Table 4. Males.
Categorical self-perception score
|
Categorical mate-preference score
|
|||
---|---|---|---|---|
Wealth and status | Family commitment | Physical appearance | Sexual fidelity | |
Wealth and status | 109.3 | 24.8 | 37.2 | 15.9 |
*** | *** | *** | *** | |
0.19 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.03 | |
Family commitment | 8.9 | 342.9 | 7.8 | 10.2 |
* | *** | * | * | |
0.02 | 0.42 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |
Physical appearance | 24.7 | 20.5 | 55.2 | 25.0 |
*** | *** | *** | *** | |
0.05 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.05 | |
Sexual fidelity | 0.0 | 46.8 | 0.3 | 70.5 |
ns | *** | ns | *** | |
0.00 | 0.09 | 0.00 | 0.13 |
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 = 470. 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 15 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.