I think for a second, and then I write equal amounts (70) next to both hotness and kindness, then 40 next to income and 20 next to fidelity.“Oh wow,” he says.“What? Usually women allocate more to fidelity and less to physical attractiveness.Maybe you think fidelity is something people can cultivate over time?
This trait game, along with Royzman’s review of the literature on attraction, hints at some of the endless quirks of the online dating marketplace.
You might like someone online, but they put 100 on income, and unfortunately you’re about a 10.
"Online, this might result in males restricting their potential mates.”is two decades old, but new, fast-growing apps such as Tinder have shifted the online-matching emphasis back to looks.
Men and women make mating decisions very differently, he speculates.
Men tend to act like single-issue voters: If a prospect is not attractive enough, he or she usually doesn’t qualify for a first date, period.
For women, however, "It's a more complex choice,” he said.
“What tends to matter for females is that the overall package is good," meaning that women might accept a less-attractive mate if he was outstanding in some other way.
The more I allocate to each attribute, the more highly I supposedly value that quality in a mate.
This experiment, which Royzman sometimes runs with his college classes, is meant to inject scarcity into hypothetical dating decisions in order to force people to prioritize.
”(Sure, but I mean, who would want an ugly, broke jerk sticking faithfully by their side?
)Royzman said that among his students (not in a clinical condition), men tend to spend much more on physical attractiveness, and women spend more on social attractiveness traits like kindness and intelligence.