defines it. In a more grounded side, the author adapts Fisher’s (2008) definition on the other hand

that ‘mate value is the total sum of characteristics an individual possesses at a given moment and

within a particular context that impacts on their ability to successfully find, attract, and retain a

mate.’ The author uses the lattermost definition to define the fine line between mate value as an

objective value and self perceived mate value as subjective. Although Murray Miller (2013) used

Mate Value Inventory and Self Perceived Mate Success as bases of one variable for getting the

operational definition of mate value in her study of associating female’s hormonal influences in

mate preferences. In this study, the author distinctively defines them into two different entities as

independent and dependent variable respectively.

4

Self-Perceived Mate Value is one’s assessment of one’s own mate value (attractiveness) as

compared to other potential competitors considering especially in attracting a prospective partner

(Holcomb, 2001). Operationally defining self perceived mate value is by using Self Perceived

Mate Success (SPMV), using this would imply a person’s self-esteem as a factor that impacts

self-assessed mate value and a way to maintain self-esteem is by mating successfully (e.g., Brase

& Guy, 2004; Denissen et. al, Self-Perceived Mate Value 17 in press).

A study reported that an ‘ideal romantic partner’ is rated significantly higher than self of

Conscientiousness (C), Extraversion (E), and Agreeableness (A) and significantly lower than

Neuroticism (N) (Figueredo, Sefcek, Vasquez, Brumbach, King, & Jacobs, 2005; Jones, Sefcek,

& Figueredo, 2004). Vasquez (2004) found that there is a general personality dimension that

reflects perceived mate value, irrespective of personality inventory used (i.e. NEO Five-Factor

Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) or the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality

Questionnaire (ZKPQ; Zuckerman, 2002)). He also found that the Mate Value Inventory

(Kirsner, Figueredo & Jacobs, 2003) a measure of mate value correlated significantly and

directly with general personality dimensions derived from either NEO-FFI or the ZKFQ. But in

this study, the author will be using Big Five Inventory (BFI) by Benet-Martinez & John (1998)

include only eight to ten items per area with a total of 44 items.

Among the personality domains that are expected to concur significant result, which are E, A, C

and N, Extraversion has a strong positively related to acquiring of number of sexual partners for

men in particular (Heaven, Fitzpatrick, Craig, Kelly, & Sebar, 2000; Nettle, 2005). High

extraversion is more likely to engage in extrapair copulations or to terminate a relationship for

5

another. It means that it has a benefit of fitness by being able to secure higher quality mates. This

is fairly supported that it is correlated with sensations seeking and is more likely to initiate and

seek more social behavior (Buchanan, Johnson, & Goldberg, 2005) and have more social support

(Franken, Gibson, & Mohan, 1990) and as they are also more physically active and more likely

to explore (Chen et al., 1999; Kircaldy, 1982).

Openness to experience reflects the individual’s trait as reflective, imaginative, artistic,

intelligent and culturally refined (McCrae & Costa, 1985). It is unclear as to how openness to

experience might be related to adaptive problems associated with mating relationships until

Miller (1999; 2000a) proposed a cultural courtship model suggesting that creative production in

artistic domains serves to attract mates , and there is an evidence that women find creativity

attractive (Haselton & Miller, 2006). It has been also linked to the development of greater

cognitive competence (MacDonald, 1995) social intelligence (Shafer, 1999). This dimension is

relevant in solving various adaptive problems, such as negotiating dominance hierarchies

(Sulloway, 1996) thus an important domain still to be considered in associating with mating.

Conscientiousness refers to self-control, dependability, efficiency, persistence, and an

achievement-oriented approach to life (McAdams, 1994). It involves delay in gratification in

favor of a longer term plan, thus it leads to a positive association to life expectancy (i.e. avoiding

risky behaviors) hence, increases fitness (Friedman et al., 1995). However highly conscious

people are likely to be immensely involved in self-control such as perfectionism and moral

extremism. It has an important role in a potential mate’s ability to obtain resources and status is

an indispensable ideal mate-choice for both sexes (Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas & Giles, 1999).

6

Many evolutionary psychologists have argued that humans, as social species have a high salience

in attending to and tracking the mental states of others (Byrne & Whiten, 1988; Dunbar, 1996;

Humphrey, 1976). This is also strongly correlated with empathy (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright,

2004). Agreeable people have harmonious interpersonal interactions and avoid violence and

interpersonal hostility (Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Zimbardo, 1996; Heaven, 1996; Suls, Martin,

& David, 1998). However reproductive fitness is not fully advantageous as a mating tactic (e.g.

investing resources such as time, energy and money) as it may cost exploitation from others and

or investing less attention to personal fitness gains (Mealey, 1995)

The neuroticism reflects to the degree to which individuals experience psychological distress and

emotion systems such as anxiety, fear, nervousness, depression, guilt or hostility. Kelley &

Conley (1987) had predicted neuroticism of relationship failure and social isolation. On a

positive note, neuroticism is positively related with competitiveness (Ross, Stewart, Mugge, &

Fultz, 2001) which can be beneficial in fitness by an advantageous in acquiring resources and

possibly a prospective mate under intra sexual competition (i.e. competition of acquiring a mate)

as it may also serve as a motivator to achievement in competitive fields.

The literature has gathered data consistent across culture mostly Western cultures. Shackelford,

Schmitt, and Buss (2005) have intensively gathered data from thousands of participants from all

over 37 countries from Africa, Asia, Eastern and Western Europe, North and South America.

Other cross-cultural researches proved the universality. But there have not yet been any verified,

cited or gathered data from the Philippines in as so far as the author reviewed from the Philippine

journals. The contribution of this paper is to verify consistency to Filipinos as this perspective

has not yet given much attention to the Filipino researchers. And by means that if there are

7

unsuspected results, be further be explored for analysis and possible extension of research

matter.

Synthesis and Research Problem:

Now that the variables are laid out on their context, the author would like to investigate on

whether the association of mate value affects the self perceived mate value is significant, since

the objective standard of mate value can be problematic when it is to be identified if it affects

how one assess self as a romantic partner. The author is predicting that the association of

objective mate value and self perceived mate value is not significant since the subjective self-

assessment in the dependent variable (self perceived mate value) denotes a self-esteem

component especially in acquiring a prospective partner while the objective mate value is does

not denote self-esteem in acquiring a prospective partner (i.e. opposite sex or same sex for

homosexuals). The personality domain on the other hand is another considered factor in

association of how one perceives self as a romantic partner. Through the literature above, this

study is predicting that C, E and A will positively affect self perceived mate value and N will

negatively affect self perceived mate value. Interaction effect of personality domain and

objective value is also revered expected as well.

Conceptual Framework:

8

Hypotheses:

Ho1: There are no significant differences between the effects of the mate value on self-perceived

mate value.

Ha1: There are significant differences between the effects of the mate value on self-perceived

mate value.

Ho2: There are no significant differences between the effects of the personality domains

(Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism) on self-perceived

mate value.

9

Mate Value

Personality Domains:- Openness

- Conscientiousness- Extraversion

- Agreeableness- Neuroticism

Self Perceived Mate Value

Ha2: There are significant differences between the effects of the personality domains (Openness,

Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism) on self-perceived mate value.

Ho3: There is no significant interaction between the effects of mate value and personality

domains (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism).

Ho3: There is a significant interaction between the effects of mate value and personality domains

(Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism).

Research Design

Participants and Sampling Design

There are a total of 116 individuals in participated in the research who are students of variety of

universities within NCR area acquired through non probability convenience sampling (n=107; 72

females, 41 males, 1 bisexual and 2 homosexuals). Preliminary analysis using univariate analysis

of variance to test for difference showed that the demographic variables do not affect the

outcome. See in table 1 the descriptive statistics of the demographic profile of the research

participants. Their ages ranged from 18-34 (M=23.47, SD=2.53). Seventy three (68%) of the

participants are single, twenty nine (27%) were in a relationship, nine (8%) were dating, three

(2%) were married and two (1%) were separated.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the demographic profile

Demographics

N

Age Gender

M Sd Range F % M % Others %

Single 73 23.5 2.5 18-34 48 66 22 30 3 4

10

Dating 9

In a relationship 29 23.2 2.5 18-34 17 59 12 41 0 0

Married 3 25 2.9 23-29 2 67 1 33 0 0

Separated 2 22.5 .71 22-23 2 100 0 0 0 0

Instruments

Big 5 Factor Inventory

The five-factor model is a useful framework to measure human personality (Goldberg LR., 1992;

McCrae RR, Costa PT Jr., 1999), organizing personality into five broad dimensions:

extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience (John

OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL, 1991). The Big Five Inventory (BFI) was developed to provide a

short, flexible and easy to understand assessment of these five dimensions for studies which

focus on the five broad dimensions instead of individual facets (John OP, Hampson SE,

Goldberg LR, 1991). The scale of BFI to be used consists of 44 items (BFI-44), shorter than

other commonly used tools measuring personality such as the 60-item form of the NEO-PI-R

(Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR, 1992) and the IPIP Big-Five 50-item factor markers (Goldberg LR.,

1992).

Although the BFI scales by Benet-Martinez & John (1998) include only eight to ten items per

area, they do not sacrifice either content coverage or good psychometric properties (John, O.P.,

1999). In U.S. and Canadian samples, the alpha reliabilities of the BFI scales typically range

from .75 to .90 and average above .80; three-month test-retest reliabilities range from .80 to .90,

11

with a mean of .85. In this particular study the BFI scale per domain ranges from cronbach alpha

reliability mean of .67 ranging from .61 to .71.

Mate Value Inventory

The scale of Mate Value Inventory (Kirsner, Figueredo, & Jacobs, 2003) has been used

extensively to measure mate value through facets such as attractiveness, resources, and parental

capabilities. It demonstrated inter-item reliability in the past researches of .78 and .83 by Jones

et. al., (2007) and Fisher et. al., (2008) respectively. In this particular study, the scale is

especially used for the attributes included in it. Cronbach alpha reliability analysis resulted .83 in

this study. Participants will rate themselves on 17 traits theoretically deemed important in mate

attraction (e.g., attractiveness, financial security, emotional stability) – with five additional

distraction items (jealous, aggressive, controlling, possessive, manipulative) not included in the

analysis using a -3 (Extremely low on this characteristic) to +3 (Extremely high on this

characteristic) scale.

Self Perceived Mate Success

To get the self-assessed mate value and/or self esteem for mating successfully, the Self Perceived

Mate Success by Landolt, Lalumiere, & Quinsey (1995) is used. This scale is originally

composed of eight items, used to determine how one perceives feedback they receive from the

opposite sex. However, the author removed two of its items due to incompatible use due to

consideration of conservative Filipino cultural context. These questions are “I receive sexual

invitations from members of the opposite sex.” and “I can have as many sexual partners as I

12

choose.” considering that the target participants are undergraduate students from a Catholic

university. The scale is Likert-type ranging from 1 to 7, that higher scales indicate higher mating

success. Therefore it is used as a sociometer of mate value as it determines how one understand

how they are or would be assessed by the opposite sex as a mate (Denissen et al., in press).

However although useful, some limitations shall be considered as identified by Camargo (2007).

It is limited only to the perceptions that may not be accurate, by which it is not concrete evidence

such as in terms of number of copulations. It may also be influenced by social desirability and

lastly, it does not include behavioral components. As to its use in this study, this scale has been

widely used to measure mate value (e.g., Penke, and Denissen, 2008; Massar, Buunk and

Dechesne, 2009) and has demonstrated .83 inter-item reliability (Landolt, Lalumiére, and

Quinsey, 1995) same with this study.

Procedures

There were two technical ways wherein the researcher gathered its data. One is through paper

and pen two-page questionnaire, and the other is through online; both with the same format,

content and organization. Each participant was first asked to sign a consent form (i.e. digital sign

for online). Then were provided with general information about the study, assured of their

anonymity and the confidentiality of all information, and had also informed that they could

withdraw from participating in the study at any time. The questionnaire included items asking for

their sexual orientation, age and relationship status.

Data Analysis

13

The demographic data (age, sexual orientation and relationship status) is analyzed preliminarily

by testing of its differences through one way within subject analysis of variance to determine if

age, sexual orientation and relationship status would affect self perceived mate value. Another

part of preliminary analysis is by using Pearson r correlation will be conducted throughout the

independent variable mate value; moderating variable personality domains (Openness,

Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism) and dependent variable self

perceived mate value to determine effects of mate value and personality domains in self

perceived mate value.

The author used two-way analysis of variance to test the hypotheses that there is a significant

interaction effect between mate value and personality domain(s). Then significant interaction

underwent post hoc analysis using Fisher LSD to identify as to how the significant effect

differed. The personality domains were coded 0 and 1 for low and high respectively, determined

through median cut.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Showed in Table 2 is the mean and standard deviation of the variables whole the Table 3

contains the inter-correlations between variables. It shows that mate value is significantly

positive and moderately correlated with openness (r = .38, p = <.05), conscientiousness (r = .31,

p = <.05) and self-perceived mate value (r = .39, p = <.05) while openness is significantly

positive and slightly correlated with extraversion (r = .19, p = <.05). Conscientiousness is

14

significantly positive and slightly correlated with agreeableness and self perceived mate value

while significantly negative and slightly correlated with neuroticism. Extraversion is

significantly slightly positive correlated with agreeableness. Agreeableness is positively slight

correlated with self perceived mate value (r = .20, p = <.05). All of the variables have a

significantly negative correlation with neuroticism aside from openness. Self perceived mate

value is significantly moderate direct relationship with mate value (r = .30, p = <.05), and has a

weak but significant direct relationship with conscientiousness (r = .26, p = <.05) and

agreeableness (r = .20, p = <.05) and an weak but significant inverse relationship with

neuroticism (r = -.23, p = <.05).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of mate value, personality domains and self-perceived mate value

Variable

N M Sd

Mate Value 116 2.02 0.68

Personality Domain

Openness 116 0.53 0.50

Conscientiousness 116 0.62 0.50

Extraversion 116 0.53 0.50

Agreeableness 116 0.61 0.49

Neuroticism 116 0.60 0.49

Self-Perceived Mate Value 116 27.7 6.50

Table 3. Inter-correlations between of mate value, personality domains and self-perceived mate

value

Variable

15

2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Mate Value .08 .38* .31* .16 -.07 .39*

Personality Domain

2. Openness .16 .19* .14 .07 .08

3. Conscientiousness .14 .19* -.25* .26*

4. Extraversion .21* -.03 .16

5. Agreeableness -/24* .20*

6. Neuroticism -.23*

7. Self-Perceived Mate Value

Note: * p >.05

Main Analyses

Table 4. Test of variance between of mate value, personality domains and its interaction

Variable

N M Sd Df F

Mate Value

LowModerateHigh

116

256328

27.7

27.728.326.5

6.5

7.16.26.6

(2,110) .723

Personality Domain

Openness

LowHigh

MV*Openness

Low – LowLow- HighMod - LowMod – High High – LowHigh – High

5561

91631321513

27.328.1

29.226.827.429.226.127.0

6.86.3

6.57.46.75.77.45.9

(1, 110)

(2,110)

.008

.892

Conscientiousness

LowHigh

5363

26.329.0

6.95.9

(1, 110) .933

16

MV* Conscientiousness


16924391315

28.126.924.830.526.926.1

8.05.56.74.85.47.7

(2,110) 4.025*

Extraversion

LowHigh

MV* Extraversion


5462

91631321414

26.928.5

2827.526.829.826.226.8

6.96.1

6.07.86.95.27.75.6

(1, 110)

(2,110)

.554

.707

Agreeableness

LowHigh

MV* Agreeableness


4571

10152637919

26.728.4

28.427.226.929.324.327.5

7.06.1

6.27.87.45.26.56.6

(1, 110)

(2,110)

1.18

0.857

Neuroticism

LowHigh

MV* Neuroticism


4670

14112439820

29.726.5

30.524.129.327.729.325.4

5.56.8

6.85.94.47.16.66.4

(1, 110)

(2,110)

8.729**

1.271

Note* p < .05 **<.005

17

There are no main effect between Mate Value and self perceived mate value. There are no main

effects between domains of personality and self perceived mate value aside from Neuroticism.

There is a significant interaction effect between Mate Value and Conscientiousness.

The results showed that there is no significant effect for Mate value for Self Perceived Mate

Value. The Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion and Agreeableness do not significantly

affect Self Perceived Mate Value. But only Neuroticism significantly affects Self Perceived

Value F (1, 110) = 8.729, p = <.005.

The interaction effect between Mate Value and Conscientiousness was significant for Self

Perceived Mate Value, F (2, 110) = 4.025, p = <.05. LSD Fisher post hoc analyses indicates that

among those who have moderate/average mate value, people with low in Conscientiousness have

significantly low Self Perceived Mate Value (M=24.75, SD = 1.27) and people with high in

Conscientiousness have significantly high Self Perceived Mate Value (M=30.51, SD = 1.0).

Among those with high mate value, people with high conscientiousness is also significantly low

(M=26.1, SD=1.6).

Discussion:

In testing the difference that the objective mate value, personality domains and self perceived

mate value in general population, the author predicted that that the objective mate value did not

affect how one would assess self as a romantic partner (self perceived mate value) is upheld. The

association between the objective mate value in affecting self perceived mate value is not

significant. This would therefore mean that a person who is attractive by possessing the sum total

qualities of being a fit mate in a particular context, whereby expectedly have an impact on their

18

ability to find, attract and retain a mate, does not imply that he/she believes that he/she can find,

attract and retain a mate. Thus a person ‘could’ but it does not mean that he/she ‘would’ as

he/she might not believe so. The implication of this having no direct main effect of objective

mate value and subjective perception of attractiveness or self perceived mate value (as used in

this study) would then opens a question as to how a person would like to view self as an ideal

partner, though studies have shown definite qualities of what an ideal romantic partner could be,

as someone who is better in having higher admirable personality domains such as higher

agreeableness, conscientiousness and lower neuroticism in contrast to self. However the direct

positive correlation would mean that objective and subjective view of self still coincides together

in viewing attractiveness of oneself regardless of external validation, congruence or accuracy of

own assessment and or the self-esteem that is incorporated within the context of the self

perceived mate value.

The personality domain of Extraversion and Agreeableness did not appear to be significant both

in main and interaction effect with objective mate value, as this study had predicted. These

personality domains may suggest less association to as to how they perceive themselves as

attractive. This would imply that these domains may indicate less sensible values as they view

themselves as a mate; a result that contradicts the literature, however non confirmatory in this

scope of this study to be further argued. Agreeableness however is related significantly and

positively with self perceived mate value but the Extraversion is consistently unsupported with

significant result not even in correlation in this study. While only the neuroticism appeared to

have a significantly inverse effect on self perceived mate value. This result upheld the prediction

of the study as it concurs with the literature as well. Thus, emotional instability does not show as

an attractive characteristic in a mate and/or this would also mean that emotional instability is not

19

a socially adaptive characteristic at all as a form of fitness. This result can be attuned to the

negative dimensions of social environment such as being risky and unpredictable, which is

clearly not an ideal characteristic to represent fitness.

The Conscientiousness on the other hand, is the only significant personality domain which

interacted with objective mate value in affecting self perceived mate value. In addition to that,

the correlation showed that Conscientiousness alone is significantly and positively related to self

perceived mate value. As to how was the Conscientiousness is the only personality domain that

have interacted with the mate value alone is implies a highly functional note on social

adaptability per se, in this view of study. Variety of outcomes in fact, are related to social

adaptive functioning as it highly correlates in career success such as college retention, marital

stability, healthy lifestyle and behaviors, and longevity. But what could be in the

Conscientiousness domain that contributed with the interaction?

According to the post hoc analysis, those who are high both in Conscientiousness and objective

mate value and those with low Conscientiousness and moderate level of objective mate value

showed significantly low self perceived mate value. But a person who has high

Conscientiousness with a moderate level of objective mate value have the significantly highest

self perceived mate value, which means that their group among all the participants who believes

that they can attract a mate the most. Thus, a person who has an average sum total of

characteristics of being a fit mate who has the qualities of being industrious, in order, high self

control, traditionalized, responsible and with high regard to virtue (Roberts, B. et. al., 2005)

believes that they can attract a prospective mate. What could be the missing puzzle that defines

the significant difference between the groups of people with moderate and high mate value and

the conscientiousness? How come does a person who has high objective mate value and high in

20

conscientiousness is significantly low does not believe that they can attract a prospective

partner? Remember how we discussed the benefits and cost of having the personality domains as

a mate. A possible explanation is that a person who is characteristically attractive (high objective

mate value) however is highly conscientious, mind you, are likely to be immensely involved in

self-control such as perfectionism and moral extremism therefore tend to be self-critical in

assessing themselves as a mate which eventually leads to their belief that they cannot attract a

prospective mate and/or their perfectionism means that they are very accurate person who wish

not to assume, in this case specifically in attracting a prospective mate. This result would then

support that the interaction of personality domains and qualities in a mate that are believed to be

a sign of fitness would still require an association between them that later affects on how they

believe they can attract a mate. This concurs with the result that there is no direct association

between the objective mate value and self perceived mate value.

The results showed some support to the researches from the literature and also opened an array

of problematic inconsistencies of some failed predictions based on the literature. This would

mean that there could be a cultural context that played a role in mating tactics or any methods in

solving a social adaptive problem especially in Filipino population that creates a distinction apart

from the western literature of mating context. The author would like to recommend that further

literature from non western population may or may not support the premise that a cultural

distinction played a part in breaking the ‘universal social adaptation’ (especially in mating

context) as per the evolutionary psychology would attempt to explain.

21

References:

Belsky, J. (2000). Conditional and alternative reproductive strategies: Individual differences in

susceptibility to rearing experience. In J. Rodgers, D. Rowe, & W. Miller (Eds.), Genetic

influences on human fertility and sexuality: Theoretical and empirical contributions from the

biological and behavioral sciences (pp. 127-146). Boston:Kluwer

Botwin M., Buss M., and Shackelford T.K. (1997). Personality and Mate Preferences: Five

Factors in Mate Selection and Marital Satisfaction. Journal of Personality. 65:1

Brase, G. & Guy, E. (2004). The demographics of mate value and self-esteem. Personality and

Buss, D.M. (2002). Human Mating Strategies. Samfundsokonomen, 4, 47-58.

Individual Differences, 36, 471-484.

Figueredo, A. J., Sefcek, J. A. and Jones, (2006). N. The ideal romantic partner personality.

Personality and Individual Differences 41. p 431–441

Fisher, M. et. al. (2008). Components of Self-Perceived Mate Value. Journal of Social,

Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology. Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the North

Eastern

Goodwin, R., et. al., (2012). Mate Value and Self-Esteem: Evidence from Eight Cultural Groups.

PLoS one. Volume 7. Issue 4

Kirsner, B., Figueredo, A. & Jacobs, W. (2003). Self, friends, and lovers: Structural relations

among Beck Depression Inventory scores and perceived mate values. Journal of Affective

Disorders, 75, 131-148.

Landolt, M., Lalumiere, M. & Quinsey, V. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sex variations in

human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology,16, 3-23.

22

Murray Millar. (2013). Menstrual Cycle Changes in Mate Preferences for Cues Associated with

Genetic Quality: The Moderating Role of Mate Value. www.ep.journal.net - 11(1): 18-35

Penke, L., Todd, P., Lenton, A. & Fasolo, B. (2007). How self-assessments can guide human

mating decisions. In G. Geher, & G. Miller (Eds.), Mating intelligence: New insights into

intimate relationships, human sexuality, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 37-75).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Roberts, B.W., Chernyshenko O.S., Stark, S. and Goldberg L. 2005. The Structure of

Conscientiousness: An Empirical Investigation Based on Major Personality Questionnaires.

Personnel Psychology. 58, 203-239

Shackelford, T., Schmitt, D., Buss, B. (2005). Universal Dimensions of Human Mate

Preferences. Personality and Individual Differences. 39, 447-458

23

http://www.ep.journal.net/

APPENDIX

A. For Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the demographic profile

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

Checking of significant differences of demographics: ANOVA

Analysis showed no significant differences between age, sexual orientation and age.

Sexual Orientation

Relationship status

24

Age

B. For Table 2. Descriptive statistics of mate value, personality domains and self-perceived mate

value

25

Descriptive statistics of variables

C. For Table 3. Inter-correlations between of mate value, personality domains and self-perceived

mate value

Checking of correlation review between the variables

D. For Table 4: Test of variance between of mate value, personality domains and its interaction

Checking for correlation between personality domains and predictor and outcome

26

2 Way ANOVA: main analyses

27

28

29

Post hoc analysis: Fisher LSD

Descriptive statistics:

30

31

E. Item analysis reliability using cronbach alpha

Reliability of SPMV = .87

32

Reliability of MVI = .83

Reliability of Personality Domain: Openness Subscale = .65

33

Reliability of Personality Domain: Conscientiousness Subscale = .71

Reliability of Personality Domain: Extraversion Subscale = .65

34

Reliability of Personality Domain: Agreeableness Subscale = .61

Reliability of Personality Domain: Neuroticism Subscale = .71

35

F. Scales/ questionnaire used in the study

Age:_________________________Sex orientation: ________________Status: __ single __ dating __ in a relationship

Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. Please write a number next to each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement.

Disagree strongly 1Disagree a little 2Neither agree nor disagree 3Agree a little 4Agree Strongly 5

I see Myself as Someone Who...

____1. Is talkative ____23. Tends to be lazy____2. Tends to find fault with others ____24. Is emotionally stable, not easily upset____3. Does a thorough job ____25. Is inventive____4. Is depressed, blue ____26. Has an assertive personality____5. Is original, comes up with new ideas ____27. Can be cold and aloof____6. Is reserved ____28. Perseveres until the task is finished____7. Is helpful and unselfish with others ____29. Can be moody____8. Can be somewhat careless ____30. Values artistic, aesthetic experiences____9. Is relaxed, handles stress well ____31. Is sometimes shy, inhibited____10. Is curious about many different things ____32. Is considerate and kind to almost everyone____11. Is full of energy ____33. Does things efficiently____12. Starts quarrels with others ____34. Remains calm in tense situations____13. Is a reliable worker ____35. Prefers work that is routine____14. Can be tense ____36. Is outgoing, sociable____15. Is ingenious, a deep thinker ____37. Is sometimes rude to others____16. Generates a lot of enthusiasm ____38. Makes plans and follows through with them____17. Has a forgiving nature ____39. Gets nervous easily____18. Tends to be disorganized ____40. Likes to reflect, play with ideas____19. Worries a lot ____41. Has few artistic interests ____20. Has an active imagination ____42. Likes to cooperate with others____21. Tends to be quiet ____43. Is easily distracted____22. Is generally trusting ____44. Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature

Please indicate how you believe the statement is true to you:

1 – strongly disagree2 – moderately disagree3 – disagree

36

4 – neutral5 – agree6 – moderately agree7 – strongly agree

Members of the opposite sex are not very attracted to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7I do not receive many compliments from members of the opposite sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Members of the opposite sex that I like tend to like me back. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Members of the opposite sex notice me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7I receive many compliments from members of the opposite sex. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Members of the opposite sex are attracted to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

How well do you feel that these attributes apply to you currently?

Please indicate how you compare to your peers on these characteristics, using the scale below:-3 Extremely Low on this characteristic-2 Moderately Low on this characteristic-1 Slightly Low on this characteristic0 Don’t Care / Average on this characteristic 1 Slightly High on this characteristic2 Moderately High on this characteristic3 Extremely High on this characteristic

Attractive face -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Responsible -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Desires children -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Emotionally stable -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Faithful to partner -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Financially secure -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Loyal -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Generous -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Good sense of humor -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Healthy -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Independent -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Enthusiastic about sex -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Intelligent -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Attractive body -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Sociable -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Kind and understanding -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3Ambitious -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Do you want to receive the result of the study?____________Contact infos:Mobile:___________________

37

Active email:_______________Do you want to participate on future research?____________

G. Consent formCONSENT

I agree that the evaluation may involve some risks such as being uncomfortable or feel unease in answering some of the items in this survey. Hence, I may choose to withdraw from the assessment at any point in the process. I understand that all of the information that will be obtained will be kept confidential.

Also, I am fully aware that this particular research is conducted by Monica Renee G. Policarpio primarily as part of her requirements for PSY580M: Advanced Statistics, a major course in the graduate program, MS Psychology major in Clinical Psychology.

_____________________Name and signature/ Date

For inquiries, please contact researcher at:[email protected]

38

Documents

Exploring Self Perceived Mate Value