Columbia university speed dating

On one hand, I omitted the events with fewer than 14 people.

On the other hand, the authors omitted others: Seven have been omitted…four because they involved an experimental intervention where participants were asked to bring their favorite book.

Iyengar, Sheena Sethi Kamenica, Emir Simonson, Itamar Date:2006URL:https://doi.org/10.7916/D8FB585ZJournal Title: Quarterly Journal of Economics Abstract: We study dating behavior using data from a Speed Dating experiment where we generate random matching of subjects and create random variation in the number of potential partners.

Our design allows us to directly observe individual decisions rather than just final matches.

For instance, here's one of the key tables in their paper from which they derived one of the primary findings statements made in the abstract:https://i.imgur.com/Zegh3Their interpretation: There is a clear difference in the attribute weights on attractiveness and intelligence: males put more weight on physical attractiveness than females do, while females put more weight on intelligence.

This is consistent with the predictions of both the evolutionary and social structure theories of mate selection described in the introduction. Each additional attractiveness point (on a 10-point scale) increases male likelihood of saying Yes by 2.1 percentage points more than it increases the female likelihood of saying Yes.

The implied effect of intelligence on the probability of Yes is 4.6 percentage points for women compared with 2.3 percentage points for men.

The second major notable finding, IMO, is that the bulk of the explanatory power of attractiveness on the female rater's decisions remains even when only using the average of ratings that OTHER women ("Consensus") gave the male target (column 4).

A similarly rather tendentious interpretation of the data by the authors may be found with regards to Table IV, which seeks to uncover "whether subjects are averse to choosing partners who are superior to them on gender stereotypical attributes, as suggested by social structure theory [Eagly and Wood 1999].":https://i.imgur.com/cfw0ol Their interpretation: The results are reported in Table IV, columns (1) and (2).

Also, we find that women exhibit a preference for men who grew up in affluent neighborhoods.

Finally, male selectivity is invariant to group size, while female selectivity is strongly increasing in group size.

Leave a Reply