Sexual Economics: Courtship in Sweden

Published: 15 November 2021| Version 1 | DOI: 10.17632/gpzf7c5vmv.1
Contributors:
,
Siri Wessberg,
Rebecca Elshani,
Naila Saleh Al-Basri,
Leonard Ngaosuvan

Description

"SET, dating". A vignette study with four dating profiles tested whether access to resources increases male attractiveness. The results indicated that, even in Sweden, men with limited resources are considered less attractive. Male financial resources are not seen as a bonus, but rather a prerequisite. Four fictitious online dating profiles were created for the experiment; (a) poor and risk-averse, (b) rich and risk-averse, (c) poor and risk-taking, (d) rich and risk-taking. Grupp: 1 = Poor Risk Seeking; 2 = Rich Risk Seeking; 3 = Poor Risk Averse; 4 = Rich Risk Averse Attraction, likeliness to match, and recommending to a friend were all answered on 5 item Likert scales. All participants in the study were women. ----- "SE, Dating rejection" It's always morally acceptable for the woman to reject the man, less so when the man invests more money. A vignette was created telling a story in two parts, with two question sections, one after each part of the story. The story was about a man and a woman who met via online dating. They decided to meet on a coffee date, on their way there the woman saw and pointed out a bracelet that she liked a lot. In the No gift condition, no price was mentioned. In the cheap condition, the bracelet cost 50 SEK (5€), and in the expensive condition, it cost 3000 SEK (300€). The man and the woman agreed on another date, this time at a bar. In the Cheap and Expensive condition, the man gave the woman the bracelet she pointed out during the first date. In the no gift condition, no gift was given. After some drinks, they took a walk by the river and started kissing by the water. The man invited the woman to follow him home spending the night, which she declined. Question section one consisted of questions regarding; (a) Sympathy, (b) disappointment, and (c) how morally accepted it was for the woman to reject the man. The story continued. The man was disappointed by the woman’s response. In the cheap and expensive gift conditions, the man asked if he could get the bracelet back. The man and the woman had a small chat and then bid goodbye. Question section two consisted of questions regarding; (a) Sympathy, (b) disappointment, and (c) socially acceptable the man's behavior was. Group: 0 = No gift; 1 = Cheap; 2 = Expensive Gender: 1= Male; 2 = Female Age: 1= 18-19; 2=20-29; 3=30-31; 4=40-49; 5=50-59 All Likert scales range from 1 (not at all) to 7 (completely). Q1: How do you feel about Kate not going home with Ted? Q2: If Ted told you this story, how much sympathy would you feel for him? Q3: If you were Ted, would you understand Kate’s behavior? Q4: If you were in Ted's position, how disappointed would you be with Kate for not following you home? Q5: If Ted told you this story, how much sympathy would you feel for him? Q6: Is Ted’s disappointment justifiable? Q7: If you were in Kate’s position, would you be able to understand Ted’s disappointment? Q8: Is Ted’s reaction socially acceptable?

Files

Steps to reproduce

SET, Dating file: Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare the rich with poor conditions. Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare risk-seeking with risk-averse conditions. -------------------- SE, Dating rejection file First, Kruskal-Wallis H tests were used to run on questions testing if there was any difference between conditions. After that, pair-wise comparisons were done by subsequent Mann-Whitney U test, corrected with Bonferroni.

Categories

Behavioral Economics

License