Table 3. Females.
Categorical self-perception score
|
Categorical mate-preference score
|
|||
---|---|---|---|---|
Wealth and status | Family commitment | Physical appearance | Sexual fidelity | |
Wealth and status | 146.9 | 17.8 | 26.3 | 4.3 |
*** | *** | *** | ns | |
0.23 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.01 | |
Family commitment | 10.3 | 623.7 | 2.4 | 14.4 |
* | *** | ns | ** | |
0.02 | 0.55 | 0.01 | 0.03 | |
Physical appearance | 32.0 | 22.4 | 118.2 | 17.3 |
*** | *** | *** | *** | |
0.06 | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.03 | |
Sexual fidelity | 8.0 | 45.2 | 2.6 | 157.4 |
* | *** | ns | *** | |
0.02 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.24 |
Summary of the outcome of linear regressions between categorical self-perception and mate-preference scores for all combinations of four evolutionarily relevant categories. In each cell the first line gives the F statistic, the second gives the P value (***, P < 0.0001; **, P < 0.001; *, P < 0.01; ns, P > 0.01), and the third gives the coefficient of determination (R2, the amount of variation explained), and all df = 506. The potentials-attract hypothesis predicts strong positive relationships between self-perception and mate-preference scores in cells with italicized type, whereas the likes-attract hypothesis predicts strong positive relationships in cells with bold type (see Table 1). Although 13 of the 16 regressions were statistically significant, those predicted by the likes-attract hypothesis explained more of the observed variation in mate preference than did those predicted by the potentials-attract hypothesis.