Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Centro de Biociências
Programa de Pós-graduação em Psicobiologia
REALIDADE OU FICÇÃO?
A INFLUÊNCIA DA AUTOPERCEPÇÃO COMO PARCEIRO
ROMÂNTICO E DA AUTOESTIMA NA ESCOLHA E PREFERÊNCIA
DE PARCEIROS ROMÂNTICOS
Natal
2015
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
Centro de Biociências
Programa de Pós-graduação em Psicobiologia
REALIDADE OU FICÇÃO?
A INFLUÊNCIA DA AUTOPERCEPÇÃO COMO PARCEIRO
ROMÂNTICO E DA AUTOESTIMA NA ESCOLHA E PREFERÊNCIA
DE PARCEIROS ROMÂNTICOS
Natal
2015
! 2!
!
Catalogação da Publicação na Fonte. UFRN / Biblioteca Setorial do Centro de
Biociências
Banca Examinadora:
___________________________________
Prof. Jean Carlos Natividade
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, RJ
___________________________________
Prof. Wallisen Tadashi Hattori
Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, MG
___________________________________
Profª. Maria Bernadete Cordeiro de Sousa
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, RN
___________________________________
Prof. Felipe Nalon Castro
Universidade Potiguar, RN
___________________________________
Profª. Fívia de Araújo Lopes
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, RN
! 3!
!
Agradecimentos
tempo, pois tenho tanto a agradecer mas acaba faltando palavras para descrever tudo o que
sinto, principalmente a meus pais. Aqueles que sempre me apoiaram incondicionalmente, que
sempre estiveram ali para mim e me fizeram enxergar a luz no fim do túnel todas as vezes que
eu estive sem ânimo para continuar. Arthur, obrigada pelas conversas filosóficas sobre a vida
e por ser tão chato, me ajudando a exercitar minha paciência. Amo vocês!
monte de variáveis, que deixa qualquer um zonzo e pela imensa compreensão de todas as
minhas viagens. À Felipe Nalon, que me cedeu o projeto de pesquisa de doutorado para que
eu pudesse adaptar e dar continuidade. To Maryanne Fisher, for the amazing opportunity:
knowing the lab, participating and assisting the classes, collecting my data in Canada, and for
the additional projects. Also, for the meetings extra-lab, and the delicious deserts,
Ysa, Diego e a um hey, stranger, que me ajudaram a tabular dados, na correria, noite a dentro.
Obrigada também à CAPES, por ter fornecido bolsa durante todo o meu doutorado
Por fim, agradeço à banca por aceitarem o convite (que a este momento vocês já
devem estar se perguntando o porquê aceitaram, mas tudo bem) e pelos comentários e
! 4!
!
Resumo
Em geral, homens e mulheres procuram por características em seus parceiros que possam
aumentar seu sucesso reprodutivo. Porém, a escolha de um parceiro romântico não se baseia
apenas no que o indivíduo deseja em um parceiro, mas ele leva em consideração a forma
como ele se percebe dentro de determinado ambiente, de modo que a autoavaliação pode
mudar de acordo com o contexto no qual o indivíduo está inserido. Além do ambiente, a
autoestima pode ser um fator que modifica as preferências de parceiros românticos e a forma
com a qual as pessoas escolhem estes parceiros por poder influenciar na maneira com que as
pessoas se avaliam. A maioria dos estudos que deram origem a padrões hoje considerados
universais no estudo de escolha de parceiro romântico foi realizado com universitários, o que
pode limitar a abrangência das conclusões por contemplar pessoas de mesmo nível
realizada no Brasil, onde a taxa de desigualdade social elevada, e parte no Canadá, país com
baixa desigualdade social, teve como objetivo verificar as preferências e escolhas de parceiros
NSE. Os resultados apontam que homens, principalmente de baixo NSE, tendem a dar
prioridade a status social quando procurando por uma parceira romântica, enquanto o padrão
universal é a preferência por atratividade física, e mulheres de baixo NSE parecem ter
conhecimento dessa preferência de homens de baixo NSE ao expressarem que status social é
dois últimos pareçam modular como se dá a influência do contexto sobre a autopercepção dos
participantes. Além disso, a presente pesquisa também indicou que as preferências parecem
representar as escolhas para as características mais importantes para cada sexo, sendo as
! 5!
!
demais características moduladas provavelmente pela qualidade de parceiros disponíveis no
ambiente.
! 6!
!
Abstract
In general, men and women look for characteristics that can indicate improvement of
their reproductive success in their romantic partners. However, partner choice is not only
based on what the individual want in a partner, but he/she also takes into consideration how
change according to the context where the individual is inserted in. Besides the environment,
self-esteem can be a factor that modifies romantic partner preferences and the way that people
choose these partners for being able to influence how people evaluate themselves. Most of the
studies that originate today’s universal standards in the study of romantic partner were
conducted with undergraduate students, which may limit the coverage of the conclusions for
contemplating people of the same educational level and probably also socioeconomic status
(SES). The present research, held in Brazil, where the social inequality rate is high, and part
in Canada, country with low social inequality, had as goal verifying romantic partners
preferences and choices and self-evaluation as romantic partners in different educational level
and SES. Men, mainly of low SES, tend to prioritize social status when looking for a romantic
partner while the universal pattern is the preference for physical attractiveness, and women of
low SES seem to be aware of this preference when expressing that social status is important
for their self-perception. In addition, the results corroborate the influence of the context, self-
esteem, and SES in the self-perception as a romantic partner, though the latter two appear to
modulate how the is the influence of the context on participants’ perception. Moreover, this
research also indicated that the preferences appear to represent the choices for the most
important characteristics for each sex, being the other characteristics probably modulated by
! 7!
!
Keywords: self-perception, self-esteem, socioeconomic status, romantic partners, preference,
cross-cultural choice
! 8!
!
Apresentação
! 9!
!
Introdução geral
perpetuar seus genes, alcançando maior sucesso reprodutivo aqueles que conseguem deixar
maior número de descendentes bem sucedidos. Em outras palavras, aqueles que conseguem
gerar uma prole que sobreviva até a idade reprodutiva e se reproduza, gerando descendentes
férteis (Allen & Bailey, 2007). Este processo geralmente se inicia com a escolha de parceiros
parental entre eles. O sexo que investe mais na prole é chamado sexo investidor e,
seletividade na escolha de seus parceiros. Assim, membros do sexo oposto têm que competir
entre si para poder acasalar, tido, portanto, como sexo competidor. Principalmente em
mamíferos, o sucesso reprodutivo das fêmeas varia por sua capacidade de gerar e criar a
prole, enquanto dos machos, varia em função do número de fêmeas com as quais ele consegue
fertilizar (exceto nas espécies em que o cuidado parental é um recurso limitante de acesso às
fêmeas) (Trivers, 1972). Na maioria das espécies, o sexo feminino é tido como o sexo
investidor ao passo que os machos disputam entre si para ter acesso às fêmeas. Nos
mamíferos, tal padrão é claramente observado, uma vez que as fêmeas investem muito
cuidado maternal, cabendo a elas a escolha do melhor parceiro sexual (Pawlowski, 2000;
Trivers, 1972).
Além do fator fisiológico, cabe à mulher, na maioria das vezes, os primeiros cuidados
com a criança, restando ao homem (ao qual não cabe o papel da gestação e amamentação) o
! 10!
!
investimento através da alimentação, proteção e recurso e segurança financeira para o cuidado
e manutenção da prole (Allen & Bailey, 2007; Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Geary, Vigil, & Byrd-
Craven, 2004; Gutierres et al., 1999; Kenrick, 2006; Kenrick et al., 1990; Kruger et al., 2010).
Portanto, observa-se o padrão no qual a mulher investe diretamente, com mais recursos
de filhos que ela pode ter (Pawlowski, 2000; Trivers, 1972). Em humanos, pode-se ver
claramente a preferência por parceiros que possuem características físicas que dão indícios de
boa fisiologia (como resistência a patógenos), pois em relação à maioria das outras espécies, o
bebê humano é prematuro, fazendo com que o cuidado de ambos os pais seja mais necessário
Devido à necessidade que a mulher tem de garantir a sobrevivência de sua prole, ela
tende a preferir homens que possuem recursos (que podem ser mensurados atualmente através
de status social e boa condição financeira) ou habilidade de aquisição destes (que pode ser
companheiro com boa condição financeira (recursos líquidos para utilização) seria capaz de
fornecer a ela e a sua prole os recursos necessários para a sobrevivência deles e para a
competição da última no concorrido mercado atual (como educação de boa qualidade) (Buss,
2006; Castro & Lopes, 2011; Gutierres et al., 1999; Hattori et al., 2011). Além dessas
características, esses parceiros devem ter desejo por filhos e comprometimento com a família,
uma vez que somente a aquisição de recursos não garante o investimento destes na prole
(Buss & Shackelford, 2008; Buston & Emlen, 2003). É importante pontuar que as
características físicas não são desprezadas pelas mulheres, já que elas podem oferecer pistas a
respeito da herança genética que o indivíduo carrega. No entanto, quando comparadas aos
homens, elas tendem a dar menos importância a essas características (Buss, 2006; Castro &
! 11!
!
Comparado às demais espécies de mamíferos, o alto grau de investimento na prole por
parte do macho humano também permite que ele selecione as fêmeas com as quais quer ter
principalmente parceiras românticas com alta atratividade física, tanto para relacionamentos
de curto, quanto para longo prazo (Pawlowski, 2000; Trivers, 1972). Em geral, homens
avaliam o potencial reprodutivo das mulheres através da atratividade física, a qual dá sinais
honestos da boa condição fisiológica e juventude femininas (Gutierres et al., 1999; Karremans
Além disso, segundo Buss e Shackelford (2008), Karremans et al. (2010) e Wade
(2000, 2003), os homens parecem preferir uma baixa relação cintura-quadril porque esta
homens cegos também apresentam preferência por baixa relação cintura-quadril, dando maior
suporte à importância dessa preferência para o sucesso reprodutivo masculino. Eles justificam
armazenada nestas partes do corpo. Através dessa observação, podem-se ter pistas sobre o
corpo, uma vez que níveis ideais de estrógeno fazem com que a gordura essencial para o
gordura depositada na cintura pode chegar a prejudicar este desenvolvimento quando presente
em grande quantidade. Além da baixa fertilidade em mulheres com alta proporção cintura-
reprodutivamente relevante por favorecer o depósito de gordura nos quadris e nas nádegas,
! 12!
!
Além da atratividade física, segundo Pawlowski (2000), os homens sempre buscam
parceiras que estejam em seu período reprodutivo de vida, fator que, para as mulheres está
intimamente relacionado com a faixa etária, atingindo um pico ao redor dos 20 e 24 anos e
diminuindo em cerca de 15% o seu potencial reprodutivo ao atingir a faixa dos 30 aos 34
anos. Por volta dos 40 a 44 anos, o potencial reprodutivo feminino diminui em torno de 35%
e, ao chegar aos 50 anos aproximadamente, a mulher entra na menopausa e não é mais capaz
de gerar prole. Este fato faz com que a mulher seja vista como tendo um curto período
reprodutivo. Por outro lado, os homens têm uma extensa janela reprodutiva, devido à ausência
de um declínio íngreme com o avançar da idade. Homens na faixa dos 45 aos 55 anos de
idade possuem ainda cerca de 90% do seu potencial reprodutivo e acima dos 55 anos, esse
mobilidade de alguns espermatozoides (Kelly & Jennions, 2011; Leivers et al., 2014). Então,
avançada não implica na sua perda de fertilidade (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992). Portanto, homens
tendem a buscar parceiras mais novas, procurando o mais próximo possível do melhor
Apesar de não existir pressão seletiva no homem por parte da mulher quanto à idade
devido ao homem se manter fértil por mais tempo (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992), com a idade
avançada do homem, a possibilidade de encontrar parceiras muito mais novas que ele é
diminuída. Mesmo que as mulheres prefiram parceiros mais velhos que elas (uma vez que a
probabilidade deles terem mais recursos financeiros acumulados é maior), um que seja muito
mais velho não lhe seria vantajoso, pois o risco de falecimento aumenta, afetando no auxílio
na criação dos filhos. Além disso, mulheres bem mais novas que os homens trazem uma
menor certeza da fidelidade porque ela pode vir a encontrar um homem mais jovem e com os
! 13!
!
mesmos recursos (ou possibilidade de ganho destes) que o parceiro mais velho teria a oferecer
(Pawlowski, 2000). Suportando esta teoria, Brase e Guy (2004) encontraram o valor de
mercado feminino diminui conforme a idade aumenta enquanto que o valor de mercado
masculino aumenta com a idade. No entanto, um parceiro muito mais velho que a mulher não
seria o ideal. Spinelli, Hattori e Sousa (2010), em uma revisão de literatura, discutiram as
desvantagens que as mulheres acarretam em reproduzir com um parceiro com idade bem mais
elevada que elas, dentre delas estão maior suscetibilidade do parceiro à esterilidade e maiores
genéticas.
rostos bonitos. Isso se dá pelo fato da face conseguir passar diversas informações indiretas
sobre a qualidade do parceiro (Geary et al., 2004). Além de representar bons genes para
características físicas, faces simétricas, pele limpa e olhos e cabelos brilhantes indicam maior
afirmaram que toxinas, patógenos e mutações estão relacionadas com flutuações na assimetria
Além de rostos bonitos, outra característica notoriamente valorizada pelos dois sexos é
que a mulher assegure o homem quanto à paternidade do filho dela de forma a garantir o
investimento da prole (Gaulin & McBurney, 2004; Pawlowski, 2000; Trivers, 1972).
Fidelidade também se atribui com igual importância ao homem pela necessidade da mulher
saber se ele direcionará, de fato, os seus recursos para ela e sua prole. Caso o homem tenha
outra parceira, provavelmente os recursos antes direcionados apenas para uma delas e sua
! 14!
!
Outra característica não-física preferida por homens e mulheres é o bom humor
(Castro et al., 2012; Fletcher et al., 2004). Castro e Lopes (2011) argumentaram que o mesmo
pode, além da qualidade de relacionamento, indicar sucesso social e alto nível cognitivo,
assim como ser um sinal de qualidade genética. Embora ambos os sexos valorizem bom
humor, Greengross e Miller (2011) argumentaram que, pela produção do humor indicar alto
nível cognitivo, mulheres seriam mais sensíveis e discriminativas quanto ao tipo de humor
um parceiro romântico não é uma tarefa fácil. Segundo Pawlowski (2000), valor de mercado é
que escolhem rapidamente tendem a ter um relacionamento menos duradouro por geralmente
começarem a se relacionar com um parceiro que tem um valor de mercado diferente do dele,
pois pessoas de maiores valores de mercado tendem a ter maiores oportunidades de encontrar
buscar um parceiro que tem um valor de mercado similar ao dela, sendo este valor analisado
o indivíduo faz de si mesmo como parceiro romântico. Para isso, cada um baseia-se nas
características desejadas pelos parceiros em potencial para poder avaliar seu valor de mercado
dentro do ambiente (Fisher et al., 2008). Dessa forma, homens e mulheres tendem a modificar
a sua avaliação de acordo com o ambiente no qual estão inseridos (Buss & Shackelford, 2008;
Gutierres et al., 1999). Gutierres e colaboradores (1999) encontraram que mulheres tendem a
! 15!
!
competidoras de atratividade física alta e homens tendem a diminuir sua autopercepção ao
autoavaliação não afeta a avaliação de quão atraente os outros indivíduos são, mas serve
uma vez que o parceiro geralmente tem um nível similar de desejabilidade com o individuo
(Fisher et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2008). Buston e Emlen (2003) e Lee e colaboradores (2008)
mostraram que pessoas que possuem alta atratividade tendem a preferir parceiros potenciais
também de alta atratividade enquanto que indivíduos de baixa atratividade têm os seus
parceiros potenciais sendo também de baixa atratividade. No entanto, a avaliação que essas
pessoas fazem do mercado não é alterada pela atratividade do seu parceiro, pois eles sabem
como bom humor. Todavia, uma pessoa que possui atratividade baixa está disposta a aceitar
parceiros que tenham uma atratividade maior que a dela, desde que não seja muito grande a
diferença entre sua atratividade e a do parceiro (Lee et al., 2008). Castro e colaboradores
(2012) notaram que a preferência feminina parece ser similar à avaliação que elas fazem delas
mesmas como parceiras românticas, sugerindo que há um ajuste das preferências de forma a
contexto sobre a autoavaliação como parceiro romântico e a forma como esta avaliação
modula nossas exigências ao procurarmos um parceiro romântico, foi observado que algumas
inseridas - um contexto com vários modelos desejáveis do mesmo sexo ou com várias pessoas
! 16!
!
não-desejáveis também do mesmo sexo (Mafra, 2010). Assim, elas mantêm a mesma
avaliação antes e depois da exposição a diferentes contextos. Tal observação sugere que,
mulheres tendem a ter sua autoavaliação relacionada positivamente a sua autoestima (e.g.
Bale & Archer, 2013; Goodwin et al., 2012), variando em relação a forma como cada
enquanto homens tendem a ter sua autoestima relacionada positivamente a status social (Brase
& Guy, 2004; Wade, 2000, 2003). No entanto, a relação entre autoestima e autoavaliação
relacionada a autoavaliação embora não tenham encontrado o mesmo efeito para mulheres.
feminina para modular suas estratégias de curto e longo prazo, uma vez que homens tendem a
preferir estratégias de curto prazo, mas quando possuem alto nível de rejeição, mudam para
longo prazo como forma de garantir ao menos uma parceira. Por outro lado, mulheres não
teriam que ficar tão alertas a tais pistas de rejeição por darem preferência a estratégias de
longo prazo. Enquanto isso, o estudo de Bale e Archer (2013) apontou que a autoestima de
fortemente que homens, mas nenhuma diferença sexual foi encontrada para atratividade
corporal. Além disso, Goodwin e colaboradores (2012) encontraram que mulheres que
que homens e a autoestima dos homens mostrou-se positivamente associada ao quão fiel eles
se percebem.
! 17!
!
Porém as divergências não são só essas. Alguns autores criticam o estudo das
(2008), por exemplo, alega que esse método pode não ser condizente com os parceiros que
são de fato escolhidos. Estudos que averiguaram esta questão também não apontam em uma
necessárias cada vez mais pesquisas que venham a responder perguntas que surgem conforme
! 18!
!
Objetivos
Objetivo geral
Objetivos específicos
Artigo 1
Artigo 2
Artigo 3
EFM;
! 19!
!
Artigo 4
autoavaliação como parceiro romântico e suas interações com autoestima e NSE de homens e
Artigo 5
8. Verificar se parceiros reais podem ser representados por parceiros ideais de curto
brasileiros de EFM.
! 20!
!
Método geral
Essa pesquisa foi submetida a comitês de ética dos dois países nos quais ela foi
Universidade Saint Mary – Saint Mary’s University Research Ethics Board (no 14-267), no
coletar todas as informações desejadas para o presente estudo, mais de um questionário foi
procedimento envolvido na coleta de dados. Dessa forma, a metodologia foi organizada em:
A pesquisa foi idealizada no período de março de 2011 a maio de 2015 em Natal, Rio
Grande do Norte. Apenas a realização da Etapa de concessão de imagens não atendeu a tal
requisito, por razões explicitadas logo abaixo. Para a coleta dos dados, foi estabelecido
contato, foi apresentado o projeto de pesquisa à coordenação das escolas e após autorização,
era iniciada a coleta de dados. As instituições parceiras foram: Escola Estadual Berilo
Wanderley, Escola Estadual União do Povo, Escola Estadual Walfredo Gurgel, Escola
Estadual José Fernandes Machado, Escola Estadual Bartolomeu Vigário, Escola Estadual
Floriano Cavalcanti, Escola Municipal Maria Francinete Gonçalves Maia, Escola Estadual
Antônio Pinto de Medeiros e Escola Estadual Djalma Aranha Marinho. Tal procedimento foi
semelhante junto à Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), onde a coleta dos
dados foram autorizada pelos professores de diferentes disciplinas dos cursos: ciências
! 21!
!
biológicas, enfermagem, psicologia, medicina, odontologia, ecologia, ciência e tecnologia e
engenharia química.
A amostra canadense, no entanto, foi coletada via internet, por intermédio de um site
Universidade Saint Mary, Halifax, Canadá. A participação era restrita penas aos estudantes
com acesso ao sistema eletrônico da instituição, não sendo o endereço eletrônico exposto no
Instrumentos
Os instrumentos são:
• Avaliação de modelos;
• Cadernos experimentais;
ao participante do que consiste a pesquisa e quais seriam as atividades por ele desempenhada
caso ele concordasse em participar (que varia de acordo com a etapa da pesquisa). Também
! 22!
!
são salientadas e explicadas questões que fizeram menção à ausência de trocas financeiras
cópia deste. O TCLE continha o e-mail da pesquisadora responsável para que os participantes
interessados em tirar dúvidas ou obter mais informações sobre a pesquisa pudessem entrar em
TCLE para uso de imagens. O TCLE para uso de imagens (Anexo C) continha
informações a respeito do projeto, explicando como a fotografia cedida seria utilizada e com
quais finalidades.
questionário do júri (Anexo D) mencionava que caso aceitasse o convite, o participante seria
do modelo apresentado.
preenchimento de um questionário.
! 23!
!
TCLE para preenchimento de questionário experimental. Este TCLE (Anexo F)
mencionava que caso decidisse aceitar o convite, o participante seria submetido a seção de
canadenses foi realizada via internet, não sendo possível a disponibilização uma segunda via
Rosenberg (1989), a qual já foi validada para o português, possui alfa de Cronbach igual a
0.90 (Hutz & Zanon, 2011) e tem sido amplamente utilizada em pesquisas envolvendo
autoestima mundialmente.
Tal escala de autoestima serve para avaliar, de acordo com dez afirmações, a
autoestima geral do indivíduo. Estas afirmações são sobre sentimentos e pensamentos que a
! 24!
!
pessoa atribui a ela mesma e estão distribuídas da seguinte forma: cinco para
cada uma das frases existe as opções: concordo plenamente, concordo, discordo e discordo
plenamente, devendo, o participante, selecionar a opção que melhor possa se adequar a ele
interpretar que quem obtivesse os menores índices fossem os participantes que possuem maior
autoestima e quem possuísse maiores pontuações fossem aqueles que possuem menor
Tabela 1
Brasil
não decrescente como realizada para a amostra brasileira, mas que houvesse uma
uma reta de diferencial semântico de 10 centímetros de comprimento para cada modelo, para
que os participantes marcassem com uma seta ou um “x” quão desejável julga que cada
! 25!
!
modelo seja. A reta marcava de nada desejável (0) a extremamente desejável (10), ou seja,
quanto mais à esquerda da reta fosse marcar, menos atraente o jurado julga o modelo e o
colaboradores (2012) e era dividido em dois, onde, no primeiro espaço, o indivíduo atribuía
pontos a ele, de acordo com uma escala likert de 0 a 9 pontos para cada uma das nove
características pesquisadas:
habilidade social; e
10 centímetros, na qual o participante deveria marcar com uma seta ou um “x” quão desejável
ele julgava ser como parceiro romântico (a ser marcado do mesmo modo que a Avaliação de
questionário, baseada em Castro e Lopes (2011), foi iniciada com as seguintes frases
introdutórias: “Imagine que você está saindo (se encontrando) com alguém uma ou mais
vezes, sem uma expectativa de um relacionamento mais sério, mas com possibilidade do
encontro resultar em relação sexual. Como seria esta pessoa?” para parceiros de curto prazo
! 26!
!
e “Neste momento, imagine que você está saindo (se encontrando) com alguém por um longo
período, agora com alguma possibilidade, mas não certa, de namoro ou de casamento. Como
O participante era instruído de que quanto mais à direita ele marcasse, maior
como realizado para as avaliações anteriores (ver Autopercepção como parceiro romântico).
para que o participante marcasse quão desejável ele(a) julgava que o(a) seu (sua) parceiro(a)
ideal seria para seus(suas) possíveis competidores(as), de nada desejável (0) a extremamente
desejável (10).
Para esta parte do questionário, foi instruído aos participantes que imaginassem como
seriam as pessoas perfeitas para que eles passassem apenas alguns momentos e para que eles
relacionamento romântico, seguindo a frase introdutória: “Como você avalia o(a) seu(sua)
atribuir pontos a seu(sua) parceiro(a), de acordo com uma escala likert de 0 a 9 pontos para
cada uma das nove características pesquisadas (ver Autopercepção como parceiro romântico).
para que o participante marcassem quão desejável ele(a) julgava ser o(a) seu(sua) parceiro(a)
para pessoas que são suas possíveis competidoras (de nada desejável (0) a extremamente
desejável (10)).
! 27!
!
Etapas
Cada uma das etapas foi idealizada para propósitos específicos, com utilização de
material adequado à etapa e participação de diferentes voluntários, como pode ser visto na
Tabela 2
fotografias cedidas por participantes que desejaram contribuir para com a pesquisa. As fotos
foram coletadas com homens e mulheres dos 18 aos 35 anos de idade, nas cidade de Salvador,
Bahia, e São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil. Esta primeira etapa consistiu na coleta de imagens para
efetivos, sendo destes 40 mulheres e 40 homens, com faixa etária dos 18 aos 35 anos. A
Cada participante cedeu uma foto sua, por isso, estes serão denominados modelos
96 Fotos coletadas
1
14 exclusões por ajustes
82
2
2 exclusões por balanceamento
80 Participantes efetivos
40 Homens 40 Mulheres
Figura 1: Esquema das fotos de participantes da Etapa de concessão de imagens.
1
Exemplo: iluminação insuficiente e imagem embaçada.
2
Duas fotos foram excluídas para padronizar o número fotos de homens e de mulheres.
perguntou a pessoas que tinham de 18 a 35 anos, se elas eram de Natal e/ou conheciam
alguém que residisse na cidade. Tal critério foi adotado de forma a evitar que o
participantes. Caso o indivíduo não fosse nem conhecesse algum residente, a pesquisa era
explicada, tal como sua finalidade e a pesquisadora perguntava se ele poderia ceder uma foto
sua para que pudesse ser utilizada para fins de pesquisa. Ao concordar em participar, o
modelo assinava um TCLE para uso de imagens e permanecia na posse de uma cópia.
A foto cedida foi tirada na hora, da cintura para cima, com o modelo olhando para a
Extended, versão 12.0 x 32) para que ficassem padronizadas quanto a tamanho e background.
Para isso, o participante assinou um TCLE para uso de imagens autorizando o uso da sua
imagem e edição desta para fins de pesquisa. Após edição, a foto cedida, foi exposta a um
2. Etapa de avaliação de imagens (Júri). Para a seleção das fotos que foram
utilizadas nos cadernos na etapa experimental, as mesmas, já editadas, passaram por um júri.
A função de cada membro do júri foi a de julgar as fotos dos modelos, a fim de selecionar as
3,95 anos) e 30 homens (23 + 3,59 anos), somando 62 participantes efetivos. Contamos
questionário do júri. Tal critério de inclusão foi utilizado para que pudéssemos padronizar os
76 Questionários coletados
62 Participantes efetivos
30 Homens 32 Mulheres
! 30!
!
• Escala de autoestima de Rosenberg;
Abaixo de cada reta de Avaliação de modelos havia também uma pergunta sobre a cor
deveriam indicar uma entre as seguintes categorias: amarela, branca, indígena, parda ou preta.
As categorias de cor de pele utilizadas neste estudo seguiram o critério adotado pelo Instituto
multimídia, permanecendo a vista por um período de 5 segundos. Ao final das avaliações por
parte do júri, foram selecionadas as quatro imagens tidas como de maior e de menor
atratividade para composição dos cadernos experimentais. Para a seleção das fotos de menor e
menores e as maiores médias de pessoas consideradas brancas e pardas, devido aos dados do
IBGE, que caracterizou a população natalense, em sua grande maioria, com estas cores de
pele.
foram confeccionados para conter uma simulação de contexto social, na qual estariam
presentes sujeitos-estímulos que consistiam de um perfil fictício, criado para cada uma das
! 31!
!
3.1. Cadernos experimentais. Os cadernos experimentais foram baseados no método
utilizado por Castro e colaboradores (2013). Cada caderno continha quatro perfis
acompanhados por fotos (uma foto por perfil) cedidas pelos modelos e previamente
selecionadas pelo júri, para indicar atratividade física de um modo mais concreto e simular
melhor uma situação real. Apenas as quatro fotografias de maior e menor atratividade foram
utilizadas. Juntamente às imagens, havia um perfil descritivo fictício dando indicações sobre
os três atributos pesquisados. A descrição quanto aos três atributos (atratividade física,
habilidade social e status social) diferia quanto ao nível, variando entre baixo e alto (2 x 2 x
2). Desta forma, existiam oito condições experimentais diferentes (Tabela 3), às quais os
participantes experimentais foram expostos. Cada caderno continha apenas uma condição
experimental, que foi distribuída de forma aleatória, exceto com respeito ao sexo, uma vez
que o participante experimental recebe o questionário com pessoas do mesmo sexo que o seu.
Tabela 3
Atratividade Habilidade
Condição Status social
física social
1 Alto Alto Alto
2 Alto Alto Baixo
3 Alto Baixo Alto
4 Alto Baixo Baixo
5 Baixo Alto Alto
6 Baixo Alto Baixo
7 Baixo Baixo Alto
8 Baixo Baixo Baixo
Exemplo de perfil para a condição 3 (atratividade alta, habilidade social baixa e status
advogado muito bem sucedido, defensor dos maiores empresários do país. É considerado
! 32!
!
padrão de beleza e já recebeu vários convites para ser modelo internacional. No entanto,
muitas pessoas não o julgam uma pessoa amigável e outros até dizem que nada o agrada.”
mulheres – 23,93 + 4,03 anos; 31 homens – 21,94 + 3,19 anos) e 73 estudantes do EFM (37
somando 133 participantes efetivos. A Figura 3 mostra um esquema dos dados coletados do
grupo controle.
207 Questionários
coletados
39 exclusões por idade: mais de 35 ou menos de 18 anos
168
151
18 questionários incompletos
73 EFM 60 Universitários
36 37 31 29
Homens Mulheres Homens Mulheres
! 33!
!
4.2. Questionário controle. O questionário controle (Anexo I) continha:
TCLE para preenchimento do questionário controle e responderam ao mesmo. Esta etapa foi
questionário controle, sem terem sido expostos aos cadernos com condições experimentais.
A coleta de dados foi realizada com universitários brasileiros e estudantes brasileiros de EFM.
A pesquisa contou com 459 estudantes do EFM (192 homens – M = 21,26 anos, DP = 4,71 –
e 267 mulheres – M = 22,32 anos, DP = 5,18) e 436 universitários brasileiros (200 homens –
M = 21,00 anos, DP = 3,23 – e 236 mulheres – M = 20,75 anos, DP = 2,97) (Figura 4).
simulados através dos Cadernos experimentais entregues a eles. Cada participante foi exposto
! 34!
!
• Cadernos experimentais;
1262 Questionários
coletados
3 exclusões por não declaração de idade ou sexo
1259
109 exclusões por idade: mais de 35 ou menos de 18 anos
1150
1097
marcada na reta foi a geral, com base não somente nas fotos, mas também nos perfis
participantes experimentais em que consistia a pesquisa e deu instruções de como fazer para
questionário experimental.
respondendo nenhuma pergunta de trás antes das perguntas que vêm primeiro, de forma a
6.1. Participantes parceiro real. Nesta etapa, um total de 858 questionários foram
analisadas para o artigo 5. A pesquisa contou com 127 estudantes do EFM (59 homens –
20,53 + 3,91 anos - e 68 mulheres – 23,25 + 5,65 anos) e 75 universitários brasileiros (43
homens – 23,38 + 3,52 anos – e 32 mulheres – 22,21 + 3,52 anos) e 210 universitários
canadenses (43 homens – 22,88 + 3.77 anos– e 167 mulheres – 20,81 + 2,69 anos). A Figura 5
! 36!
!
Figura 5: Esquema dos dados coletados da Etapa parceiro real.
! 37!
!
4.3. Procedimento. A pesquisadora responsável explicou brevemente aos participantes
parceiro real em que consistia a pesquisa e deu instruções de como fazer para responder o
obtiveram uma cópia do TCLE, devido à coleta de dados ter sido realizada via internet. No
questionários. Aqueles que marcaram a opção não concordo foram direcionados diretamente
! 38!
!
Artigo 1: Am I good enough for you?
Title:
“Am I Good Enough for You?” Features Related to Self-Perception and Self-Esteem of
Running title:
UFRN, Brazil).
! 39!
!
Resumo
Diversos estudos têm sido conduzidos para expandir nosso conhecimento sobre
especialmente nos países onde a taxa de desigualdade social é alta. O presente estudo tem
amostras de pessoas de dois diferentes níveis socioeconômicos (NSE), com base em dados
relacionamentos românticos.
! 40!
!
Psychology, 2014, 5, 653-663
Published Online May 2014 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.57077
Abstract
Several studies have been conducted to expand our knowledge about human romantic relation-
ships, mostly seeking to highlight the factors of greatest influence. However, much of these works
were based on samples of university students, which affords certain limitations to drawing any
conclusions about the general population, especially in countries where the rate of social inequa-
lity is high. The current study aims to address this limitation and determine whether there actual-
ly is a significant difference between self-esteem and self-perception as a potential romantic part-
ner among samples of people from two different socioeconomic status (SES), based on data de-
rived from 150 participants (64 of higher SES and 86 of lower SES) in northeastern Brazil. Our re-
sults confirm the existence of differences in self-esteem and self-perception as a romantic partner
among people from different SES, underscoring the need for further exploration of non-universi-
ty groups in the study of factors that influence romantic relationships.
Keywords
Self-Perception, Self-Esteem, Socioeconomic Level, Educational Level, Mate Preference
1. Introduction
The criteria for selecting romantic partners have been related to the type of investment that men and women
*
Corresponding author.
How to cite this paper: Mafra, A.L. and Lopes, F.A. (2014). “Am I Good Enough for You?” Features Related to Self-Percep-
tion and Self-Esteem of Brazilians from Different Socioeconomic Status. Psychology, 5, 653-663.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.57077
A. L. Mafra, F. A. Lopes
make in their offspring, resulting in mate preference differences between the sexes (Buss, 1988; Buss & Schmitt,
1993; Buunk, Dijkstra, Fetchenhauer, & Kenrick, 2002; Castro, Hattori, & Lopes, 2012; Fletcher, Tither,
O’Loughlin, Friesen, & Overall, 2004; Gaulin & McBurney, 2001; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Trivers, 1972). Men, for
the most part, tend to give greatest importance to physical attractiveness (Buss & Shackelford, 2008; Castro &
Lopes, 2011; Fisher, Cox, Bennett, & Gavric, 2008; Hattori, Castro, & Lopes, 2013; Pawlowski, 2000), since
this characteristic provides clues about youthfulness and female fertility, which are indicators of good genes and
the ability to bear children (Buss & Shackelford, 2008; Castro et al., 2012; Castro & Lopes, 2011; Gaulin &
McBurney, 2001; Goodwin, Marshall, Fülöp, Adonu, & Spiewak, 2012; Gutierres, Kenrick, & Partch, 1999;
Hattori et al., 2013; Karremans, Frankenhuis, & Arons, 2010; Pawlowski, 2000). In contrast, most women afford
greater preference to resource ownership and/or characteristics that indicate the potential for social mobility
(Brase & Guy, 2004; Buss & Shackelford, 2008; Castro et al., 2012; Castro & Lopes, 2011; Fisher et al., 2008;
Geary, Vigil, & Byrd-Craven, 2004; Hattori et al., 2013; Pawlowski, 2000), such as intelligence and dedication
to work, and the propensity of a man to invest in the family (Buss & Shackelford, 2008; Goodwin et al., 2012).
In this way, the investment of resources in family is considered the male domain, because women have a much
greater physiological investment (through pregnancy and breastfeeding) and, in most cases, maternal care (Allen
& Bailey, 2007; Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Geary et al., 2004, Gutierres et al., 1999; Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, &
Trost, 1990; Kruger, Fitzgerald, & Peterson, 2010; Pawlowski, 2000; Trivers, 1972).
Thus, there is a sound basis to compare preferences for investment in offspring. However, some factors may
interfere at the time when real choices are made with respect to mate preferences, for example, the desired dura-
tion and investment in a relationship (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Castro & Lopes, 2011). Yet, even at the time of
choosing a romantic partner, there is still a need to reconcile mate preferences with what an individual actually
has to offer as a potential partner (i.e. their market value). Market value, in this context, is described as an indi-
vidual’s ability to find, attract and keep a romantic partner, according to the availability and quality of existing
competitors in a given environment (Fisher et al., 2008; Pawlowski, 2000). Accordingly, self-perception as a
romantic partner is formed through an evaluation of one’s own attractiveness in comparison to that of potential
competitors (Goodwin et al., 2012). Thus, each sex tends to conduct its own self-perception according to what
they know about the preferences of their opposite sex. According to Goodwin et al. (2012), physical attractive-
ness has greater weight in female self-perception, while characteristics that indicate financial resources and/or
the ability to acquire them have greater weight in self-perception by males. Therefore, when considering the
choice of a romantic partner, each individual modulates his or her own level of requirement for what to look for
in a romantic partner according to what they believe they have to offer in exchange (Buston & Emlen, 2003; Lee,
Loewenstein, Ariely, Hong, & Young, 2008).
In addition to considering the characteristics of potential competitors on self-perception, self-esteem may also
have some influence on the outcome. Based on sociometer theory (Leary & Baumeister, 2000 quoted by Bale &
Archer, 2013; Penke & Denissen, 2008), self-esteem is a predictor of social rejection. Therefore, high levels of
social rejection can result in a decreased sense of self-esteem (Bale & Archer, 2013; Brase & Guy, 2004; Penke
& Denissen, 2008). Bale and Archer (2013) and Wade (2000) believe that because physical attractiveness is an
important feature for the market value of women and socioeconomic status (SES) and/or attributes that can faci-
litate access to resources are important for the male market value, self-esteem, like self-perception, should be
affected in terms of traits that are perceived as being important to the market value of each sex.
Brazil is a large country with a high degree of social inequality, whereby people of the same age may have
very different socioeconomic and educational backgrounds. Data from 2010, collected by the Brazilian Institute
of Geography and Statistics (IBGE—Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística [Brazilian Institute of Geo-
graphy and Statistics]), indicate that 57.21% of the population earns up to a monthly minimum wage, currently
set at R$ 670.00 (US$ 291.30), and 45.09% do not have formal education or never completed school. In general,
people from lesser financial backgrounds must study in public schools because they cannot afford to attend a
private school and gain access to a better quality education. Public schools in Brazil are second worst in the
global ranking of education according to the Economist (Prates, 2012), and in most cases, poorer children stop
their studies prematurely in order to enter the workforce earlier as a means of survival and, in some cases, for
the well-being of their whole family. On the other hand, students of higher SES are not required to stop their
studies early in order to ensure their livelihoods and are able to invest all of their time in education, thus entering
universities at a younger age and in much greater numbers overall, compared to individuals of lower financial
status. This information is corroborated by IBGE (2010) data that was collected to assess the educational level
654
A. L. Mafra, F. A. Lopes
of individuals from households with lower incomes, showing that 58.35% of them have either no education or
never completed primary school, with only 1.59% having completed any sort of higher education. On the other
hand, 55.10% of those individuals from households with more than five minimum wages (over R$ 3350.00 or
US$ 1456.52), representing just 5.54% of the population of Brazil, complete some sort of post secondary educa-
tion.
Beyond high inequality of family income distribution (Gini Index equal to 51.9 according to CIA—Central
Intelligence Agency, 2012), Melo (2005) and Santana (2010) argued that the inequality also has gender. Al-
though there was a decrease in gender inequality in nineties, female unemployment rates are bigger, access to
leadership positions are narrower and wage differences (with men earning higher wages) still exist, in addition
to the high workload and low social protection suffered by women. Furthermore, according to Melo (2005) and
Santana (2010), the most commonly found family model in Brazil is the traditional model (man as household
head and woman looking after house and children), and even in those families in which woman is responsible
for family maintenance, she is rarely seen as household head, leaving this role to the man, once the household
head is the most authoritative person and imposes more respect. Gathering all the facts, men are the most re-
sponsible for supporting the family in Brazil, what can indicate that Brazilian women show preference for men
who are able to provide the necessary resources to maintain the family. Therefore, men’s self-perception and
self-esteem can be influenced by SES, implying that men with low SES would have a tendency to lower self-
perception and self-esteem than men with high SES.
Thereby, the main purpose of the study was to verify whether there was a difference in self-esteem and
self-perception between men and women, as romantic partners, from different socioeconomic backgrounds, dif-
fering from researches that had used undergraduate samples (i.e. Bale & Archer, 2013; Brase & Guy, 2004; Ca-
stro & Lopes, 2011; Castro et al., 2012; Fisher et al., 2008; Goodwin et al., 2012; Wade, 2000, 2003). Therefore,
the sample was divided in four groups: high SES women, high SES men, low SES women and low SES men,
men and women from different SES can be compared in order to verify if purchasing power influences how
each gender perceives itself. Thereunto, the sample was composed of participants aged from 18 to around 30
years. Once the level of education is associated with the SES in Brazil, data from undergraduate and Elementary
and High School (EHS) students were collected, the EHS representing the low SES sample and undergraduate
students representing high SES sample. To make this assessment, four analyses were conducted and the predic-
tions were based on Castro and Lopes (2011) findings for undergraduate students of the same Brazilian city in
which data were collected. Castro and Lopes (2011) found that Brazilian undergraduate men gave more impor-
tance to physical traits in their partner to a short-term relationship and to physical and personal traits to a long-
term relationship, and Brazilian undergraduate women gave more importance to physical and personal traits to a
short-relationship, and to personal traits and to men’s desire to acquire resources when involvement increases.
The first analysis aimed to identify how individuals of different SES were distributed in terms of the level of
self-esteem they present, which in this study was characterized as high, medium or low self-esteem. In this
analysis, it was expected to find that men and women are not equally distributed concerning self-esteem levels
(Hypothesis 1). More men with higher SES would also present higher levels of self-esteem while more men with
lower SES would possess relatively lower self-esteem, since this is related to male self-perception (Bale & Ar-
cher, 2013; Fisher et al., 2008; Goodwind et al., 2012). On the contrary, this result was not expected for women,
once socioeconomic differences should not influence their self-esteem because female self-esteem and
self-perception are usually associated with physical attractiveness and not with their socioeconomic conditions
(Bale & Archer, 2013; Brase & Guy, 2004; Wade, 2000).
In the second analysis, the study aimed to determine the importance of particular traits in self-perception. It
was expected that women and men gave importance to different characteristics (Hypothesis 2): women would
give greater importance to physical attractiveness when evaluating their overall desirability as a romantic partner,
and that men would give more importance to their social status and/or features indicative of their ability to ac-
quire resources in their own self-perception, regardless of socioeconomic background.
The third analysis was designed to assess if men and women were different in their self-perception according
to SES. It was expected that SES affected women’s and men’s self-perception differently (Hypothesis 3); only
men would present any differences in self-perception as indicators of good financial status are most commonly
valued by women in choosing their romantic partners.
Finally, the fourth analysis examined whether there was indeed a relationship between self-perception and
self-esteem and, if it existed, what characteristics of self-perception are related to self-esteem in each of the four
655
A. L. Mafra, F. A. Lopes
groups of subjects. It was expected to find different traits related to women’s self-esteem and men’s self-esteem
(Hypothesis 4). Here the prediction was that women would show a relationship between their self-esteem/
self-perception and physical attractiveness, and men with characteristics indicative of social status and earning
potential.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Site and Participants
The current study was conducted in the city of Natal, in the state of Rio Grande do Norte, northeastern Brazil,
and was based on a total of 150 participants: 64 individuals of the total sample size belonged to a higher SES
(high SES), with 31 of these subjects being undergraduate women (22.93 ± 3.04 years) and 33 being undergra-
duate men (21.94 ± 3.19 years), while 86 individuals of the total sample size belonged to a lower SES (low SES),
with 44 of these subjects being EHS women (23.97 ± 6 years) and 42 EHS men (20.64 ± 4.63 years).
2.3. Procedure
The sample consisted of undergraduate students from Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, enrolled in
the following courses: Biological Science, Nursing, Medicine, Pharmacy, Ecology, Dentistry, Sciences and
Technology, Psychology, and Chemical Engineering. At first, professors were asked if they could provide
around 20 minutes of their class time for students to respond the questionnaire.
To collect data from EHS students, directors and coordinators were contacted from each one of the nine pub-
lic schools in which the questionnaires were applied, and asked permission to access teachers, in order to apply
the questionnaire with EHS students.
2.4. Instruments
Each participant answered a questionnaire that included: 1—matters of socioeconomic characteristics; 2—the
Rosenberg self-esteem scale; 3—line of perceived sex ratio; and 4—self-perception as a potential romantic partner.
1) The matters of socioeconomic characteristics were used according to ABEP (2012) classification. The par-
ticipants were instructed to mark one of five options (null, one, two, three, and four or more), representing the
quantity of certain items (color televisions, DVD players, fridges, housemaids, bathrooms, automobiles, freezer,
stereos, and washing machines) they had at home and to indicate the level of education of the household head.
2) The Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1989) consists of ten statements about the feelings and
thoughts of an individual with respect to him- or herself, which were evaluated according to a 4-point Likert
scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree). This scale was translated and adapted into Portuguese
and validated for Brazilian population with Cronbach alpha value of 0.9 (Hutz & Zanon, 2011).
3) The line of perceived sex ratio is an assessment of semantic differential with 10 centimeters. Participants
were supposed to mark on the line their perception of the proportion of men and woman available to be a ro-
mantic partner ranging from more women than men (0) to more men than women (10).
4) In the space for self-perception, each person was supposed to evaluate itself according to nine characteris-
tics: three related to physical attractiveness (Pretty face, Beautiful body, and Health), three related to resources
656
A. L. Mafra, F. A. Lopes
and/or ability to acquire it (Determined and hardworking, Good financial condition, and Intelligent), and three
traits related to personality (Sociable, Agreeableness, and Loyal). For each characteristic the participant could
assign 0 - 9 points. More points indicated that the subject thought he or she had more of such characteristic.
There was also a 10 centimeters line in which each participant was asked to evaluate their general desirability by
making at any point corresponding to how desirability as romantic partner they consider themselves to be, rang-
ing from not desirable (0) to extremely desirable (10).
2.5. Analyses
The results were significant for the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test and not significant for Levene’s test of
homogeneity, indicating non-normality of the sample and its homogeneity. Considering this result, parametric
tests were used for subsequent analyses, with the exception of the Chi-square test, which used to determine the
distribution of levels of self-esteem in our population (Analysis 1), for each of the four groups studied: low SES
men, high SES men, low SES women and high SES women. To check which characteristics are predictors of
desirability as a romantic partner in men and women from two different SES (Analysis 2), a linear regression
analysis of the enter type was made for self-perception, using the general desirability of self-perception as the
dependent variable and the nine features listed above as independent variables.
For the third analysis, measures of self-esteem, of the characteristics and overall desirability of individual
self-perception of the two different SES were compared for each sex, using the Student’s t-test. Lastly, Pear-
son’s linear correlation coefficient was used to verify the existence of any correlation between self-esteem and
each of the nine characteristics and overall desirability (Analysis 4) for each sex according to SES.
To interpret the strength of correlations, Dancey and Reidy (2006) parameters were used, which consider per-
fect correlations to be where r = 1; strong correlations where r is between 0.7 and 0.9, moderate where r is be-
tween 0.4 to 0.6, and weak where r is less than 0.3.
All statistical tests were carried out at a 95% confidence level.
3. Results
3.1. Distribution of Self-Esteem
The Chi-square analysis indicated how individuals from different SES were distributed in terms of level of
self-esteem presented. The results did not confirm our predictions that women distributed equally among the le-
vels of self-esteem while men did not. Men are equally distributed among the levels of self-esteem, regardless of
their SES (χ2 = .452, p = .798) (Table 1). However, more low SES women were classified as having low
self-esteem and fewer with high self-esteem from the same group. High SES women were distributed oppositely,
with more women classified as having high self-esteem and fewer women with low self-esteem (χ2 = 6.451, p
= .040) (Table 1). The distribution of female participants classified as having medium levels of self-esteem
mean was equal for both SES.
657
A. L. Mafra, F. A. Lopes
SES, the expectations that only men would present any differences in self-perception were not confirmed. High
SES women gave more importance to: Good financial condition, Sociable, Intelligent and Loyal, compared to
low SES women. For male self-perception, the university group (high SES) assigned higher scores to the cha-
racteristic Loyal, compared to low SES men, which assigned higher scores to their overall desirability (Table 2).
Table 1. Results of the Chi-square test for distribution of self-esteem for low SES and high SES women and for low SES and
high SES men.
Self-esteem
Sex SES High Normal Low
Observed 5 33 6
Low Expected 7.6 32.9 3.5
Residual −2.6 .1 2.5
Women
Observed 8 23 0
High Expected 5.4 23.1 2.5
Residual 2.6 −.1 −2.5
Observed 11 24 4
Low Expected 10.3 23.8 4.9
Residual .7 .2 −.9
Men
Observed 8 20 5
High Expected 8.7 20.2 4.1
Residual −.7 −.2 −.9
SES: Socioeconomic status.
Table 2. Results for comparisons of studied features, for men and women, according to SES.
658
A. L. Mafra, F. A. Lopes
A positive correlation was observed between the levels of self-esteem and overall desirability in self-percep-
tions of men from both SES (r = .412, p = .013 for low SES, and r = .526, p = .002 for high SES), as well as for
high SES women (r = .405, p = .026). Therefore, when the level of self-esteem was higher, greater values were
obtained in self-perceptions, except for low SES women, in which there was no detectable correlation between
the two variables (r = .101, p = .535).
Relating self-esteem to the different characteristics of self-perception, it was observed that low SES women,
who had not shown any previous correlation between self-esteem and overall desirability, did show a correlation
between self-esteem and the characteristics Pretty face and Intelligent (r = .314, p = .04, and r = .491; p = .001,
respectively), indicating that the greater their self-esteem, the more value they attributed to these characteristics.
For high SES women there was a positive correlation between the feature Pretty face and self-esteem (r = .422,
p = .018). For high SES men, a correlation was found between self-esteem and Pretty face, Beautiful body and
Intelligent (r = .413, p = .019, r = .376, p = .034 and r = .376, p = .002 respectively), while in low SES men,
self-esteem correlated with Pretty face 1, Beautiful body2, Health3, Good financial condition4, Sociable5, Deter-
mined and hardworking6, Intelligent7, Agreeableness8 (r1 = .471, p1 = .002, r2 = .498, p2 = .008, r3 = .434, p3,
= .006 r4 = .419, p4, = .002 r5 = .484, p5 = .002 r6 = .469, p6 = .003, r7 = .453, p7, = .004 and r8 = .346, p8 = .031).
4. Discussion
Considering that, in self-perception, the most valued characteristics are those most sought after in a romantic
partner, individuals tend to give more importance to such features when they perform their own self-perception
(Buston & Emlen, 2003; Gutierres et al., 1999). As self-perception commonly has a positive relationship with
self-esteem, traits that increase one’s value in the mating market of each sex become associated not only with
self-perception, but with self-esteem as well.
Characteristics indicative of physical attractiveness (represented in this study by Pretty face, Beautiful body
and Health) are highly valued in choosing romantic partners. Men, in general, give great importance to these
characteristics in a potential partner, because in addition to providing accurate clues about good quality genes
and physiology, they provide information about female youthfulness (a limiting factor in assessing market value
due to the shorter female reproductive period, compared to males) (Buston & Emlen, 2003; Castro et al., 2012;
Castro & Lopes, 2011; Gaulin & McBurney, 2001; Gutierres et al., 1999; Karremans et al., 2010; Pawlowski,
2000; Wade, 2000, 2003).
Although women do not give the same degree of importance to physical attractiveness in mate choice as men
do, they do not ignore these characteristics entirely, since they may be related to other desirable traits such as
dominance, competitive ability, social status, health and other variables that are relevant to an individual’s po-
tential level of parental investment (Bale & Archer, 2013; Wade, 2000, 2003). These characteristics are of great
importance due to the high level of female investment in offspring, leaving the man with a more important role
in investing resources. Thus, characteristics indicative of access to resources (represented in this study by Good
financial condition) or that provide accurate clues about the ability and potential of an individual to acquire re-
sources (represented in this study by Intelligent and Determined and hardworking) are of paramount importance
in choosing a romantic partner (Buston & Emlen, 2003; Castro et al., 2012; Geary et al., 2004; Gutierres et al.,
1999; Kruger et al., 2010), especially in a long-term relationship where the possibility of producing offspring is
greater. Features like Agreeableness and Sociable can be indicative of a person’s potential for social mobility
(since most sociable people have a better chance of increasing their social status, and may therefore be an indi-
cator of potential to acquire resources) and may indicate the likelihood of forming a good quality relationship
(Castro & Lopes, 2011; Fletcher et al., 2004). Along with these characteristics, Loyal is also indicative of an in-
dividual’s potential for having a good quality relationship, particularly in the sense of offering men greater as-
surance about the paternity of their children (Gaulin & McBurney, 2001; Pawlowski, 2000; Trivers, 1972), and
giving women greater assurance about the level of invest in their offspring that can be expected from a potential
partner (Gaulin & McBurney, 2001), giving this characteristic even greater value in mate choice.
According to these conclusions, our work is consistent with much of the data discussed in the literature,
showing that the characteristics assessed here are associated with female and/or male self-esteem and self-per-
ception, and largely in the ways predicted by parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972). However, certain pecu-
liarities can be observed in this sample.
For instance, low SES men showed a positive relationship between self-esteem and self-perception as a ro-
659
A. L. Mafra, F. A. Lopes
mantic partner for all the characteristics analyzed except Loyal. Considering that all the characteristics are im-
portant in choosing a romantic partner, it is important to understand why only loyalty was not considered im-
portant to the self-esteem of these men. Analyzing the operational reason perceived by participants, it was found
that low SES men believed that there are more women than men available in the mating market (M = 2.72, or
145.56 women for 100 men), followed by high SES men (M = 2.91, or 141.82 women for 100 men) and high
SES women (M = 3.47, or 130.58 women for 100 men). Low SES women believed that the number of men and
women available in the mating market is nearly equal (M = 4.86, or 102.76 women for 100 men). Thus, percep-
tions of sex ratio appear to be another factor that can influence the characteristics considered to be most impor-
tant in a romantic partner, especially with respect to characteristics that limit the quantity of an individual’s ro-
mantic partners.
High SES women attributed more value to the characteristics Good financial condition and Intelligent in their
self-perception, among others. According to the characterization of the sample, high SES women have, in fact,
better financial conditions than low SES women (R$ 2565.00 or US$ 1115.22 and R$ 1024.00 and US$ 445.22,
respectively), while Intelligent, the difference in value afforded to this character between the two groups is
probably due to their respective differences in the level of education achieved, such that high SES women (uni-
versity students) awarded more points to this trait in their self-perception, compared to low SES women (EHS
students).
Looking deeper into the group of low SES women, the characteristic Intelligent was positively associated
with self-esteem. However, such a feature, as an indicator of the ability to acquire resources, is often positively
related to self-esteem (Bale & Archer, 2013) and self-perception in men (Buston & Emlen, 2003; Gutierres et al.,
1999), being largely considered a peculiarity of female self-esteem until now. However, along with the fact that
these women have the lowest SES of the four groups, the ability to acquire resources should be important not
only in finding a partner that can contribute to the family income, but also in ensuring one’s own survival. Cor-
roborating these assumptions, Lippa (2007) suggested that in a society where women contribute to family in-
come, men tend to assign greater value to the intelligence of a potential partner, justifying the observation in the
current study, that this characteristic is associated with female self-esteem.
Some studies focusing on samples of non-university individuals have also found that results may differ from
the patterns reported in the literature and more closely approach observations of the present study. Moore, Cas-
sidy, Law Smith, and Perrett (2006), for example, found that when women themselves have access to sufficient
resources to care for their children, their preferences for physical attractiveness increase. Pillsworth (2008), in
his work with the Shuar people of Ecuador predicted results similar to those observed by Moore et al. (2006).
The livelihoods of Shuar villagers are based on hunting and gathering. While the men are responsible for hunt-
ing larger animals, the women are responsible for horticulture, collecting larvae and fruits, fishing and hunting
small animals. In this context, and according to the predictions of Pillsworth, women should show an increased
preference for physical attractiveness in mate choice, given the magnitude of their own contributions to family
resources. However, the results of this study pointed in another direction, that is, both men and women in this
particular group give greatest value to characteristics related to the ability to acquire resources, compared to
physical attractiveness. The results of Pillsworth (2008) corroborate our findings that men of lower SES and/or
education, as a matter of fact, prefer women that contribute to family income and, therefore, characteristics in-
dicating the ability to acquire resources weigh more in the self-perceptions of low SES women than they do for
high SES women.
Low SES women also showed no positive relationship between self-esteem and overall desirability, while the
other three groups did so, lending more evidence to the idea that low SES women do not analyze their
self-esteem in the same way. Furthermore, supporting this conclusion further, in checking whether SES influ-
ences how individuals are distributed in terms of their levels of self-esteem, most low SES women had low
self-esteem compared to high SES women.
5. Conclusion
Although previous studies have shown certain patterns in mate choice for men and women, the samples were
mostly of university students, which may well be a good representation of the general population in more de-
veloped countries (London, Portugal, Poland, Spain [Goodwin et al., 2012]; USA [Brase & Guy, 2004]; Canada
[Fisher et al., 2008]). However in countries with high levels of social inequality, such a sample cannot be consi-
660
A. L. Mafra, F. A. Lopes
dered as an accurate representation of the general population. Indeed, this research presented here shows that
there are significant differences in how men and women evaluate potential romantic partners according to their
level of education, which is directly related to SES in Brazil. For women, there was a notable difference in self-
esteem and self-perception, possibly marked by educational and SES, providing new data for the study of mate
preferences, since this pattern is typically observed in males. Additional studies including people of different
educational and SES are needed to better understand the factors that influence self-perception as a romantic
partner in order to better understand the dynamics of the mating market in our species.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal do Nível Superior (CAPES) awarded
to Anthonieta L. Mafra and by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) awarded
to Fívia de Araújo Lopes (nº 409111/2013-9).
We thank CNPq (nº 409111/2013-9) and CAPES for supporting the development of the research; we thank
the participants who agreed to complete the questionnaire, mainly considering that the research was voluntary
and without financial and/or material return; we also thank professors and teachers as well as the schools’ direc-
tors for making their classes available for the data collection; and we thank especially Felipe N. Castro for pro-
viding us his questionnaire, from which we based on part of our questionnaire.
References
Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquis a (ABEP) [Brazilian Association of Research Companies] (2012). Dados com
base no levantamento socioeconômico de 2010 [Data based on 2010 socioeconomic survey]—IBOPE. www.abep.org
Allen, S., & Bailey, K. (2007). Are Mating Strategies and Mating Tactics Independent Constructs? Journal of Sex Research,
44, 225-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490701443601
Bale, C., & Archer, J. (2013). Self-Perceived Attractiveness, Romantic Desirability and Self-Esteem: A Mating Sociometer
Perspective. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 68-84.
Brase, G. L., & Guy, E. C. (2004). The Demographics of Mate Value and Self-Esteem. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 36, 471-484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00117-X
Buss, D. M. (1988). The Evolution of Human Intrasexual Competition: Tactics of Mate Attraction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 54, 616-628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating. Psycho-
logical Review, 100, 204-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive Women Want It All: Good Genes, Economic Investment, Parenting
Proclivities, and Emotional Commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 134-146.
Buston, P., & Emlen, S. (2003). Cognitive Processes Underlying Human Mate Choice: The Relationship between Self-Per-
ception and Mate Preference in Western Society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 8805-8810.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1533220100
Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and Gender Differences in Mate Selection Crite-
ria for Various Involvement Levels. Personal Relationship, 9, 271-278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00018
Castro, F. N., & Lopes, F. A. (2011). Romantic Preference in Brazilian Undergraduate Students: From the Short Term to the
Long Term. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2010.506680
Castro, F. N., Hattori, W. T., & Lopes, F. A. (2012). Relationship Maintenance or Preference Satisfaction? Male and Female
Strategies in Romantic Partner Choice. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6, 217-226.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0099213
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2012). The World Factbook.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html
Dancey, C., & Reidy, J. (2006). Estatística sem matemática para psicologia: Usando SPSS para Windows [Statistics without
maths for psychology: Using SPSS for Windows]. Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Fisher, M., Cox, A., Bennett, S., & Gavric, D. (2008). Components of Self-Perceived Mate Value. Special Issue: Proceedings
of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Evolutionary Psychology Society. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and
Cultural Psychology, 2, 156-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0099347
Fletcher, G. J., Tither, J. M., O’Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and Homely or Cold and Beautiful?
Sex Differences in Trading off Traits in Mate Selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 659-672.
661
A. L. Mafra, F. A. Lopes
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167203262847
Gaulin, S. J., & McBurney, H. D. (2001). Chapter 10: The Psychology of Human Mating. In S. J. Gaulin, & H. D. McBurney
(Eds.), Psychology: An Evolution Approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Geary, D., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of Human Mate Choice. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 27-42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552211
Goodwin, R., Marshall, T., Fülöp, M., Adonu, J., & Spiewak, S. (2012). Mate Value and Self-Esteem: Evidence from Eight
Cultural Groups. PLoS ONE, 7, Article ID: e36106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036106
Gutierres, S., Kenrick, D., & Partch, J. (1999). Beauty, Dominance, and the Mating Game: Contrast Effects in Self-Assess-
ment Reflect Gender Differences in Mate Selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1126-1134.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01461672992512006
Hattori, W. T., Castro, F. N., & Lopes, F. A. (2013). Mate Choice in Adolescence: Idealizing Romantic Partners. Psico
(PUCRS), 44, 226-234.
Hutz, C. S., & Zanon, C. (2011). Revisão da adaptação, validação e normatização da escala de autoestima de Rosenberg.
Avaliação Psicológica [Review of the Adaptation, Validation, and Standardization of Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.
Psychological Assessment], 10, 41-49.
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) (2010). Síntese de indicadores sociais: Uma análise das condições de
vida da população Brasileira, Estudos & pesquisas: Informação demográfica e socioeconômica [Synthesis of Social
Indicators: An Analysis of the Living Conditions of the Brazilian Population. Studies & Surveys: Demographic and
Socioeconomic Information]. Rio de Janeiro: Author (Número 27).
Karremans, J., Frankenhuis, W., & Arons, S. (2010). Blind Men Prefer a Low Waist-to-Hip Ratio. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 31, 182-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.10.001
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, Traits, and the Stages of Human Courtship: Qua-
lifying the Parental Investment Model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97-116.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x
Kruger, D., Fitzgerald, C., & Peterson, T. (2010). Female Scarcity Reduces Women’s Marital Ages and Increases Variance
in Men’s Marital Ages. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 420-431.
Lee, L., Loewenstein, G., Ariely, D., Hong, J., & Young, J. (2008). If I’m Not Hot, Are You Hot or Not?—Physical Attrac-
tiveness Evaluations and Dating Preferences as a Function of One’s Own Attractiveness. Psychological Science, 19,
669-677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02141.x
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex Similarities and Differences in Preferences for Short-Term Mates: What, Whether,
and Why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468-489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468
Lippa, R. A. (2007). The Preferred Traits of Mates in a Cross-National Study of Heterosexual and Homosexual Men and
Women: An Examination of Biological and Cultural Influences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36, 193-208.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9151-2
Melo, H. P. (2005). Gênero e pobreza no Brasil. Relatório Final do Projeto Governabilidad Democratica de Género en
America Latina y el Caribe. [Gender and Poverty in Brazil. Final Project Reporty Gender Democratic Governance in Latin
America and the Caribbean]. Brasília: CEPAL, SPM.
Moore, F. R., Cassidy, C., Law Smith, M. J., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). The Effects of Female Control of Resources on
Sex-Differentiated Mate Preferences. Evolution & Human Behavior, 27, 193-205.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.08.003
Pawlowski, B. (2000). The Biological Meaning of Preferences on the Human Mate Market. Anthropological Review, 63,
39-72.
Penke, L., & Denissen, J. (2008). Sex Differences and Lifestyle-Dependent Shifts in the Attunement of Self-Esteem to
Self-Perceived Mate Value: Hints to an Adaptive Mechanism? Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1123-1129.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.02.003
Pillsworth, E. G. (2008). Mate Preferences among the Shuar of Ecuador: Trait Rankings and Peer Evaluations. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 29, 256-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.01.005
Prates, M. (2012). Brasil tem a 2a pior educação em ranking global da Economist [Brazil Has the Second Worst Education in
Global Ranking of Economist]. Exame.com.
http://exame.abril.com.br/brasil/noticias/brasil-tem-2a-pior-educacao-em-ranking-global-da-economist
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Revised Edition. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University
Press.
Santana, A. M. (2010). Mulher mantenedora/homem chefe de família: Uma questão de gênero e poder [Woman Sponsor/
Man Household Head: A Question of Gender and Power]. Forum Identities Magazine, 4, 71-87.
662
A. L. Mafra, F. A. Lopes
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental Investment and Sexual Selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man
(pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Wade, T. J. (2000). Evolutionary Theory and Self-Perception: Sex Differences in Body Esteem Predictors of Self-Perceived
Physical and Sexual Attractiveness and Self-Esteem. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 36-45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002075900399501
Wade, T. J. (2003). Evolutionary Theory and African American Self-Perception: Sex Differences in Body-Esteem Predictors
of Self-Perceived Physical and Sexual Attractiveness, and Self-Esteem. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 123-141.
663
Artigo 2: Romantic Partner Preference and Socioeconomic Status!
Title:
Running Title:
UFRN, Brazil).
! 52!
!
Resumo
dos estudos tratando sobre a idealização de parceiros românticos tem sido limitada a amostras
o que pode apresentar um contexto muito diferente, particularmente em países onde existe um
alto grau de desigualdade social. De forma a testar diferenças nas preferências de curto e de
longo-prazo para parceiros românticos entre dois grupos amostrais com diferentes níveis
socioeconômicos (NSE), o presente estudo contou com 150 participantes adultos, 64 de alto
NSE e 86 de baixo NSE na cidade de Natal, Brasil. As análises corroboram que preferências
de parceiros de homens e mulheres de alto NSE para parceiros românticos de curto e longo
prazo estão de acordo com estudos anteriores (homens preferindo mulheres de alta
preferências por seus parceiros românticos que mulheres de alto NSE. Os resultados
confirmam que as estratégias usadas ao procurar por um parceiro romântico variam de acordo
Abstract
! 53!
!
There is an ongoing discussion of romantic partner preferences in human beings. Most studies
addressing the idealization of romantic partners have been limited to samples of university
students and may not represent the population of adults as a whole, which may be inserted in
a very distinct context, particularly in countries where there is a high degree of social
inequality. In order to test for differences in the short- and long-term preferences for romantic
partners between two group samples with different socioeconomic status (SES), the present
study was conducted using 150 adult participants, 64 with high SES and 86 with low SES in
the city of Natal, Brazil. The analyses corroborated that preferences of men and women of
high SES for short- and long-term romantic partners are in agreement with previous studies
and suggests that the necessity of woman complement family income (men prefer women
with high physical attractiveness and women prefer men that are able to invest in her and their
offspring). However, low SES men gave more importance to the characteristics Determined
and hardworking and Good financial condition to their long-term partners, suggesting the
Probably due to the woman’s participation in the family sustenance, women of low SES
women of high SES. The results confirm that the strategies used when looking for romantic
partners vary according to individual context and highlight the need for investigation of
Psychology
Introduction
Many studies have been conducted to differentiate the preferences of men and women
in looking for romantic partners (Castro, Hattori, & Lopes, 2012; Hattori, Castro, & Lopes,
! 54!
!
2013; Kenrick & Keefe, 1992; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Lippa, 2007). Other studies have dealt
more with sex differences in self-assessment (Buston & Emlen, 2003; Lee, Loewenstein,
Ariely, Hong, & Young, 2008) and/or self-esteem (Wade, 2000, 2003) as factors that may
influence mating choices. In fact, all of these approaches are important both in the
Evolutionary theory predicts that the traits and behaviors favoring individual survival
and reproduction in a species under given environmental conditions tend to persist until some
other characteristic or behavior becomes more adaptive by increasing overall fitness. In this
sense, we can assume that prevailing behavioral patterns and characteristics ensure that the
individuals possessing them have greater reproductive success, i.e., leave a greater number of
viable offspring (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2006). Thus, certain characteristics and behaviors
have been selected, resulting in what we observe today. If we think specifically about the
features of romantic partners and the behaviors that influence us to choose such
As we search for a romantic partner, we tend to be more demanding than when we are
establishing other types of relationships. That kind of partnership generally requires greater
investment and commitment (Castro & Lopes, 2011; Gaulin & McBurney, 2004), besides the
fact that, when looking for a long-term relationship, almost all the characteristics we look for
in other partners should be concentrated in just one individual (Gaulin & McBurney, 2004).
Therefore, the current study considers three basic sets of characteristics (called attributes in
this study) that are crucial in choosing romantic partners: physical attractiveness, social skills
Physical characteristics provide clues about how fertile and young women are, and
may provide clues about masculinity, dominance and social status in men (Buss &
! 55!
!
Shackelford, 2008; Wade, 2000, 2003). Li and Kenrick (2006) found that women cited
dominance, protection and masculinity among the reason to find various characteristics
attractive. Furthermore, specific face and body characteristics related to overall physical
attractiveness indicate good genetic quality (Geary, Vigil, & Byrd-Craven, 2004; Thornhill &
potential romantic partners. Fletcher, Tither, O'Loughlin, Friesen and Overall (2004) and Li
and Kenrick (2006), for example, found that men tend to give greater preference to physical
features when selecting a romantic partner for short- or long-term relationship, being more
selective regarding to a long-term relationships, while women tend to be more selective than
men when looking for a short- and long-term partners. Fletcher and colleagues (2004) also
found that when women are looking for short-term romantic partners, placing greatest
sociability and fidelity, are good indicators of the potential quality of the relationship (Castro
& Lopes, 2011; Castro et al., 2012; Fletcher et al., 2004; Gaulin & McBurney, 2004;
Pawlowski, 2000). Furthermore, some of these characteristics can also be good indicators of a
greater tendency towards social success, particularly good humor (Castro & Lopes, 2011;
Greengross & Miller, 2011) and sociability (Castro & Lopes, 2011). According to Trivers
(1972), fidelity would be important for both sexes when looking for a partner because of the
guarantee of the paternity for men and the guarantee that men’s investment will not be direct
to other female and her offspring for women. Fletcher and colleagues (2004) suggested that
women preferred warm/faithful partners over rich and beautiful partners for long-term
! 56!
!
characteristics most valued by women in selecting a partner include social status, resource
ownership and/or characteristics indicating the capacity for social mobility (Brase & Guy,
2004; Buss & Shackelford, 2008; Geary et al., 2004; Hattori et al., 2013; Mafra & Lopes,
2014). This preference aims men’s investment in the family (Castro et al., 2012; Goodwin et
al., 2012), since women invest more physiologically in generating offspring and are most
often responsible for the majority of parental care (Castro et al., 2012; Pawlowski, 2000;
Trivers, 1972).
Although all of the above studies have made important contributions to our collective
university students (i.e. Castro & Lopes, 2011; Fisher et al., 2008; Goodwin et al., 2012). This
type of sampling can present limitation on the scope of conclusions that may be drawn such
studies, especially for populations marked by a high degree of social inequality. Even though
some studies that collect sample in more than one country and without focusing only on
undergraduate students (e.g. Buss, 1989), most part of the studies still do not compare
difference in the same population, not comparing mate preference of people of different SES.
Brazil is a good example of a large developing country with a high degree of social
inequality (Gini index [measure of social inequality] equal to 51.9, according to the CIA -
Central Intelligent Agency (2012), which ranges from 0, complete social equality, to 100,
complete social inequality), especially given the educational levels attained by people a
certain age, which can vary greatly. In general, Brazilian people with low socioeconomic
status (SES) attend elementary and high public schools (which are the second worst according
to global ranking by the Economist [Prates, 2012]) and, in most cases, give up on their studies
in order to ensure their own survival and/or the survival of their whole family. On the other
hand, people of high SES may invest all of their time in education and thus end up entering
! 57!
!
Data from Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro
and SES among Brazilians, in which people that have higher level of education also have
higher SES. Based on that information, our sampling design included participants from two
different educational levels: elementary and high schools of public schools, the sample
representative of low SES, and university, the sample representative of high SES. As the
differences between women and men’s preferences are well established for the literature, our
main objective had the focus on comparing SES, not sex differences on mate preference.
To establish some of the predictions for this study, we considered the results of Castro
and Lopes (2011) for a survey of Brazilian undergraduate students living in the same city
where the current data were collected. The study indicated that women assigned greater value
partners and characteristics related to social skills and social status in long-term partners,
while men assigned greater value to characteristics related to social skills in long-term
romantic partners and to physical attractiveness in short- and long-term romantic partners.
We outlined three specific goals to investigate our general question in more detail. The
first goal was to investigate which characteristics are associated with overall desirability for
short- and long-term romantic partners. We hypothesized that men and women of different
SES give importance to characteristics related to the same attributes (physical attractiveness,
social skills and social status). We predicted that men of both high and low SES would show
a positive relationship between overall desirability for short-term romantic partners with
romantic partners with characteristics related to physical attractiveness and social skills. For
women of both high and low SES, we expected to find a positive relationship between
characteristics related to social skills and physical attractiveness with overall desirability for
! 58!
!
short-term romantic partners, and a positive relationship between characteristics related to
social status and social skills with overall desirability for long-term romantic partners.
Our second goal was to investigate if the preferences for short-term relationship differ
from the preferences for long-term relationship to each one of the four groups researched
(men of low SES, men of high SES, women of low SES, and women of high SES). Our
hypothesis is that men and women of different SES give importance to characteristics related
to the same attributes according to the type of the relationship. We predicted that men and
women of both SES would value characteristics related to physical appearance better for
short-term relationship while women would give more importance for characteristics related
to social status and social skills and men would give more importance for characteristics
The last goal of this study was to determine whether there is difference between low
and high SES men and women for ideal short- and long-term romantic partners. Thus, our
hypothesis is that men and women of different SES will differ in their preferences of short-
and long-term partners. We predicted that men of high SES would assign greater importance
characteristics related to both physical attractiveness and social skills in long-term romantic
partners than low SES, since high SES men probably possess a greater mate value compared
to men of low SES. Considering that women tend to look for a partner who has more
resources than themselves and that, in Brazil, unemployment rates among women are higher,
their access to leadership positions considerably lower and there is a wage gap, with men
receiving higher wages, women are also subjected to longer working hours, lower-skilled jobs
and afforded less social protections compared to men (Melo, 2005; Santana, 2010), and
combined with a lesser degree of education, it is expected that women of low SES would
assign greater value to financial status or ability to acquire resources in choosing a romantic
! 59!
!
partner, compared to women of high SES, for having more necessity to ensure paternal
investment in offspring.
Method
All study procedures complied with the Guidelines and Norms Regulating Research
Data for the current study was collected in the city of Natal, Rio Grande do Norte
students, including 31 women (M = 22.93 years; SD = 4.03) and 33 men (M= 21.94 years;
SD = 3.19); and 86 participants from EHS from public school system, including 44 women
Sample characterization
According to the IBGE (2012) system of classification for skin color, the sample used
in the current study was composed of 47% brown (mixed race or pardo in Brazil), 39.7%
white, 7.9% black and 5.2% indigenous or oriental. The SES of each individual participant
Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa, 2012). Under this system of classification for
our sample, the majority of undergraduate students of both sexes were considered B1 level
! 60!
!
approximately US$ 670.00/month) and women were considered C2 level (average family
sample corroborates IGBE (2010) statement that educational level is correlated to SES in
Brazil.
Instruments
Each participant was asked to respond to a survey that contained: (1) questions
regarding socioeconomic character; (2) a line regarding perceptions of operational sex ratio;
(3) a simulation of an ideal short-term romantic partner; (4) a simulation of an ideal long-term
romantic partner; and (5) an evaluation of overall desirability in short- and long-term
romantic partners.
ABEP (2012): These questions were used for better identification of the sample. Participants
could choose from the options null, one, two, three, and four or more to correspond with the
number of specific items found in their house, including color televisions, DVDs, bathrooms,
cars, maids, washing machines, freezers, sound systems and refrigerators. Also, the
participants were asked to indicate the educational level of the head of the household. Each
option has a different amount of points attributed and, by the end of the questionnaire, we
added all the points, obtained then a score that indicates the probable SES of the participant;
2. The perceived operational sex ratio was weighted by using a 10 cm semantic differential
evaluation line, on which the participant was asked to mark the proportion of romantically
available men and women on a scale of more women than men (0) to more men than women
(10).
3 and 4. First, the participant was instructed to idealize a short-term romantic partner in the
context of the following introductory sentence: Imagine that you are going out with (or
! 61!
!
meeting) someone one or more times, without any expectation of developing a more serious
relationship, but with the possibility of the encounter resulting in sexual intercourse. What
would this person be like? for the long-term romantic partner idealization, the followed
sentence was presented: Now imagine that you have been going out with (or meeting)
someone for a long time, now with some possibility, but no certainty, of more serious dating
During the course of each simulation, each participant would define their ideal
romantic partner by attributing 0-9 points for each of the nine characteristics used in the study
and relevant to the three sample groups: 1. Pretty or Handsome face; 2. Beautiful body; and 3.
Good financial condition, related to social status; and 7. Intelligent 8. Agreeable; and 9.
Faithful, related to social skills. Participants received instruction that the more points they
indicated, the more of that particular characteristic their partner would possess. They were
also alerted to the possibility of leaving any characteristics blank, if deemed unnecessary, and
5. There was also a semantic differential scale represented by a 10 centimeters long straight
line, on which the participant could score, for each idealized romantic partner, at any point on
the line how desirable his or her partner was considered by the opposite sex, ranging from
Procedure
The high SES sample group consisted of male and female students enrolled in the
following majors at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte in the city of Natal:
dentistry, pharmacy and ecology. A professor responsible for one of the courses in each
! 62!
!
discipline was contacted to request the student ́s participation in data collection by making
them available to volunteer for the study during a scheduled lecture period. At that time, the
researcher gave a brief introduction describing the objectives and each student was asked for
their informed consent to participate as study subjects. After reading and signing the terms of
agreement for participating in the study, each student received the research questionnaire.
The low SES sample group consisted of male and female subjects from nine public
schools in the city of Natal, authorized to participate voluntarily by the responsible directors
and/or coordinators of each institution. The same procedure used in the university classrooms,
of introducing the objectives of the research and distributing questionnaires to the consenting
Analyses
For the first goal, Pearson linear correlations were performed to verify which
characteristics are related between the general desirability of short- and long-term mating
partners and each of the nine characteristics. For linear correlations, the Dancey and Reidy
parameter (2006) was used for the interpretation of forces. This parameter considers a
correlation to be perfect where r = 1; strong where r is between 0.7 and 0.9; moderate where r
is between 0.4 and 0.6; and weak where r is less than 0.3.
For the second goal, the mean of points attributed to characteristics for short- and
long-term partner in the sample groups of men and women of both SES were compared by
using paired samples t-tests to verify if there were differences between the ideal short-term
romantic partners and long-term romantic partners for men and women of high and low SES.
Thus, the sample was divided by group (low SES men and women and high SES men and
women), the nine studied characteristics and the overall desirability were dependent variables
and the types of the relationship (short- or long-term) were independent variables. This mean
! 63!
!
comparison differ from the one used in the third goal because there we compared means of
different samples while in this objective we compared means attributed by the same sample.
Finally, for the third goal, the mean of short- and long-term mating partner
characteristics and overall desirability in the sample groups of men and women were
compared according to their level of education by using Student t-tests to verify if there were
differences between the ideal short- and long-term romantic partners for men and women
according to their SES. In this case, the sample was divided by sex (women and men), the
nine studied characteristics and the overall desirability were the dependent variables and SES
We present the 95% confidence interval for all effects presented below.
Results
hardworking and Intelligent and Overall desirability of short-term mating partners, while the
Overall desirability of long-term partners was positively correlated with Determined and
hardworking, Intelligent, and Agreeable, indicating that the more points assigned to these
(Table 1). Women of low SES showed a negative correlation between Faithful and Overall
desirability of short-term partners and a positive correlation between Sociability and Overall
Table 1
Pearson Correlations Between the Overall Desirability and the Researched Characteristics
for Short- and Long-Term Relationships of Women of Different SES
High SES Women Low SES Women
Short-term Long-term Short-term Long-term
! 64!
!
r p r p r p r p
Beautiful face .16 .39 .24 .20 .13 .41 .26 .11
Beautiful body .23 .90 .21 .26 .25 .11 .20 .21
Healthy .28 .12 .22 .23 .01 .94 -.01 .95
Financial status .10 .61 .28 .12 .20 .21 .10 .56
Sociable .20 .27 .31 .09 -.05 .76 .43 .01
Hardworking .50 < .01 .40 .03 -.10 .51 .26 .11
Intelligent .37 .04 .38 .03 -.05 .77 .23 .15
Agreeable .24 .20 .41 .02 -.11 .48 .26 .10
Faithful .16 .39 .09 .61 -.33 .03 .16 .31
Note: Hardworking: Determined and hardworking; Significant correlations (p < .05) in bold.!
Men of high SES showed a positive correlation between Overall desirability for short-
term mating partners and Pretty face and between Overall desirability for long-term partners
Finally, men of low SES showed a positive correlation in their evaluations of Overall
desirability for short-term mating partners and Pretty face and Sociable (Table 2). There was
no association between any of the studied characteristics and Overall desirability for long-
Table 2
Pearson Correlations Between the Overall Desirability and the Researched Characteristics
for Short- and Long-Term Relationships of Men of Different SES
High SES Men Low SES Men
Short-term Long-term Short-term Long-term
r p r p r p r p
Pretty face .40 .02 .39 .02 .36 .03 .28 .09
Beautiful body .33 .06 .35 .05 .31 .06 .23 .17
Healthy .07 .68 .23 .21 .08 .64 .22 .1
Financial status -.02 .89 .05 .79 .25 .13 .27 .10
Sociable .24 .18 .08 .64 .33 .05 .27 .10
Hardworking .10 .58 .06 .72 .23 .18 .11 .50
Intelligent .20 .25 .33 .06 .27 .10 .16 .32
Agreeable .21 .23 .36 .04 .12 .49 .27 .09
Faithful .26 .14 .16 .37 .27 .12 .16 .32
Note: Hardworking: Determined and hardworking; Significant correlations (p < .05) in bold.!
High SES women gave more importance to Handsome face and Beautiful body in
! 65!
!
short-term partners and Ambitious and hardworking and Faithful in long-term partners.
Women of low SES, however, did not differ in the characteristics of their preferences for
High SES men value more Beautiful body in short-term than in long-term partners and
Faithfulness and Overall desirability in long-term partners. Moreover, they made a distinction
between long- and short-term partners to Determined and hardworking and Intelligent, which
in long-term had greater scores. Low SES men also attributed more importance to Determined
and hardworking and Good financial condition for long-term partners than for short-term
partners.
Table 3 shows the results for all the four studied groups in detail.
Table 3
Mean Comparison Between Short- and Long-term Ideal Partners of Women of High SES and
Men of Low and High SES
Standard
Characteristics Partner Mean t p
Sex Deviation
Women
High SES
Handsome face ST 6.81
1.09 2.47 .020
LT 6.32
Beautiful body ST 6.58
0.99 2.35 .025
LT 6.16
Health ST 7.39
1.75 -1.24 .226
LT 7.77
Financial condition ST 6.13
1.24 -1.16 .255
LT 6.39
Sociable ST 7.65
0.85 -0.42 0.677
LT 7.71
Hardworking ST 7.55
1.25 -3.59 .001
LT 8.35
Intelligent ST 7.52
0.95 -1.90 .067
LT 7.84
Agreeable ST 7.35
1.63 -1.87 .071
LT 7.90
Faithful ST 7.45
2.16 -3.67 .001
LT 8.87
Overall desirability ST 72.55
13.80 0.013 .990
LT 72.52
Low SES
Handsome face ST 5.48
1.66 -0.84 .408
LT 5.69
Beautiful body ST 5.74
1.69 -0.09 .928
LT 5.76
Health ST 7.79
1.75 0.18 .861
LT 7.74
! 66!
!
Financial condition ST 5.62
1.95 0.63 .531
LT 5.43
Sociable ST 6.29
2.09 0.52 .609
LT 6.12
Hardworking ST 8.22
2.64 1.78 .083
LT 7.49
Intelligent ST 7.48
2.01 1.84 .073
LT 6.90
Agreeable ST 7.36
2.45 0.25 .802
LT 7.26
Faithful ST 7.69
1.94 1.27 .210
LT 7.31
Overall desirability ST 74.60
20.10 0.67 .508
LT 72.52
Men
High SES
Handsome face ST 6.55
0.19 1.73 .094
LT 6.21
Beautiful body ST 6.82
1.56 2.23 .033
LT 6.21
Health ST 7.58
0.28 0.00 1
LT 7.58
Financial condition ST 4.55
0.29 -0.31 .758
LT 4.64
Sociable ST 6.97
0.37 -0.33 .746
LT 7.09
Hardworking ST 5.27
2.42 -4.46 ≤.001
LT 7.15
Intelligent ST 6.16
1.59 -2.88 .007
LT 6.97
Agreeable ST 6.94
0.21 -1.16 .254
LT 7.18
Faithful ST 6.33
2.70 -5.02 ≤.001
LT 8.70
Overall desirability ST 65.27
12.27 -4.14 ≤.001
LT 74.12
Low SES
Handsome face ST 6.33
0.28 -0.51 .610
LT 6.48
Beautiful body ST 6.40
0.27 -1.34 .186
LT 6.76
Health ST 8.17
0.24 1.40 .168
LT 7.83
Financial condition ST 4.26
1.89 -2.13 .040
LT 4.88
Sociable ST 6.52
0.29 -0.50 .623
LT 6.67
Hardworking ST 7.02
2.07 -2.17 .036
LT 7.71
Intelligent ST 6.48
0.18 -1.43 .162
LT 6.74
Agreeable ST 7.48
0.27 0.18 .859
LT 7.43
Faithful ST 7.57
0.40 -0.48 .635
LT 7.76
Overall desirability ST 69.39
2.31 0.23 .821
LT 68.86
Note: Financial condition: Good financial condition; Hardworking: Determined and hardworking; ST: Short-
term; LT: Long-term. Significantly higher means (p < .05) in bold.
! 67!
!
High SES vs. Low SES
When evaluating women’s preference according to their SES, the results indicate that
women of low SES attributed fewer points to ideal short- and long-term partners compared to
women of high SES, as predicted. High SES women afforded greater value to Handsome face
and Sociable in short-term partners and Good financial condition, Determined and
Unlike low SES women, low SES men attributed more points to the characteristics
Determined and hardworking and Faithful for short-term romantic partners when compared to
high SES men, who assigned higher scores to Faithful for long-term partners (Table 4).
Table 4!
Comparisons of Studied Characteristics for Women and Men, According to the SES
Sex Characteristic SES Mean Standard Deviation t p
Women
STP
Handsome face Low 5.35 2.69
-3.02 .004
High 6.81 1.42
Beautiful body Low 5.60 2.65
-1.86 .067
High 6.58 1.46
Health Low 7.70 2.26
0.63 .534
High 7.39 1.87
Financial condition Low 5.49 2.67
-1.27 .207
High 6.13 1.65
Sociable Low 6.14 2.58
-3.29 .002
High 7.65 1.31
Hardworking Low 8.14 1.70
1.53 .132
High 7.55 1.57
Intelligent Low 7.30 2.19
-0.47 .642
High 7.52 1.55
Agreeable Low 7.19 2.46
-.035 .724
High 7.35 1.62
Faithful Low 7.58 2.43
0.24 .815
High 7.45 2.22
Overall desirability Low 75.19 23.57
0.55 .581
High 72.55 14.21
LTP
Handsome face Low 5.65 2.58
-1.49 .141
High 6.32 1.22
Beautiful body Low 5.70 2.48
-1.06 .295
High 6.16 1.24
Health Low 7.70 2.35
-0.19 .849
High 7.77 0.99
! 68!
!
Financial condition Low 5.40 2.68
-1.97 .052
High 6.39 1.63
Sociable Low 6.05 2.68
-3.61 .001
High 7.71 1.19
Hardworking Low 7.45 2.48
-2.17 .035
High 8.35 0.92
Intelligent Low 6.86 2.47
-2.21 .030
High 7.84 1.30
Agreeable Low 7.23 2.46
-1.56 .123
High 7.90 1.17
Faithful Low 7.30 2.79
-3.65 .001
High 8.87 0.34
Overall desirability Low 72.52 22.98
< 0.01 .999
High 72.52 14.58
Men
STP
Handsome face Low 6.33 2.02
-0.53 .595
High 6.55 1.42
Beautiful body Low 6.40 2.10
-0.99 .327
High 6.82 1.53
Health Low 8.17 1.32
1.63 .108
High 7.58 1.71
Financial condition Low 4.26 2.20
-0.57 .568
High 4.55 2.03
Sociable Low 6.52 2.27
-0.99 .325
High 6.97 1.63
Hardworking Low 7.02 2.30
3.09 .003
High 5.27 2.60
Intelligent Low 6.48 2.40
0.50 .518
High 6.17 1.77
Agreeable Low 7.48 2.14
0.44 .224
High 6.94 1.48
Faithful Low 7.57 2.30
0.61 .045
High 6.33 2.83
Overall desirability Low 69.39 18.67
4.06 .314
High 65.27 14.58
LTP
Handsome face Low 6.48 1.88
0.73 .471
High 6.21 1.27
Beautiful body Low 6.76 1.89
1.39 .169
High 6.21 1.43
Health Low 7.83 1.75
0.66 .512
High 7.58 1.58
Financial condition Low 4.88 2.27
0.57 .573
High 4.64 1.45
Sociable Low 6.67 2.43
-0.80 .526
High 7.09 2.07
Hardworking Low 7.71 1.54
1.50 .139
High 7.15 1.72
Intelligent Low 6.74 2.20
-0.57 .574
High 6.97 1.28
Agreeable Low 7.43 2.15
0.54 .588
High 7.18 1.65
Faithful Low 7.76 2.30
-2.49 .016
High 8.70 0.68
Overall desirability Low 69.56 19.26
-1.09 .282
High 74.12 15.80
Note: Financial condition: Good financial condition; Hardworking: Determined and hardworking; STP: Short-
term partner; LTP: Long-term partner. Significantly higher means (p < .05) in bold.
! 69!
!
Discussion
In general, the results of the current study are in agreement with most of the data that
has been previously presented in the literature, indicating that characteristics related to
physical attractiveness (Beautiful face, Beautiful body and Healthy) and social skills
(Agreeable, Sociable, and Faithful) are related to male romantic partners preferences while
traits related to social status (Financial condition, Determined and hardworking and
Intelligent) and social skills are directly associated with female preferences for romantic
partners.
When comparing long- to short-term relationships, the outcome found in our study to
women of high SES in our study corroborates Li and colleagues (2013) findings for physical
attractiveness. They found that men and women gave importance to physical attractiveness
for short-term partners, but only men did so for long-term partners. High SES men correlated
Pretty face with the Overall desirability of their ideal partners for short- and long-term and
Beautiful body and Agreeableness with Overall desirability of their ideal long-term partners,
while men of low SES related Pretty face and Sociability with their ideal short-term partners’
desirability. The results corroborate our predictions that men would show a preference for
characteristics related to physical attractiveness and social skills in assessing the desirability
of a potential short-term mating partner and traits correlate to physical appearance and social
skills for long-term partners. In addition, high SES men gave greater importance for Beautiful
relationship, corroborating what was predicted. However, they also gave more importance to
the traits Determined and hardworking and Intelligent in long-term partners, going against our
predictions that men would value more traits related to social skills in long-term relationships.
Men of low SES also gave more importance for traits related to social status (Determined and
! 70!
!
hardworking and Good financial condition) for their long-term partners than for their short-
Because producing offspring represents a greater physiological cost for women, men
are afforded the responsibility of investing more energy in the acquisition of resources. Thus,
characteristics related to the amount of resources already possessed and/or the ability to
acquire them are more important for women than for men in selecting a romantic partner
(Castro et al., 2012; Geary et al. 2004; Gutierres et al., 1999), especially for a long-term
the crescent insertion of women in the modern labor market, men may be starting to evaluate
differently their partners’ social status in the mate market, mainly for long-term relationship,
in which they have to invest more in resources, being an extra help if women can improve
family income as well (Mafra & Lopes, 2014; Pillsworth, 2008). This change of the modern
society might be directing males’ preference towards romantic partners, especially those from
low SES.
Another intriguing finding was the positive relationship between Overall desirability
for short-term partners with Sociability among low SES men. Although it is considered a
social skill trait, indicating the quality of the relationship, it also may be an important
characteristic for social life. For also being an indicator of the ability to acquire resources
(probably for being able to increase network contacts), it is generally seen as female mating
preference, especially for long-term partners. In our sample, this unanticipated mating
preference might arise from the SES of men with a low family monthly income
(approximately US$ 770.50). Therefore, the more sociable a woman is, the more potential she
has for achieving a better social status and then, helps to contribute to the family income. The
result found by Mafra and Lopes (2014) that low SES women consider characteristics
regarding social status when evaluating themselves as romantic partners related to their self-
! 71!
!
esteem corroborates the current findings since self-esteem is positively correlated with self-
perception. Pillsworth (2008) also drew similar conclusions from their work with the Shuar
people of Ecuador, in which both the men and women contribute to household resources.
According to this author, the preference of men for resources can be aroused in situations
where they and their children survivals are dependent on resources that are contributed by the
women.
That may be a reason why women of high SES appeared to be more demanding
regarding their romantic partners than low SES women, who did not attributed more
importance to any characteristics when compared to the former, and high SES women
differed in the requisite for long-term and short-term partner preference in the predicted
direction (women would value more characteristics related to physical appearance to short-
term relationship and social status to long-term relationships) but low SES women did not.
Thus, our results reinforce the importance of women’s social status in resource-poor
environments and physical attractiveness when men may provide enough investment to their
families.
Sociability are highly sought after in romantic partners of both sexes because they indicate the
likelihood of entering into a good quality of relationship and they may also indicate the ability
to acquire resources (Castro & Lopes, 2011; Fletcher et al., 2004). The importance of these
characteristics can be highlighted through the observation our outcomes. Agreeable was
linked to long-term partners Overall desirability of men and women of high SES; Sociability
was associated with short-term partners of low SES men and long-term partners of low SES
women; and both, Agreeableness and Sociability were equally important in short- and long-
term partners. Fidelity, in turn, presented distinct importance for short- and long-term
! 72!
!
partners, in accordance with SES.
and women (Castro & Lopes, 2011; Hattori et al., 2013) because can provide emotional
security and stability in a relationship (Castro & Lopes, 2011). Furthermore, for women
faithfulness serves as a way of ensuring that a partner's resources will be invested directly in
the partnership and any offspring derived from it, rather than being shared with another
family that the man might possibly have (Gaulin & McBurney, 2004; Trivers, 1972). For
men, faithfulness is valued because it helps to ensure paternity so that resources are directly
invested in one's own genetic offspring since the uncertainly of paternity increases due to the
internal fecundation (Gaulin & McBurney, 2004; Pawlowski 2000; Trivers, 1972). Fletcher
and colleagues (2004) found that men and women tend to decrease the importance of
importance of it for long-term relationships. Our findings corroborated these findings for high
SES of both sexes mate preference, who gave more importance to Faithfulness for their ideal
and Overall desirability for a short-term partner. In fact, a high degree of fidelity is generally
not required for short-term relationships, but women of low SES attributed lower scores to
Faithful the greater the desirability of a short-term partner was, contradicting our
expectations. Perhaps they associated fidelity with male market value. As men tend to prefer
short-term mating strategies in order to maximize their reproductive success, and because the
access to females is the limiting factor, men with greater Overall desirability, or that is, with
higher market value, tend to acquire a greater number of romantic partners (Allen & Bailey,
2007; Buston & Emlen, 2003; Penken & Denissen, 2008). Having this fact in mind, women of
low SES might expect a high value mate to adopt more short-term strategies, which decreases
! 73!
!
the odds of him being faithful.
An observation of the operational sex ratio (OSR) perceived by the participants in our
sample showed that men of low SES believed that there are more women than men available
in the mating market (M = 2.72, or 145.56 women for 100 men), followed by men of high
SES (M = 2.91, or 141.82 women for 100 men) and women of high SES (M = 3.47, or 130.58
women for 100 men). Women of low SES believed that there are a similar number of men and
women available in the mating market (M = 4.86, or 102.76 women for 100 men). Thus,
because men of low SES believe that there are more women available for every man, they
may exhibit less susceptibility to the desirability for greater fidelity shown by prospective
mating partners, in order to maintain greater access to more than one romantic partner.
According to last IBGE data (2010), the OSR of the city of Natal is biased for women (that is
part of 53.1% of the city’s population) and according to Kruger, Fitzgerald and Peterson
(2010), in environments with women scarcity, men tend to get committed as fast as they can
in order to secure a partner, and in an environment with men scarcity, the opposite would be
true. Therefore, the current study also provides evidence that the perceived operational sex
In addition to these peculiarities of our sample, men and women of low SES
(compared to high SES) did not assign higher scores to potential long-term partners,
indicating a possible attenuation in their preoccupation with this type of romantic relationship.
In resources deprived environments, Nettle (2010) observed a fast life-history strategy, with
lower birthweights, shorter breastfeeding duration, and higher reproductive rate. Also,
according to Goodwin and colleagues (2012), populations that suffer difficult environmental
situations may lead individuals (both men and women) to invest less emotionally and to
increase their short-term mating strategies, adopting a fast life strategy, giving further support
that the peculiarities of the current sample may be due to the significant differences in SES
! 74!
!
among participants.
Low SES women did not differ significantly their preferences for the characteristics of
long- and short-term partners and low SES men did not present difference for Faithfulness as
women and men of high SES did, giving to characteristics social status related instead,
serving as one more data to support our hypothesis that individuals that live in poorer
Conclusion
Our findings suggest that men are increasingly given more importance to women that
improve family income, mainly in environments with greater resources restriction, as it is the
case of low SES. It drives women to change their perception of their mate value (Mafra &
Lopes, 2014) and make women of low SES be less demanding regards their romantic partners
than women of high SES. In addition, men and women of high SES showed that preferences
for short- and long-term romantic partners are in agreement with previous studies. Therefore,
further studies using samples of people having different SES are needed in order to better
understand how preferences for romantic partners are modulated according to the specific
References
ABEP - Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa [Brazilian Association of Research
Allen, S., & Bailey, K. (2007). Are mating strategies and mating tactics independent
! 75!
!
Bale, C., & Archer, J. (2013). Self-perceived attractiveness, romantic desirability and self-
PMid:23353113
Brase, G. L., & Guy, E. C. (2004). The demographics of mate value and self-esteem.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes,
content/uploads/EP06134146.pdf
Buston, P., & Emlen, S. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The
students: From the short term to the long term. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 1-7.
doi:10.1080/00224499.2010.506680
Castro, F. N., Hattori, W.T., & Lopes, F. A. (2012). Relationship maintenance or preference
satisfaction? Male and female strategies in romantic partner choice. Journal of Social,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0099213
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2012). The World Factbook. Retrived from:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html
! 76!
!
Dancey, C., & Reidy, J. (2006). Estatística sem matemática para psicologia: Usando SPSS
para Windows [Statistics without maths for psychology: Using SPSS for Windows]. Porto
Alegre: Artmed.
Fisher, M., Cox, A., Bennett, S., & Gavric, D. (2008). Components of self-perceived mate
value. Special Issue: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern
Fletcher, G. J., Tither, J. M., O'Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and
homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection.
Gaulin, S. J., & McBurney, D. H. (2004). Chapter 12: The psychology of human mating. In S.
Geary, D., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of
Goodwin, R., Marshall, T., Fülöp, M., Adonu, J., & Spiewak, S. (2012) Mate value and self-
esteem: Evidence from eight cultural groups. PLoS ONE, 7(4), e36106.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036106
Greengross, G. & Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating
Gutierres, S., Kenrick, D., & Partch, J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game:
! 77!
!
Hattori, W. T., Castro, F. N., & Lopes, F. A. (2013). Mate choice in adolescence: Idealizing
http://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/revistapsico/article/viewFile/11466/9641
Statistics] IBGE. (2010) Síntese de indicadores sociais: uma análise das condições de vida
Karremans, J., Frankenhuis, W., & Arons, S. (2010). Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip
doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.10.001
Kenrick, D., & Keefe, R. (1992). Age preferences in mate reflect sex differences in human
doi:10.1017/S0140525X00067595
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the
Kruger, D., Fitzgerald, C., & Peterson, T. (2010). Female scarcity reduces women’s marital
ages and increases variance in men’s marital ages. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 420-
431. PMid:22947810
Lee, L., Loewenstein, G., Ariely, D., Hong, J., & Young, J. (2008). If I’m not hot, are you hot
9280.2008.02141.x
! 78!
!
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-
term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3),
468-489. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468
Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Fletcher, G. J. O., Sng, O., Valentine, K. A., Jiang, Y. F., &
Balliet, D. (2013). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105 (5), 757–776 . doi:
10.1037/a0033777
and homosexual men and women: an examination of biological and cultural influences.
Mafra, A.L. & Lopes, F.A. (2014). “Am I Good Enough for You?” Features Related to Self-
Melo, H.P. (2005). Gênero e pobreza no Brasil. Relatório Final do Projeto Governabilidad
Final Project Reporty Gender Democratic Governance in Latin America and the
Pawlowski, B. (2000). The biological meaning of preferences on the human mate market.
http://www.academia.edu/3298609/The_biological_meaning_of_preferences_on_the_hum
an_mate_market
Penke, L., & Denissen, J. (2008). Sex differences and lifestyle-dependent shifts in the
! 79!
!
Pillsworth, E. G. (2008). Mate Preferences among the Shuar of Ecuador: trait rankings and
doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.01.005
Prates, M. (2012). Brasil tem a 2a pior educação em ranking global da Economist [Brazil has
the second worst education in global ranking of Economist]. Exame.com. Retrieved from:
http://exame.abril.com.br/brasil/noticias/brasil-tem-2a-pior-educacao-em-ranking-global-
da-economist
Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2006). A behavioral systems approach to romantic love
relationships: Attachment, caregiving, and sex In R. B. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The
new psychology of love. (pp. 35-58). United States of America, USA: Westchester Book
Services.
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Org.), Sexual
Wade, T. J. (2000). Evolutionary theory and self-perception: Sex differences in body esteem
Wade, T. J. (2003). Evolutionary theory and african american self-perception: Sex differences
! 80!
!
Artigo 3: Physical attractiveness, self-esteem, and self-perception
Running Title:
Title:
romantic partner?
Anthonieta Looman Mafra, Felipe Nalon Castro and Fívia de Araújo Lopes
UFRN, Brazil).
! 81!
!
Resumo
Homens e mulheres preferem certas características que são interpretadas como pistas da
importante característica para ambos os sexos por poder sinalizar juventude e fertilidade em
homens. Dessa forma, nós previmos que, para competir no mercado de parceiros, pessoas
fariam mais esforço para melhorar sua aparência física e essa relação seria influenciada pela
exercício são relacionados à autopercepção como parceiro romântico e autoestima, este estudo
foi conduzido com uma amostra de 205 homens e mulheres de baixo nível socioeconômico do
Brasil. Ele foram questionados sobre sua autoestima (escala de autoestima de Rosenberg),
parceiro romântico. Embora não tenha sido encontrada relação significativa entre
Baumeister (2000 cited in Bale and Archer Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 68–84, 2013) e os
! 82!
!
Author's personal copy
Evolutionary Psychological Science
DOI 10.1007/s40806-015-0032-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Abstract Men and women prefer certain characteristics that agreeableness, being correlation stronger when controlled by
are interpreted as clues to the reproductive quality of potential participants’ self-esteem. The results support Leary and
partners. Physical appearance, for example, is an important Baumeister’s sociometer theory (2000 cited in Bale and
characteristic for both sexes because it can signal youth and Archer Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 68–84, 2013) and
fertility in females and capacity for protection, dominance, Penke and Denissen’s (Journal of Research in Personality,
competitive ability, and high social status in males. 42, 1123–1129, 2008) findings, in which men would associate
Therefore, we predicted that people would put significant ef- more characteristics of their self-perception in a mate market
fort into improving their physical attractiveness in order to with their self-esteem.
compete in the mating market, and this relationship would
be influenced by self-perception and socioeconomic status. Keywords Sexual partners . Self-perception . Self-esteem .
In order to investigate whether investment in beauty and ex- Socioeconomic status . Physical attractiveness . Physical
ercise are related to self-perception as romantic partners and activity
self-esteem, this study was conducted with 205 men and
women of lower socioeconomic status from Brazil. They were
asked about their self-esteem (Rosenberg self-esteem scale), The sexual strategies theory provides an evolutionary framework for
socioeconomic status, investment in beauty, time exercising, how human sexual behavior has been selected to improve human
and self-perception as a romantic partner. Although no signif- reproductive success during romantic partner choice (Buss and
icant relationship between self-perception as a romantic part- Schmitt 1993). Humans are selective about whom they have a
ner and exercise was found, our results suggest that female relationship with, especially when dealing with romantic partners,
investment in beauty is related to their financial condition, and there are certain characteristics preferred by both men and
whereas male investment in beauty is related to greater eval- women that are interpreted as clues to the reproductive quality of
uation in handsome face, beautiful body, sociability, and potential mates. Due to the high degree of time and effort invested
into romantic relationships, the required level of preferred character-
istics is greater compared to other kinds of relationships (Brase
2006; Cottrell et al. 2007; Fletcher et al. 2004; Sprecher and
* Anthonieta Looman Mafra Regan 2002). Characteristics that are of fundamental importance
looman.anthonieta@gmail.com
to romantic relationships are related to physical attractiveness, per-
sonality, and financial status, for example, because they provide
1
Department of Physiology, Graduate Program in Psychobiology, clues about an individual’s potential fitness, suitability for personal
Laboratório de Evolução do Comportamento Humano, Universidade relationship, and investment in offspring, respectively (Castro and
Federal do Rio Grande do Norte [UFRN], Campus Universitário,
Lagoa Nova, CEP: 59078-900 Natal, RN, Brazil
Lopes 2011; Mafra and Lopes 2014).
2
Among the traits evaluated in a potential romantic partner,
Organizational Psychology Program, Universidade Potiguar–
Laureate International Universities, Roberto Freire Campus, Av. Eng.
both sexes tend to give similar importance to characteristics
Roberto Freire, 2184, Capim Macio, CEP: 59082-902 Natal, RN, related to social skills, since they provide information about
Brazil the quality of the relationship (Castro and Lopes 2011).
Author's personal copy
Evolutionary Psychological Science
Fidelity is especially important to men and women in long- romantic partners, whereas men give greater importance to
term relationships, a type of relationship in which the proba- characteristics related to their financial status (Mafra and
bility of offspring conception is higher. In this way, a faithful Lopes 2014).
woman would assure her partner about the paternity of their Several studies have been conducted in order to investigate
offspring (Trivers 1972) and a faithful man would assure his if individuals’ perception of themselves (self-perception) as a
partner about his investment of resources in their children romantic partner were, in fact, based on opposite sex prefer-
(Gaulin and McBurney 2004). ences and if individual’s self-perception as romantic partner is
It is argued that ancestral women were subjected to selec- associated with its demand when looking for a romantic part-
tive pressures that enabled those who chose men with greater ner (Buston and Emlen 2003; Gutierres et al. 1999; Lee et al.
resources, and/or capacity for resource acquisition, to have 2008). Buston and Emlen (2003) and Lee and colleagues
greater reproductive success compared to those who did not (2008) found that participants who evaluate themselves as
choose a partner with such characteristics (Brase and Guy higher in mate value are more demanding than those that
2004; Castro and Lopes 2011; Geary et al. 2004; Pawlowski evaluate themselves as having lower mate value.
2000). Although physical attributes appear to have less impor- In addition, Leary et al. (1995) proposed the sociometer
tance in female mate choice compared to male preferences hypothesis as a conclusion of five studies that evidenced that
(Castro and Lopes 2011), male physical appearance can also social exclusion is negatively related to self-esteem. The
give women clues about the genetic quality of a potential sociometer hypothesis developed into sociometer theory later
partner, as well as their capacity for protection, dominance, (Leary and Baumeister 2000 cited in Bale and Archer 2013;
competitive ability, and achieving high social status (Buss and Penke and Denissen 2008), which indicates that self-esteem
Shackelford 2008). Thus, women who choose attractive men monitors social environment for cues related to low relational
as their romantic partners would likely be improving their own quality. Based on this theory, other researchers investigated
reproductive success (Buss and Shackelford 2008). the relationship between self-perception and self-esteem.
Physical attractiveness can be easily assessed by visual Goodwin et al. (2012), Mafra and Lopes (2014), and Penke
cues. Smooth skin, clear eyes, and lustrous hair are perceived and Denissen (2008) found a positive relationship between
as attractive signals of beauty, as well as symmetric and self-perception and self-esteem and, thus, also a perceived
average-looking faces (Cloud and Perilloux 2014; Gangestad mate value, which can be translated into actual behavior, and
and Thornhill 1999, 2003; Gaulin and McBurney 2004; Jones social and mating interactions. Penke and Denissen (2008)
2014). These characteristics are clues to assess the genetic went further and found a greater correlation between men’s
quality and history of pathogens in potential mating partners. self-esteem and self-perception as romantic partners due to the
People who display such traits are usually described as more greater desire for short-term relationships and, thus, higher
attractive, and it is supposed that these traits can signal a good sensitivity to potential partners’ rejections. Since physical at-
immune system to combat pathogens and sufficient energy to tractiveness is an important trait for both sexes, it is expected
invest in secondary sexual characteristics and facial symmetry that both men and women would try to improve the expression
(Cloud and Perilloux 2014; Gangestad and Thornhill 1999, of related characteristics. Furthermore, it is also expected that
2003; Jones 2014). men and women would compete with potential rivals through
Several studies indicate that men who choose women with their time and investment in beauty enhancement treatments
signs of high reproductive potential have greater reproductive and exercise. Evidencing female intrasexual competition,
success than those who choose women that do not display Tiggemann and Williamson (2000) found a difference of mo-
such signals (Buss and Schmitt 1993; Castro and Lopes tivation to exercise between men and women, in which wom-
2011; Geary et al. 2004; Pawlowski 2000). This reproductive en exercise more for weight control and tone, being correlated
potential can be signaled by physical characteristics, such as with poor body satisfaction, and mood enhancement than
waist-to-hip ratio and reproductive age (Castro et al. 2012; men. They also found that when both sexes exercise for fitness
Hattori et al. 2013; Karremans et al. 2010). and health, there is an increase of their self-esteem.
Thus, mate value is the value of an individual within the Additionally, Edmonds (2007) noted that in Brazil,
mate market, which is based on what the potential partner look which displaced the USA as the world’s leader in cos-
for in a mate, i.e., preferences of the opposite sex (Noë and metic surgery, low self-esteem is one of the recurring
Hammerstein 1995). Each sex tends to assign greater impor- motivations for people realizing cosmetic surgeries.
tance to self-perception as romantic partner (how an individ- According to the author, Brazilian women feel pressured
ual perceives him/herself as a romantic partner) according to to achieve the desirable standards of beauty perceived
what they perceive the opposite sex values in a potential mate through the media to find a high-ranking romantic part-
(Fisher et al. 2008; Goodwin et al. 2012). In this sense, women ner or be successful in the labor market. The pressure
give more importance to characteristics that are related to to achieve the standards of beauty is even greater
physical attractiveness when evaluating themselves as within women of low socioeconomic status, since the
Author's personal copy
Evolutionary Psychological Science
improvement of physical attractiveness increases the self-perception in women, according to Buss and Schmitt (1993),
chance of getting jobs (Edmonds 2007). we hypothesized that women would show a more positive rela-
The current study aims to investigate the impact of individual tionship between their self-perception as romantic partners and
investment in beauty on self-perception as a romantic partner in their degree of investment in beauty enhancement. And, accord-
participants of low socioeconomic status. This group of partici- ing to Leary and Bausmeister (2000, cited in Bale and Archer
pants and this line of investigation have been neglected for the 2013; Penke and Denissen 2008), we expected that men would
most part in previous studies of mate selection, resulting in a present more traits of their self-perception related to amount of
greater necessity of studies contemplating them. Our specific exercise done, since their self-esteem is more closely related to
objectives were to investigate whether there are differences in their self-perception as romantic partners than women’s self-
beauty investment between sexes. First, although investment in esteem.
beauty can be a way that both men and women improve their
appearance to attract potential romantic partners, we hypothe-
sized that women would invest more time and effort in beauty Methods
than men due to the importance given by men to female physical
appearance, accordingly to the sexual strategies theory (Buss and Participants
Schmitt 1993). Secondly, we investigated if there is a difference
between sexes with respect to the investment of time and effort in Ninety-five female (M=22.42 years; SD=5.33) and 110 male
exercises. In this way, men are generally more engaged in direct (M= 20.64 years; SD = 4.25) elementary and high school
competition with one another than women are (Deaner et al. (EHS) students from nine public schools in the city of Natal,
2012), so that our hypothesis is that men should be expected to Brazil, took part in the current study (approved by the Ethics
exercise more than women. Thirdly, whether exercise is related in Research Committee—no. 31266514.9.0000.5537). Most
to monetary investment in beauty: as both exercise and invest- of the EHS students from public schools in Natal are of low
ment in beauty can help individuals to feel better about them- socioeconomic status (see below the exact status), and a pro-
selves and improve their overall physical attractiveness (Avelar portion of them have to drop out of school or are not able to
and Veiga 2013), we expected that those participants who invest focus on their education at certain point of their lives because
more in beauty products and services should also engage in more they must enter the labor market in order to support them-
exercise. Fourthly, if the amount of exercise done is related to selves or, in some cases, to contribute to the survival of their
self-perception as romantic partners: given that exercise serves as whole family. Therefore, a large part of the students that even-
a way to increase individual attractiveness, we expected that tually return to school are relatively older than those who were
those participants who exercise more should also have a better able to be more dedicated to their studies. Taking this reality
perception of themselves as a romantic partner that those partic- into account, we limited our sample to students ranging from
ipants who exercise less. Two hypotheses were originated for this 18 to 35 years of age.
aim, each one based on a different background. Following sexual
strategies theory (Buss and Schmitt 1993), we predicted that Procedure and Instruments
compared to men, women should show a relationship between
the amount of exercise they engage in and more traits of their Standardized questionnaires were distributed in classrooms
self-perception as romantic partners, since physical appearance is during a predetermined time that the teachers granted to us
more important to their mate value. On the other hand, leading by as part of their regular class and allowed students who wanted
sociometer theory (Leary and Baumeister 2000 cited in Bale and to take part in the research to volunteer their time. The partic-
Archer 2013; Penke and Denissen 2008), we expected that men ipants signed a consent form confirming their agreement to
would present more traits of their self-perception related to participate in the study and were clearly informed of the anon-
amount of exercise done, since their self-esteem is closely related ymous and voluntary nature of the research. After signing the
to their self-perception as romantic partners than women’s self- consent form and returning it to the researcher, each partici-
esteem. And fifthly, whether monetary investment in beauty is pant was asked to fill out a questionnaire.
related to self-perception as romantic partners: considering that The average of time spent completing the questionnaire
investment in beauty serves as a way to increase individual at- was 20 min and each questionnaire included five categories:
tractiveness, we expected a positive relationship between invest- (1) Rosenberg self-esteem scale, (2) Self-perception as a ro-
ment in beauty and self-perception as a romantic partner both for mantic partner, (3) Exercise information, (4) Investment in
men and women. We are going to test two hypotheses here again, beauty information, and (5) Demographic and personal
also based on sexual strategies theory (Buss and Schmitt 1993) questions.
and on sociometer theory (Leary and Baumeister 2000 cited in
Bale and Archer 2013; Penke and Denissen 2008), respectively. 1. The Rosenberg self-esteem scale is a 4-point Likert scale
As physical attractiveness is expected to be more important for that contains ten statements designed to assess how
Author's personal copy
Evolutionary Psychological Science
people feel about themselves (ranging from “Strongly we conducted ANCOVA and ANOVA to test each hypothesis.
agree” to “Strongly disagree”) (Rosenberg 1989). This That way, we could also compare the results of controlling
scale was translated and adapted to Portuguese and vali- (ANCOVA) or not controlling (ANOVA) for self-esteem.
dated for the Brazilian population with a Cronbach alpha For the analysis of these hypotheses, sex was treated as the
value of 0.9 (Hutz and Zanon 2011). independent variable and investment in beauty and exercise as
2. Self-perception as a romantic partner (based on Castro dependent variables. In order to analyze if there is any rela-
and Lopes 2011): each participant evaluated him/herself tionship between exercise and investment in beauty (hypoth-
according to nine traits (pretty/handsome face, beautiful esis 3), exercise and self-perception (hypothesis 4), and in-
body, and healthy—related to physical appearance; deter- vestment in beauty and self-perception (hypothesis 5), we per-
mined and hard working, good financial condition, and formed one partial and one Pearson correlation for each hy-
intelligent—related to financial status; and agreeableness, pothesis. Therefore, we could also compare the results of con-
sociability, and faithfulness—related to personality) on a trolling (partial correlation) or not controlling (Pearson corre-
10-point Likert scale for each trait (such that the more lation) for self-esteem. Self-perception, investment in beauty,
points the participants attributed to themselves, the more and the degree of engagement in exercise were the variables
of that characteristic they thought they possessed as a considered in these hypotheses. The data were analyzed using
romantic partner). the statistics program (SPSS Statistics 20), with the alpha level
3. Exercise information: we asked the participants how for interpreting results set at .05.
many times they typically exercise in a week and the
duration of each session in minutes. With these two bits
of information, we were able to calculate the time spent Results
engaged in exercise per week for each participant.
4. Investment in beauty information: here, the participants Exercise and Investment in Beauty: Difference of Means
were only asked about the average amount of money they and Correlation Between These Variables
spent per week on beauty enhancement in general (cos-
metic products and/or surgery, massages, gym member- The results of ANCOVA and the ANOVA between sexes and
ship, lymphatic drainage, etc.). The values were given in exercise showed that men exercise more than women (F(1,
Reais (Brazil currency). 172)=21.620, p<.001, partial η2 =.113, power=.996; F(1,
5. Demographic and personal questions: the participants filled 176)=22.272, p<.001, partial η2 =.112, power=.997; Mmen =
in their sex, age, age when got married (or that want to get 354.55 min/week, Mwomen =170.73 min/week) and although
married, if the participant had not got married yet), relation- women invested in beauty more than men, the difference of
ship status, number of children, and socioeconomic status. investment between the sexes was not significant (F(1, 154)=
The participants answered questions regarding their socio- 2.827, p=.095, partial η2 =.018, power=.386; F(1, 155)=
economic status conforming to the classification system of 3.060, p = .082, partial η 2 = .019, power = .412; M men =
the Brazilian Association of Research Companies (ABEP— R$119.15/month, Mwomen =R$166.15/month). In order to ver-
Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa 2012). ify if there was a relationship between exercise and investment
Applying this system of classification (ABEP 2012) to our in beauty, Pearson and partial correlations were calculated and
sample, most men were classified at the C1 level (average the output indicated that only women showed a positive rela-
family income of R$1541.00/month or approximately tionship between both variables (Pearson: r(70)women =.368,
US$670.00/month) and most women were classified at the p women = .002; r(74) men = .133, p men = .254; partial: r-
C2 level (average family income of R$1024.00/month or (67)women =.375, pwomen =.002; r(71)men =.135, pmen =.256).
approximately US$445.22/month).
Exercise×Self-perception: Pearson and Partial
Correlations
Statistical Analyses
No significant results were found for women or men when we
Given that self-esteem is related to self-perception (Brase and conducted Pearson and partial correlations between exercise
Guy 2004; Penke and Denissen 2008) and investment in beau- and self-perception as a romantic partner (Table 1).
ty (Avelar and Veiga 2013; Edmonds 2007), we included it as
a covariate in order to control its effects on investment in Investment in Beauty×Self-perception: Pearson
beauty and on self-perception as romantic partner. To analyze and Partial Correlations
if there is a difference in investment in beauty between the
sexes (hypothesis 1) and if there is any difference in the The Pearson correlations showed that the sample of men who
amount of exercise per week between sexes (hypothesis 2), invest more in beauty also considered themselves to be more
Author's personal copy
Evolutionary Psychological Science
Beautiful face −.020 .864 −.016 .891 .063 .538 .093 .382
Beautiful body −.017 .881 −.028 .809 .126 .220 .181 .086
Healthy .070 .546 .060 .611 .160 .117 .162 .125
Financial status .124 .284 .127 .278 .063 .541 .047 .655
Sociable .029 .804 .039 .739 .000 .997 .052 .626
Deter./hardwork .144 .212 .152 .192 −.116 .257 −.119 .262
Intelligent −.036 .755 −.029 .802 −.037 .721 −.024 .819
Agreeable .111 .336 .122 .292 .006 .953 .044 .677
Faithful .115 .320 .121 .301 −.105 .305 −.067 .528
Deter./hardwork determined/hardworking
handsome (r(81)=.257; p=.020) and a positive relationship most women, increase concern about their appearance, and
between investment in beauty and financial status in women lead to behaviors or activities that might help to boost self-
(r(72)=.310; p=.008). A partial correlation between invest- esteem. These findings serve as a basis to understand why, in
ment in beauty and self-perception as a romantic partner our study, a positive relationship was only observed between
showed a positive relationship between the characteristics investment in beauty and the trait good financial condition in
handsome face (r(78) = .299; p = .007), beautiful body women, which indicates that among women of low
(r(78)=.246; p=.028), sociability (r(78)=.266; p=.017), and socioeconomic status, those having a slightly better financial
agreeableness (r(78)=.237; p=.035) and investment in beau- condition, invested more money in beauty. Probably because
ty, while the characteristic related to investment in beauty in these women have more resources that can be dedicated to
women was good financial status (r(69) = .335; p = .004) improving their appearance, in contrast to other women who
(Table 2). mainly direct their resources to sustenance.
Highlighting the difference in socioeconomic status in the
Brazilian population, Mafra and Lopes (2014) conducted a
Discussion study addressing self-perception as a romantic partner in par-
ticipants of high and low socioeconomic status. This research
Our results indicate that men exercise more than women, but found that although self-rated physical attractiveness was re-
that their engagement in exercise is not related to investment lated to self-esteem in women of high socioeconomic status,
in beauty as in women. Also, no relationship between exercise in women of low socioeconomic status, self-esteem was relat-
and self-perception as a romantic partner was found in either ed to both physical attractiveness and including traits related
men or women, failing to support predictions of both to their social status. Usually, characteristics related to finan-
sociometer and sexual strategies theories. However, men cial status are typically associated with self-esteem in men
showed a positive correlation between investment in beauty (Goodwin et al. 2012; Mafra and Lopes 2014), but this work
and handsome face, beautiful body, sociability, and agreeable- showed that, in fact, different characteristics influence self-
ness, while women who were in better financial condition esteem in women of low socioeconomic status compared to
invested more in their beauty, providing support to sociometer women of high socioeconomic status, lending additional sup-
theory over sexual strategies theory. port to the importance of further research comparing popula-
In environments where physical appearance plays an im- tion of lower and higher socioeconomic status.
portant role, women’s perception of physical attractiveness is Due to the greater social and media pressures on female
related to self-esteem (Mafra and Lopes 2014; Penke and than on male attractiveness, men have less opportunity for
Denissen 2008). Avelar and Veiga (2013) noted that excessive social ascension by improving their physical appearance than
concern about physical appearance is positively associated women do, leading to men who invest more in beauty perceiv-
with the necessity for physical and material resources and that ing themselves as fitter, more handsome, more agreeable, and
when media emphasizes the distance between the physical more sociable than men who invest less in beauty. In men,
appearance of ordinary women and some ideal standards of reproductive success generally depends more on social status
female beauty, it can have the affect of lowering self-esteem in than it does on physical attractiveness (Kenrick et al. 1990;
Author's personal copy
Evolutionary Psychological Science
Beautiful face −.125 .290 −.113 .347 .257 .020 .299 .007
Beautiful body −.061 .610 −.035 .772 .203 .068 .246 .028
Healthy .091 .445 .126 .296 .123 .270 .155 .170
Financial status .310 .008 .335 .004 .175 .116 .202 .072
Sociable .039 .740 .060 .621 .210 .059 .266 .017
Deter./hardwork .140 .236 .168 .161 −.182 .101 −.191 .090
Intelligent .059 .617 .097 .419 .083 .456 .116 .304
Agreeable .042 .723 .073 .543 .174 .117 .237 .035
Faithful .149 .210 −.052 .668 −.032 .774 −.034 .766
Kruger et al. 2010; Pawlowski 2000; Trivers 1972). It does not physically attractive as a way to compensate their scarcity of
indicate that men invest more heavily in beauty than women resources.
(as showed in our results that there is no difference of invest- Environments with higher uncertainty may lead to higher
ment in beauty between sexes), but that the investment that and earlier reproductive rates in a population, intensifying
men do aggregate greater benefits for their self-perception as a male competition for status and resources (Kruger 2014) and
romantic partner that the investment that women do. increasing the expression of violent behaviors (Puts et al.
This result supported our hypothesis based on Penke and 2014). Considering that testosterone is associated with higher
Denissen findings explained by sociometer theory (Leary and levels of violence and intensity of male competition and that
Baumeister 2000 cited in Penke and Denissen 2008), in which men have higher levels of testosterone than women, these
men would have more characteristics of their self-perception facts prompt an expectation of social and athletic challenges
as a romantic partner related to investment in beauty. It is also (Kruger 2014). Thus, men tend to be more engaged in exercise
in direct opposition to our hypothesis based on sexual strate- than women (Deaner et al. 2012), which provides an addition-
gies theory (Buss and Schmitt 1993) because men of low al corroboration to the prediction that men should invest more
socioeconomic status in our study who invested more in beau- in exercise than women, although women should be motivat-
ty rated themselves as more physically attractive (handsome ed by achieving the “perfect look.”
face and beautiful body), but this relationship was not found Although both men and women exercise to improve them-
for women. This result was even stronger when we controlled selves, there are slightly different signals that exercise sends.
for men’s self-esteem, which indicates that self-esteem atten- Women generally exercise, besides for health reasons, to im-
uates the relationship between investment in beauty and self- prove their appearance of youth and fertility. Men generally
rated physical appearance. The absence of this relationship for exercise to improve their appearance of strength and domi-
women may be due to the greater importance that self-esteem nance. These differential motivations would imply sex-
has to men’s self-perception, as compared to women’s self- differentiate correlations between exercise and its possible ef-
perception, in the mate market. In particular, men do not ex- fects. These different motivations and outcomes, along with
perience the same level of pressure as women with respect to the particular measures used in the present study, could ex-
their physical appearance, which may lead women who have plain the positive relationship between exercise and invest-
more resources to invest more in beauty enhancement. Thus, ment in beauty found in women, but not in men.
women feel more acutely the effects of needing to invest in As exercise requires a lot of time investment and the results
beauty in order to simply maintain their status in the mating generally take a long time to be noticed, women might inten-
market, whereas men generally feel less pressured to invest in sify their appearance improvements by other investments into
beauty enhancements. Men who nevertheless invest more in beauty with faster and more noticeable results. This might
beauty may therefore be more likely to evaluate themselves explain investment in beauty and exercise correlated in wom-
better in several characteristics. In addition, men of low socio- en but did not relate to self-perceived attractiveness. Hudders
economic status who invest in beauty probably feel they have et al. (2014) found that women invest more in items that im-
an advantage over men who do not invest in it, by being more prove their physical appearance as a tactic to increase their
Author's personal copy
Evolutionary Psychological Science
ability to compete for a mate with other women. In this line, We thank CNPq (no. 409111/2013-9) and CAPES for supporting the
development of the research; we thank the participants who agreed to
investments in beauty may be a result of intrasexual competi-
complete the questionnaire, mainly considering that the research was
tion among females, directing women to invest greater re- voluntary and without financial and/or material return; we also thank
sources in order to try to attract or retain a partner, instead of teachers as well as the schools’ directors for making their classes available
necessarily leading to an increase in self-perception as roman- for the data collection. We also thank the valuable comments of the
reviewers that improved considerably our paper.
tic partners, before the lack of enough amount resources need-
ed to purchase items that could, in fact, improve their Compliance with Ethical Standards
appearance.
The current study has some notable limitations. The data Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no competing
about investment in beauty were lumped together, which interests.
makes it not possible to analyze which forms of investment
in beauty are most used. Another evident limitation is the use
of monetary investment in beauty as an operational definition, References
which is incomplete because investment in beauty can be
achieve in nonmonetary actions. Prichard and Tiggemann Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa (ABEP) Brazilian
(2011), for example, found that women also intend to eat Association of Research Companies (2012). Dados com base no
healthier, engage in dietary restrictions, and exercise more to levantamento socioeconômico de 2010 [Data based on 2010 socio-
economic survey]—IBOPE. www.abep.org.
invest in appearance, and all the activities are not monetary
Avelar, C. F. P., & Veiga, R. T. (2013). Como entender a vaidade feminina
related. Further studies may employ wider measures, includ- utilizando a autoestima e a personalidade [How to understand
ing behavioral patterns and time investment in beauty en- women’s vanity using self-steem and personality], Revista de
hancement. Although a recent study pointed out that women Administração de Empresas, 53(4), 338–349. Retrieved from:
invest greater resources in their appearance in a context of http://www.spell.org.br/documentos/ver/10574/como-entender-a-
vaidade-feminina-utilizando-a-autoestima-e-a-personalidade/i/pt-br.
intrasexual competition (Hudders et al. 2014), we did not Bale, C., & Archer, J. (2013). Self-perceived attractiveness, romantic
ask the participants about how threatened they feel by their desirability and self-esteem: a mating sociometer perspective.
same sex peers. Because of this, we could not investigate if Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 68–84. PMid:23353113.
investments in beauty (physical attractiveness improvement) Brase, G. L. (2006). Cues of parental investment as a factor in attractive-
are better described as a self-promotion strategy or as invest- ness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 145–157. doi:10.1016/j.
evolhumbehav.2005.06.003.
ment in improving appearance (more related to accessories, as Brase, G. L., & Guy, E. C. (2004). The demographics of mate value and
clothes, jewelry, and pursues, used to enhance appearance but self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 471–484.
not being related to change in individuals physical). doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00117-X.
Also, further investigations may consider the user of re- Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evo-
lutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100,
gression analyses to directly examine the relationship between
204–232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.
variables. While the present study investigated the relation- Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all:
ship between variables and it would be interesting to investi- good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emo-
gate (and contrast) the capacity of prevision of the predictors, tional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 134–146.
i.e., which characteristics of self-perception as a romantic part- Retrieved from: http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/
EP06134146.pdf
ner can explain the amount that individuals invest in beauty.
Buston, P., & Emlen, S. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human
However, this type of analysis may only be applied with large mate choice: The relationship between self-perception and mate
samples due to the sample effect be small or medium it is preference in Western society. Proceedings of the National
regarding to the evaluation of subjective components. Academy of Sciences, 100(15), 8805–8810. doi:10.1073/pnas.
1533220100.
Thus, the results of the current study highlight the impor-
Castro, F. N., & Lopes, F. A. (2011). Romantic preference in Brazilian
tance of additional research on this subject. There is ample undergraduate students: from the short term to the long term.
opportunity for future studies that can better explain how Journal of Sex Research, 47, 1–7. doi:10.1080/00224499.2010.
men and women differ in their investment in beauty and fur- 506680.
ther investigate what leads men and women to invest more in Castro, F. N., Hattori, W. T., & Lopes, F. A. (2012). Relationship main-
tenance or preference satisfaction? Male and female strategies in
beauty: attempting to improve self-perception or intrasexual
romantic partner choice. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and
competition. Cultural Psychology, 6, 217–226. doi:10.1037/h0099213.
Cloud, J. M., & Perilloux, C. (2014). Bodily attractiveness as a window to
women’s fertility and reproductive value. In V. A. Weekes-
Acknowledgments This research was supported by Coordenação de Shackelford & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal do Nível Superior (CAPES) awarded to on human sexual psychology and behavior (pp. 135–152). New
Anthonieta Looman Mafra and by Conselho Nacional de York: Springer.
Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) awarded to Fívia de Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people desire
Araújo Lopes (no. 409111/2013-9). in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of
Author's personal copy
Evolutionary Psychological Science
different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Karremans, J., Frankenhuis, W., & Arons, S. (2010). Blind men prefer a
Psychology, 92, 208–231. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.208. low waist-to-hip ratio. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 182–
Deaner, R. O., Geary, D. C., Puts, D. A., Ham, S. A., Kruger, J., Fles, E., 186. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.10.001.
Winegard, B., & Grandis, T. (2012). A sex difference in the predis- Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990).
position for physical competition: males play sports much more than Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: qualifying the
females even in the contemporary U.S. PLoS ONE, 7(11), e49168. parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–116. doi:
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049168. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x.
Edmonds, A. (2007). ‘The poor have the right to be beautiful’: cosmetic Kruger, D. J. (2014). Social and environmental conditions intensifying male
surgery in neoliberal Brazil. Journal of the Royal Anthropological competition for resources, status, and mates lead to increased male
Institute (N.S.), 13, 363–381. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9655.2007.00427.x. mortality. In V. A. Weekes-Shackelford & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.),
Fisher, M., Cox, A., Bennett, S., & Gavric, D. (2008). Components of Evolutionary perspectives on human sexual psychology and behavior
self-perceived mate value. Special Issue: Proceedings of the 2nd (pp. 153–172). New York: Springer.
Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Evolutionary Psychology Kruger, D. J., Fitzgerald, C., & Peterson, T. (2010). Female scarcity
Society. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, reduces women’s marital ages and increases variance in men’s mar-
2, 156–168. doi:10.1037/h0099347. ital ages. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 420–431. Retrieved from:
Fletcher, G. J., Tither, J. M., O’Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., & Overall, N. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP08420431.pdf.
(2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-
trading off traits in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology esteem as an interpersonal monitor: the sociometer hypothesis.
Bulletin, 30, 659–672. doi:10.1177/0146167203262847. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 518–530. doi:
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Individual differences in de- 10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.518.
velopmental precision and fluctuating asymmetry: a model and its Lee, L., Loewenstein, G., Ariely, D., Hong, J., & Young, J. (2008). If I’m
implications. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 12, 402–416. doi:10. not hot, are you hot or not? – Physical attractiveness evaluations and
1046/j.1420-9101.1999.00039.x. dating preferences as a function of one’s own attractiveness.
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2003). Facial masculinity and fluctu- Psychological Science, 19(7), 669–677. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.
ating asymmetry. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 231–241. doi: 2008.02141.x.
10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00017-5. Mafra, A. L., & Lopes, F. L. (2014). “Am I good enough for you?”
Gaulin, S. J., & McBurney, D. H. (2004). Chapter 12: The psychology of Features related to self-perception and self-esteem of Brazilians
human mating. In S. J. Gaulin & D. H. McBurney (Eds.), from different socioeconomic status. Psychology, 5, 653–663. doi:
Psychology: an evolutionary approach (pp. 257–289). New 10.4236/psych.2014.57077.
Jersey: Pearson Education. Noë, R., & Hammerstein, P. (1995). Biological markets. Trends in
Geary, D., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate Ecology & Evolution, 10(8), 336–339. doi:10.1016/S0169-
choice. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 27–42. doi:10.1080/ 5347(00)89123-5.
00224490409552211. Pawlowski, B. (2000). The biological meaning of preferences on the
Goodwin, R., Marshall, T., Fülöp, M., Adonu, J., & Spiewak, S. (2012). human mate market. Anthropological Review, 63, 39–72.
Mate value and self-esteem: evidence from eight cultural groups. Retrieved from: http://www.academia.edu/3298609/The_
PLoS ONE, 7, e36106. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036106. biological_meaning_of_preferences_on_the_human_mate_market.
Gutierres, S., Kenrick, D., & Partch, J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and Penke, L., & Denissen, J. (2008). Sex differences and lifestyle-dependent
the mating game: contrast effects in self-assessment reflect gender shifts in the attunement of self-esteem to self-perceived mate value:
differences in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology hints to an adaptive mechanism? Journal of Research in Personality,
Bulletin, 25, 1126–1134. doi:10.1177/01461672992512006. 42, 1123–1129. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.02.003.
Hattori, W. T., Castro, F. N., & Lopes, F. A. (2013). Mate choice in Prichard, I., & Tiggemann, M. (2011). Appearance investment in
adolescence: idealizing romantic partners. Psico (PUCRS), 44, Australian brides-to-be. Body Image, 8, 282–286. doi:10.1016/j.
226–234. Retrieved from: http://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/ bodyim.2011.03.001.
index.php/revistapsico/article/viewFile/11466/9641 Puts, D. A., Doll, L. M., & Hill, A. K. (2014). Sexual selection on human
Hudders, L., De Backer, C., Fisher, M., & Vyncke, P. (2014). The rival voices. In V. A. Weekes-Shackelford & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.),
wears prada: luxury consumption as a female competition strategy. Evolutionary perspectives on human sexual psychology and
Evolutionary Psychology, 12(3), 570–587. PMid: 25299993. behavior (pp. 69–86). New York: Springer.
Hutz, C. S., & Zanon, C. (2011). Revisão da adaptação, validação e Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the adolescent self-image.
normatização da escala de autoestima de Rosenberg. Avaliação Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
Psicológica [Review of the Adaptation, Validation, and Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people)
Standardization of Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Psychological more than others: partner preferences in romantic relationships and
Assessment], 10, 41–49. Retrieved from: de http://pepsic.bvsalud. friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 463–
org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677- 481. doi:10.1177/0265407502019004048.
04712011000100005&lng=pt&tlng=pt. Tiggemann, M., & Williamson, S. (2000). The effect of exercise on body
Jones, B. C. (2014). Agreement and individual differences in men’s pref- satisfaction and self-esteem as a function of gender and age. Sex
erences for women’s facial characteristics. In V. A. Weekes- Roles, 43(1–2), 119–127. doi:10.1023/A:1007095830095.
Shackelford & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B.
on human sexual psychology and behavior (pp. 87–102). New York: Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–
Springer. 179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Artigo 4: Autopercepção, autoestima e contexto
Artigo a ser submetido ao Journal of Research in Personality (ISSN 0092-6566, Qualis A1)
Título:
parceiro romântico
Título curto:
! 91!
!
Resumo
De acordo com a teoria das estratégias sexuais, o sexo dos indivíduos modula suas
ambientais também podem influenciar essas escolhas. A fim de verificar quais são as
realizamos a presente pesquisa com 1.093 participantes (510 universitários e 583 estudantes
autopercepção como parceiro romântico, embora os dois últimos pareçam mediar como se dá
achados fornecem evidências de que embora homens e mulheres tendam a dar importância a
parceiro romântico são altamente interligados, sugerindo que a escolha de parceiros não
acontece apenas pela importância dada a um único traço mas por um conjunto deles, fazendo
com que um traço influencia na percepção de outros, como sugerido por Castro et al. (2014) e
Feingold (1992).
Introdução
de curto e de longo prazo, corroborando, em geral, com a teoria da seleção sexual, a qual
prediz que parceiros sexuais são escolhidos com base em características que beneficiam o
sucesso reprodutivo do sexo oposto (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost,
! 92!
!
1990). O alto investimento fisiológico feminino durante a gravidez e nos primeiros meses de
vida é obrigatório para que a prole sobreviva (Pawlowski, 2000; Trivers, 1972). Por outro
lado, o investimento masculino na parceira e na prole, embora não seja obrigatório, ajuda a
aumentar o sucesso reprodutivo dos homens que o fazem (Gaulin & McBurney, 2004;
Gutierres, Kenrikc, & Partch, 1999). Como a maior parte do investimento fisiológico cabe à
fêmea, o homem investe mais em proteção, tempo e recurso, aumentando as chances dos
procurar por parceiras (Castro, Hattori, & Lopes, 2012; Gaulin & McBurney, 2004; Hattori,
Castro, & Lopes, 2013; Pawlowski, 2000; Trivers, 1972) enquanto as mulheres tendem a dar
parceiro (Castro & Lopes, 2011; Geary, Vigil, & Byrd-Craven, 2004; Pawlowski, 2000).
cada sexo, há outros fatores que trabalham conjuntamente às preferências. Um desses fatores
é o contexto no qual o indivíduo está inserido. Ao procurar por um parceiro romântico, cada
indivíduo observa seus competidores (pessoas do mesmo sexo que estão à procura de
parceiro) e se compara a eles, inferindo o quanto possui das características procuradas por um
parceiro romântico em relação a seus competidores, avaliando, assim, o seu valor de mercado
(Fisher, Cox, Bennett, & Gavric, 2008; Pawlowski, 2000), sendo tal avaliação denominada de
em um relacionamento mais estável, uma vez que pessoas de maior valor de mercado
possuem maiores chances de encontrar um parceiro de melhor valor (Buston & Emlen, 2003;
! 93!
!
Goodwin, Marshall, Fülöp, Adonu, & Spiewak, 2012; Lee, Loewenstein, Ariely, Hong, &
Young, 2008).
No entanto, outros fatores podem afetar a forma como o indivíduo se avalia e avalia os
demais ao seu redor. Dentre desses fatores está a autoestima. Autoestima é altamente
associada com a autopercepção, isto é, quanto maior a autoestima do indivíduo, maior é a sua
autopercepção como parceiro romântico (Bale & Archer, 2013; Brase & Guy, 2004; Mafra &
Com base nas características reprodutivamente relevantes para cada um dos sexos, a
autopercepção masculina seria influenciada pelo status social dos homens disponíveis no
contexto enquanto a autopercepção feminina seria influenciada pela atratividade física das
outras mulheres presentes (Buston & Emlen, 2003; Lee et al., 2008). Dependendo da
enquanto que as expostas a competidoras de baixa atratividade física tendem a aumentar sua
pesquisa foi desenvolvida com quatro grupos amostrais: homens de ensino médio e
! 94!
!
Segundo Little e Mannion (2006) autoestima parece influenciar também o grau de
influência do contexto sobre a autoavaliação. Nosso estudo, portanto, vem testar se, de fato,
contexto.
mulheres universitárias que se deparassem com mulheres de alta atratividade física e alta
habilidade social tivessem menor autopercepção e que aquelas que se depararam com
melhor. Para mulheres de EFM expostas a mulheres de alta atratividade física e alto status
social, esperava-se que a autopercepção fosse menor enquanto que para aquelas expostas a
mulheres de baixo status social e baixa atratividade física a autopercepção fosse maior. Já
status social e maior autopercepção ao se depararem com homens de baixo status social,
autoestima se avaliassem melhor que participantes que possuíam autoestima mais baixa.
Quanto ao NSE, como visto em Mafra e Lopes (2014), mulheres de EFM, ao contrário
de mulheres universitárias, dão maior importância para traço relacionado a status social na
autoavaliação como parceiro romântico, nós esperávamos encontrar NSE como sendo um
Método
! 95!
!
Todos os procedimentos acataram os aspectos éticos e foram aprovados pelo Comitê
Um total de 1.093 participantes fizeram parte do estudo, sendo destes 510 estudantes
universitários (237 homens – M = 21,01 anos; DP = 3,22 – e 273 mulheres – M = 20,75 anos;
DP = 2,97) e 583 estudantes de EFM (328 mulheres – M = 22,32 anos; DP = 5,18 anos – e
Caracterização da amostra
analisadas. As análises indicaram que, para cor de pele, 37,2% da amostra declarou-se branca,
47% parda, 6,9% como possuindo cor de pele preta, 6% como amarela (asiáticos), 2,7% como
! 96!
!
Instrumentos
controle ou experimental.
Questionário controle
autopercepção dos participantes sem que o contexto fosse manipulado. Faziam parte do
(Rosenberg, 1989) foi traduzida e validada para o português (Dini et al., 2004) e obteve alfa
de Cronbach de 0.9 para amostra da mesma faixa etária (Hutz & Zanon, 2011). Ela consiste
concordo, discordo e discordo plenamente) que melhor se adequava a ele. Para este estudo, os
atributo status social. Cada participante foi instruído a pontuar em uma escala Likert de 10
pontos, quanto de cada característica ele julgava ter como parceiro romântico, indo de
! 97!
!
Análise da desejabilidade. Também foi pedido aos participantes que marcassem em
sua desejabilidade geral como parceiro romântico, variando de nada desejável (no polo
sobre o sexo, idade, orientação sexual, cor de pele e questões de caráter socioeconômico
As questões de caráter socioeconômico continham as opções zero, um, dois, três e quatro ou
mais correspondentes ao número específico de itens encontrados nas casas dos participantes.
Os participantes foram classificados dentro de oito níveis: A1 (renda mensal familiar média
Questionário experimental
continha quatro perfis, cada um com uma foto (modelo). Cada perfil informava sobre cada um
dos três atributos trabalhados (atratividade física, habilidade social e status social) do modelo,
variando em alto e baixo nível. Obedecendo esta combinação (2 x 2 x 2), existiam oito tipos
diferentes de caderno, um tipo para cada condição experimental (Tabela 1). Essa fase foi
Tabela 1
Caracterização dos Modelos Apresentados no Caderno Experimental Aos Participantes, de
Acordo Com os Perfis
! 98!
!
Atratividade Habilidade
Condição Status social
física social
1 Alta Alta Alto
2 Alta Alta Baixo
3 Alta Baixa Alto
4 Alta Baixa Baixo
5 Baixa Alta Alto
6 Baixa Alta Baixo
7 Baixa Baixa Alto
8 Baixa Baixa Baixo
As fotos foram cedidas por brasileiros de outras cidades que não conhecessem alguém
imagem. Todas as fotografias foram tiradas pela própria pesquisadora, de forma a padronizá-
las, e após terem o plano de fundo padronizado (de forma a evitar passar pistas sobre o
contexto no qual o modelo estava), passaram por um júri que pontuou a atratividade física das
fotos, sendo selecionados apenas os quatro modelos mais atraentes e os menos atraentes
Cada participante recebeu um caderno experimental com modelos do mesmo sexo (para
ordem indicada para que a autoestima não corresse o risco de sofrer influência do contexto.
Aqueles participantes que não responderam o questionário na ordem correta foram retirados
da amostra.
Avaliação dos modelos. Foi pedido aos participantes que eles marcassem a
com ele. A desejabilidade de cada modelo foi medida através de uma escala de diferencial
! 99!
!
semântico em forma de uma reta de 10 centímetros, na qual o participante foi instruído a
marcar tal qual deveriam proceder para a avaliação da sua desejabilidade: de nada desejável
Procedimento
que os objetivos da pesquisa não foram detalhados de forma a evitar o enviesamento das
Análises
foi realizada para verificar se o contexto no qual o participante está inserido, a autoestima, o
Resultados
100!
!
!
Embora o GLM de medidas independentes realizado para comparar a autoavaliação
em relação ao conjunto grupos, condições, autoestima e NSE tenha negado a nossa hipótese
EFM e universitários (obtida através do resultado para grupos vs. NSE (F (160, 3954) =
1,161, p = .085, Wilk's Λ = 0,676, partial η2 = ,038, power > ,999), diferenças significativas
entre grupos (F (30, 1357) = 1,782, p = .006, Wilk's Λ = 0,893, partial η2 = ,037, power =
,996), autoestima (F (20, 924) = 4,192, p < .001, Wilk's Λ = 0,841, partial η2 = ,083, power >
,999) e NSE (F (70, 2701) = 2,019, p < ,001, Wilk's Λ = 0,743, partial η2 = ,042, power >
trabalhador (F (3, 805) = 4,374, p = ,005, partial η2 = ,027; power = ,871). Mulheres do EFM
de diferentes níveis de autoestima para rosto bonito (F (2, 806) = 16,735, p < ,001, partial
η2 = ,066; power = 1), corpo bonito (F (2, 806) = 12,033, p < .001, partial η2 = ,049; power =
,995), saúde (F (2, 806) = 9.149, p < .001, partial η2 = .037; power = .976), sociável (F (2,
806) = 5,683, p = ,004, partial η2 = .024; power = ,862), inteligente (F (2, 806) = 5,730, p =
,003, partial η2 = ,024; power = ,865), bom humor (F (2, 806) = 3.532, p = ,030, partial η2 =
,015; power = ,657), fiel (F (2, 806) = 5,470, p = ,004, partial η2 = ,023; power = ,848), e
desejabilidade geral (F (2, 806) = 14,702, p < .001, partial η2 = ,059; power = ,999).
todas as características, exceto fiel (que não apresentou diferença significativa entre os níveis
101!
!
!
participantes de autoestima normal atribuíram menos pontos em suas avaliações como
Já para a NSE, as características corpo bonito (F (7, 801) = 2,369, p = ,022, partial
η2 = ,034; power = ,858), boa condição financeira (F (7, 801) = 9,711, p < ,001, partial η2 =
,126; power > .999), e desejabilidade geral (F (7, 801) = 3,041, p = ,004, partial η2 = ,043;
Bonferroni, sendo possível observar que maiores níveis se consideraram com melhores
NSE), podendo ser atenuada a significância para das variáveis dependentes (autoavaliação)
dentro de cada fator devido à disparidade dos pontos atribuídos para cada uma das
características. Logo, como os grupos, autoestima e NSE apresentaram diferença entre si,
como características dependentes e uma para cada uma dos fatores: 1) grupos, 2) autoestima,
102!
!
!
Tabela 2
Resumo dos Post-hoc Bonferroni do teste MANOVA para a Influência do Grupo, Autoestima
e o SES Sobre a Autopercepção como Parceiro Romântico
Fator Autopercepção Sub-fator (Z) Sub-fator (Y) M diferença p
(Z – Y)
Grupos
Determinado
Mulher EFM Mulher Univ. 0.50 0.022
Mulher EFM Homem Univ. 0.79 < 0.001
Homem EFM Homem Univ. 0.73 < 0.001
Fiel
Mulher EFM Mulher Univ. -0.55 0.028
Mulher EFM Homem EFM 0.87 < 0.001
Homem EFM Homem Univ. -0.79 0.001
Homem EFM Mulher Univ. -1.42 < 0.001
Mulher Univ. Homem Univ. 0.63 0.006
Autoestima
Rosto bonito
Baixo Normal -2.13 < 0.001
Baixo Alto -2.52 < 0.001
Normal Alto -0.39 0.026
Corpo bonito
Baixo Normal -1.92 < 0.001
Baixo Alto -2.29 < 0.001
Saúde
Baixo Normal -0.84 0.012
Baixo Alto -1.65 < 0.001
Normal Alto -0.81 < 0.001
Sociável
Baixo Alto -1.50 < 0.001
Normal Alto -0.80 < 0.001
Inteligente
Baixo Normal -1.25 < 0.001
Baixo Alto -1.91 < 0.001
Normal Alto -0.66 < 0.001
Bom humor
Baixo Alto -0.89 0.028
Normal Alto -0.41 0.034
Desejabilidade
Baixo Normal -22.30 < 0.001
Baixo Alto -27.88 < 0.001
Normal Alto -5.57 0.001
NSE
Cond. financeira
A2 B1 0.84 0.024
A2 B2 1.29 < 0.001
A2 C1 2.00 < 0.001
A2 C2 2.48 < 0.001
B1 C1 1.16 < 0.001
B1 C2 1.64 < 0.001
B2 C1 0.71 0.001
B2 C2 1.19 < 0.001
Notes: NSE: Nível socioeconômico; Univ.: Universidade; Determinado: Determinado e trabalhador; Cond.
finaceira: Boa condição financeira; Desejabilidade: Desejabilidade geral.
geral de acordo com a condição (F (8, 304) = 2,003; p = ,046). No entanto, post-hoc
Bonferroni não apontou diferença nenhuma das condições. Para mulheres universitárias, foi
visto que elas modificam a autoavaliação das características saúde (F (8, 263) = 2.316; p =
,020) e inteligência (F (8, 263) = 1,987; p = ,048). Post-hoc Bonferroni indicou que mulheres
universitárias expostas à condição 2 (alta atratividade física, alta habilidade social e baixo
status social) se avaliaram como menos saudáveis (Mdiferença = -1,533, p = ,002) que as
expostas à condição 8 (baixa atratividade física, baixa habilidade social e baixo status social)
e que as expostas à condição 4 (alta atratividade física, baixa habilidade social e baixo status
social) se avaliaram como menos inteligentes (Mdiferença = -1,194, p = ,035) que aquelas
modelos de baixa atratividade física e baixa habilidade social se avaliariam melhor que
atratividade física, alta habilidade social e baixo status social) em relação ao grupo controle
Quando a amostra foi separada por autoestima, as ANOVA indicaram que apenas
Bonferroni indicou que participantes expostos à condição 1 (alta atratividade física, alto status
104!
!
!
(Mdiferença = 0,962, p = ,050) que participantes expostos à condição 7 (baixa atratividade física,
insuficiente para representar tais NSE, restando os níveis A2, B1, B2, C1 e C2. Os dois
últimos níveis não apresentaram diferença de autoavaliação para nenhuma condição, enquanto
que A2 apontou para uma diferença na característica boa condição financeira (F (8, 62) =
2,147; p = ,044), mas post-hoc Bonferroni não deu significativo para nenhuma das condições.
Uma diferença para a característica inteligente foi encontrada no NSE B1 (F (8, 135) = 2,973;
habilidade social e baixo status social) se acharam mais inteligentes que os participantes
expostos às condições 5 (baixa atratividade física, alta habilidade social e alto status social; M
= 1,870, p = ,030) e 7 (baixa atratividade física, baixa habilidade social e alto status social; M
= 2,265, p = ,004). Para o NSE B2, foi-se encontrada mudança da característica boa condição
financeira de acordo com a condição (F (8, 223) = 2,086; p = ,038), tendo os participantes que
não foram expostos a modelos (controle) se considerado com piores condições financeiras (M
= -1,646, p = ,021) que aqueles expostos à condição 2 (alta atratividade física, alta habilidade
Tabela 3
Resumo das condições e dos Post-hoc Bonferroni dos testes ANOVA para a Influência do
Contexto Sobre a Autopercepção de Acordo com o Grupo, a Autoestima e o SES
Condição
ANOVA Fator Atributo/AP 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Atrativ. física N A A A A B B B B
Habilid. social N A A B B A H B B
Social status N A B A B A B A B
Grupo
Mulher
105!
!
!
Univ.
Saúde . . (–) . . . . . (+)
Inteligente . . . . (–) . . . (+)
Homem
EFM
Determinado . (+) . . . . . (–) .
Homem
Univ.
Cond. financ. (–) . (+) . . . . . .
AE
Normal
Determinado . (+) . . . . . (–) .
NSE
B1
Inteligente . . . . . (–) . . (+)
Inteligente . . . . . . . (–) (+)
B2
Cond. financ. (–) . (+) . . . . . .
AE: Autoestima; NSE: Nível socioeconômico; AP: Autopercepção; 0: Grupo controle; Cond. financ.: Boa
condição financeira; Determinado: Determinado e trabalhador; Atrativ. física: Atratividade física; Habilid.
Social: Habilidade social; N: Neutro, sem descrição; A: Alto nível do atributo no perfil; B: Baixo nível do
atributo no perfil; (+): Maior expressão do traço/desejabilidade na autopercepção; (–): Menor expressão do
traço/desejabilidade na autopercepção.
Discussão
na escolha de parceiro romântico, métodos que tentam a simulação desta situação são
utilizados. Embora não sejam precisos, estes métodos podem nos dar um indício do
diferentes contextos.
socioeconômicas é grande e o acesso a diferentes classes varia com o local, quando se trata da
realidade escolar não é diferente. Assim, tivemos acesso a um grupo de maior NSE dentro de
universidade e a um grupo de menor NSE dentro de escolas públicas de EFM, todos dentro da
mesma faixa etária. Como previsto, pessoas de maior NSE se avaliaram melhor para boa
autoavaliação como parceiro romântico de acordo com o contexto real dos participantes.
106!
!
!
Através do resultado obtido quando analisada a influência do contexto entre NSE, no
atratividade física para influência do contexto juntamente com a do NSE. Como indivíduos
fisicamente mais atraentes são considerados mais dominantes e inteligentes (Feingold, 1992),
estes indivíduos também teriam maior facilidade em atingir maior status social. Logo,
participantes expostos a modelos de alto status social, mas baixa atratividade física pode tê-
social, uma vez que eles teriam que se esforçar mais que pessoas de maior atratividade física
o NSE B2, no qual a atratividade física era baixa (diferentemente do que foi observado em
B1), atratividade física parece não exercer menor influência sobre autopercepção quando
considerando-se NSE.
exclusão social (Leary & Baumeister, 2000, citado em Penke & Denissen, 2008), se
indivíduos não possuem a mesma percepção de aceitação social, pode haver divergências ao
melhor para rosto bonito, corpo bonito, saudável, sociável, inteligente, bom humor e
desejabilidade geral que indivíduos de autoestima menor. Ainda, mostramos que pessoas de
autoestima normal sofreram influência do contexto, enquanto que pessoas de baixa e de alta
107!
!
!
Já ao considerar sexo e nível educacional, dividindo os participantes nos grupos
acordo com o contexto, observamos que mulheres universitárias tanto para mudança de
autopercepção para o traço saúde como para o traço inteligente, a diferença existente entre as
modelos apresentavam alta atratividade física e habilidade social, confirmando nossa hipótese
para mulheres universitárias. Além disso, os resultados indicam que além da atratividade
física das participantes, também influenciam no quão inteligente elas julgam ser, ressaltando a
influência de um traço sobre o outro, não sendo os indivíduos analisados apenas por traços
isoladamente, mas pela interação desses traços. Corroborando nossos achados, Fink, Neave,
mulheres com maior simetria facial mais fisicamente atraentes, mais saudáveis e mais
inteligentes.
Lopes (2013) sobre desconto de futuro em relação a escolhas de carreira em alunos de EFM
escolas privadas mencionaram mais ingressar em uma universidade (investindo mais tempo
recursos) que alunos de escolas públicas, os quais mencionaram mais trabalho e cursos
108!
!
!
profissionalizantes (de menor duração que cursos de graduação) como objetivo para quando
terminarem o ensino médio. Estes dados apresentados por Leitão e colaboradores (2013),
financeira. Levando em consideração que homens expostos a competidores com baixos níveis
de status social tendem a aumentar sua autopercepção (Buston & Emlen, 2003), nossas
predições foram confirmadas, indicando que provavelmente status social é, de fato, o atributo
romântico, o baixo número de participantes com baixa autoestima e de NSE A1, D e E limitou
nossas análises para essas variáveis. Além disso, os cadernos utilizados como forma de
simulação do contexto pode não ter fornecido o estímulo necessário para a modulação de uma
diferença na autopercepção como parceiro romântico uma vez que o participante pode não ter
se sentido como integrante daquele ambiente. Para isso, o desenvolvimento de novos métodos
parceiro romântico.
Conclusão
parceiro romântico e pode ser utilizado também como uma forma mais segura para a
109!
!
!
averiguação desse impacto. Nossos achados mostram também que, embora homens e
autoavaliação como parceiro romântico são altamente interligados, fazendo com que uma
simplificada. Além disso, o contexto pode mediar a autoavaliação como parceiro romântico
de forma na qual homens e mulheres que se encontram em ambiente com maior escassez de
família.
Agradecimentos
questionário, tendo em vista que a pesquisa foi voluntária e sem retorno financeiro e/ou
material; aos professores universitários e do EFM assim como aos diretores escolares por
disponibilizarem suas turmas para a coleta de dados; e, principalmente, a Felipe N. Castro por
ceder seu questionário, a partir do qual nós baseamos grande parte do nosso questionário.
Referências
Bale, C., & Archer, J. (2013). Self-perceived attractiveness, romantic desirability and self-
Brase, G. L., & Guy, E. C. (2004). The demographics of mate value and self-esteem.
110!
!
!
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective
Buss, D. M. & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes,
content/uploads/EP06134146.pdf
Buston, P., & Emlen, S. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The
students: From the short term to the long term. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 1-7.
Castro, F. N., Hattori, W.T., & Lopes, F. A. (2012). Relationship maintenance or preference
satisfaction? Male and female strategies in romantic partner choice. Journal of Social,
Dini, G., Quaresma, M. & Ferreira, L. (2004). Adaptação cultural e validação da versão
Fink, B., Neave, N., Manning, J. T., & Grammer, K. (2006). Facial symmetry and judgements
of attractiveness, health and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 491–
499. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.017
Fisher, M., Cox, A., Bennett, S., & Gavric, D. (2008). Components of self-perceived mate
value. Special Issue: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern
111!
!
!
Evolutionary Psychology Society.Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural
Gaulin, S. J., & McBurney, D. H. (2004). Chapter 12: The psychology of human mating. In S.
Geary, D., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of
Goodwin, R., Marshall, T., Fülöp, M., Adonu, J., & Spiewak, S. (2012) Mate value and self-
esteem: Evidence from eight cultural groups. PLoS ONE 7(4): e36106.
Gutierres, S., Kenrick, D., & Partch, J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game:
Hattori, W. T., Castro, F. N., & Lopes, F. A. (2013). Mate Choice in adolescence: Idealizing
http://revistaseletronicas.pucrs.br/ojs/index.php/revistapsico/article/viewFile/11466/9641
Hutz, C. S., & Zanon, C. (2011). Revisão da adaptação, validação e normatização da escala de
04712011000100005&lng=pt&tlng=pt.
Uma análise das condições de vida da população Brasileira, Estudos & pesquisas:
the Living Conditions of the Brazilian Population. Studies & Surveys: Demographic and
112!
!
!
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G. & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the
Kruger, D., Fitzgerald, C., & Peterson, T. (2010). Female scarcity reduces women’s marital
ages and increases variance in men’s marital ages. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 420-
431.
Lee, L., Loewenstein, G., Ariely, D., Hong, J., & Young, J. (2008). If I’m not hot, are you hot
Leitão, M., Guedes, A., Yamamoto, M. E., Lopes, F. A. (2013). Do people adjust career
changes self-rated and face preferences in women. Animal behavior, 72, 981-987.
doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.01.026
Mafra, A. L. & Lopes, F. L. (2014). “Am I good enough for you?” Features related to self-
Nettle, D. (2010). Dying young and living fast: variation in life history across English
Pawlowski, B. (2000). The biological meaning of preferences on the human mate market.
Penke, L., & Denissen, J. (2008). Sex differences and lifestyle-dependent shifts in the
113!
!
!
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Revised edition. Middletown,
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Org.), Sexual
114!
!
!
Artigo 5: Does mate preference represent mate choice?
Artigo a ser submetido à Evolutionary Psychological Science (ISSN 2198-9885, sem Qualis)
Title:
undergraduate, elementary and high school students’ real and ideal partners
Running title:
115!
!
!
Resumo
Embora o mercado de parceiros românticos tenha recebido atenção considerável nos últimos
anos, ainda existem algumas lacunas e achados incompatíveis. Uma delas é como se dá a
românticos, no qual a provável estratégia usada é um balanço entre a preferência por parceiro
educacional.
Abstract
Although mate market has received substantial attention over the past years, there still are
some gaps and mismatched findings remained. One of them is how is the interaction between
mate choice and mate preference. Trying to investigate differences and similarities of mate
preference and mate choice between men and women of different socioeconomic status, we
country. Our findings give evidence of cultural difference and a more complex interaction of
mate choice and preference, in which the probable strategy used is a balance between the
mate preference for ideal long-term partner and what is available in the mate market.
116!
!
!
Introduction
that have remained until today are those that ensured individuals who had such traits had
greater reproductive success. That is, these characteristics allowed those individuals to have
more offspring who then procreate (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2006). Therefore, these
characteristics and behaviors were at one point during human evolution selected, in that they
brought benefits to individuals who had them, so long as they were beneficial according to the
habitat in which they lived. One such behavior that carries obvious benefits is how we choose
our romantic partners, based on one’s own characteristics, and those of the partner.
Several researchers have tried to unveil the study of mate choice in different cultures
and age groups around the world, over many years (e.g. Buss, 1989; Kenrick & Keefe, 1992;
Lippa, 2007). Buss (1989) researched mate preference of characteristics and age in 37
cultures and found similar preferences, although with some slight differences between
Although all of these studies provided relevant information and contributed to the
knowledge of these behaviors’ evolution, most of them focused on mate preference, not on
mate choice. That is, they examined whom someone wants as a partner, rather than whom
someone actually selects as a partner, resulting in criticism by some researchers who say that
studies based on ideal partners may not be consistent with the partner that was actually chosen
When we search for a romantic partner, we are more exigent than when we set up
another kind of relationship, because this bond, in general, needs more investment and
compromise (Castro & Lopes, 2011; Gaulin & McBurney, 2004), besides the fact that all
characteristics looked for in other partners must be concentrated in just one person (Gaulin &
McBurney, 2004).
117!
!
!
Men, in general, give great importance to characteristics that indicate physical
appearance because in addition to provide true clues of good genetic quality and good
physiology (such as ideal hormone levels), they bring additional information about female age
which is a limiting factor to their market value due to the short female reproductive phase
when compared to the male reproductive phase (Castro & Lopes, 2011; Karremans,
Frankenhuis, & Arons, 2010). Karremans and colleagues (2010) found that blind men also
prefer low waist-to-hip ratio because it indicates women’s health and fertility due to the kind
of different kinds of fat accumulated on waist and hips, suggesting good levels of estrogen in
compared to the importance given by men, females also show this preference for having some
traits related to dominance, social status, health, competitive skills and others relevant
variables to the parental investment (Buss & Shackelford, 2008). Such traits have elevated
importance due to the high female investment in the offspring, remaining to the man the
investment in resources since woman generates and nurtures the children and is usually
responsible for their primary care. Thus, characteristics indicating resources or that give some
information about the ability of acquiring it, have great importance to the romantic partner
choice by women (Castro & Lopes, 2011; Geary, Vigil, & Byrd-Craven, 2004; Gutierres,
Kenrick, & Partch, 1999), mainly in a long-term relationship due to the greater possibility of
generating offspring. In a study with Brazilian undergraduate students, Castro and Lopes
(2011) found that women prefer physical and physiological condition and personal traits for
short-term relationships and social status and characteristics that indicated quality and
physical attractiveness and social status, characteristics related to personality are very
118!
!
!
important for indicating good quality of relationship. Some of them are also associated with
social status to be able to indicate social ascension (Fletcher, Tither, O'Loughlin, Friesen, &
Overall, 2004). In this way, mate value is the value of an individual as a romantic partner
The patterns for preferences have already been well worked out and are now
considered universal. However, many researches conducted the study of romantic mate choice
using undergraduate students as subjects (i.e.: Castro, Hattori, & Lopes, 2012; Goodwin,
Marshall, Fülöp, Adonu, & Spiewak, 2012). It is potentially problematic to extend the results
to the scope of the global population because, albeit the researches have been conducted in
various part of the world, the level of education is generally the same. Developing countries,
for example, have populations match by social inequality, which may move more away their
consider a huge varied level of education existent between people in the same age group.
Public schools in Brazil are second worst in the global ranking of education according to the
Economist (Prates, 2012). Usually, people with low financial condition study in public
schools and most of them drop out their studies to engage in the work market in order to
guarantee their survival. On the other hand, people who have greater purchasing power can
invest much time in their education and, thus, enter earlier in the university than people who
have lower financial condition (Mafra & Lopes, 2014). Therefore, Brazil is a country where
lower margin of error since these groups leave on the same culture and compare it with a
developed country would allow a broader analysis of choice and preferences of romantic
partners. On the other hand, it is not necessary to pay for a elementary or high school
education in Canada, increasing the possibility of poorer people to get access to education and
119!
!
!
get better jobs. This economic difference can notice by observation of Gini index (which
ranges from 0, complete social equality, to 100, complete social inequality), in which Brazil
scores 51.9 while Canada scores 32.1 (Central Intelligent Agency - CIA, 2012).
In order to verify if ideal partners represent real partners and if the preferences and
undergraduate Canadian students and with undergraduate and Elementary and High School
that ideal long-term partners and real partners of women and men were similar to
characteristics related to physical attractiveness, with short-term partners having more points
attributed, and that ideal long-term partners and real partners of women were similar to
characteristics related to social status, with short-term partners having fewer points attributed.
social status for women and men EHS students, in which they would attribute greater amount
of points to their ideal partners than undergraduate students from Brazil and Canada, due to
their necessity to improve the family income in order to better guarantee family sustenance
Methods
Ethical aspects
This research was submitted to ethical committees of the two countries it was
Participants
120!
!
!
A total of 387 participants took part on the study, distributed into six groups. Within
the participants there were 157 undergraduate student women from Canada (M = 20.81 years;
EHS student women from Brazil (M = 23.25 years; SD = 5.65), 55 EHS student men from
22.21 years; SD = 3.52), and 31 undergraduate student men from Brazil (M = 23.38 years; SD
Sample characterization
The SES of each individual participant was classified according to the Brazilian
Pesquisa, 2012). Most Brazilian undergraduate women and EHS men and women were
513.67/month) and for majority of Brazilian undergraduate men were considered B2 level
About the participation in the family income, it was only observed group differences:
most Brazilian EHS students of both sexes affirmed to help in the household bills and most
part of the Canadians undergraduate students of both sexes are only responsible for their
sustenance, while most part of Brazilian undergraduate students of both sexes only study.
Brazilian sample was collected at schools and universities, where the research went to
classrooms, under teacher/professor’s authorization, and collected the data. All Brazilian
participants signed the consent form (guaranteeing integrity and preservation of the
but in English, was applied to our Canadian sample, and it was available at Qualtrics (website
121!
!
!
used to make the questionnaire available) and undergraduate students received the invitation
to take part of the research. Participants had to agree with the consent form so they could
proceed to the next page that was the beginning of the questionnaire.
The self-esteem scale used was of Rosenberg (1989), which has been also validated to
Portuguese (Dini et al., 2004) and it has been hugely used in researches involving self-esteem
around the world. This scale evaluates, according to ten affirmations about sentiments and
thoughts that the person attributes to him/herself, individual general self-esteem. For each
phrase, the participants were asked to choose one between the options strongly agree, agree,
disagree and strongly disagree the one that describe him/herself better.
The participants evaluated their partner according to a ten points Likert scale to each
one of the nine studied characteristics: 1) Pretty/handsome face, 2) Beautiful body, and 3)
Following the introductory phrase: How you evaluate your romantic partner
according to the characteristics below?, the participants were instructed to evaluate them for
each feature. The more dots they allocated, the more they considered their partners had such a
trait (where 0 indicates the lowest and 9 the biggest score). They were also required to mark
122!
!
!
in a 10 centimeters long line how desirable they think their partners were to participants’
possible competitors, ranging from not desirable (0) to extremely desirable (10).
This questionnaire stage started with the following introductory phrases: Imagine the
perfect partner for you, who you will meet once (or more than once), without an expectation
of a serious relationship, but with the possibility of having sexual intercourse. What is this
person like? for a short-term relationship partner, and Imagine the perfect partner for you,
who you will meet once (or more than once), with the possibility of dating or marriage, and
with the possibility of having sexual intercourse. What is this person like? for long-term
relationship partner. The points’ attribution for the ideal partners followed the same logic of
the points’ attribution for real partners: the more points allocated, the more of the
characteristics they think the ideal partners should have. In this stage, it also had a 10
centimeters long line to indicate the desirability of their ideal partners, from not desirable (0)
Personal questions
order to know sex, age, level of education, socioeconomic level, participants’ relationship
status (and duration of the romantic relationship), necessity to work, and sexual orientation.
We used a same measure for economic level in both countries in order to standardize
the six groups SES and considering the Brazil is the country has greater social inequality in
our sample, we opted for using Brazilian socioeconomic identification (according to ABEP -
Companies], 2012). It is based on questions about the level of education of the head of the
household and the quantity of automobiles, stereos, DVD’s, color televisions, bathrooms,
123!
!
!
maids, washing machines, fridges, and freezers in the house which the participants were
requested to choose one option among null, one, two, three, and four or more.
To verify the necessity to work, we asked the participants if they just study, study and
are responsible for their livelihood, study and are responsible for their family’s livelihood or
evaluation line, on which the participant was asked to mark the proportion of romantically
available men and women on a scale of more women than men (0) to more men than women
(10).
Statistical analysis
In order to verify if ideal partners represent real partner choice and if there is
difference between our samples, we conducted two repeated measures (one for each sex)
general linear model (GLM) per characteristic and Overall desirability, in a total of twenty
repeated measures GLM. For that, we divided the sample by sex and used group (EHS,
Brazilian undergraduate, and Canadian undergraduate) and partner (ideal short-term partner,
ideal long-term partner, and real partner) as independent variables and the nine studied
Results
The results pointed difference between the types of partners to all of the studied
characteristics: Handsome face (F (2, 257) = 9.246, p < .001, Wilk's Λ = 0.933, partial η2 =
.067, power = .976), Beautiful body (F (2, 257) = 11.502, p < .001, Wilk's Λ = 0.918, partial
η2 = .082, power = .993), Healthy (F (2, 257) = 15.505, p < .001, Wilk's Λ = 0.892, partial η2
124!
!
!
= .109, power = .999), Good financial condition (F (2, 257) = 35.478, p < .001, Wilk's Λ =
0.783, partial η2 = .0217, power = 1), Sociable (F (2, 257) = 3.675, p = .027, Wilk's Λ =
0.972, partial η2 = .028, power = .673), Intelligent (F (2, 257) = 5.698, p = .004, Wilk's Λ =
0.958, partial η2 = .042, power = .861), Ambitious and Hardworking (F (2, 256) = 10.835, p
< .001, Wilk's Λ = 0.922, partial η2 = .078, power = .990), Agreeable (F (2, 257) = 6.580, p =
.002, Wilk's Λ = 0.893, partial η2 = .049, power = .908), Faithful (F (2, 256) = 28.072, p <
.001, Wilk's Λ = 0.820, partial η2 = .180, power = 1), and Overall desirability (F (2, 244) =
Women considered their real partner as less handsome, fit and healthy than their ideal
partners, being the short-term partner the one with more points attributed to (Table 1). In all
the other characteristics, women attributed more points to their ideal long-term partners than
to their real partners and/or ideal short-term partners (Table 1), with short-term partners
having fewer points attributed, for Intelligence and Ambitiousness and hardworking (fewer
points attributed to short-term partners), but went against our prediction for the characteristic
The difference among the types of partners and women groups was found for
Handsome face (F (4, 514) = 2.812, p = .025, Wilk's Λ = 0.958, partial η2 = .021, power =
.768), Ambitious and hardworking (F (4, 512) = 2.671, p = .032, Wilk's Λ = 0.960, partial η2
= .020, power = .744), Faithful (F (4, 512) = 5.798, p < .001, Wilk's Λ = 0.915, partial η2 =
.043, power = .982), and marginally significant for Healthy (F (4, 514) = 2.363, p = .052,
Wilk's Λ = 0.964, partial η2 = .018, power = .683). Between subjects effects results pointed
significant difference only for Ambitious and hardworking (F (4, 254) = 2.456, p = .032,
partial η2 = .019, power = .744) and Faithful (F (4, 254) = 7.835, p < .001, partial η2 = .057,
power = .998), not being significant for Handsome face (F (4, 255) = 1.969, p = .098, partial
125!
!
!
η2 = .015, power = .593) and Healthy (F (4, 256) = 1.624, p = .167, partial η2 = .012, power =
.501).
Table 1
Result of Post-hoc Bonferroni for Women’s Types of Partners and Groups
Bonferroni Characteristic Variable (I) Variable (J) M difference (I –J) p
Partners
Handsome face
IST Real 0.47 .011
IST ILT 0.47 < .001
ILT Real 0.001 1.000
Beautiful body
IST Real 0.83 < .001
IST ILT 0.41 .003
ILT Real 0.42 .055
Health
IST Real 0.84 < .001
IST ILT 0.01 1.000
ILT Real 0.83 < .001
Financial Cond.
IST Real 0.89 < .001
IST ILT - 0.58 < .001
ILT Real 1.47 < .001
Sociability
IST Real 0.38 .123
IST ILT - 0.08 1.000
ILT Real 0.47 .021
Intelligence
IST Real - 0.18 .807
IST ILT - 0.45 .004
ILT Real 0.27 .146
Ambitiousness
IST Real - 0.50 .029
IST ILT - 0.73 < .001
ILT Real 0.23 .423
Agreeableness
IST Real 0.36 .138
IST ILT - 0.19 .483
ILT Real 0.55 .001
Faithfulness
IST Real - 0.70 .013
IST ILT - 1.44 < .001
ILT Real 0.74 < .001
Desirability
IST Real 4.01 .076
IST ILT - 0.57 1.000
ILT Real 4.57 .014
Groups
Health
Canada EHS - 1.26 < .001
Canada Brazil - 0.90 .003
EHS Brazil 0.36 .775
Ambitiousness
Canada EHS - 1.43 < .001
Canada Brazil - 1.05 .001
EHS Brazil 0.38 .744
Faithfulness
Canada EHS - 0.20 1.000
126!
!
!
Canada Brazil - 0.79 .030
EHS Brazil - 0.59 .286
Note: Only the characteristics significantly different between groups and between types of partners are
represented in this table. Ambitiousness: Ambitiousness and Hardworking, Financial Cond.: Good Financial
Condition, Desirability: Overall Desirability, Canada: Canada undergraduate students, EHS: Elementary and
High School students, Brazil: Brazil undergraduate students, IST: Ideal short-term, LST: Ideal long-term.
Between the groups, the results indicated that Canadian women attributed fewer points
for Health, Ambitiousness and hardworking, and Faithfulness to their partners than EHS and
undergraduate Brazilian women (Table 2). This result went against our predictions that EHS
women would attribute greater amount of points to characteristics related to social status for
No significant difference was found between types of partners and women groups for
Beautiful body (F (4, 514) = 1.809, p = .126, Wilk's Λ = 0.972, partial η2 = .014, power =
.551), Good financial condition (F (4, 512) = 1.974, p = .097, Wilk's Λ = 0.970, partial η2 =
.015, power = .594), Sociable (F (4, 514) = 0.488, p = .744, Wilk's Λ = 0.992, partial η2 =
.004, power = .167), Intelligent (F (4, 514) = 2.171, p = .071, Wilk's Λ = 0.967, partial η2 =
.017, power = .641), Agreeable (F (4, 514) = 1.252, p = .288, Wilk's Λ = 0.981, partial η2 =
.010, power = .393), and Overall desirability (F (4, 488) = 2.197, p = .068, Wilk's Λ = 0.965,
Table 2
M
Characteristic Partner EHS Brazil Canada
Health
Real 7.43 7.16 6.22
Ideal short-term 8.47 8.02 6.84
Ideal long-term 8.20 7.84 7.27
Ambitiousness
Real 8.31 8.12 7.02
Ideal short-term 8.28 7.43 6.25
Ideal long-term 8.39 8.31 7.43
Faithfulness
Real 6.58 8.09 7.76
Ideal short-term 7.31 7.43 5.86
Ideal long-term 8.20 8.59 8.14
127!
!
!
Note: Only the means of the characteristics significantly different between groups are represented in this table.
Ambitiousness: Ambitiousness and Hardworking, EHS: Elementary and High School students, Brazil: Brazil
undergraduate students, Canada: Canada undergraduate students.
The results pointed difference between the types of partners to all of the studied
characteristics: Beautiful body (F (2, 122) = 3.942, p = .022, Wilk's Λ = 0.939, partial η2 =
.061, power = .124), Healthy (F (2, 122) = 21.433, p < .001, Wilk's Λ = 0.770, partial η2 =
.230, power = 1), Good financial condition (F (2, 122) = 14.777, p < .001, Wilk's Λ = 0.805,
partial η2 = .195, power = .999), Sociable (F (2, 122) = 7.843, p = .001, Wilk's Λ = 0.886,
partial η2 = .114, power = .948), Intelligent (F (2, 122) = 11.722, p < .001, Wilk's Λ = 0.839,
partial η2 = .161, power = .993), Ambitious and hardworking (F (2, 122) = 9.519, p < .001,
Wilk's Λ = 0.865, partial η2 = .135, power = .978), Agreeable (F (2, 122) = 10.996, p < .001,
Wilk's Λ = 0.847, partial η2 = .153, power = .990), and Faithful (F (2, 122) = 21.768, p <
.001, Wilk's Λ = 0.737, partial η2 = .263, power = 1) except from Pretty face (F (2, 122) =
0.462, p = .631, Wilk's Λ = 0.992, partial η2 = .008, power = .124) and Overall desirability (F
(2, 116) = 0.375, p = .688, Wilk's Λ = 0.994, partial η2 = .006, power = .109).
Men attribute more points for Beautiful body to their ideal short-term partners when
compared to their real partners (Table 3), corroboration our predictions that men would give
greater points to characteristics related to physical attractiveness for ideal short-term partners
than for real and ideal long-term partners. For Health, Good financial condition, Sociability,
Intelligence, and Ambitiousness and hardworking, they attributed more points for their ideal
long-term partners. In addition, we found that men attributed fewer points for Agreeableness
to their real partners and fewer points for Faithfulness to their ideal short-term partners (Table
3).
The difference between the types of partners and group was found only for Healthy (F
(4, 244) = 3.911, p = .004, Wilk's Λ = 0.883, partial η2 = .060, power = .899), Good financial
128!
!
!
condition (F (4, 244) = 4.587, p = .001, Wilk's Λ = 0.865, partial η2 = .070, power = .943),
Intelligent (F (4, 244) = 3.764, p = .005, Wilk's Λ = 0.887, partial η2 = .886, power = .886),
Ambitious and hardworking (F (4, 244) = 3.555, p = .008, Wilk's Λ = 0.893, partial η2 = .055,
power = .865), Faithful (F (4, 244) = 3.737, p = .006, Wilk's Λ = 0.888, partial η2 = .058,
power = .883), and marginally significant for Agreeable (F (4, 244) = 2.365, p = .054, Wilk's
Λ = 0.927, partial η2 = .037, power = .679) (Table 3). Between-subjects effects results
pointed significant difference for Healthy (F (4, 120) = 3.659, p = .006, partial η2 = .056,
power = .876), Good financial condition (F (4, 120) = 4.096, p = .003, partial η2 = .062,
power = .913), Intelligent (F (4, 120) = 3.904, p = .004, partial η2 = .060, power = .898),
Ambitious and hardworking (F (4, 120) = 4.054, p = .003, partial η2 = .063, power = .910),
and Faithful (F (4, 120) = 26.985, p < .001, partial η2 = .180, power = 1), not being
significant for Agreeable (F (4, 120) = 1.691, p = .157, partial η2 = .027, power = .515)
(Table 3).
Table 3
129!
!
!
Ambitiousness
IST Real - 0.10 1.000
IST ILT - 0.89 .001
ILT Real 0.79 .002
Agreeableness
IST Real 0.90 < .001
IST ILT - 0.13 .959
ILT Real 1.03 < .001
Faithfulness
IST Real - 1.50 < .001
IST ILT - 1.91 < .001
ILT Real 0.41 .152
Groups
Health
Canada EHS - 1.52 < .001
Canada Brazil - 1.05 .006
EHS Brazil 0.47 .411
Financial Cond.
Canada EHS - 0.49 .489
Canada Brazil 0.02 1.000
EHS Brazil 0.50 .545
Intelligence
Canada EHS - 0.92 .011
Canada Brazil - 0.98 .021
EHS Brazil - 0.06 1.000
Ambitiousness
Canada EHS - 1.46 < .001
Canada Brazil - 1.33 .001
EHS Brazil 0.13 1.000
Faithfulness
Canada EHS - 1.30 < .001
Canada Brazil - 1.43 < .001
EHS Brazil - 0.13 1.000
Note: Only the characteristics significantly different between groups and between types of partners are
represented in this table. Ambitiousness: Ambitiousness and Hardworking, Financial Cond.: Good Financial
Condition, Canada: Canada undergraduate students, EHS: Elementary and High School students, Brazil: Brazil
undergraduate students, IST: Ideal short-term, LST: Ideal long-term.
Between groups, the results indicated that Canadian men attributed fewer points for
Health, Intelligence, Ambitiousness and hardworking, and Faithfulness to their partners than
EHS and undergraduate Brazilian men (Table 4), going against our predictions that EHS men
would attribute greater amount of points to characteristics related to social status for their
partners than undergraduate students from Brazil and Canada. Post-hoc of Bonferroni did not
show significant difference between groups for Good Financial Condition (Table 4).
No significant difference was found between types of partners and men groups for
Pretty face (F (4, 244) = 1.966, p = .100, Wilk's Λ = 0.939, partial η2 = .031, power = .587),
Beautiful body (F (4, 244) = 1.809, p = .434, Wilk's Λ = 0.969, partial η2 = .015, power =
130!
!
!
.300), Sociable (F (4, 244) = 1.565, p = .184, Wilk's Λ = 0.951, partial η2 = .025, power =
.480), and Overall desirability (F (4, 234) = 1.395, p = .236, Wilk's Λ = 0.954, partial η2 =
Table 4
Means of Partners’ Points per Men’s Groups
M
Characteristic Partner EHS Brazil Canada
Health
Real 7.94 6.77 5.87
Short-term ideal 8.25 8.03 6.57
Long-term ideal 8.27 8.25 7.45
Intelligence
Real 7.07 7.45 6.52
Short-term ideal 7.53 7.23 5.60
Long-term ideal 7.67 7.77 7.40
Ambitiousness
Real 6.94 7.45 6.10
Short-term ideal 7.96 6.93 5.30
Long-term ideal 7.87 8.00 7.00
Faithful
Real 7.98 8.42 7.32
Short-term ideal 7.42 7.23 4.57
Long-term ideal 8.40 8.55 8.00
Note: Only the means of the characteristics significantly different between groups are represented in this table.
Ambitiousness: Ambitiousness and Hardworking, EHS: Elementary and High School students, Brazil: Brazil
undergraduate students, Canada: Canada undergraduate students.
Discussion
The results suggested a complex interaction between the preferences for ideal short-
and long-term and real partners of men and women. For women, our expectation that women
would attribute similar amount of points to their partner long-term and real partners was
corroborated when women rated their ideal short-term partners with more points than their
ideal long-term and real partners. On the other hand, our results showed that men made a
distinction between their ideal long-term and real partners for characteristics related to social
status, giving more points to their ideal long-term partners what went against our predictions
that men would attribute similar amount of points to their real and long-term partners. Also,
we expected that EHS students would attribute more points for characteristics related to social
status to their partners, as result of their lower SES, but the difference found was between
131!
!
!
Brazilian and Canadian samples, in which Canadian undergraduate students of both sexes
attributed less points than Brazilian undergraduate and EHS students of also both sexes.
Although only the SES of Canadian undergraduate women student and Brazilian
undergraduate men students was above of the mean of the other groups (B2, approximately
US$ 855.00, against C1, approximately US$ 513.67), most part of undergraduate students
from Brazil only study and most part of the Canadians are the only responsible for their
sustenance, while most part of the EHS have to help in the household bills, highlighting the
necessity of EHS help in the family income. In addition, the SES questionnaire does not take
the number of people that live in the household, meaning that albeit they have about the same
SES that undergraduate students, they have more people depending on their income. In this
way, the results did not point for a difference of SES though it appears to be a cultural
difference instead. In the same direction, Lippa (2007) found, in a study across 53 nations,
that character traits (called social skills traits in the current study) depend more on cultural
difference than good-looking traits (called physical appearance here). However, he also
claimed that collectivist countries, such as Brazil, tend to give more importance to traits
related to likeable (also referring to social skills traits in this study) while individualist
(referred as social status here), what was not supported by our study due to the less points
attributed by Canadian undergraduate students also to Ambitious and Hardworking, for men
In addition, over the past years, studies have found divergent results when
investigating if mate preference drives mate choice. For example, while Todd, Penke, Fasolo,
and Lenton (2007) found women’s and men’s actual mate choices did not coincide with the
stated mate preference, Burriss, Welling, and Puts (2011) presented data supporting that
women’s preference for masculine faces is reflected in their mate choice. Moreover, on one
132!
!
!
hand, Buston and Emlen (2003) supported likes-attract hypothesis (mate choice based on self-
perception in a way of seeking for a partner with similar level in the same characteristic) with
their findings. On the other hand, Li and colleagues (2013) gave support to potential-attract
hypothesis (mate choice based on exchanges of characteristics that favor the partner’s
reproductive success) and also that mate choice is more correlated to preference for long-term
partners.
Following these patterns of divergence in the role of mate preference and mate choice,
our results are not easily explained according to only one slope. Women considered their real
partner as less handsome, fit and healthy than their ideal short-term partners, confirming our
prediction that women would give more points to characteristics related to physical
attractiveness to their ideal short-term partners. The same was found in men’s real partner for
Beautiful body. These findings highlight the importance of guaranteeing good looking and
good physiological conditions to the offspring that could be generated by the relationship. As
Thornhill and Gangestad (1999) claimed: toxins, pathogens, and mutations are related to
Still, for ideal short-term partners, due to the low investment in this kind of
relationship, men and women attributed them less points for Faithfulness when compared to
their ideal long-term and real partners, but women considered their real partners as less
Faithful than their ideal long-term partners. From an evolutionary perspective, men’s fidelity
would be a tug-of-war on which men would have more reproductive success having more
than one partner while women would try to guarantee the investment of resources in their
sample showed that most of the participants perceived OSR biased for women. Brazilian men
believed that there are more women available in the mating market (M = 3.42, each 131.56
women for 100 men), followed Brazilian women (M = 3.88, or 122.40 women each 100 men)
133!
!
!
and Canadian women (M = 3.90, or 122.06 women each 100 men) and Canadian men
believed that there are a similar number of men and women available in the mating market (M
= 4.97, or 100.50 women each 100 men). Kruger, Fitzgerald, and Peterson (2010) found that
marital female age tend to decrease and that increase the divergence in male marital ages
where OSR is biased for men so men secure and retain a partner when possible. Thus,
knowing male’s strategy and evaluating the OSR, women probably would expect their
Women also gave less points to Intelligence and Ambitiousness and hardworking for
ideal short-partner, corroborating our predictions that they would attribute similar amount of
points for real and ideal long-term partners to characteristics related to social status. Our
findings also corroborated Li and Kenrick (2006) work. They found that women tend to give
more importance to characteristics related to social status for long-term relationships and they
also are more reluctant to accept short-term partners than men. Although women value these
traits in men, they tend to give more importance to men’s physical appearance over social
status when they do not have certain of paternal investment in the offspring.
Finally, for women, Sociability, Agreeableness and Overall desirability also had
greater punctuations for ideal long-term partner, but for the last two traits the difference was
found only between ideal long-term and real partner. For men, beyond Sociability and
had more points attributed for ideal long-term partner while Agreeableness had men’s real
partners having less points attributed for than for ideal long- and short-term partners. These
outcomes show difference between ideal long-term and real partner, suggesting that
preference, even though for long-term partner, does not seem to drive real choice for all
studied characteristics. Perhaps, it is a reflection of a mixed strategy used by men and women
when choosing their romantic partners, in which they give preference for the characteristics
134!
!
!
that are going to increase their reproductive success (social status for women and physical
appearance for men) when choosing a mate and also have to balance their preferences with
what is available in the mate market and with their own value as a romantic partner.
Finally, this study raises the discussion if the preference as romantic partners can be
considered global since in this study cross-cultural differences seemed to be stronger than
educational level difference. Although both data collection through internet and in person
have been widely used in research of evolutionary psychology, both methods were used to
collect the data of the present research, what may have caused the differences between the
types of romantic partners in our Canadian and Brazilian samples. Other limitation of the
study is the absence of SES measure for the Canadian population. Further studies covering
Acknowledgements
We thank CNPq (no 409111/2013-9) and CAPES for supporting the development of
the research; we thank the participants who agreed to complete the questionnaire; we also
thank professors and teachers as well as the schools’ directors for making their classes
available for the data collection; and we thank especially Felipe N. Castro for providing us his
References
2010 – IBOPE.
Burriss, R. P., Welling, L. L. M., & Puts, D. A. (2011). Mate-preference drives mate-choice:
Men’s self-rated masculinity predicts their female partner’s preference for masculinity.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes,
Buston, P., & Emlen, S. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The
students: From the short term to the long term. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 1-7.
doi:10.1080/00224499.2010.506680
Castro, F. N., Hattori, W. T., & Lopes, F. A. (2012). Relationship maintenance or preference
satisfaction? Male and female strategies in romantic partner choice. Journal of Social,
Castro, F. N., Hattori, W. T., Yamamoto, M. E., & Lopes, F. A. (2014). Social Comparisons
on Self-Perception and Mate Preferences: The Self and the Others. Psychology, 5, 688-
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2012). The World Factbook. Retrived from:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/br.html
Dini, G., Quaresma, M. & Ferreira, L. (2004). Adaptação cultural e validação da versão
Fletcher, G. J., Tither, J. M., O'Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and
homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection.
136!
!
!
Gaulin, S. J., & McBurney, H. D. (2001). Chapter 10: The psychology of human Mating. In:
Geary, D., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of
Goodwin, R., Marshall, T., Fülöp, M., Adonu, J., & Spiewak, S. (2012) Mate value and self-
esteem: Evidence from eight cultural groups. PLoS ONE, 7(4): e36106.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036106
Gutierres, S., Kenrick, D., & Partch, J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game:
Hutz, C. S., & Zanon, C. (2011). Revisão da adaptação, validação e normatização da escala de
Karremans, J., Frankenhuis, W., & Arons, S. (2010). Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip
doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.10.001
Kenrick, D., & Keefe, R. (1992). Age preferences in mate reflect sex differences in human
doi:10.1017/S0140525X00067595
Kruger, D., Fitzgerald, C., & Peterson, T. (2010). Female scarcity reduces women’s marital
ages and increases variance in men’s marital ages. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 420-
431. PMid:22947810
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-
term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3),
468-489. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468
137!
!
!
Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Fletcher, G. J. O., Sng, O., Valentine, K. A., Jiang, Y. F., &
Balliet, D. (2013). Mate Preferences Do Predict Attraction and Choices in the Early Stages
of Mate Selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105 (5), 757–776 . doi:
10.1037/a0033777
and homosexual men and women: an examination of biological and cultural influences.
Mafra, A. L. & Lopes, F. L. (2014). “Am I good enough for you?” Features related to self-
Pillsworth, E. G. (2008). Mate Preferences among the Shuar of Ecuador: trait rankings and
doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.01.005
Prates, M. (2012). Brasil tem a 2 pior educação em ranking global da Economist [Brazil has
a
the second worst education in global ranking of Economist]. Exame.com. Retrieved from:
http://exame.abril.com.br/brasil/noticias/brasil-tem-2a-pior-educacao-em-ranking-global-
da-economist
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Revised edition. Middletown,
Shaver, P.R., & Mikulincer, M. (2006). A behavioral systems approach to romantic love
relationships: Attachment, caregiving, and sex In R.B. Sternberg and K. Weis (Eds.), The
new psychology of love. (pp. 35-58). United States of America, USA: Westchester Book
Services.
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
3(12), 452-460.
138!
!
!
Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, F., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes
underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy
139!
!
!
Discussão geral
(1972), o sexo que investe mais na prole é mais seletivo, enquanto que o sexo que investe
menos compete pelo acesso ao sexo investidor. Adicionalmente, a teoria das estratégias
sexuais de Buss e Schmmit (1993) afirma que homens e mulheres sofreram pressões seletivas
distintas que os levaram a escolher seus parceiros de forma a aumentar seu sucesso
indivíduos estão inseridos, como abordado pela teoria das estratégias pluralísticas (Gangestad
Kelley e Malouf (2013) encontraram que mulheres são mais seletivas para relacionamentos
tanto de curto como de longo prazo ao passo que homens são seletivos apenas em se tratando
Devido às pistas de boa condição fisiológica (e.g. níveis hormonais ideais e ausência
de patógenos) fornecidas pelas características físicas, homens que escolheram parceiras, tanto
para curto como para longo prazo, com alto nível de atratividade física provavelmente tiveram
maior sucesso reprodutivo (Buss, 1989). O mesmo seria aplicado para a escolha de parceiros
de curto prazo de mulheres, na qual o investimento na prole não é garantido, sendo, portanto,
mais vantajoso a escolha de características mais passíveis de serem herdadas (Buss, 1989). Li
e colaboradores (2013) viram que homens mantêm sua preferência para atratividade física
sucesso reprodutivo seria aumentado ao encontrar um parceiro que possa elevar as chances de
140!
!
!
sobrevivência da prole através do investimento em recursos. Castro e Lopes (2011)
ligadas a personalidade como mais importante. Fletcher e colaboradores (2004) deram suporte
homens e mulheres preferem parceiros que sejam mais amáveis, embora não sejam
pelo sexo oposto (Fisher et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2008), a autoavaliação como parceiro
indivíduo se avaliar como parceiro romântico, através da comparação das características que
possuí que são desejadas pelo sexo oposto em relação aos seus competidores (Fisher et al.,
2008; Gutierres et al., 1999). Castro e colaboradores (2012) encontraram que homens se
avaliaram suas parceiras como mais atraentes fisicamente que eles, mas nenhuma diferença
foi encontrada entre a autoavaliação das mulheres e a avaliação que elas fizeram de seus
141!
!
!
parceiros, indicando que elas usaram as mesmas características que elas possuem ao escolher
parceiros. Por outro lado, Buss e Shackelford (2008) publicaram um estudo no qual mulheres
que se consideravam atraentes preferem homens de padrões mais elevados para os indicadores
como parceiros.
sua autoavaliação como parceiras românticas previstas pela característica corpo bonito e
enquanto a autoavaliação de homens de EHS foi predita por sociável e rosto bonito.
parceiros românticos. Segundo Bale e Archer (2013), Brase e Guy (2004), Goodwin e
sendo o inverso também verdade. A teoria sociométrica (Leary & Baumeister, 2000 citado em
Bale & Archer, 2013; Penke & Denissen, 2008) diz que autoestima geral serve como um
como parceiro romântico também de forma a diminuir ou aumentar de acordo com o valor de
mercado de seus competidores. Bale e Archer (2013) encontraram que as atratividades geral e
facial são relacionadas mais fortemente à autoestima feminina que masculina e Goodwin e
aparência física era a principal qualidade quando procurando por parceiros românticos,
142!
!
!
Consequentemente, como foi mostrado na presente tese que homens preferem
mulheres com traços indicativos de status social como parceiras de longo prazo, mulheres de
mulheres que não possuem os recursos agora (como o caso de mulheres universitárias, de
maior SES), atraindo seus parceiros dando indícios da futura aquisição de recursos. Maioria
das mulheres de EHS também obteve baixa autoestima quando comparadas com mulheres
universitárias (artigo 1), indicando mais uma vez que SES influencia na forma de percepção
que essas mulheres tem delas mesmas, levando-as a serem menos exigentes que mulheres
universitárias em suas preferências por parceiros românticos (artigo 2). Os resultados obtidos
no artigo 3 também indicam que boa condição financeira está relacionada ao investimento em
beleza por parte das mulheres de EHS, mas não dos homens de EHS, os quais relacionaram o
afirmaram que mulheres modularam sua autoavaliação como parceiras românticas de acordo
homens mudaram sua autoavaliação como parceiros românticos consoante o status social de
a diminuir caso o competidor possua grande expressão do traço e a aumentar caso possua
143!
!
!
brasileiras diminuindo sua autoavaliação ao serem expostas a perfis de competidoras
perfis de competidoras de alto status social. Entretanto, os resultados apontaram para uma
interação dos atributos, modulando mais fortemente o contexto quando expostos a uma
determinada combinação de atributos. Outros autores dão suporte a esta interação entre
atributos. Por exemplo, Feingold (1992) sugeriu que indivíduos fisicamente mais atraentes
são considerados mais dominantes e inteligentes e Fink e colaboradores (2006) sugeriram que
mulheres universitárias consideraram mulheres com maior simetria facial mais fisicamente
De acordo com nosso artigo 4, indivíduos com maior autoestima e maior SES também
pessoas de alta autoestima não sofreram influência e pessoas diferentes SES pareceram sofrer
a influência do contexto quando havia mudança do status social dos competidores, sendo esta
mudança de acordo com o previsto: baixo status social dos competidores aumentando a
Embora vários estudos tenham feitos grandes contribuições sobre a investigação das
número de estudos focados na escolha real de parceiros românticos ainda fica a desejar.
parceiros românticos está relacionada as preferências de parceiros ideais de longo prazo. Por
outro lado, Buston e Enlem (2003) defendem que a escolha de parceiros românticos dá-se
144!
!
!
O artigo 5 foi direcionado para a investigação deste tópico, tendo como premissa os
similaridade entre parceiros ideais de longo prazo e parceiros reais, tanto em homens como
algumas características mostraram diferenças entre parceiros reais e de longo prazo para
ambos os sexos, no qual parceiros ideais de longo prazo obtiveram maiores pontuações. Este
alunos de EHS, que também possuem menor SES, parecem seguir uma história de vida rápida
prazo tanto para homens como para mulheres e um aumento no número de filhos), nenhuma
resultado do artigo 5 foi contrário à predição de que estudantes de EHS iriam dar mais
Assim, esta tese suporta a teoria das estratégias sexuais (Buss & Schmmit, 1993) e
parceiro romântico. No entanto, a influência do contexto ainda precisa ser estudada mais
145!
!
!
autopercepção como parceiro romântico de homens e mulheres. Levantou-se também, durante
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
146!
!
!
Referências gerais
Allen, S., & Bailey, K. (2007). Are mating strategies and mating tactics independent
Bale, C., & Archer, J. (2013). Self-perceived attractiveness, romantic desirability and self-
Brase, G. L., & Guy, E. C. (2004). The demographics of mate value and self-esteem.
Buss, D. M (2006). The evolution of love In R.B. Sternberg and K. Weis (Eds.), The new
psychology of love. (pp. 65-83). United States of America, USA: Westchester Book
Services.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective
Buss, D. M. & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes,
Buston, P., & Emlen, S. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The
students: From the short term to the long term. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 1-7.
147!
!
!
Castro, F. N.; Hattori, W.T.; Lopes, F. A. (2012). Relationship maintenance or preference
satisfaction? Male and female strategies in romantic partner choice. Journal of Social,
Dini, G., Quaresma, M. & Ferreira, L. (2004). Adaptação cultural e validação da versão
Fink, B., Neave, N., Manning, J. T., & Grammer, K. (2006). Facial symmetry and judgements
of attractiveness, health and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 491–
499. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.017
Fisher, M., Cox, A., Bennett, S., & Gavric, D. (2008). Components of self-perceived mate
value. Special Issue: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern
Fletcher, G. J., Tither, J. M., O'Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and
homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection.
Gaulin, S. J., & McBurney, H. D. (2001). Chapter 10: The psychology of human Mating. In:
Geary, D., Vigil, J. & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of
Goodwin, R., Marshall, T., Fülöp, M., Adonu, J., & Spiewak, S. (2012) Mate value and self-
esteem: Evidence from eight cultural groups. PLoS ONE 7(4): e36106.
148!
!
!
Gutierres, S., Kenrick, D., & Partch, J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game:
Hattori, W. T., Castro, F. N., & Lopes, F. A. (2013). Mate choice in adolescence: Idealizing
Hutz, C. S., & Zanon, C. (2011). Revisão da adaptação, validação e normatização da escala de
04712011000100005&lng=pt&tlng=pt.
Statistics] IBGE. (2010) Síntese de indicadores sociais: uma análise das condições de vida
Karremans, J., Frankenhuis, W., & Arons, S. (2010). Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip
Kelley, J. M. & Malouf, R. A. (2013). Blind Dates and Mate Preferences: An Analysis of
Kelly, C. D. & Jennions, M. D. (2011). Sexual selection and sperm quantity: meta-analyses of
185X.2011.00175.x
149!
!
!
Kenrick, D. T. (2006). A dynamical evolutionary view of love In R.B. Sternberg and K. Weis
(Eds.), The new psychology of love. (pp. 15-30). United States of America, USA:
Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. (1992). Age preferences in mate reflect sex differences in human
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G. & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the
Kruger, D., Fitzgerald, C., & Peterson, T. (2010). Female scarcity reduces women’s marital
ages and increases variance in men’s marital ages. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 420-
431.
Lee, L., Loewenstein, G., Ariely, D., Hong, J., & Young, J. (2008). If I’m not hot, are you hot
Leivers, S., Rhodes, G., & Simmons, L. W. (2014). Sperm Competition in Humans: Mate
Guarding Behavior Negatively Correlates with Ejaculate Quality. PLoS ONE, 9(9):
e108099. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108099
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-
term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3),
468-489.
Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., Tov, W., Fletcher, G. J. O., Sng, O., Valentine, K. A., Jiang, Y. F., &
Balliet, D. (2013). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105 (5), 757–776 . doi:
10.1037/a0033777
150!
!
!
Mafra, A. (2010). A percepção do contexto na auto-percepção como parceiro romântico.
Mishra, S., Clark, A., & Daly, M. (2007). One woman’s behavior affects the attractiveness of
Pawlowski, B. (2000). The biological meaning of preferences on the human mate market.
Penke, L., & Denissen, J. (2008). Sex differences and lifestyle-dependent shifts in the
Pillsworth, E. G. (2008). Mate Preferences among the Shuar of Ecuador: trait rankings and
doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.01.005
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Revised edition. Middletown,
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. (1999). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
3(12), 452-460.
Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, F., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes
underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Org.), Sexual
Wade, T. J. (2000). Evolutionary theory and self-perception: Sex differences in body esteem
151!
!
!
Wade, T. J. (2003). Evolutionary theory and african american self-perception: Sex differences
152!
!
!
Anexo A
Carta do comitê de ética (Brasil)
153!
!
!
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO
RIO GRANDE DO NORTE /
UFRN CAMPUS CENTRAL
DADOS DO PARECER
Apresentação do Projeto:
Trata-se de um trabalho de tese de doutorado, vinculado ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Psicobiologia
da UFRN. O estudo consistirá basicamente na investigação de alguns fatores que podem influenciar a
escolha de parceiros românticos. Os autores hipotetizaram que homens e mulheres de diferentes níveis
socioeconômicos/escolaridade apresentam preferências distintas de parceiro romântico e,
consequentemente, as características ligadas à autoestima e autopercepção como parceiro romântico
também variam de acordo com o status social. Para tanto, serão aplicados questionários que deverão ser
preenchidos por alunos de ensino médio, fundamental e universitários.
Objetivo da Pesquisa:
Objetivo Primário: analisar a influência que a autoestima e a autoavaliação exercem sobre a escolha e
preferência de parceiros românticos em estudantes universitários e estudantes de Ensino Fundamental e
Médio (EFM).
Objetivo Secundário: analisar quais as características preditoras para a autoavaliação e preferência de
parceiros românticos dos grupos estudados e analisar se autoestima e autoavaliação estão relacionadas.
Página 01 de 03
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO
RIO GRANDE DO NORTE /
UFRN CAMPUS CENTRAL
Continuação do Parecer: 752.270
Situação do Parecer:
Aprovado
Necessita Apreciação da CONEP:
Não
Considerações Finais a critério do CEP:
Em conformidade com a Resolução 466/12 do Conselho Nacional de Saúde - CNS e Manual
Página 02 de 03
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO
RIO GRANDE DO NORTE /
UFRN CAMPUS CENTRAL
Continuação do Parecer: 752.270
Assinado por:
Dulce Almeida
(Coordenador)
Página 03 de 03
Anexo B
Carta do comitê de ética (Canadá)
157!
!
!
F
@ uNTWRSITY
SAINT ManyS
l
Ki:sfi,qe,ile* Y ;fl).4)a t,/)i
- (11\/) ^ ta +114
&7 rE{)r srNcr
I trr-{ ge s s*:,qnm elh!*sfdsnrr.ra
and concludes that in all respects the p )posed proJect meets appropnate standards ot ethrcal acceptabrlrty ancl rs rn
cy St; ement: Ethical Conduct of Research lnvolving Humans (TCPS 2) and Saint Marv's
accordance with the Tri-Council Policv
University relevant policies.
fOnU Z: nttUtwww.s
Research ethi- ipproval must be requested and obtained prior to implementing any changes or additions to the
initial submission, consent form/script or supporting documents.
Y RFNFWAL*
h
rs gra or one Vear only. lf the research continues, researchers can request an extension
one month before ethics approval expires.
FO RM 4 : http ://www.sm u. c.q/academ iclreb/forms. htm I
Researchedforoneyearonlv.lfthecoUrSeprojectiscontinuing,
instructors can request an extension one month before ethics approval expires.
CLOSURE
orms.html
Thecompemasterfilefortheresearchprojectwillbeclosed,
*Please note that if your research approval expires, no activity,on the project is permitted until research ethics
-ronvlhtto://www.smu.calacademic/reb/f
approval is renewed. Failure to hold a valid SMU REB Certificate of EthicalAcceptability or Continuation may result in
the delay, suspension or loss offunding as required by the federal granting Counclls.
On behalf of the Saint Mary's University Research Ethics Board, I wish you success in your research.
.!
n. ; i t
, '.1!,"''.j'
' ;ljil'(
Dr. Jim Cameron
i. U'[.n
Chair, Research Ethics Board, Saint Mary's University
159!
!
!
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO GRANDE DO NORTE
CENTRO DE BIOCIÊNCIAS
DEPARTAMENTO DE FISIOLOGIA
PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM PSICOBIOLOGIA
LABORATÓRIO DE EVOLUÇÃO DO COMPORTAMENTO HUMANO
A presente autorização abrange, exclusivamente, o uso de minha imagem para os fins aqui
estabelecidos e deverá sempre preservar o meu anonimato. Qualquer outra forma de utilização e/ou
reprodução deverá ser por mim autorizada.
Assegurou-me, também, que serei livre para interromper minha participação na pesquisa a
qualquer momento e/ou solicitar a posse de minhas imagens.
160!
!
!
Anexo D
TCLE para questionário do júri
161!
!
!
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO GRANDE DO NORTE
CENTRO DE BIOCIÊNCIAS
DEPARTAMENTO DE FISIOLOGIA
PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM PSICOBIOLOGIA
LABORATÓRIO DE EVOLUÇÃO DO COMPORTAMENTO HUMANO
Esclarecimentos
Este é um convite para você participar de forma autônoma, consciente, livre e
esclarecida da pesquisa: “Realidade ou ficção? A influência da autopercepção como parceiro
romântico e da autoestima na escolha e preferência de parceiros românticos”, que tem como
pesquisador responsável Anthonieta Looman Mafra.
Esta pesquisa pretende investigar características que influenciam as escolhas românticas e a
autopercepção como parceiro romântico. O motivo que nos leva a fazer este estudo é devido
ao tempo de investimento dado aos parceiros românticos e por consideramo-nos
frequentemente uma fonte de suporte e companhia, sendo importante verificar quais as
características podem influenciar nossas escolhas como parceiros românticos.
Caso você decida participar, você deverá ser submetido ao preenchimento de um
questionário de duração de aproximadamente 40 minutos, no qual você deverá responder
como você se sente em relação à você mesmo e ver fotos que deverão ser analisadas quanto a
atratividade. A tarefa que será realizada em sala de aula, com grupos de homens e mulheres.
Durante a realização do questionário, a previsão de riscos é mínima, ou seja, o risco
que você corre é semelhante àquele sentido num exame físico ou psicológico de rotina. Pode
acontecer um desconforto, como se sentir constrangido caso algum colega de sala faça algum
comentário que você se identifique. No entanto, este risco será minimizado pois a
pesquisadora pedirá previamente para que evitem comentários sobre a pesquisa. Caso alguma
pergunte lhe cause constrangimento de qualquer natureza, por favor, não a responder.Em caso
de algum problema que você possa ter, relacionado com a pesquisa, você deverá informar à
pesquisadora responsável e terá direito a assistência gratuita que será prestada pelo Programa
de Pós-graduação em Psicobiologia.
Com a sua participação, você terá como benefício a oportunidade de refletir melhor
sobre seus sentimentos sobre si próprio e avaliar as características que julga mais importantes
em um parceiro romântico.
Você tem o direito de se recusar a participar ou retirar seu consentimento, em qualquer
fase da pesquisa, sem nenhum prejuízo para você.
Os dados que você irá nos fornecer serão confidenciais e serão divulgados apenas em
congressos ou publicações científicas, não havendo divulgação de nenhum dado que possa lhe
identificar. Esses dados serão guardados pelo pesquisador responsável por essa pesquisa em
local seguro e por um período de 5 anos.
Se você tiver algum gasto pela sua participação nessa pesquisa, ele será assumido pelo
pesquisador e reembolsado para você.
Se você sofrer algum dano comprovadamente decorrente desta pesquisa, você será
indenizado.
Durante todo o período da pesquisa você poderá tirar suas dúvidas e acompanhar o
andamento da mesma, mandando um e-mail para a pesquisadora responsável, Anthonieta
Looman Mafra, através do endereço eletrônico: looman.anthonieta@gmail.com.
Qualquer dúvida sobre a ética dessa pesquisa você deverá ligar para o Comitê de Ética
em Pesquisa da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, telefone 3215-3135.
162!
!
!
Este documento foi impresso em duas vias. Uma ficará com você e a outra com a
pesquisadora responsável Anthonieta Looman Mafra.
Após ter sido esclarecido sobre os objetivos, importância e o modo como os dados
serão coletados nessa pesquisa, além de conhecer os riscos, desconfortos e benefícios que ela
trará para mim e ter ficado ciente de todos os meus direitos, concordo em participar da
pesquisa “Realidade ou ficção? A influência da autopercepção como parceiro romântico e da
autoestima na escolha e preferência de parceiros românticos”, e autorizo a divulgação das
informações por mim fornecidas em congressos e/ou publicações científicas desde que
nenhum dado possa me identificar.
Impressão
datiloscópica do
participante
Declaração do pesquisador responsável
163!
!
!
Anexo E
164!
!
!
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO GRANDE DO NORTE
CENTRO DE BIOCIÊNCIAS
DEPARTAMENTO DE FISIOLOGIA
PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM PSICOBIOLOGIA
LABORATÓRIO DE EVOLUÇÃO DO COMPORTAMENTO HUMANO
Esclarecimentos
Este é um convite para você participar de forma autônoma, consciente, livre e
esclarecida da pesquisa: “Realidade ou ficção? A influência da autopercepção como parceiro
romântico e da autoestima na escolha e preferência de parceiros românticos”, que tem como
pesquisador responsável Anthonieta Looman Mafra.
Esta pesquisa pretende investigar características que influenciam as escolhas românticas e a
autopercepção como parceiro romântico. O motivo que nos leva a fazer este estudo é devido
ao tempo de investimento dado aos parceiros românticos e por consideramo-nos
frequentemente uma fonte de suporte e companhia, sendo importante verificar quais as
características podem influenciar nossas escolhas como parceiros românticos.
Caso você decida participar, você deverá ser submetido ao preenchimento de um
questionário controle de duração de aproximadamente 20 minutos, no qual você deverá
responder como você se sente em relação à você mesmo, como você se vê como parceiro(a)
romântico(a) e suas preferências de parceiros(as) românticos(as) de curto e de longo prazo e
perguntas de caráter pessoal (sexo, idade, etc.). A tarefa que será realizada em sala de aula,
com grupos de homens e mulheres.
Durante a realização do questionário, a previsão de riscos é mínima, ou seja, o risco
que você corre é semelhante àquele sentido num exame físico ou psicológico de rotina. Pode
acontecer um desconforto, como se sentir constrangido caso algum colega de sala faça algum
comentário que você se identifique. No entanto, este risco será minimizado pois a
pesquisadora pedirá previamente para que evitem comentários sobre a pesquisa. Caso alguma
pergunte lhe cause constrangimento de qualquer natureza, por favor, não a responder.Em caso
de algum problema que você possa ter, relacionado com a pesquisa, você deverá informar à
pesquisadora responsável e terá direito a assistência gratuita que será prestada pelo Programa
de Pós-graduação em Psicobiologia.
Com a sua participação, você terá como benefício a oportunidade de refletir melhor
sobre seus sentimentos sobre si próprio e avaliar as características que julga mais importantes
em um parceiro romântico.
Você tem o direito de se recusar a participar ou retirar seu consentimento, em qualquer
fase da pesquisa, sem nenhum prejuízo para você.
Os dados que você irá nos fornecer serão confidenciais e serão divulgados apenas em
congressos ou publicações científicas, não havendo divulgação de nenhum dado que possa lhe
identificar. Esses dados serão guardados pelo pesquisador responsável por essa pesquisa em
local seguro e por um período de 5 anos.
Se você tiver algum gasto pela sua participação nessa pesquisa, ele será assumido pelo
pesquisador e reembolsado para você.
Se você sofrer algum dano comprovadamente decorrente desta pesquisa, você será
indenizado.
Durante todo o período da pesquisa você poderá tirar suas dúvidas e acompanhar o
andamento da mesma, mandando um e-mail para a pesquisadora responsável, Anthonieta
Looman Mafra, através do endereço eletrônico: looman.anthonieta@gmail.com.
165!
!
!
Qualquer dúvida sobre a ética dessa pesquisa você deverá ligar para o Comitê de Ética
em Pesquisa da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, telefone 3215-3135.
Este documento foi impresso em duas vias. Uma ficará com você e a outra com a
pesquisadora responsável Anthonieta Looman Mafra.
Após ter sido esclarecido sobre os objetivos, importância e o modo como os dados
serão coletados nessa pesquisa, além de conhecer os riscos, desconfortos e benefícios que ela
trará para mim e ter ficado ciente de todos os meus direitos, concordo em participar da
pesquisa “Realidade ou ficção? A influência da autopercepção como parceiro romântico e da
autoestima na escolha e preferência de parceiros românticos”, e autorizo a divulgação das
informações por mim fornecidas em congressos e/ou publicações científicas desde que
nenhum dado possa me identificar.
Impressão
datiloscópica do
participante
Declaração do pesquisador responsável
166!
!
!
Anexo F
TCLE para preenchimento de questionário experimental
167!
!
!
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO GRANDE DO NORTE
CENTRO DE BIOCIÊNCIAS
DEPARTAMENTO DE FISIOLOGIA
PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM PSICOBIOLOGIA
LABORATÓRIO DE EVOLUÇÃO DO COMPORTAMENTO HUMANO
Esclarecimentos
Este é um convite para você participar de forma autônoma, consciente, livre e
esclarecida da pesquisa: “Realidade ou ficção? A influência da autopercepção como parceiro
romântico e da autoestima na escolha e preferência de parceiros românticos”, que tem como
pesquisador responsável Anthonieta Looman Mafra.
Esta pesquisa pretende investigar características que influenciam as escolhas românticas e a
autopercepção como parceiro romântico. O motivo que nos leva a fazer este estudo é devido
ao tempo de investimento dado aos parceiros românticos e por consideramo-nos
frequentemente uma fonte de suporte e companhia, sendo importante verificar quais as
características podem influenciar nossas escolhas como parceiros românticos.
Caso você decida participar, você deverá ser submetido ao preenchimento de um
questionário experimental de duração de aproximadamente 25 minutos, no qual você deverá
responder como você se sente em relação à você mesmo, avaliar os quatro modelos existentes
na pasta em anexo de muito à pouco desejável, responder como você se avalia como
parceiro(a) romântico(a) e suas preferências de parceiros(as) românticos(as) de curto e de
longo prazo e perguntas de caráter pessoal (sexo, idade, etc.). A tarefa que será realizada em
sala de aula, com grupos de homens e mulheres.
Durante a realização do questionário, a previsão de riscos é mínima, ou seja, o risco
que você corre é semelhante àquele sentido num exame físico ou psicológico de rotina. Pode
acontecer um desconforto, como se sentir constrangido caso algum colega de sala faça algum
comentário que você se identifique. No entanto, este risco será minimizado pois a
pesquisadora pedirá previamente para que evitem comentários sobre a pesquisa. Caso alguma
pergunte lhe cause constrangimento de qualquer natureza, por favor, não a responder.Em caso
de algum problema que você possa ter, relacionado com a pesquisa, você deverá informar à
pesquisadora responsável e terá direito a assistência gratuita que será prestada pelo Programa
de Pós-graduação em Psicobiologia.
Com a sua participação, você terá como benefício a oportunidade de refletir melhor
sobre seus sentimentos sobre si próprio e avaliar as características que julga mais importantes
em um parceiro romântico.
Você tem o direito de se recusar a participar ou retirar seu consentimento, em qualquer
fase da pesquisa, sem nenhum prejuízo para você.
Os dados que você irá nos fornecer serão confidenciais e serão divulgados apenas em
congressos ou publicações científicas, não havendo divulgação de nenhum dado que possa lhe
identificar. Esses dados serão guardados pelo pesquisador responsável por essa pesquisa em
local seguro e por um período de 5 anos.
Se você tiver algum gasto pela sua participação nessa pesquisa, ele será assumido pelo
pesquisador e reembolsado para você.
Se você sofrer algum dano comprovadamente decorrente desta pesquisa, você será
indenizado.
Durante todo o período da pesquisa você poderá tirar suas dúvidas e acompanhar o
andamento da mesma, mandando um e-mail para a pesquisadora responsável, Anthonieta
Looman Mafra, através do endereço eletrônico: looman.anthonieta@gmail.com.
168!
!
!
Qualquer dúvida sobre a ética dessa pesquisa você deverá ligar para o Comitê de Ética
em Pesquisa da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, telefone 3215-3135.
Este documento foi impresso em duas vias. Uma ficará com você e a outra com a
pesquisadora responsável Anthonieta Looman Mafra.
Após ter sido esclarecido sobre os objetivos, importância e o modo como os dados
serão coletados nessa pesquisa, além de conhecer os riscos, desconfortos e benefícios que ela
trará para mim e ter ficado ciente de todos os meus direitos, concordo em participar da
pesquisa “Realidade ou ficção? A influência da autopercepção como parceiro romântico e da
autoestima na escolha e preferência de parceiros românticos”, e autorizo a divulgação das
informações por mim fornecidas em congressos e/ou publicações científicas desde que
nenhum dado possa me identificar.
Impressão
datiloscópica do
participante
Declaração do pesquisador responsável
169!
!
!
Anexo G
TCLE para preenchimento de questionário paceiro real
170!
!
!
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO RIO GRANDE DO NORTE
CENTRO DE BIOCIÊNCIAS
DEPARTAMENTO DE FISIOLOGIA
PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM PSICOBIOLOGIA
LABORATÓRIO DE EVOLUÇÃO DO COMPORTAMENTO HUMANO
Esclarecimentos
Este é um convite para você participar de forma autônoma, consciente, livre e
esclarecida da pesquisa: “Realidade ou ficção? A influência da autopercepção como parceiro
romântico e da autoestima na escolha e preferência de parceiros românticos”, que tem como
pesquisador responsável Anthonieta Looman Mafra.
Esta pesquisa pretende investigar características que influenciam as escolhas românticas e a
autopercepção como parceiro romântico. O motivo que nos leva a fazer este estudo é devido
ao tempo de investimento dado aos parceiros românticos e por consideramo-nos
frequentemente uma fonte de suporte e companhia, sendo importante verificar quais as
características podem influenciar nossas escolhas como parceiros românticos.
Caso você decida participar, você deverá ser submetido ao preenchimento de um
questionário de duração de aproximadamente 25 minutos, no qual você deverá responder
como você se sente em relação à você mesmo, como você se vê como parceiro(a)
romântico(a), como você avalia o seu parceiro(a) romântico(a), suas preferências de
parceiros(as) românticos(as) de curto e de longo prazo e perguntas de caráter pessoal (sexo,
idade, etc.). A tarefa que será realizada em sala de aula, com grupos de homens e mulheres.
Durante a realização do questionário, a previsão de riscos é mínima, ou seja, o risco
que você corre é semelhante àquele sentido num exame físico ou psicológico de rotina. Pode
acontecer um desconforto, como se sentir constrangido caso algum colega de sala faça algum
comentário que você se identifique. No entanto, este risco será minimizado pois a
pesquisadora pedirá previamente para que evitem comentários sobre a pesquisa. Caso alguma
pergunte lhe cause constrangimento de qualquer natureza, por favor, não a responder.Em caso
de algum problema que você possa ter, relacionado com a pesquisa, você deverá informar à
pesquisadora responsável e terá direito a assistência gratuita que será prestada pelo Programa
de Pós-graduação em Psicobiologia.
Com a sua participação, você terá como benefício a oportunidade de refletir melhor
sobre seus sentimentos sobre si próprio e avaliar as características que julga mais importantes
em um parceiro romântico.
Você tem o direito de se recusar a participar ou retirar seu consentimento, em qualquer
fase da pesquisa, sem nenhum prejuízo para você.
Os dados que você irá nos fornecer serão confidenciais e serão divulgados apenas em
congressos ou publicações científicas, não havendo divulgação de nenhum dado que possa lhe
identificar. Esses dados serão guardados pelo pesquisador responsável por essa pesquisa em
local seguro e por um período de 5 anos.
Se você tiver algum gasto pela sua participação nessa pesquisa, ele será assumido pelo
pesquisador e reembolsado para você.
Se você sofrer algum dano comprovadamente decorrente desta pesquisa, você será
indenizado.
Durante todo o período da pesquisa você poderá tirar suas dúvidas e acompanhar o
andamento da mesma, mandando um e-mail para a pesquisadora responsável, Anthonieta
Looman Mafra, através do endereço eletrônico: looman.anthonieta@gmail.com.
171!
!
!
Qualquer dúvida sobre a ética dessa pesquisa você deverá ligar para o Comitê de Ética
em Pesquisa da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, telefone 3215-3135.
Este documento foi impresso em duas vias. Uma ficará com você e a outra com a
pesquisadora responsável Anthonieta Looman Mafra.
Após ter sido esclarecido sobre os objetivos, importância e o modo como os dados
serão coletados nessa pesquisa, além de conhecer os riscos, desconfortos e benefícios que ela
trará para mim e ter ficado ciente de todos os meus direitos, concordo em participar da
pesquisa “Realidade ou ficção? A influência da autopercepção como parceiro romântico e da
autoestima na escolha e preferência de parceiros românticos”, e autorizo a divulgação das
informações por mim fornecidas em congressos e/ou publicações científicas desde que
nenhum dado possa me identificar.
Impressão
datiloscópica do
participante
Declaração do pesquisador responsável
!
172!
!
!
Anexo H
Questionário do Júri
173!
!
!
Introdução (Por favor, leia atentamente)
Olá, imagine que você esta trabalhando em uma agência de
modelos. Hoje é o seu primeiro dia de trabalho e sua tarefa é a
avaliar um álbum de fotografias. Para cada fotografia você deve
avaliar a cor do sujeito e a atratividade do modelo de acordo com
o esquema abaixo:
Ou...
1
Modelo 1 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 7 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 2 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 8 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 3 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 9 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 4 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 10 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 5 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 11 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 6 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 12 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 14 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 20 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 15 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 21 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 16 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 22 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 17 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 23 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 18 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 24 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 26 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 32 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 27 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 33 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 28 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 34 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 29 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 35 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 30 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 36 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 38 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 44 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 39 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 45 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 40 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 46 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 41 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 47 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 42 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 48 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 50 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 56 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 51 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 57 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 52 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 58 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 53 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 59 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 54 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 60 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 62 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 68 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 63 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 69 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 64 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 70 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 65 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 71 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 66 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 72 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 74 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 80 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 75 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 81 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 76 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 82 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 77 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 83 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
Modelo 78 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo? Modelo 84 De forma geral, quanto você considera atraente o(a) modelo?
184!
!
!
Marque com um “X” na opção que melhor se adequa a você:
Introdução (Por favor, leia atentamente) Concordo
plenamente
Concordo Discordo Discordo
plenamente
1.!De!forma!geral!(apesar!de!
Ao concordar em participar da pesquisa, responda o tudo),!estou!satisfeito(a)!
questionário sozinho e com seriedade e sinceridade, por favor. comigo!mesmo(a).!
Sua participação é muito importante para nós! 2.!Às!vezes,!eu!acho!que!eu!
não!sirvo!para!nada!
(desqualificado(a)!ou!inferior!
em!relação!aos!outros).!
3.!Eu!sinto!que!eu!tenho!um!
tanto!(um!número)!de!boas!
qualidades.!
4.!Eu!sou!capaz!de!fazer!
coisas!tão!bem!quanto!a!
Obrigada por sua contribuição! ! maioria!das!outras!pessoas!
(desde!que!me!ensinadas).!
5.!Não!sinto!satisfação!nas!
coisas!que!realizei.!Eu!sinto!
que!não!tenho!muito!do!que!
me!orgulhar.!
6.!Às!vezes,!eu!realmente!me!
sinto!inútil!(incapaz!de!fazer!
as!coisas).!
7.!Eu!sinto!que!sou!uma!
pessoa!de!valor,!pelo!menos!
num!plano!igual!(num!mesmo!
nível)!às!outras!pessoas.!
8.!Não!me!dou!o!devido!valor.!
Gostaria!de!ter!mais!respeito!
por!mim!mesmo(a).!
9.!Quase!sempre!eu!estou!
inclinado(a)!a!achar!que!!sou!
um(a)!fracassado(a).!
10.!Eu!tenho!uma!atitude!
positiva!(pensamentos,!atos!e!
sentimentos!positivos)!em!
relação!a!mim!mesmo(a).!
!
Como!você!se!avalia!em!relação!às!características!abaixo?! Agora:
Autoavaliação (Você) “Imagine que você está saindo (se encontrando) com alguém uma ou mais
Rosto Boa Condição vezes, sem uma expectativa de um relacionamento mais sério, mas com
OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO Inteligente OOOOOOOOO
Bonito Financeira possibilidade do encontro resultar em relação sexual. Como seria esta
Corpo
OOOOOOOOO Sociável OOOOOOOOO
Bem
OOOOOOOOO pessoa?”
Bonito Humorado
Determinado
Saúde OOOOOOOOO
e Trabalhador
OOOOOOOOO Fiel OOOOOOOOO Parceiro(a) Ideal
Rosto Boa Condição
De!forma!geral,!o!quanto!é!a!sua!atratividade!como!parceiro!romântico?! OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO Inteligente OOOOOOOOO
Bonito Financeira
Coloque!um!“x”!na!reta!abaixo!para!representar!sua!avaliação: Corpo Bem
OOOOOOOOO Sociável OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO
Bonito Humorado
Determinado e
Nada atraente Extremamente atraente Saúde OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO Fiel OOOOOOOOO
Trabalhador
De!forma!geral,!o!quanto!é!a!atratividade!deste!parceiro!romântico?!
Coloque!um!“x”!na!reta!abaixo!para!representar!sua!avaliação:
Sobre&religiosidade,&você&se&considera:& “Neste momento, imagine que você está saindo (se encontrando) com alguém
(!!!)Ateu;!(!!!)Católico;!(!!!)Espírita;!(!!!)Evangélico;!(!!!)Outro.!Qual?_______________! por um longo período, agora com alguma possibilidade, mas não certa, de
Se#você#saisse#hoje,#a#procura#de#um#relacionamento#romântico,#o#que#você# namoro ou de casamento. Como seria esta pessoa?”
encontraria#?#(Marque!um!x!na!reta!abaixo!para!representar!sua!opinião)!
! Parceiro(a) Ideal
Mais#mulheres!disponíveis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Mais#homens!disponíveis! Rosto
OOOOOOOOO
Boa Condição
OOOOOOOOO Inteligente OOOOOOOOO
Bonito
!!(Procurando!parceiros)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(Procurando!parceiras)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Financeira
Corpo Bem
OOOOOOOOO Sociável OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO
Bonito Humorado
Determinado e
Saúde OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO Fiel OOOOOOOOO
Trabalhador
De!forma!geral,!o!quanto!é!a!atratividade!deste!parceiro!romântico?!
Coloque!um!“x”!na!reta!abaixo!para!representar!sua!avaliação:
! Você!prefere!parceiros!românticos:! (!!!!)!Mais!alto;!!!!!!!!!(!!!!)!Mesma!altura;!
Eu#sinto#atração# Eu#já#me#relacionei# Eu#já#me#envolvi# Quanto#à# (!!!!)!Mais!baixo;!!!!!!(!!!!)!Tanto!faz!
sexual#por# sexualmente#com# romanticamente# sexualidade,#eu# A!cor!da!pele!de!um!parceiro!romântico!faz!diferença!na! (!!!!!!)!Sim!
pessoas:# pessoas:# com#pessoas:# me#considero:# escolha?! (!!!!!!)!Não!
(!!!!)!Do!sexo! (!!!!)!Do!sexo!oposto! (!!!!)!Do!sexo!oposto! (!!!!)!Heterosd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
oposto! (!!!!)!Do!mesmo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(!!!!)!Do!mesmo!sexo! sexual! # TEM!(quantidade)!marque!um#“x”!
(!!!!)!Do!mesmo! sexo! (!!!!)!Dos!dois!sexos! (!!!!)!Homosd Posse#de#itens:# Não!tem! 1! 2! 3! 4!ou!mais!
sexo! (!!!!)!Dos!dois!sexos! (!!!!)!Nunca!tive! sexual! Televisor!em!cores! !
(!!!!)!Dos!dois!sexos! (!!!!)!Nunca!tive! envolvimento! (!!!!)!Bissexual! Videocassete/DVD!
(!!!!)!Não!sei! relação!sexual! romântico! (!!!!)!Não!sei! Rádios!
!
Banheiros!
Se#estiver#em#um#relacionamento,#
Atualmente#você#está: # responda#as#questões#abaixo:#
Automóveis!
Empregadas!mensalistas!
(!!!!)!Solteiro(a)! Quanto!tempo!já!dura!o! ! Máquinas!de!lavar!
(!!!!)!Namorando! relacionamento?! Geladeira!
(!!!!)!Noivo(a)! Qual!a!idade!do!seu!(sua)! ! Freezer(**)!
(!!!!)!Casado(a)! parceiro(a)!atual?! **independente!ou!a!2ª!porta!da!geladeira!
(!!!!)!União!estável! Qual!a!altura!de!seu!(sua)! ! Você:# Grau#de#instrução#do#chefe#da#família:#
(!!!!)!Outro,!qual?_________________! parceiro(a)!atual?! (!!!!!)!Só!estuda! (!!!!!)!!Analfabeto/Até!3ª!Série!
!
(!!!!!)!Estuda!e!é!responsável! Fundamental!
Qual!a!idade!mínima!de!um(a)!parceiro(a)!ideal?! !
!!!!!!!!!pelo!seu!sustento!! (!!!!!)!!4ª!Série!Fundamental!
Qual!a!idade!máxima!de!um(a)!parceiro(a)!ideal?! !
(!!!!!)!Estuda!e!é!responsável!pelo!!!!!!!!!! (!!!!!)!!Fundamental!Completo!
Qual!a!melhor!idade!de!um(a)!parceiro(a)!ideal?! !
!!!!!!!!!sustento!da!casa! (!!!!!)!!Ensino!Médio!Completo!
Com!quantas!pessoas!você!ficou#na#semana#passada*?! !
(!!!!!)!Estuda!e!ajuda!nas!contas!de!casa! (!!!!!)!!Ensino!Superior!Completo!
Com!quantas!pessoas!você!ficou#no#mês#passado*?! !
Em média, qual é o seu investimento mensal em produtos de beleza
Com!quantas!pessoas!você!já!namorou?!
Quanto!tempo!durou!seu!namoro#mais#longo?!
!
! e tratamento estético? (hidratante, maquiagem, massagem, drenagem R$:
Qual!a!idade!que!você!quer!se!casar!ou!se!casou?! ! linfática, tratamento de cabelo, pele, mãos, pés, etc)
Você!tem!filhos?!(!!!!)Não!!!(!!!!)Sim! Quantos?! Quantas!vezes#na#semana!você!pratica!atividade#física?!!!!!!! _____________
*se!estiver!em!um!relacionamento,!não!conte!com!a!pessoa!com!a!qual!você!está!se!relacionando!
Quanto!tempo!dura!cada!uma!das!sessões!de!atividades!física?!!!______________
Anexo J
Questionário experimental
188!
!
!
Marque com um “X” na opção que melhor se adequa a você:
Introdução (Por favor, leia atentamente) Concordo
plenamente
Concordo Discordo Discordo
plenamente
1.#De#forma#geral#(apesar#de#
Sua participação é muito importante para nós e tudo),#estou#satisfeito(a)#
comigo#mesmo(a).#
ficamos muito gratos que esteja contribuindo para com esta 2.#Às#vezes,#eu#acho#que#eu#
pesquisa. não#sirvo#para#nada#
(desqualificado(a)#ou#inferior#
em#relação#aos#outros).#
Favor, seguir a ordem do questionário. 3.#Eu#sinto#que#eu#tenho#um#
Respondendo, primeiramente as perguntas a seguir: tanto#(um#número)#de#boas#
qualidades.#
4.#Eu#sou#capaz#de#fazer#
coisas#tão#bem#quanto#a#
maioria#das#outras#pessoas#
(desde#que#me#ensinadas).#
5.#Não#sinto#satisfação#nas#
coisas#que#realizei.#Eu#sinto#
que#não#tenho#muito#do#que#
me#orgulhar.#
6.#Às#vezes,#eu#realmente#me#
sinto#inútil#(incapaz#de#fazer#
as#coisas).#
7.#Eu#sinto#que#sou#uma#
pessoa#de#valor,#pelo#menos#
num#plano#igual#(num#
mesmo#nível)#às#outras#
pessoas.#
8.#Não#me#dou#o#devido#
valor.#Gostaria#de#ter#mais#
respeito#por#mim#mesmo(a).#
9.#Quase#sempre#eu#estou#
inclinado(a)#a#achar#que##sou#
um(a)#fracassado(a).#
10.#Eu#tenho#uma#atitude#
positiva#(pensamentos,#atos#
e#sentimentos#positivos)#em#
relação#a#mim#mesmo(a).#
Próximo passo: De forma geral, como você acha que os indivíduos do sexo oposto avaliariam a
atratividade do sujeito 1?
Coloque um “x” na reta abaixo para representar sua opinião:
Abra o caderno e leia os perfis junto às fotos.
Nada atraente para Extremamente atraente
o sexo oposto para o sexo oposto
Neste momento você deve tentar descobrir como os
indivíduos do sexo oposto devem avaliar a atratividade dos sujeitos De forma geral, como você acha que os indivíduos do sexo oposto avaliariam a
apresentados, ou seja, o quanto os sujeitos apresentados devem ser atratividade do sujeito 2?
Coloque um “x” na reta abaixo para representar sua opinião:
atraentes para o sexo oposto.
Nada atraente para Extremamente atraente
Marque um “x” na reta que mede a atratividade de cada o sexo oposto para o sexo oposto
sujeito para dizer o quanto você acha que os indivíduos do sexo
De forma geral, como você acha que os indivíduos do sexo oposto avaliariam a
oposto devem considerar o sujeito atraente.
atratividade do sujeito 3?
Coloque um “x” na reta abaixo para representar sua opinião:
Para avaliar a atratividade você deverá marcar um traço ou
uma seta em uma reta na qual cada ponta significa um extremo de Nada atraente para Extremamente atraente
o sexo oposto para o sexo oposto
atratividade, por exemplo:
De forma geral, como você acha que os indivíduos do sexo oposto avaliariam a
atratividade do sujeito 4?
Coloque um “x” na reta abaixo para representar sua opinião:
Nada atraente Extremamente atraente
Nada atraente para Extremamente atraente
OU o sexo oposto para o sexo oposto
“Neste momento, imagine que você está saindo (se encontrando) com alguém
Sobre&religiosidade,&você&se&considera:& por um longo período, agora com alguma possibilidade, mas não certa, de
(###)Ateu;#(###)Católico;#(###)Espírita;#(###)Evangélico;#(###)Outro.#Qual?_______________# namoro ou de casamento. Como seria esta pessoa?”
Se#você#saisse#hoje,#a#procura#de#um#relacionamento#romântico,#o#que#você#
encontraria#?#(Marque#um#x#na#reta#abaixo#para#representar#sua#opinião)# Parceiro(a) Ideal
# Rosto
OOOOOOOOO
Boa Condição
OOOOOOOOO Inteligente OOOOOOOOO
Mais#mulheres#disponíveis########################################################Mais#homens#disponíveis# Bonito Financeira
Corpo
##(Procurando#parceiros)###############################################################(Procurando#parceiras)################################################# Bem
OOOOOOOOO Sociável OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO
Bonito Humorado
Determinado e
Saúde OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO Fiel OOOOOOOOO
Trabalhador
De#forma#geral,#o#quanto#é#a#atratividade#deste#parceiro#romântico?#
Coloque#um#“x”#na#reta#abaixo#para#representar#sua#avaliação:
# Você#prefere#parceiros#românticos:# (####)#Mais#alto;#########(####)#Mesma#altura;#
Eu#sinto#atração# Eu#já#me#relacionei# Eu#já#me#envolvi# Quanto#à# (####)#Mais#baixo;######(####)#Tanto#faz#
sexual#por# sexualmente#com# romanticamente# sexualidade,#eu# A#cor#da#pele#de#um#parceiro#romântico#faz#diferença#na# (######)#Sim#
pessoas:# pessoas:# com#pessoas:# me#considero:# escolha?# (######)#Não#
(####)#Do#sexo# (####)#Do#sexo#oposto# (####)#Do#sexo#oposto# (####)#Heterosd#######################
#
oposto# (####)#Do#mesmo#######################################
(####)#Do#mesmo#sexo# sexual# # TEM#(quantidade)#marque#um#“x”#
(####)#Do#mesmo# sexo# (####)#Dos#dois#sexos# (####)#Homosd Posse#de#itens:# Não#tem# 1# 2# 3# 4#ou#mais#
sexo# (####)#Dos#dois#sexos# (####)#Nunca#tive# sexual# Televisor#em#cores# #
(####)#Dos#dois#sexos# (####)#Nunca#tive# envolvimento# (####)#Bissexual# Videocassete/DVD#
(####)#Não#sei# relação#sexual# romântico# (####)#Não#sei# Rádios#
#
Banheiros#
Se#estiver#em#um#relacionamento,#
Atualmente#você#está: # responda#as#questões#abaixo:#
Automóveis#
Empregadas#mensalistas#
(####)#Solteiro(a)# Quanto#tempo#já#dura#o# # Máquinas#de#lavar#
(####)#Namorando# relacionamento?# Geladeira#
(####)#Noivo(a)# Qual#a#idade#do#seu#(sua)# # Freezer(**)#
(####)#Casado(a)# parceiro(a)#atual?# **independente#ou#a#2ª#porta#da#geladeira#
(####)#União#estável# Qual#a#altura#de#seu#(sua)# # Você:# Grau#de#instrução#do#chefe#da#família:#
(####)#Outro,#qual?_________________# parceiro(a)#atual?# (#####)#Só#estuda# (#####)##Analfabeto/Até#3ª#Série#
#
(#####)#Estuda#e#é#responsável# Fundamental#
Qual#a#idade#mínima#de#um(a)#parceiro(a)#ideal?# #
#########pelo#seu#sustento## (#####)##4ª#Série#Fundamental#
Qual#a#idade#máxima#de#um(a)#parceiro(a)#ideal?# #
(#####)#Estuda#e#é#responsável#pelo########## (#####)##Fundamental#Completo#
Qual#a#melhor#idade#de#um(a)#parceiro(a)#ideal?# #
#########sustento#da#casa# (#####)##Ensino#Médio#Completo#
Com#quantas#pessoas#você#ficou#na#semana#passada*?# #
(#####)#Estuda#e#ajuda#nas#contas#de#casa# (#####)##Ensino#Superior#Completo#
Com#quantas#pessoas#você#ficou#no#mês#passado*?# #
Em média, qual é o seu investimento mensal em produtos de beleza
Com#quantas#pessoas#você#já#namorou?#
Quanto#tempo#durou#seu#namoro#mais#longo?#
#
# e tratamento estético? (hidratante, maquiagem, massagem, drenagem R$:
Qual#a#idade#que#você#quer#se#casar#ou#se#casou?# # linfática, tratamento de cabelo, pele, mãos, pés, etc)
Você#tem#filhos?#(####)Não###(####)Sim# Quantos?# Quantas#vezes#na#semana#você#pratica#atividade#física?####### _____________
*se#estiver#em#um#relacionamento,#não#conte#com#a#pessoa#com#a#qual#você#está#se#relacionando#
Quanto#tempo#dura#cada#uma#das#sessões#de#atividades#física?###______________
Anexo K
Questionário parceiro real
193!
!
!
Marque com um “X” na opção que melhor se adequa a você:
Introdução (Por favor, leia atentamente) Concordo
plenamente
Concordo Discordo Discordo
plenamente
1.!De!forma!geral!(apesar!de!
Ao concordar em participar da pesquisa, responda o tudo),!estou!satisfeito(a)!
questionário sozinho e com seriedade e sinceridade, por favor. comigo!mesmo(a).!
Sua participação é muito importante para nós! 2.!Às!vezes,!eu!acho!que!eu!
não!sirvo!para!nada!
(desqualificado(a)!ou!inferior!
em!relação!aos!outros).!
3.!Eu!sinto!que!eu!tenho!um!
tanto!(um!número)!de!boas!
qualidades.!
4.!Eu!sou!capaz!de!fazer!
coisas!tão!bem!quanto!a!
Obrigada por sua contribuição! ! maioria!das!outras!pessoas!
(desde!que!me!ensinadas).!
5.!Não!sinto!satisfação!nas!
coisas!que!realizei.!Eu!sinto!
que!não!tenho!muito!do!que!
me!orgulhar.!
6.!Às!vezes,!eu!realmente!me!
sinto!inútil!(incapaz!de!fazer!
as!coisas).!
7.!Eu!sinto!que!sou!uma!
pessoa!de!valor,!pelo!menos!
num!plano!igual!(num!mesmo!
nível)!às!outras!pessoas.!
8.!Não!me!dou!o!devido!valor.!
Gostaria!de!ter!mais!respeito!
por!mim!mesmo(a).!
9.!Quase!sempre!eu!estou!
inclinado(a)!a!achar!que!!sou!
um(a)!fracassado(a).!
10.!Eu!tenho!uma!atitude!
positiva!(pensamentos,!atos!e!
sentimentos!positivos)!em!
relação!a!mim!mesmo(a).!
!
Você! tem! um(a)! parceiro(a)?! Se! possuir,! por! favor,! o! avalie! em! !
relação! às! características! abaixo.! Se! não,! deixe! o! espaço! E! como! você! se! avalia?! Preencha! as! bolinhas! indicando!
Parceiro(a)*Real*em!branco.! quanto! você! tem! para! cada! uma! das! características!
!
abaixo.!
Você! deve! marcar! o! número! de! bolinhas! desejadas! para! cada!
Autoavaliação (Você)
característica.!Quanto!mais!bolinhas!atribuir,!mais!você!acha!que! Rosto Boa Condição
OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO Inteligente OOOOOOOOO
o!seu(sua)!parceiro(a)!possui!de!tal!traço.!Não!é!necessário!marcar! Bonito Financeira
Corpo Bem
bolinhas! se! você! achar! que! seu! parceiro! não! possui! tal! Bonito
OOOOOOOOO Sociável OOOOOOOOO
Humorado
OOOOOOOOO
característica.! Determinado
Saúde OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO Fiel OOOOOOOOO
! e Trabalhador
De!forma!geral,!o!quanto!é!a!sua!atratividade!como!parceiro(a)!
Parceiro(a) Real
Rosto Boa Condição
romântico(a)?!
OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO Inteligente OOOOOOOOO Coloque!um!“x”!na!reta!abaixo!para!representar!sua!avaliação:
Bonito Financeira
Corpo Bem
OOOOOOOOO Sociável OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO
Bonito Humorado
Determinado Nada desejável Extremamente desejável
Saúde OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO Fiel OOOOOOOOO
e Trabalhador
De!forma!geral,!o!quão!desejável!é!o(a)!seu(sua)!parceiro(a)?!
Por! favor,! não! esqueça! de! marcar! na! reta! acima! quão! atraente! você! se!
Coloque!um!“x”!na!reta!abaixo!para!representar!sua!avaliação:
considera!para!pessoas!que!possam!ter!interesse!em!se!relacionar!romantica!
ou!sexualmente!com!você.!
Nada desejável Extremamente desejável
!
Por! favor,! não! esqueça! de! marcar! na! reta! acima! quão! atraente! você!
considera! que! o! seu(sua)! parceiro(a)! é! para! pessoas! que! possam! ter!
interesse!em!se!relacionar!romantica!ou!sexualmente!com!ele(a).!
!
!
!
!
!
Agora:
“Imagine que você está saindo (se encontrando) com alguém uma “Neste momento, imagine que você está saindo (se encontrando)
ou mais vezes, sem uma expectativa de um relacionamento mais com alguém por um longo período, agora com alguma
sério, mas com possibilidade do encontro resultar em relação possibilidade, mas não certa, de namoro ou de casamento. Como
sexual. Como seria esta pessoa?” seria esta pessoa?”
Nota: neste quadro você deve imaginar como seria a pessoal perfeita para Nota: neste quadro você deve imaginar como seria a pessoal perfeita para
você. Caso esteja em um relacionamento, não é necessário ser a pessoa com você. Caso esteja em um relacionamento, não é necessário ser a pessoa com
qual você está se relacionando. Trata-se apenas de uma pessoa fictícia. qual você está se relacionando. Trata-se apenas de uma pessoa fictícia.
! Você!prefere!parceiros!românticos:! (!!!!)!Mais!alto;!!!!!!!!!(!!!!)!Mesma!altura;!
Eu*sinto*atração* Eu*já*me*relacionei* Eu*já*me*envolvi* Quanto*à* (!!!!)!Mais!baixo;!!!!!!(!!!!)!Tanto!faz!
sexual*por* sexualmente*com* romanticamente* sexualidade,*eu* A!cor!da!pele!de!um!parceiro!romântico!faz!diferença!na! (!!!!!!)!Sim!
pessoas:* pessoas:* com*pessoas:* me*considero:* escolha?! (!!!!!!)!Não!
(!!!!)!Do!sexo! (!!!!)!Do!sexo!oposto! (!!!!)!Do!sexo!oposto! (!!!!)!Heterosg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
oposto! (!!!!)!Do!mesmo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(!!!!)!Do!mesmo!sexo! sexual! * TEM!(quantidade)!marque!um*“x”!
(!!!!)!Do!mesmo! sexo! (!!!!)!Dos!dois!sexos! (!!!!)!Homosg Posse*de*itens:* Não!tem! 1! 2! 3! 4!ou!mais!
sexo! (!!!!)!Dos!dois!sexos! (!!!!)!Nunca!tive! sexual! Televisor!em!cores! !
(!!!!)!Dos!dois!sexos! (!!!!)!Nunca!tive! envolvimento! (!!!!)!Bissexual! Videocassete/DVD!
(!!!!)!Não!sei! relação!sexual! romântico! (!!!!)!Não!sei! Rádios!
!
Banheiros!
Se*estiver*em*um*relacionamento,*
Atualmente*você*está: * responda*as*questões*abaixo:*
Automóveis!
Empregadas!mensalistas!
(!!!!)!Solteiro(a)! Quanto!tempo!já!dura!o! ! Máquinas!de!lavar!
(!!!!)!Namorando! relacionamento?! Geladeira!
(!!!!)!Noivo(a)! Qual!a!idade!do!seu!(sua)! ! Freezer(**)!
(!!!!)!Casado(a)! parceiro(a)!atual?! **independente!ou!a!2ª!porta!da!geladeira!
(!!!!)!União!estável! Qual!a!altura!de!seu!(sua)! ! Você:* Grau*de*instrução*do*chefe*da*família:*
(!!!!)!Outro,!qual?_________________! parceiro(a)!atual?! (!!!!!)!Só!estuda! (!!!!!)!!Analfabeto/Até!3ª!Série!
!
(!!!!!)!Estuda!e!é!responsável! Fundamental!
Qual!a!idade!mínima!de!um(a)!parceiro(a)!ideal?! !
!!!!!!!!!pelo!seu!sustento!! (!!!!!)!!4ª!Série!Fundamental!
Qual!a!idade!máxima!de!um(a)!parceiro(a)!ideal?! !
(!!!!!)!Estuda!e!é!responsável!pelo!!!!!!!!!! (!!!!!)!!Fundamental!Completo!
Qual!a!melhor!idade!de!um(a)!parceiro(a)!ideal?! !
!!!!!!!!!sustento!da!casa! (!!!!!)!!Ensino!Médio!Completo!
Com!quantas!pessoas!você!ficou*na*semana*passada*?! !
(!!!!!)!Estuda!e!ajuda!nas!contas!de!casa! (!!!!!)!!Ensino!Superior!Completo!
Com!quantas!pessoas!você!ficou*no*mês*passado*?! !
Em média, qual é o seu investimento mensal em produtos de beleza
Com!quantas!pessoas!você!já!namorou?!
Quanto!tempo!durou!seu!namoro*mais*longo?!
!
! e tratamento estético? (hidratante, maquiagem, massagem, drenagem R$:
Qual!a!idade!que!você!quer!se!casar!ou!se!casou?! ! linfática, tratamento de cabelo, pele, mãos, pés, etc)
Você!tem!filhos?!(!!!!)Não!!!(!!!!)Sim! Quantos?! Quantas!vezes*na*semana!você!pratica!atividade*física?!!!!!!! _____________
*se!estiver!em!um!relacionamento,!não!conte!com!a!pessoa!com!a!qual!você!está!se!relacionando!
Quanto!tempo!dura!cada!uma!das!sessões!de!atividades!física?!!!______________
Produção Extra A
Revisão de livro publicada na Human Ethology Bulletin
198!
!
!
Looman Mafra, A.: Nothing is Purely Sexual Behavior, Except This Book
Human Ethology Bulletin 30 (2015)2: 35-39!
looman.anthonieta@gmail.com
The purpose of the book is to provide a solid basis to understanding similarities and
differences between the sexes in human psychology and behavior, using Sexual Selection
as a pillar to develop the explanations of human sexual behavior. As a general overview, it
is noteworthy that all authors define theories well, using precision and details without
making reading tiresome. This makes the book appropriate for both undergraduate and
graduate students, with the ability for each chapter to be read and understood
independently, promoting its usefulness as a course text. The book is organized in four
sections: 1) Introduction to Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Sexual Psychology
and Behavior; 2) Sexual Adaptations in Men; 3) Sexual Adaptations in Women; and 4)
Conclusions and Future Directions for Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Sexual
Psychology and Behavior.
The book starts with David Schmitt giving an introduction into mate preferences
from an evolutionary perspective, describing concepts such as long- and short-term
relationships and Sexual Strategies Theory, and discussing mate preferences for men and
women in the short-term and long-term. He gives details about several studies,
explaining to the reader how to conduct research in evolutionary psychology. He also
uses studies to provide evidence about preference in men and women in short- and in
!
35
Looman Mafra, A.: Nothing is Purely Sexual Behavior, Except This Book
Human Ethology Bulletin 30 (2015)2: 35-39!
long-term relationships. Men tend to prefer short- and long-term partners who are
physically attractive, though when choosing a long-term partner men also give
importance to personality traits (Buss & Shackelford, 2008; Castro & Lopes, 2011;
Fisher, Cox, Bennett, & Gavric, 2008; Gaulin & McBurney, 2001; Pawlowski, 2000).
Women tend to give more importance to gene quality over willingness of resource
investment (women’s preference for long-term partner) when choosing a short-term
partner (Brase & Guy, 2004; Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Geary, Vigil, & Byrd-Craven, 2004;
Mafra & Lopes, 2014). Thereby, David Schmitt’s chapter prepares the reader for the rest
of the book.
The second section of the book is dedicated to sexual adaptations in men. The
second chapter draws attention to addressing a question that cannot be explained by
Sexual Selection or Sexual Strategies Theory: men offending. Camelleri and Stiver
address this subject, which is a novelty from an evolutionary perspective, very well. They
provide different hypotheses about why sexual offending is considered an adaptation,
even though it brings disadvantage to females that are not able to choose their partners.
Male voice, preference for women’s facial characteristics, perception of women’s
sexual interest, male adaptation to ovulation, and male mortality are also discussed in
this section. Some chapters drew particular attention. One of them was about the
evolution of male production of good humor as a passive-aggressive form of competition
and/or a way to facilitate social bonding or avoiding serious conflicts, a selected trait by
advertising mate quality. Greengross addresses an interesting discussion about it and
supports, with empirical results, that not only funny men are seen as more attractive, but
also women who laugh more are considered more attractive, evidencing that production
of humor is, in fact, more important to men’s reproductive success than women’s.
Finishing off the male adaptations section, Starratt and Alesia summarize male
strategies of mate retention. As men invest in their partner and offspring, the costs of
losing a partner and/or raising a child that is not one’s own are high. In this way, men
would tend to engage in tactics to avoid such loss of time and resources (Buss &
Shackelford, 1997; Miner, Starratt, & Shackelford, 2009). They discuss tactics used by
men to retain a mate, such as competitor and mate derogation; manipulation of the
perception of his partner about him, herself, and the current relationship; and sperm
competition, engaging more in retention behavior the higher mate value the partner has.
Nevertheless, the last tactic would be more used as a corrective strategy, in other words,
men tend to use sperm competition more when they do not engage in other mate
retention tactics. Thus, in order to ensure their paternity of the women’s children, there
is a modification of the shape, number, performance of the sperm (Kelly & Jennions,
2011; Leivers, Rhodes, & Simmons, 2014).
In a complementary chapter to sexual offending, McKibbin starts the third section of
the book by talking about different behaviors that women adopted in order to defend
themselves from rape. As sexual offending evolved in men, women counterattacked,
presenting behaviors in a way to avoid this detrimental behavior. Some of the chapters of
this section are complementary to the previous sections of the book (e.g. preference for
male’s facial characteristics, female adaptations to ovulation, and intrasexual
competition), although “Sexual adaptations in women” section discusses different
!
36
Looman Mafra, A.: Nothing is Purely Sexual Behavior, Except This Book
Human Ethology Bulletin 30 (2015)2: 35-39!
aspects than those discussed in the section “Sexual adaptation in men” (perceptions of
male body movement, disgust adaptation). Welling conducts an interesting chapter,
explaining why female orgasm may be a product of natural selection (or by-product)
based on four different hypotheses: 1) a way to ensure future copulation, by stimulating
women to copulate again with men who they had an orgasm with; 2) increasing the
strength of the relationship connection; 3) stimulating uterine contractions and,
consequently, increasing the probability of fertilization; 4) stimulating women to have
sex with high quality or investing males.
Finishing off the female’s adaptation section, Li and colleagues address a chapter
about eating restriction. This interesting approach is not only useful to clarify why a
behavior that causes several injuries to human health, leading to death in some cases, has
evolved within humans (predominantly women), but also offer valuable information
with regards to human health. They present theories for the evolution of this behavior,
going deeper into intrasexual competition. Emphasizing more on female intrasexual
competition, the chapter written by April and colleagues discusses rivalry between
women friends, explaining how women tend to base their decision when choosing a
female friend and how this choice may affect in their success in attracting romantic
partners.
The last section of the book is dedicated to future directions for evolutionary
perspectives. The two chapters address subjects that had been neglected by evolutionary
psychologists in the past but are gaining due attention lately: evolution of female
completion and male androphilia. Female competition has been gaining more attention
recently, but unlike male competition, it had not been aim of as many studies. This
chapter brings to the book a different focus on intrasexual competition, mainly for being
associated to social selection.
Heterosexual individuals have their romantic partner preferences studied by
evolutionary researchers because their sexuality allows their reproduction. In this way,
heterosexuality is easier to explain by an evolutionary perspective, ensuring a better
understanding of heterosexual individuals strategies. Trying to fill this gap, Varsey and
VanderLaand raise hypotheses about the evolution of homosexual behavior and analyze
them supported by investigations with sex-gender congruent and transgendered male
androphilia found in different cultures.
Although the chapter about men androphilia is outstanding and recognizing that
gynephilia in women is a more obscure branch than male androphilia, the absence of
information on gynephilia in women was noticeable. Perhaps, with the progress of the
research in this field, the next version will be able to discuss it as well. Another topic that
would be interesting to take into consideration would be about jealousy and how
environment may influence individuals’ preference, choice, patterns of attachment, and
self-evaluation as romantic partner. The editors did valuable work in a way that it is
difficult to suggest something that could better balance the length of the book and the
subjects that need to be addressed. In general, I strongly recommend this book for
everyone that works with human sexuality as well to people that are interested in the
field and I even could say that I will not hesitate to read the next version.
!
!
37
Looman Mafra, A.: Nothing is Purely Sexual Behavior, Except This Book
Human Ethology Bulletin 30 (2015)2: 35-39!
REFERENCES
Brase, G. L., & Guy, E. C. (2004). The demographics of mate value and self-esteem. Personality
and Individual Differences, 36, 471–484. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00117-X
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on
human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in
married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 346-361.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.346
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic
investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology,
6(1), 134-146. Retrieved from: http://www.epjournal.net/wp-
content/uploads/EP06134146.pdf
Castro, F. N., & Lopes, F. A. (2011). Romantic preference in Brazilian undergraduate students:
From the short term to the long term. Journal of Sex Research, 47, 1-7.
doi:10.1080/00224499.2010.506680
Fisher, M., Cox, A., Bennett, S., & Gavric, D. (2008). Components of self-perceived mate value.
Special Issue: Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the North-Eastern Evolutionary
Psychology Society. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4). 156-
168. doi:10.1037/h0099347
Gaulin, S. J., & McBurney, H. D. (2001). Chapter 10: The psychology of human Mating. In:
Psychology: an evolution approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. PMid:18253602
Geary, D., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of Sex
Research, 41, 27-42. doi:10.1080/00224490409552211
Kelly, C. D. & Jennions, M. D. (2011). Sexual selection and sperm quantity: meta-analyses of
strategic ejaculation. Biological Reviews, 86, 863–884. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-
185X.2011.00175
Leivers, S., Rhodes, G., & Simmons, L. W. (2014). Sperm Competition in Humans: Mate
Guarding Behavior Negatively Correlates with Ejaculate Quality. PLoS ONE, 9(9):
e108099. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0108099
Mafra, A. L. & Lopes, F. A. (2014). “Am I Good Enough for You?” Features Related to Self-
Perception and Self-Esteem of Brazilians from Different Socioeconomic Status.
Psychology, 5, 653-663. doi:10.4236/psych.2014.57077
!
38
Looman Mafra, A.: Nothing is Purely Sexual Behavior, Except This Book
Human Ethology Bulletin 30 (2015)2: 35-39!
Miner, E. J., Starratt, V. G., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). It’s not all about her: Men’s mate value
and mate retention. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 214–218.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.002
Pawlowski, B. (2000). The biological meaning of preferences on the human mate market.
Anthropological Review, 63, 39-72. Retrieved from:
https://www.academia.edu/3298609/The_biological_meaning_of_preferences_on_th
e_human_mate_market
!
39