View More View Less
  • 1 Cardiff Metropolitan University
Open access

Background

Heterosexual men and women differ in their sensitivity to cues indicating material status. This dissociation has been explained by appealing to sexual selection processes that encourage women to evaluate men on the basis of their material status but could perhaps be explained by sex differences in contextual attention, or, associative representations.

Method

In Experiment 1, heterosexual women rated the attractiveness of an opposite sex model in 4 conditions; (1) attractive context, (2) attractive context with implied ownership, (3) unattractive context, and (4) unattractive context with ownership implied. A second experiment used a fictitious stockbroker learning task (with both men and women) in 2 biconditional discriminations to measure contextual attention (stage 1) and then to explore the structure of contextual representation (stage 2) using a transfer of occasion setting test.

Results

In Experiment 1, females increased ratings in attractive contexts, both when context ownership was implied and when it was not. In the first stage of Experiment 2, men and women were equally sensitive to contextual cues. In stage 2, women’s learning was impaired when a stimulus previously used as a target was employed as a context (they showed transfer of occasions setting), men showed no such difference.

Conclusions

Sex differences in sensitivity to cues indicating material status may reflect how men and women tend to encode the relationships between background/context stimuli and target stimuli. Women automatically attend to the background and modulate the value of targets using a hierarchical form of representation, whilst men represent background-target associations configurally.

  • Aharon, I., Etcoff, N., Ariely, D., Chabris, C. F., O’Connor, E., & Breiter, H. C. (2001). Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioural evidence. Neuron, 32, 537551.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Baillargeon, R. (1987). Young infants’ reasoning about the physical and spatial properties of hidden object. Cognitive Development, 2, 179200.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bayliss, A., Pellegrino, G., & Tipper, S. (2005). Sex differences in eye gaze and symbolic cueing of attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 117.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bonardi, C., Bartle, C., & Jennings, D. (2012). US specificity of occasion setting: Hierarchical or configural learning. Behavioural Processes, 90, 311322.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses testing in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 149.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Buss, D., & Schmitt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204232.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cahill, S. E. (1983). Reexamining the acquisition of sex roles: A social interactionist approach. Sex Roles, 9, 115.

  • Collins D. W., & Kimura, D. (1997). A large sex difference on a two-dimensional mental rotation task. Behavioural Neuroscience, 111, 845849.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dunn, M. J., & Hill, A. (2014). Manipulated luxury-apartment ownership enhances opposite-sex attraction in females but not males. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 117.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dunn, M., & Searle, R. (2010). Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 6980.

  • Furnham, A., Swami, V., & Shah, K. (2006). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio and breast size correlates of ratings of attractiveness and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 443454.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • George, D. N., & Pearce, J. M. (2012). A configural theory of attention and associative learning. Learning and Behavior, 40, 241254.

  • Giambra, L. M., & Quilter, R. (1988). Sustained attention in adulthood: A unique, large-sample, longitudinal and multicohort analysis using the Mackworth Clock-Test. Psychology and Aging, 3, 7583.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gibbins, R. (1969). Communications aspects of women’s clothes and their relationship to fashionability. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8, 301312.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd Edition). Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, Inc. Publishers, Mahwah, NJ.

  • Hassebrauk, M. (1998). The visual process method: A new method to study physical attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 111123.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hill, E., Nocks, E., & Gardner, L. (1987). Manipulation by physical and status displays. Ethology and Sociobiology, 8, 43154.

  • Holland, P. C. (1989). Acquisition and transfer of conditional discriminative performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 154165.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Honey, R. C., & Watt, A. (1998). Acquired relational equivalence: Implications for the nature of associative structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 325334.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Honey, R. C., & Watt, A. (1999). Acquired relational equivalence between contexts and features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 324333.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hoult, T. F. (1954). Experimental measurement of clothing as a factor in some social ratings of selected American men. American Sociological review, 19, 326327.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Marritt, P, Hirshman, E., Wharton, W., Stangl, B., Devlin, J., & Lenz, A. (2007). Evidence for gender differences in visual selective attention. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 597609.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pearce, J. M. (1987). A model of stimulus generalization for Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review, 94, 6173.

  • Rheingold, H. L., & Cook, K. V. (1975). The content of boys’ and girls’ rooms as an index of parents’ behaviour. Child Development, 46, 459463.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Townsend, J. M. (1989). Mate selection Criteria: A pilot study. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 241253.

  • Tractinsky, N. Cokhavi, A. Kirschenbaum, M. (2004). Using ratings and response latencies to evaluate the consistency of immediate aesthetic perceptions of web pages. Proceedings of the Third Annual Workshop on HCI Research, Washington, D.C., December 10–11.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Trivers, R. L. (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell, (Ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, pp. 136179.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Watt, A., & Honey, R. C. (1997). Combining CSs associated with the same or different USs. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50B, 350367.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yarmey, A. D. (1986). Verbal, visual, and voice identification of a rape suspect under different levels of illumination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 363370.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yarmey, A. D. (2004). Eyewitness recall and photo identification: A field experiment. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 5368.

  • Yonker, J. E., Eriksson, E., Nilsson, L.-G., & Herlitz, A. (2003) Sex differences in episodic memory: the minimal influence of estradiol. Brain and Cognition, 52, 231238.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

 

The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.

 

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: David P. Schmitt

Editor(s): Lisa DeBruine

Editor(s): Clark Barrett

Review editor(s): Sandra Virgo

Editorial Board

  • Oliver Curry
  • David Coall
  • Robin Dunbar
  • Andrew Dunn
  • Jiaqing O
  • Michael Price
  • Michel Raymond
  • Martin Tovee

 

Advisory Board

  • Tamas Bereczkei
  • Csaba Pleh
  • Rob Kurzban
  • Brooke Scelza
  • Steven Pinker
  • Bruce Ellis
  • Mark Flinn
  • Michael Tomasello
  • Daniel Fessler
  • James Chisholm

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Google Scholar
  • PsycINFO
  • SCOPUS

 

2019  
Scimago
H-index
21
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,118
Scimago
Quartile Score
Anthropology Q4
Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics Q4
Experimental and Cognitive Psychology Q4
Social Psychology Q4
Scopus
Cite Score
5/9=0,6
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Anthropology 212/398 (Q3)
Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics 553/629 (Q4)
Experimental and Cognitive Psychology 130/145 (Q4)
Scopus
SNIP
0,362
Scopus
Cites
9
Scopus
Documents
5
Acceptance
Rate
31%

 

Evolution, Mind and Behaviour
Publication Model Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 700 EUR/article for authors with grant funding
400 EUR/article for PhD students or authors with no grant funding
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription Information Gold Open Access
Purchase per Title  

Evolution, Mind and Behaviour
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2002
Publication
Programme
2021 Volume 19
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
1
Founder Akadémiai Kiadó
Founder's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN (Print)
ISSN 2560-0982 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
May 2021 0 9 2
Jun 2021 0 6 2
Jul 2021 0 14 18
Aug 2021 0 22 24
Sep 2021 0 17 16
Oct 2021 0 10 1
Nov 2021 0 0 0