Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Blackpill Neuroscience indicates: hoes ain't loyal *shocker*

InMemoriam

InMemoriam

SzPDcel
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 19, 2022
Posts
1,455
Online
30d 29m
Do partnered women discriminate men's faces less along the attractiveness dimension?
Hongyi Wang ⁎, Amanda C. Hahn, Lisa M. DeBruine, Benedict C. Jones

Institute of Neuroscience & Psychology, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QB, UK
For the full article:
Article doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.024

Abstract
Romantic relationships can have positive effects on health and reproductive fitness. Given that attractive potential alternative mates can pose a threat to romantic relationships, some researchers have proposed that partnered individuals discriminate opposite-sex individuals less along the physical attractiveness dimension than do unpartnered individuals. This effect is proposed to devalue attractive (i.e., high quality) alternative mates and help maintain romantic relationships. Here we investigated this issue by comparing the effects of men's attractiveness on partnered and unpartnered women's performance on two response measures for which attractiveness is known to be important: memory for face photographs (Study 1) and the reward value of faces (Study 2). Consistent with previous research, women's memory was poorer for face photographs of more attractive men (Study 1) and more attractive men's faces were more rewarding (Study 2). However, in neither study were these effects of attractiveness modulated by women's partnership status or partnered women's reported commitment to or happiness with their romantic relationship. These results do not support the proposal that partnered women discriminate potential alternative mates along the physical attractiveness dimension less than do unpartnered women

1. Introduction

Romantic relationships have positive effects on reproductive fitness by increasing resources available for investment in offspring (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Romantic relationships also have positive effects on both physical and psychological health (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988). Given the importance of physical attractiveness for human mate choice (e.g., Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999), several researchers have proposed that partnered individuals might discriminate oppositesex individuals along the physical attractiveness dimension less than do unpartnered individuals (Karremans, Dotsch, & Corneille, 2011; Ritter, Karremans, & van Schie, 2010). These differences are thought to function to devalue attractive (i.e., high quality, Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999) alternative mates (Karremans et al., 2011; Ritter et al., 2010). Devaluing attractive alternative mates may help to maintain romantic relationships by reducing the likelihood of the pursuit of alternative mates.

Recent evidence for the proposal described above has come from research that used a reverse-correlation technique (Mangini & Biederman, 2004) to visualize heterosexual women's internal representations of previously seen attractive and unattractive men's faces (Karremans et al., 2011). Karremans et al. (2011) found that partnered women's internal representations of attractive men's faces were less attractive than those of unpartnered women. By contrast, partnered women's representations of unattractive men's faces were more attractive than those of unpartnered women. These results were interpreted as evidence that partnered women discriminate men's faces along the physical attractiveness dimension less. This interpretation is consistent with findings from other studies where, when instructed to disregard their own current partnership status, partnered participants are less likely to identify physically attractive individuals as potential romantic partners than are unpartnered participants (Ritter et al., 2010). They are also consistent with research where partnered individuals rated photographs of highly attractive people to be less attractive than did unpartnered individuals (Simpson, Gangestad, & Lerma, 1990).

The aim of the current study was to test for further evidence that partnered women discriminate men's faces along the physical attractiveness dimension less than do unpartnered women. We did this by comparing the effects of men's facial attractiveness on partnered and unpartnered women's performance on two measures for which attractiveness is known to be important. In Study 1, we assessed partnered and unpartnered women's memory for photographs of men's faces using an “old-new” memory task (Macmillan & Creelman, 2005), in which women watched a slideshow of images of men's faces that had previously been rated for attractiveness by a different group of participants. The women were then shown both these face images and foil images (i.e., were shown these “old” face images interspersed among previously unseen “new” male face images), and were asked to indicate whether or not they had seen each face photograph before. Previous research suggests that more attractive faces are less memorable (e.g., Wiese, Altmann, & Schweinberger, 2014), but has not investigated the possible effects of women's partnership status. If partnered women discriminate men's faces along the physical attractiveness dimension less than do unpartnered women (Karremans et al., 2011), the predicted negative effect of attractiveness on the memorability of photographs of men's faces should be weaker in partnered than unpartnered women.

In Study 2, we used a standard key-press task (Aharon et al., 2001; Hahn, Fisher, DeBruine, & Jones, 2014, 2015; Levy et al., 2008; Wang, Hahn, Fisher, DeBruine, & Jones, 2014) to assess the reward value of images of men's faces in partnered and unpartnered women. In this task, participants can control the length of time for which they view faces by repeatedly pressing keys to either increase or decrease the viewing time (Aharon et al., 2001; Hahn et al., 2014, 2015; Levy et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2014). Responses on this type of key-press task are a better predictor of neural measures of the reward value and motivational salience of face images than attractiveness ratings (Aharon et al., 2001). As in Study 1, our male face stimuli had previously been rated for attractiveness by a different group of participants. The same face stimuli were used in both studies. Previous research has found that more attractive male faces have greater reward value to women (Hahn et al., 2014, 2015; Levy et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2014). However, this work has not considered the possible effects of women's partnership status. If partnered women discriminate men's faces along the physical attractiveness dimension less than do unpartnered women, the predicted positive effect of attractiveness on the reward value of men's faces should be weaker in partnered than unpartnered women.


2. Study 1

The aim of Study 1 was to test whether the effect of facial attractiveness on women's memory for photographs of men's faces was different for partnered and unpartnered women. Weaker effects of facial attractiveness on partnered women's memory for photographs of men's faces would support the proposal that partnered women differentiate men's faces along the attractiveness dimension less.


3. Study 2

The aim of Study 2 was to test whether the effect of facial attractiveness on the reward value of men's faces to women was different for partnered and unpartnered women. Weaker effects of facial attractiveness on the reward value of men's faces in partnered women would support the proposal that partnered women differentiate men's faces along the attractiveness dimension less.


4. Discussion {final finding}

our studies showed no differences between partnered and unpartnered women's sensitivity to male facial attractiveness on two measures for which attractiveness is known to be important (memory for faces and the reward value of faces). *SHOCKER*

I ain't no neuroscientist but assuming women attraction for "alternative'' men would just diminish post partnering is just comical:feelstastyman:
all in all glad they have conducted said research, people wouldn't have known otherwise :feelsLSD::feelsLSD::feelsLSD:
 
BardakTheGreat

BardakTheGreat

ExtERminator of foids, fags and NT's
Joined
Jan 13, 2022
Posts
4,080
Online
12d 6h 59m
Hoes will be hoes, I'm so suprised
 
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top