Women More than Men Attend to Indicators of Good Character: Two Experimental Demonstrations

Evolutionary Psychology
human-nature.com/ep – 2006. 4: 248-261
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Original Article

Women More than Men Attend to Indicators of Good Character:
Two Experimental Demonstrations

April Bleske-Rechek, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54701
715-836-4641, Email: BLESKEAL@uwec.edu

Mark W. Remiker, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54701

Meghan R. Swanson, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54701

Nicole M. Zeug, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54701


Abstract: Past research implicates adaptations in women to assess men’s willingness to invest in
offspring (La Cerra, 1995). In two new studies, women’s evaluations of an opposite-sex target as
a long-term partner and short-term sex partner were negatively impacted by viewing that target
ignore a baby in distress; this effect occurred for men in Study 1 only. Men’s short-term sexual
attraction to a female target was not affected by context. In Study 2, women responded similarly
to a man vacuuming and to a man interacting with a happy baby. Neither sociosexual orientation
nor sex-role beliefs moderated participants’ sensitivity to targets’ behavior. Women more than
men appear to display a general sensitivity to an opposite-sex target’s good character.

Keywords: human mating, parental investment, human sex differences.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Introduction

Research on hunter-gatherer societies and on non-human species with mating systems
that parallel those of humans suggests that over human ancestral history, paternal care was
critical for offspring survival to reproductive age (Hurtado and Hill, 1992; Marlowe, 2003).
Although men regularly provide substantial care to offspring (Geary, 2000), men’s lower level of
obligatory investment in offspring relative to women’s (Trivers, 1972) and greater uncertainty of
genetic relatedness to offspring (Symons, 1979) imply that men, on average, should be less likely
than women to invest in offspring. Thus, evolutionary psychologists have proposed that women
have evolved a preference for men who show signs of not just an ability to invest in offspring,
but also a willingness to invest in offspring (Buss, 1989; La Cerra, 1995). Various investigations
have provided support for this proposal. For example, Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, and Trost (1990)
found a sex difference in mate preferences concerning family orientation (wants children, is kind
and understanding) at increasingly committed levels of relationship involvement.
In her dissertation, La Cerra (1995) used photographs of the opposite sex in various
contexts to test the proposition that women have an evolved preference for men who show signs
of a willingness to invest in offspring. Using within-subjects, Latin-square designs, La Cerra

---

Women More Than Men Attend to Indicators of Good Character
exposed men and women to pictures of same-sex and opposite-sex models in a variety of
conditions. She found support for a domain-specific capacity in women to assess and respond
positively to indicators of a man’s willingness to invest in offspring. First, La Cerra
demonstrated that women responded more positively to a man interacting with a happy baby than
to a man standing alone, and more negatively to a man ignoring an unhappy baby than to a man
standing alone. Further, La Cerra demonstrated that (1) the effects were unique to women’s
ratings of men (they did not replicate with men’s ratings of women); (2) the effects were specific
to the mating domain (they did not appear when evaluating an opposite-sex person as a friend or
neighbor, nor did they appear in evaluations of same-sex individuals as a friend or neighbor); (3)
the positive effect of seeing a man interact with a baby was not a product of a general preference
for “domesticity” (women rated a man vacuuming as even less attractive than a man standing
alone); and (4) the positive effect of seeing a man interact with a baby was not a product of a
more general sensitivity to demonstrations of compassion (women rated a man interacting with
the baby as more attractive than they rated a man engaged in caretaking of an elderly person).
La Cerra’s (1995) findings were never published in a peer-reviewed outlet; thus, although
well-known among evolutionary researchers, her findings on the domain-specific nature of
evaluations of parental investment cues beg replication and extension. In fact, in two recent
studies, Brase (2006) found substantially less support than she did for a domain-specific capacity
in women to assess men’s willingness to invest. Although women in Brase’s studies responded
positively to pictures of men interacting with a baby, their positive reaction was not limited to
the mating context (it occurred when they evaluated men as potential friends and neighbors, as
well); moreover, the women responded just as positively to pictures of men showing compassion
to an elderly person as they did to pictures of men interacting with a happy baby. Brase’s
findings did document some differential sensitivity of women in assessing behavioral cues, with
the result that there are now contrasting findings in the literature.
The current studies were undertaken to test further the proposition that females have a
domain-specific capacity to assess men’s willingness to invest in offspring. We extended
previous research by (1) using pre-rated models of varied attractiveness levels and (2) utilizing a
more conservative, between-subjects design. In addition, in our second study, we (3) designed
new dependent measures and (4) tested the moderating effects of individuals’ sociosexuality and
beliefs about sex-role equality on ratings of models’ attractiveness in the varied contexts.

Study 1

Method

Participants

A total of 46 male and 57 female undergraduates at a regional public institution
participated in Study 1. The students ranged from 18 to 47 years of age, with only one participant
over 31. The mean age was 20.01 years (male M = 19.64, SD = 1.92; female M = 20.30, SD =
3.97). Some students participated in partial fulfillment of course credit.

Materials and Procedure

Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 4. 2006.
-249-

---

Women More Than Men Attend to Indicators of Good Character
Half-body (torso and up) shots of the adults used as targets in Study 1 were pre-rated by
20 opposite sex judges as similarly, slightly attractive (male M = 1.81, female M = 1.93; scale
ranged from 1 to 5, and neither target received a rating of 4 or 5). As displayed in Figure 1,
targets were photographed in each of two contexts: interacting with a happy baby and ignoring a
baby in distress.

Figure 1. Study 1 stimuli.



Study 1 was a 2 x 2 between-subjects design with baby context (interacting or ignoring)
as the independent variable and sex of participant (male or female) as the subject variable.
Participants were randomly assigned to condition, and viewed a color picture of the opposite sex
in one of the two baby contexts. Upon receiving the questionnaire, participants viewed the
picture of the target. Then, similar to that done by La Cerra (1995), participants turned to the
next page and used a 7-point scale to rate how physically and sexually attractive they found the
person in the photograph to be as a neighbor, friend, short-term sex partner, long-term
relationship partner, and marriage partner (1 = Very Unattractive, to 7 = Very Attractive). Next,
participants used a 5-point scale to rate their perceptions of how honest, kind, loyal, agreeable,
and loving the target was (1 = Not At All, to 5 = Extremely). Participants were debriefed in
writing upon their completion of the questionnaire. The entire procedure took approximately five
minutes.

Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 4. 2006.
-250-

---

Women More Than Men Attend to Indicators of Good Character
Results


Because participants’ evaluations of the target as a long-term dating partner and marriage
partner were largely overlapping (Cronbach’s ! = .95), these evaluations were averaged into one
long-term partner score. Participants’ evaluations of the target’s personality traits were also
highly reliable (! = .93) and thus averaged into one personality score. A significance level of .05
was adopted for all tests reported below.
Participant age was not related to attractiveness ratings (all ps > .36). Overall, across
evaluation contexts (long-term romantic partner, short-term sex partner, friend, neighbor) and
baby contexts (interacting, ignoring), men and women gave similar ratings of the target’s
attractiveness, t(103) = 1.19, p = .24 (male M = 4.00, SD = 1.03; ! = .92; female M = 3.72, SD =
1.45; ! = .96). Across evaluation contexts and participant sex, participants who viewed the target
interacting with a happy baby gave higher attractiveness ratings than did those who viewed the
target ignoring an upset baby, t(104) = 6.20, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.22 (interacting M = 4.47,
SD = 1.05; ignoring M = 3.13, SD = 1.17).

Effects of Sex and Context on Ratings of Target’s Attractiveness


Figure 2 displays the effects of picture context on men’s and women’s ratings of the
target’s attractiveness as a long-term romantic partner (top left panel), short-term sex partner (top
right), friend (bottom left), and neighbor (bottom right).

Attractiveness as a long-term romantic partner.

First, two-way analyses of variance revealed a strong main effect of picture condition:
Participants who viewed the target ignoring the baby rated the target as less attractive than did
participants who viewed the target interacting with the baby, F(1, 102) = 38.56, partial "2 = .27,
p < .001. Second, across context, men’s and women’s ratings of the target as a long-term partner
did not differ, F(1, 102) = .05, p = .83. Third, participant sex and baby context interacted to
affect ratings, F(1, 102) = 6.75, partial "2 = .06, p < .05. The pattern of this interaction is
displayed in the top left panel of Figure 2: Men who viewed the woman ignoring the baby rated
her as less attractive than did men who viewed her interacting with the baby, t(44) = 2.43, p <
.05, d =.73; but the effect of context on women’s ratings of the male target was very strong, t(58)
= 6.63, p < .001, d = 1.74. Within each baby context, men’s and women’s ratings did not differ,
ps > .05.

Attractiveness as a short-term sex partner.

First, two-way analyses of variance revealed a strong main effect of picture condition:
The target who was ignoring the baby was rated as less attractive than was the target who was
interacting with the baby, F(1, 102) = 13.36, partial "2 = .12, p < .001. ). Second, across picture
conditions, men’s ratings of the target’s attractiveness as a short-term sex partner were higher
than women’s ratings were, F(1, 102) = 8.84, partial "2 = .08, p < .01. Third, participant sex and
baby context interacted to affect ratings, F(1, 102) = 5.76, partial "2 = .05, p < .05. The pattern of
this interaction is displayed in the top right panel of Figure 2: Picture context did not affect
men’s ratings of the target’s short-term attractiveness, t(44) = .90, p = .74, but it did affect
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 4. 2006.
-251-

---

Women More Than Men Attend to Indicators of Good Character
women’s ratings. Women who viewed the man ignoring the baby rated him as less attractive than
did women who viewed him interacting with the baby, t(58) = 4.38, p < .001, d = 1.15. Men and
women responded similarly to the target who was interacting with the baby, t(54) = .41, p = .68,
whereas men rated the ignoring baby target as more attractive than women did, t(48) = 3.73, p <
.01, d = 1.08.

Figure 2. Study 1: Effects of context on men’s and women’s ratings of target’s attractiveness as
a long-term partner (top left), short-term sex partner (top right), friend (bottom left), and
neighbor (bottom right). Bars represent group means, and error bars represent standard errors of
the mean.

1233
:%-$.+=-(%* )(-> ;+;<
1233
e
r
:%-$.+=-(%* )(-> ;+;<
:*%".(%* ;+;<
a
r
t
n
4233

p
a
r
t
n
e
r
:*%".(%* ;+;<

p 4233
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
5233
o 5233
6233
6233
e
s
s

a
s

a

s
h
7233
7233
8233
8233

a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
a
n

a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

a
s

a

l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
M
e
a
n
M
9233
9233
/$% '($)(%* 0$#+,$ -+.*$-
!"#$% '($)(%* #+,$ -+.*$-

/$% '($)(%* 0$#+,$ -+.*$-
!"#$% '($)(%* #+,$ -+.*$-

1233
1233
:%-$.+=-(%* )(-> ;+;<
:%-$.+=-(%* )(-> ;+;<
:*%".(%* ;+;<
r
:*%".(%* ;+;<
o
b
4233
4233
h
e
i
g
5233
5233
e
s
s

a
s

a

n
6233
6233
7233
7233

a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
a
n

a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s

a
s

a

f
r
i
e
n
d
M
e
a
n
8233
8233
M
9233
9233
/$% '($)(%* 0$#+,$ -+.*$-
!"#$% '($)(%* #+,$ -+.*$-

/$% '($)(%* 0$#+,$ -+.*$-
!"#$% '($)(%* #+,$ -+.*$-


Attractiveness as a friend.

First, two-way analyses of variance revealed a strong main effect of picture condition:
Participants who viewed the target ignoring the baby rated the target as less attractive than did
participants who viewed the target interacting with the baby, F(1, 102) = 26.63, partial "2 = .20,
p < .001. Second, across context, men’s and women’s ratings of the target as a long-term partner
did not differ, F(1, 102) = .91, p = .34. Third, participant sex and baby context interacted to
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 4. 2006.
-252-

---

Women More Than Men Attend to Indicators of Good Character
affect ratings, F(1, 102) = 4.88, partial "2 = .05, p < .05. The pattern of this interaction is
displayed in the bottom left panel of Figure 2: Men who viewed the woman ignoring the baby
rated her as less attractive than did men who viewed her interacting with the baby, t(44) = 2.30, p
< .05, d =.69; but the effect of context on women’s ratings of the male target was larger, t(58) =
4.95, p < .001, d = 1.30. Men and women responded similarly to the target who was interacting
with the baby, t(54) = -1.00, p = .32, whereas men rated the ignoring baby target as more
attractive than women did, t(47) = 2.14, p < .05, d = .62.

Attractiveness as a neighbor.

First, two-way analyses of variance revealed a strong main effect of picture condition:
Participants who viewed the target ignoring the baby rated the target as less attractive than did
participants who viewed the target interacting with the baby, F(1, 102) = 24.52, partial "2 = .19,
p < .001. Second, across context, men’s and women’s ratings of the target as a long-term partner
did not differ, F(1, 102) = 2.09, p = .15. Third, participant sex and baby context did not interact
to affect ratings, F(1, 102) = 1.01, p = .32. As displayed in the bottom right panel of Figure 2, the
negative effect of ignoring a baby was similar in magnitude for the two sexes.

Effects of Sex and Context on Ratings of Target’s Personality

The pattern for participants’ ratings of the target’s personality was similar to that found
for ratings of the target’s attractiveness. First, a two-way analysis of variance revealed a
significant main effect of the manipulation on ratings of the target’s personality, F(1, 99) =
67.05, p < .001, partial "2 = .40: The target who ignored the baby was perceived less positively
overall than was the target who interacted with the baby. Second, across picture conditions,
men’s and women’s ratings of the target’s personality did not differ, F(1, 99) = 2.98, p = .09.
Third, participant sex and baby context interacted to affect ratings, F(1, 99) = 7.63, partial "2 =
.07, p < .01. Men who viewed the target ignoring the baby rated the target less positively (M =
2.89, SD = .81) than did men who viewed the target interacting with the baby (M = 3.68, SD =
.62), t(39) = 3.69, p < .01, d = 1.20; and this negative effect of context was very strong for
women, t(55) = 8.04, p < .001, d = 2.17 (ignoring M = 2.24, SD = .79; interacting M = 3.83, SD =
.71). Men and women responded similarly to the target who was interacting with the baby, t(51)
= -.82 p = .42, whereas men rated the ignoring baby target more positively than women did, t(48)
= 2.86, p < .01, d = .83.

Discussion

Consistent with the hypothesis that women have an evolved sensitivity to cues of a man’s
willingness to invest in offspring, women’s judgments of a man’s attractiveness as a long-term
partner were negatively affected by seeing him ignore a baby in distress. However, our findings
suggest less domain-specificity in women’s sensitivity than reported previously (La Cerra,
1995). Women’s attractiveness ratings were affected not only in the long-term mating evaluation,
but also in the short-term mating and non-mating (i.e., friend and neighbor) evaluation domains.
Given the logic of parental investment theory, it is not surprising that women’s ratings of a
man’s long-term attractiveness were negatively affected by seeing him ignore a baby in distress.
Perhaps somewhat surprising is that their ratings of a man’s short-term sexual attractiveness
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 4. 2006.
-253-

---

Women More Than Men Attend to Indicators of Good Character
were also negatively affected. After all, men chosen as short-term partners are not expected to
invest on a prolonged basis, particularly in offspring. However, some research suggests that
engaging in short-term mating often functions as a strategy for acquiring a long-term mate
(Greiling and Buss, 2000); thus, the two mating domains are likely not independent of each other
in the female mind.
In further contrast to La Cerra’s findings, men’s ratings of the target’s long-term
attractiveness also were significantly affected by picture condition. On one hand, because women
have parental certainty, they might invest reliably in offspring and, as such, one might not expect
there to have been selection pressure for men to have evolved to be sensitive to behavioral cues
regarding women’s willingness to parentally invest. On the other hand, women’s degree of
nurturance and devotion to their offspring varies tremendously, and if such variation historically
was related to differential child outcomes, then men may have evolved to be sensitive to
behavioral cues regarding women’s willingness to care for children. Although our effect sizes
suggest that men were not as strongly affected as women were by viewing a target ignore a baby
in distress, the finding warrants discussion and attempted replication.
Importantly, men’s ratings of a woman’s short-term sexual attractiveness were not at all
affected by context in the evaluation of the target’s attractiveness as a short-term sex partner.
This non-finding accords with past research showing that men’s standards for various
characteristics such as kindness and intelligence drop in the selection of a sex partner (Kenrick,
Groth, Trost, and Sadalla, 1993).

Study 2

Introduction


In Study 1, extended previous research by using a conservative, between-subjects design.
However, we lacked a direct test of the possibility that women may respond positively to the
male interacting with the baby because women have a general preference for men who are
“domestic” or helpful around the house. In Study 2, we tested this possibility by creating a third
condition in which the participant was pictured alone vacuuming.
Study 1 also lacked a measure of individual differences in sexual strategy, or sociosexual
orientation. We hypothesized that within each sex, a more restricted sexual strategy (being
oriented toward long-term, committed mateships) would be associated with a greater sensitivity
to the effect of interacting vs. ignoring a baby, and that a more unrestricted sexual strategy would
be associated with a lower sensitivity. In Study 2, then, we included the Sociosexual Orientation
Inventory (SOI; Simpson and Gangestad, 1991) as a measure of sociosexuality.
One might suggest that women’s strong negative reaction to a man ignoring a baby is the
product of traditional sex-role socialization processes that instruct women to find a man who will
be a good father. This explanation, however, needs to be unpacked in order to be tested. First, we
assume that being a ‘good father’ means more than just providing resources; it also means being
willing to contribute time and energy directly to the care and instruction of one’s children. Under
this assumption, it is just as likely that men are socialized to find a woman who will be a good
mother as it is that women are socialized to find a man who will be a good father. Second,
individuals who hold traditional views about sex roles tend to agree with statements that
emphasize the importance of the wife rather than the husband handling the children and
housework. Thus, one might predict that holding traditional views about the sexes is associated
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 4. 2006.
-254-

---

Women More Than Men Attend to Indicators of Good Character
with less sensitivity to males’ behavior with a baby. Individuals with sex-egalitarian views, on
the other hand, tend to agree with statements that characterize both female and male as
caregivers; one could argue that women’s sensitivity to cues of a man’s willingness to invest is
the result of being socialized according to modern sex-egalitarian ideals. If that is the case, then
women who score higher in sex-role egalitarianism (i.e., lower in traditional sex-role
identification) should be more susceptible to the negative effect of images of a male ignoring a
baby. In Study 2, we included a measure of sex-role beliefs to determine whether they were
related in any way to the negative effect of ignoring a baby on people’s perceptions of the target.

Method

Participants

A total of 70 male and 115 female undergraduates from two regional public institutions
participated. The participants ranged from 18 to 49 years of age, with only one participant over
30. The mean age was 19.56 years (male M = 19.76 years, female M = 19.44 years). Some
students participated in partial fulfillment of course credit.

Materials and Procedure

The method of creating stimuli and collecting data for Study 2 was the same as for Study
1. The adult targets used in Study 2 were both pre-rated by 15 opposite sex judges as moderately
attractive (male M = 6.46, female M = 5.60; scale ranged from 1 to 9, and neither target received
a score below 4), although the male was pre-rated as more attractive than was the female, t(34) =
-2.61, p < .05. In addition, the male and female targets were pre-rated as similar in age (male M
= 22.60 yrs, female M = 22.90 yrs). As displayed in Figure 3, male and female targets were
photographed while interacting with a happy baby and ignoring a baby in distress. Targets were
also photographed in a third context, vacuuming alone (the “domestic” condition).

Study 2 was a 3 x 2 between-subjects design with picture context (interacting, ignoring,
or being domestic) as the independent variable and sex of the participant as the subject variable.
Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the three picture conditions. First, participants
viewed a color picture of the opposite sex target in one of the three conditions. Then, participants
turned to the next page and used a 7-point scale (1 = Disagree Strongly, to 7 = Agree Strongly) to
indicate their agreement with five statements about their attraction to the person in the
photograph as a sex partner (e.g., “This man[woman] is sexually attractive,” “I am sexually
attracted to this man [woman],” “I would be willing to have sex with this man [woman]; ! = .93),
and three statements about their attraction to the person as a long-term relationship partner (e.g.,
“This man [woman] would be a desirable marriage partner,” “I would be willing to develop a
long-term romantic relationship with this man [woman];” ! = .89). We generated these items in
an attempt to more closely parallel the thoughts someone might entertain when viewing a
member of the opposite sex. Rating the target’s sexual attractiveness as a potential neighbor, for
example, as conducted in Study 1 and in previous research, seemed awkward. Scores on the
sexual attraction and long-term relationship composite variables were moderately correlated (p <
.001).
Next, participants used a 5-point scale to rate their perceptions of how honest, kind, loyal,
agreeable, loving, and motherly/fatherly the target was (! = .92; 1 = Not At All, to 5 =
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 4. 2006.
-255-

---

Women More Than Men Attend to Indicators of Good Character
Extremely). Finally, participants completed the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI;
Simpson and Gangestad, 1991) and the Larsen and Long Sex Role Egalitarianism Scale (Larsen
and Long, 1988; ! = .80). Participants were debriefed in writing upon their completion of the
questionnaire. The entire procedure took approximately 15 minutes.

Figure 3. Study 2 stimuli.



Results

Participant age was not related to sociosexual orientation (p = .18), nor to attractiveness
ratings (all ps > .20). Overall, across evaluation contexts (long-term relationship attraction,
sexual attraction) and baby contexts (interacting, domestic, and ignoring), men reported more
attraction to the target than did women, t(178) = 3.43, p < .01, d = .51 (male M = 4.35, SD =
1.20; female M = 3.69, SD = 1.28). Across evaluation contexts and sex, participants who viewed
the target ignoring the baby reported lower levels of attraction to the target (M = 3.41, SD = 1.34)
than did either those who viewed the target interacting with the baby (M = 4.35, SD = 1.30, p <
.001) or those who viewed the target being domestic (M = 4.09, SD = 1.03, p < .01); the latter
two groups did not differ from each other.

Effects of Sex and Context on Attraction to Target


Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 4. 2006.
-256-

---

Women More Than Men Attend to Indicators of Good Character
Figure 4 displays the effects of picture context on men’s and women’s ratings of long-
term relationship attraction (left panel) and sexual attraction (right panel) to target. For ratings of
long-term relationship attraction, a two-way analysis of variance revealed a strong main effect of
picture condition, F(2, 178) = 8.78, p < .001, partial "2 = .09. Participants who viewed the target
ignoring the baby reported less long-term relationship attraction (M = 3.11, SD = 1.33) than did
either those who viewed the target interacting with the baby (M = 4.20, SD = 1.44, p < .001) or
those who viewed the target being domestic (M = 4.01, SD = 1.08, p < .001); the latter two
groups did not differ from each other. The analysis also revealed a significant interaction
between sex and picture condition, F(2, 178) = 4.11, p < .05, partial "2 = .04. As displayed in
Figure 4, no pair-wise mean comparisons for men were significant; however, women who
viewed the target ignoring the baby reported lower levels of long-term relationship attraction
than did either those who viewed the target interacting with the baby (p < .001) or those who
viewed the target being domestic (p < .001). Women who viewed the man interacting with the
baby did not report more long-term attraction relative to those who viewed him vacuuming.
For ratings of sexual attraction, a two-way analysis of variance revealed a strong main
effect of sex, F(1, 174) = 26.04, p < .001, partial "2 = .13. Across picture conditions, men (M =
4.81, SD = 1.32) reported more sexual attraction to the target than did women (M = 3.75, SD =
1.36). The analysis also revealed a main effect of picture condition, F(2, 174) = 4.31, p < .05,
partial "2 = .05. That is, participants who viewed the target ignoring the baby reported lower
levels of sexual attraction (M = 3.73, SD = 1.48) than did those who viewed the target interacting
with the baby (M = 4.56, SD = 1.39, p < .01); no other comparisons were significant. We
conducted one-way analyses of variance with follow-up comparisons to look at the effects of
picture condition for each sex separately. As displayed in Figure 4, no pair-wise mean
comparisons for men were significant. However, women who viewed the target ignoring the
baby reported less sexual attraction than did women who viewed the target interacting with the
baby, p < .01. No other comparisons were significant; again, women who viewed the man
interacting with the baby did not report any more attraction relative to those who viewed him
being domestic.

Effects of Sex and Context on Ratings of Target’s Personality


For perceptions of the target’s personality, a two-way analysis of variance first revealed a
small main effect of sex, F(1, 178) = 4.46, p < .05, partial "2 = .02. Across picture conditions,
men (M = 3.28, SD = .80) perceived the target more positively than did women (M = 3.00, SD =
1.00). Second, the analysis revealed a large main effect of picture condition, F(2, 178) = 40.64, p
< .001, partial "2 = .31, with all pair-wise comparisons significant. That is, participants who
viewed the target ignoring the baby perceived the target’s personality more negatively (M = 2.86,
SD = .76) than did either those who viewed the target interacting with the baby (M = 3.72, SD =
.73, p < .001) or those who viewed the target being domestic (M = 3.25, SD = .71, p < .001).
Further, those who viewed the target interacting with the baby rated the target more positively
than did those who viewed the target being domestic (p < .01). Third, the analysis of variance
revealed that the pattern of the effect of the manipulation was different for women than for men,
interaction F(2, 178) = 5.81, p < .01, partial "2 = .06. Analyses of the effect of the manipulation
for each sex separately showed that among men, those who viewed the target ignoring the baby
rated the target less positively (M = 2.89, SD = .76) than did those who viewed the target
interacting with the baby (M = 3.86, SD = .59), p < .001; and those who viewed the target being
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 4. 2006.
-257-

---