Table 4.
R2 | F | B | SE | t | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
DV: partner is too agreeable | .22 | 4.84*** | |||
Initial attraction to quality | .45 | .11 | (4.06)** | ||
Self-expression of quality | −.08 | .15 | (.51) | ||
Age | .01 | .01 | (1.18) | ||
Race/ethnicity | −.07 | .23 | (.29) | ||
Education | −.59 | .23 | (2.59)* | ||
Gender | −.37 | .22 | (1.72) | ||
DV: partner is too status seeking | .22 | 4.75*** | |||
Initial attraction to quality | .33 | .07 | (4.79)** | ||
Self-expression of quality | −.11 | .07 | (1.42) | ||
Age | .00 | .01 | (.55) | ||
Race/ethnicity | −.29 | .19 | (1.52) | ||
Education | −.10 | .19 | (.52) | ||
Gender | .17 | .18 | (.95) | ||
DV: partner is too motivated | .29 | 6.91*** | |||
Initial attraction to quality | .47 | .09 | (5.47)** | ||
Self-expression of quality | −.18 | .10 | (1.75) | ||
Age | .01 | .01 | (2.16)* | ||
Race/ethnicity | −.38 | .19 | (2.07)* | ||
Education | −.22 | .18 | (1.19) | ||
Gender | −.31 | .17 | (1.75) | ||
DV: partner is too physically attractive | .30 | 7.17*** | |||
Initial attraction to quality | .47 | .08 | (5.62)** | ||
Self-expression of quality | .01 | .08 | (.11) | ||
Age | .00 | .01 | (.20) | ||
Race/ethnicity | −.37 | .20 | (1.86) | ||
Education | −.30 | .20 | (1.53) | ||
Gender | −.09 | .19 | (.49) | ||
DV: partner is too extroverted | .30 | 7.11*** | |||
Initial attraction to quality | .481 | .09 | (5.36)** | ||
Self-expression of quality | −.117 | .09 | (1.29) | ||
Age | .02 | .01 | (2.56)* | ||
Race/ethnicity | −.34 | .19 | (1.81) | ||
Education | −.46 | .18 | (2.54)* | ||
Gender | −.29 | .17 | (1.65) |
* p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01; *** p ≤ .001; absolute value of t statistics are presented MANOVA test found no overall mean differences in regression variables between men and women. Age (years), Race (white vs. non-white), Educ Education (college graduate versus non-college graduate), Gender (women vs. men), all factors - initial attraciton, self report, and excessive display - (1 = low, 7 = high)