in this series: #1 | #2 | #3 | #3.5
It seems you all adore my lay theory (or at least find it fun), so here’s a follow-up! Please read part 1 if you haven’t figured out your type — you will need the info to contextualise the following.
In the previous post, we investigated the first tenet, which predicted that men prefer to marry for stability while women prefer to marry for love. (I still stand by this for Singaporean men, by the way.)
Alas, findings from my informal poll did not support my prediction. Instead, we found the opposite pattern: more men voted for love (57.9%), while more women voted for stability (54.5%). How exciting! Of course, that means we must investigate the issue further.
In the current study, we will do two things: (1) investigate the second tenet from my lay theory and (2) attempt to replicate the findings of the first poll.
To recapitulate:
Second tenet: I posit that people looking to date can be divided into two major types: people who date to date (the Romantics) and people who date to marry (the Pragmatics).
- Your gender does not influence whether you are a Romantic or Pragmatic, unlike with marriage. Rather, other aspects such as your personality, upbringing and past relationship experiences will determine your type.
Aim of current study: observe the proportion of men and women that self-categorise into each type under my typology. We are looking at a combination of marriage and dating preferences this time (we looked only at marriage preferences previously).
Hypotheses: Given the findings from the previous study, here were my predictions this time —
- Hypothesis 1: For marriage, more men will select love, and more women will select stability.
- Hypothesis 2: For dating, the split of Pragmatics and Romantics will be roughly equal across genders.
Method: Instagram poll
- Participants were shown the prompt “Now that you have read my blog, tell me your type” (LOL totally legit study)
- Men and women answered on separate pages. Both saw the same 4 options (format: marriage/dating preference)
- Stable/pragmatic
- Love/pragmatic
- Stable/romantic
- Love/romantic
Participants: 24-30 years old, mostly college-educated working adults
- Inclusion criteria: must have read the first lay theory post (duh, I need more fans)
Results:
- Overall, both genders (N = 47)
- Stable/pragmatic n = 13 (27.7%)
- Love/pragmatic n = 16 (34.0%)
- Stable/romantic n = 11 (23.4%)
- Love/romantic n = 7 (14.9%)
- Stable = 24, Love = 23, Pragmatic = 29, Romantic = 18
- Males N = 29
- Stable/pragmatic n = 6 (20.7%)
- Love/pragmatic n = 9 (31.0%)
- Stable/romantic n = 8 (27.6%)
- Love/romantic n = 6 (20.7%)
- Stable = 14, Love = 15, Pragmatic = 15, Romantic = 14
- Females N = 18
- Stable/pragmatic n = 7 (38.9%)
- Love/pragmatic n = 7 (38.9%)
- Stable/romantic n = 3 (16.7%)
- Love/romantic n = 1 (5.6%)
- Stable = 10, Love = 8, Pragmatic = 14, Romantic = 4
Discussion
Hypothesis 1: For marriage, more men will select love, and more women will select stability.
- Hypothesis 1 NOT supported.
- Look at the split across genders (stable/love): males (14/15) and females (10/8). Within each gender, the votes are more or less equally split.
Now, what would Study 1 have to say about this!
Granted, Study 1 was better powered because not everyone reads my blog (sad), so the sample size this time is about half the original. Plus, fewer women responded than men. But if we consider the findings legit, maybe the split is more even than it initially seemed.
What we have suggests that gender does not play a significant role in determining whether you would marry for love or stability. Men and women are equally likely to pick either. Other characteristics such as personality, family dynamics, or past dating experience could better explain whether you prefer to marry for love or stability.
Hypothesis 2: For dating, the split of Pragmatics and Romantics will be roughly equal across genders.
- Hypothesis 2 PARTIALLY supported — and the results are interesting
- First, we look at both genders taken together (pragmatic/romantic) = 29/18
- Then males = 15/14 — roughly the same, which matches my prediction
- BUT females = 14/4 — disproportionately slanted towards pragmatic dating
My interpretation is that women are more selective than men in the sense that they prefer to date with the intention of ultimately marrying their partner (in the long term).
Actually, that’s not surprising at all. Evolutionary theory does predict that women tend to be more selective in their partners, and I don’t think I need to give an example of it — you’ve probably seen it play out in your own life, or at least by listening to your friends’ stories. (But read this for an interesting caveat.)
Sexual Strategies Theory (SST) put forward by Buss and Schmitt (1993) [suggests that] mate choice […] is highly sensitive to the temporal context of short-term versus long-term partnerships. Based on different minimum parental investment of different sexes, men are predicted to prefer more sexual partners and variety, i.e. more short-term mates. This has been replicated by several studies (Kurzban & Weeden, 2005; Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Schmitt et al., 2001; Shackelford et al., 2004). Thus, short-term relationship seeking is believed to be much more common among men than women.
Mehmetoglu & Määttänen, 2020, in Evolutionary Psychology
However, note that not all evidence supports the SST’s premise:
According to a study by Li and Kenrick (2006), “the sexes are similarly selective for long-term relationships, whereas women are more selective regarding short-term relationships” (p. 483). The study also found a significant interaction-effect in which the sexes were more similar in their preferences for short- versus long-term mates: both sexes prioritized physical attractiveness for short-term mates whereas women were less selective for long-term mates’ appearance (Li & Kenrick, 2006).
ibid.
Furthermore, the results we’re seeing in our study could be explained based on our participant characteristics rather than the theories provided above. That’s when things get more complicated and thus fascinating. Some alternative explanations I thought of:
- 1. Women in Singapore have no interest in short-term dating because it is not considered a possibility in the first place. The dating phase is merely a means to an end. Or, to put it differently, no distinction is made between dating and marriage. Marriage is merely the inevitable, natural outcome of dating. I know people who think like this — and if we generalise, many women think like this as opposed to men, though some men definitely think the same.
The above begs the question of what “dating” means to us in the first place. Is it a short-term relationship with a non-guaranteed possibility of becoming more? The definition of pragmatic dating and the overwhelming female preference for it suggest that women are essentially looking for absolute certainty: they want to be confident that this is the person they want to commit to before committing to them.
Honestly, that baffles me. How can you commit if you do not know what you are committing to? There must inherently be a trial period in the style of Schrödinger, no? And isn’t that… well, dating? It has the absurdity of going to Best Denki, looking at a TV that is not switched on, and deciding to buy it based on its specifications alone. It’s not wrong, but it’s a suboptimal strategy to me.
But it might be just me getting this all mixed up.
- 2. It is possible that (most) women in Singapore are not interested in dating for love. This is related to the above but has a little nuance to it. When I discuss this matter with my friends, I sometimes get this response: “Why try if it’s not going to work out?”
Again, a totally legitimate (albeit rather avoidant) response. But here’s a poem that expresses my counterpoint better than I can:
Everyone forgets that Icarus also flew.
Jack Gilbert, Failing and Flying
It’s the same when love comes to an end,
or the marriage fails and people say
they knew it was a mistake, that everybody
said it would never work. That she was
old enough to know better. But anything
worth doing is worth doing badly.
Like being there by that summer ocean
on the other side of the island while
love was fading out of her, the stars
burning so extravagantly those nights that
anyone could tell you they would never last.
Every morning she was asleep in my bed
like a visitation, the gentleness in her
like antelope standing in the dawn mist.
Each afternoon I watched her coming back
through the hot stony field after swimming,
the sea light behind her and the huge sky
on the other side of that. Listened to her
while we ate lunch. How can they say
the marriage failed? Like the people who
came back from Provence (when it was Provence)
and said it was pretty but the food was greasy.
I believe Icarus was not failing as he fell,
but just coming to the end of his triumph.
Well, darlings, that’s all I have for now. Let me know if you agree or disagree; I’d love to hear it.
Once again, I hope you find the love you deserve. You deserve everything. I love you!
baby g’s diary 