Abstract
AbstractThe way people create social connections and access information has been altered greatly by technology in recent decades. Online browsing of visual profiles has become a common means for seeking potential partners for both short- and long-term relationships. Little is known, however, about how people prioritize mate quality information while viewing online profiles. Using eye-tracking methods and self-report, this study investigated how people evaluated profile-based facial attractiveness and text-based financial resources information, represented by income and occupation. Heterosexual male and female participants, aged between 18 and 27 years, viewed opposite-sex profiles while their eye-movements were recorded using a remote eye-tracking camera. In line with current theory, resources information had little effect on men’s overall attention to women’s faces, whereas women’s overall attention to men’s faces varied depending on the level of income and occupation. Women evaluated men’s faces more when income and occupation were low, regardless of attractiveness. Unexpectedly, however, men marginally increased their attention toward unattractive women who showed a high-level of income and more esteemed occupation. Men self-reported a higher interest in women for a short-term relationship and women self-reported a higher interest in men for a long-term relationship. This work provides a foundation to further examine how people browse profile-based information and to investigate the mate selection process, with real-world implications for online dating app users, profile design, and content.
Funder
University of New England
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference40 articles.
1. Abramova, O., Baumann, A., Krasnova, H., & Buxmann, P. (2016, January). Gender differences in online dating: What do we know so far? A systematic literature review. In 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 3858–3867). IEEE.
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2015). Average weekly earnings, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0
3. Australian Fair Work Commission. (2015). Annual wage review 2014–15. Retrieved from https://www.fwc.gov.au/awards-and-agreements/minimum-wages-conditions/annual-wage-reviews/annual-wage-review-2014-15
4. Bak, P. (2010). Sex differences in the attractiveness halo effect in the online dating environment. Journal of Business and Media Psychology, 1, 1–7.
5. Barker, C., Pistrang, N., & Elliott, R. (2002). Research methods in clinical psychology: An introduction for students and practitioners (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204