A Chronic Lack of Perceived Personal Control Increases Women and Men’s Self-Reported Preference for High-Status Characteristics When Selecting Romantic Partners in Simulated Dating Situations
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online September, 2021
A Chronic Lack of Perceived Personal Control Increases Women and Men’s Self-Reported Preference for High-Status Characteristics When Selecting Romantic Partners in Simulated Dating Situations
The question what people desire in their romantic partner has hitherto been dominated by a focus on gender. It has been repeatedly found that, when asked what they find important in selecting a partner, women indicate that they find status more important compared to men. Across five studies, we move beyond gender and base ourselves on general theories of control deprivation to test the effect of differences in perceived personal control on stated partner preferences. We find that low-control people—both women and men—value characteristics associated with status more in romantic partners at the expense of other desirable traits (Study 1a and 1b). Furthermore, in simulated dating settings, low-control people make corresponding dating choices and prefer hypothetical high-status partners over low- (Study 2a) or average-status partners (Study 2b). Our final study suggests a beneficial aspect: Thoughts of dating a high-status partner can repair low-control people’s feelings of control (Study 3).
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992
2.
BussD. M. (1998). Sexual strategies theory: Historical origins and current status. Journal of Sex Research, 35(1), 19–31.
3.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
4.
ByrneD. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407597143008
5.
CichockaA.Golec de ZavalaA.MarchlewskaM.BilewiczM.JaworskaM.OlechowskiM. (2017). Personal control decreases narcissistic but increases non-narcissistic in-group positivity. Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12328
6.
DeCharmsR. (1968). Personal causation. Academic.
7.
DoosjeB.RojahnK.FischerA. H. (1999). Partner preferences as a function of gender, age, political orientation and level of education. Sex Roles, 40, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018826300179
8.
DouglasK.SuttonR.CichockaA. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 538–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261
9.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408
10.
EastwickP. W.EaglyA. H.GlickP.Johannesen-SchmidtM. C.FiskeS. T.BlumA. M. B.EckesT.FreiburgerP.HuangL.FernándezM. L.ManganelliA. M.PekJ. C. X.CastroY. R. C.Sakalli-UgurluN.Six-MaternaIVolpatoC. (2006). Is traditional gender ideology associated with sex-typed mate preferences? A test in nine nations. Sex Roles, 54, 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9027-x
11.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J. (2008). Sex differences in mate preferences revisited: Do people know what they initially desire in a romantic partner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.245
12.
EastwickP. W.FinkelE. J.EaglyA. H. (2011). When and why do ideal partner preferences affect the process of initiating and maintaining romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 1012–1032. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024062
13.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.
14.
FiskeS. T. (2003). Five core social motives, plus or minus five. In SpencerS. J.FeinS.ZannaM. P.OlsonJ. M. (Eds.), Motivated social perception: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 9, pp. 233–246). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.
15.
FletcherG. J.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG.GilesL. (1999). Ideals in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.72
16.
FrazierP. A.ByerA. L.FischerA. R.WrightD. M.DeBordK. A. (1996). Adult attachment style and partner choice: Correlational and experimental findings. Personal Relationships, 3(2), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00107.x
17.
FritscheI.JonasE.FankhänelT. (2008). The role of control motivation in mortality salience effects on ingroup support and defense. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 524–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012666
18.
FritscheI.MoyaM.BukowskiM.JugertP.de LemusS.DeckerO.Valor-SeguraI., & Navarro-Carrillo (2017). The great depression and group-based control: Converting personal helplessness into collective responses. Journal of Social Issues, 73, 117–137.
19.
GangestadS. W.SimpsonJ. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–587.
20.
GangestadS. W.HaseltonM. G.BussD. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: Evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 75–95.
21.
GoodwinR.TinkerM. (2002). Value priorities and preferences for a relationship partner. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(8), 1339–1349.
22.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
23.
HeckhausenJ.SchulzR. (1995). A life-span theory of control. Psychological Review, 102, 294–304.
24.
HetsroniA. (2000). Choosing a mate in television dating games: The influence of setting, culture, and gender. Sex Roles, 42, 83–106.
25.
Johannesen-SchmidtM. C.EaglyA. H. (2002). Another look at sex differences in preferred mate characteristics: The effects of endorsing the traditional female gender role. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 322–328.
26.
JohnsonP. O.NeymanJ. (1936). Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their application to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1, 57–93.
27.
KasserT.SharmaY. S. (1999). Reproductive freedom, educational equality, and females’ preference for resource-acquisition characteristics in mates. Psychological Science, 10, 374–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00171
28.
KayA. C.GaucherD.McGregorI.NashK. (2010). Religious belief as compensatory control. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309353750
29.
KayA. C.ShepherdS.BlatzC. W.ChuaS. N.GalinskyA. D. (2010). For God (or) country: The hydraulic relation between government instability and belief in religious sources of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 725–739. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021140
30.
KayA. C.WhitsonJ. A.GaucherD.GalinskyA. D. (2009). Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 264–268.
31.
KunstmanJ. W.ManerJ. K. (2011). Sexual overperception: Power, mating motives, and biases in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021135
32.
KirkpatrickL. A.DavisK. E. (1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 502–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.502
33.
KoranyiN.RothermundK. (2012). Automatic coping mechanisms in committed relationships: Increased interpersonal trust as a response to stress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 180–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.009
34.
KrausM. W.PiffP. K.KeltnerD. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 992. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016357
35.
KunstmanJ. W.ManerJ. K. (2011). Sexual overperception: Power, mating motives, and biases in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021135
36.
LammersJ.BurgmerP. (2019). Power increases the self-serving bias in the attribution of collective successes and failures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(5), 1087–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2556
LammersJ.ManerJ. (2016). Power and attraction to the counternormative aspects of infidelity. Journal of Sex Research, 53(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2014.989483
39.
LammersJ.StokerJ. I.JordanJ.PollmannM.StapelD. A. (2011). Power increases infidelity among men and women. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1191–1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611416252
40.
LandauM. J.KayA. C.WhitsonJ. A. (2015). Compensatory control and the appeal of a structured world. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 694–722.
41.
LefcourtH. M. (1973). The function of the illusions of control and freedom. American Psychologist, 28, 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034639
42.
LiN. P.BaileyJ. M.KenrickD. T.LinsenmeierJ. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947
43.
McGregorI.PrenticeM. S.NashK. A. (2009). Personal uncertainty management by reactive approach motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 225–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903333460
44.
McGregorI.ZannaM. P.HolmesJ. G.SpencerS. J. (2001). Compensatory conviction in the face of personal uncertainty: Going to extremes and being oneself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 472–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.472
45.
MestonC. M.BussD. M. (2007). Why humans have sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(4), 477–507.
46.
MittalC.GriskeviciusV. (2014). Sense of control under uncertainty depends on people’s childhood environment: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037398
47.
MontoyaR. M.HortonR. S.KirchnerJ. (2008). Is actual similarity necessary for attraction? A meta-analysis of actual and perceived similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1978.9924167
48.
MooreF. R.CassidyC. (2007). Female status predicts female mate preferences across nonindustrial societies. Cross-Cultural Research, 41, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397106294860
49.
MooreF. R.CassidyC.Law SmithM. J.PerrettD. I. (2006). The effects of female control of resources on sex differentiated mate preferences. Evolution & Human Behavior, 27, 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.08.003
50.
O’BrienT. B.DeLongisA.PomakiG.PutermanE.ZwickerA. (2009). Couples coping with stress: The role of empathic responding. European Psychologist, 14, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.14.1.18
51.
OkamiP.ShackelfordT. K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12(1), 186–241.
52.
PerusseD. (1993). Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: Testing the relationship at the proximate and ultimate levels. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(2), 267–283.
53.
PressonP. K.BenassiV. A. (1996). Illusion of control: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 493–510.
54.
ProulxT.HeineS. J. (2008). The case of the transmogrifying experimenter: Affirmation of a moral schema following implicit change detection. Psychological Science, 19, 1294–1300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02238.x
55.
ProulxT.InzlichtM.Harmon-JonesE. (2012). Understanding all inconsistency compensation as a palliative response to violated expectations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.002
56.
ProulxT.MajorB. (2013). A raw deal: Heightened liberalism following exposure to anomalous playing cards. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12024
RossC. E.MirowskyJ.PribeshS. (2001). Powerlessness and the amplification of threat: Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and mistrust. American Sociological Review, 66, 568–591. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088923
59.
RossC. E.SastryJ. (1999). The sense of personal control. In Handbook of the sociology of mental health (pp. 369–394). Springer.
60.
RotterJ. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976
61.
SchmittD. P. & International Sexuality Description Project. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.85
62.
SchmittD. P.JonasonP. K.ByerleyG. J.FloresS. D.IllbeckB. E.O’LearyK. N.QudratA. (2012). A reexamination of sex differences in sexuality: New studies reveal old truths. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 135–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412436808
63.
SchönbrodtF. D.PeruginiM. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009
64.
SeligmanM. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. Freeman.
SkinnerE. A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, and coping. Sage.
67.
SnibbeA. C.MarkusH. R. (2005). You can’t always get what you want: Educational attainment, agency, and choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 703–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.703
68.
SnyderJ. K.FesslerD. M.TiokhinL.FrederickD. A.LeeS. W.NavarreteC. D. (2011). Trade-offs in a dangerous world: Women’s fear of crime predicts preferences for aggressive and formidable mates. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(2), 127–137.
69.
StollbergJ.FritscheI.BäckerA. (2015). Striving for group agency: Threat to personal control increases the attractiveness of agentic groups. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 49. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2
70.
ThompsonS. C.Sobolew-ShubinA.GalbraithM. E.SchwankovskyL.CruzenD. (1993). Maintaining perceptions of control: Finding perceived control in low-control circumstances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.293
WhiteR. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040934
74.
WhitsonJ. A.GalinskyA. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322(5898), 115–117. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1159845
75.
WiedermanM. W. (1993). Evolved gender differences in mate preferences: Evidence from personal advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 331–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(93)90003-Z
76.
WiedermanM. W.AllgeierE. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation?Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(92)90021-U
77.
WoodW.EaglyA. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behaviour of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727.
78.
ZayasV.ShodaY. (2007). Predicting preferences for dating partners from past experiences of psychological abuse: Identifying the psychological ingredients of situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206293493
79.
ZentnerM.MituraK. (2012). Stepping out of the caveman’s shadow: Nations’ gender gap predicts degree of sex differentiation in mate preferences. Psychological Science, 23, 1176–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612441004
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
