 Picture by gracinistudios (via Pixabay.com) Does Thinking About Dating Make Dating Worse? The Science!
By Heath Shive We teach children that imagination is a good thing. But imagination is not automatically good. We can imagine good things. We can imagine terrible things. We can imagine scenarios that make us feel like losers or failures. We can imagine scenarios that paint us as sexy or invincible. Imagination is never real...yet despite this, we tend to identify with whatever we imagine. Baltasar Gracian - a 17th-century Jesuit & author of The Art of Worldly Wisdom - wrote that we need to discipline imagination. Gracian writes: "Of all things she (imagination) is capable, if not held in check by the wisest of wills." And science agrees! How do you imagine yourself...as a date? As a lover? To the science! Love Is An Anchor? In psychology, an anchor is an idea that sets the tone for subsequent thoughts. If you think about how bad your day is going, all other thoughts will be influenced. In 1988, psychologists Fritz Strack, Leonard Martin, and Norbert Schwarz performed an anchoring experiment on the subject of romance. In the experiment, college students were asked 2 questions: (1) How happy are you? (2) How often are you dating? When the questions were asked in that order, the correlation between the answers was low (0.11). But when the experimenters asked the dating question first, the correlation increased dramatically to 0.62! In other words, if first you were reminded that you are not dating often, then you subsequently thought you were miserable in general. The experimenters had similar results when they asked married couples about how often they made love. Be Mindful of Your Thoughts We have been taught that imagination is without limits! But in fact, imagination is limited. Psychological anchors narrow the scope of thoughts and imaginings. The vast majority of humanity is not dating or making love very often! Your romantic life is just 1 color in the tapestry of your existence. Let's say you have 10 aspects to your life, 1 of which is romance. If you are doing well in the other 9 aspects, then 90% is pretty damn good! The more you think about your love life, the more it sets the tone for other thoughts. But your thoughts are not the same as your life! Your life is a reality. Your thoughts are just your imagination. And as Gracian wrote, we must discipline our imagination with "the wisest of wills." Sources: Strack, Fritz, L. L. Martin, and Norbert Schwaz. "Priming and Communication: The Social Determinants of Information Use in Judgments of Life-Satisfaction." European Journal of Social Psychology 18 (1988): 429-42.  photo by rawpixel via Pixabay.com Forget the Bar Scene! How About a Bakery-Date?
By Heath Shive Hate the bar scene? Who doesn't? In movies, books, and TV, bars look so sophisticated. But honestly, I have never been in a bar for more than 10 minutes without feeling bored - unless I am with friends, in which case, it is the amity and not the bar creating joy. But if you're single, where do you go to meet people? Is it school, work, church, coffee shops, etc.? Have you thought of a bakery as a dating spot? To the science! The Way to a Woman's Heart Is...Through Her Nose? In 2012, psychologist Nicolas This is science? It's a just a pick-up scene! But wait, there's more. The men were told to approach women in places that had pleasant smells - such as near bakeries and pastry shops - but also to approach women in places with neutral odors. More women gave their phone numbers in areas with pleasant smells! There has always been an obvious connection between scent and romance - which is why there has been evidence of colognes and perfumes going back thousands of years. But the study didn't take place next to a perfume counter. This was fresh-baked goodies! Pleasant smells can set the mood in courtship, just like lighting, clothing, and deportment. Don't Bear the Burden of Sexy So much of what constitutes romance is high-maintenance, neurotic, and superficial. We don't have to force ourselves to be sexy all the time. Courtship can be simple and pleasant. We want pleasant experiences - and what is more pleasant than fresh-baked bread, pies, and cakes! And according to an article on Pregel magazine online, bakeries had a growth rate of over 7% between 2009 and 2014. Bakeries are pleasant and hip right now! What's wrong with a bakery-date? LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Gueguen, Nicolas (2012).  Photo by miltonhuallpa95 (via Pixabay.com) - Accessed 26 Aug 2018 There’s Someone for Everyone: The Science!
By Heath Shive “Men are all ….” “Women are just …” These sentences never end well. When genders start going to war with each other, both men and women have a tendency to reduce each other to stereotypes. But here's the good news! Both men and women are (mostly) wrong! To the science! What Women Think About Men In 2009, psychologist Glenn Geher performed a study on “the ability to assess the mating desires of the opposite sex.” A successful romantic strategy requires that you read the thoughts and feelings of potential mates. So Geher designed a fairly large study – nearly 500 young men and women – to get some data. In the study, women were asked to predict who men would choose for a short-term relationship from a list of 3 theoretical females. This list (abbreviated) is as follows: A. “Who said chivalry was dead? Open doors for me…I will make your favorite sandwich when you wake up hungry in the night.” B. “I am looking for a fling of epic proportions…Human beings are not meant to be paired for life, like lobsters.” C. “I know all the words to Grease…I am looking for someone who can make my heart sing.” The majority (53%) of the study's women predicted men would choose option B – i.e., the “fling” lady. But as it turns out, the majority of the study’s men (54%) chose the “chivalry” lady from option A! Only 24% of men chose the fling in option B. And surprisingly enough, 22% of the men wanted the "musical" lady option C! Women had a tendency to oversexualize men’s choices. What Men Think About Women In the study, men were asked to predict who women would choose for a short-term relationship from a list of 3 theoretical males. The list is as follows: A. “I’m pretty busy working all week, but that doesn’t stop me from having fun, usually out and about a couple nights during the week…” B. “I’ve been described as a very energetic individual…I’m a man in a uniform looking for some fun.” C. "I’m spontaneous and I like to try new things. I enjoy diversity, cultures, art…good food and intelligent conversation.” Almost half of the study's men (49%) predicted that women would choose option B – the man in uniform. But instead, almost half of the women (48%) chose option C – the diversity and arts man! Only 29% of the women chose the very masculine man in uniform (B). And surprisingly enough, 23% of the women chose the fairly ordinary guy in option A! Men had a tendency to oversexualize women’s choices. Conclusion So both men and women had a tendency to reduce the opposite gender's decisions to stereotypes. But look at the numbers again. Even though the musical lady was the least picked option, still at least 1 in 5 men wanted to date her! Even though the “ordinary” guy was the least picked option, still about 1 in 5 women wanted to date him! You do not have to be the most popular option to be chosen! Given the billions of men and women in the world – and the myriad varieties of desires in that mad tumble – you can afford to be optimistic. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Geher, Glenn, and Kaufman, Scott Barry. Mating Intelligence Unleashed: The Role of the Mind in Sex, Dating, and Love. Oxford University Press, 2013. here to edit.  Photo by Michael Vincent Photography for Bride's Night Out, Inc. (accessed via Wikimedia Commons 28 May 2018) CC BY 3.0 The Emotional Risks of Bachelor/Bachelorette Parties: There’s Science For This?
By Heath Shive Researchers in 1989 (Kenrich et al.) performed a study with male and female college students. The students’ devotion to their respective romantic partners was measured. Then, one half of the students were shown opposite-sex nude centerfolds (from Playboy and Playgirl, etc). The other half were shown pictures of abstract art. Afterwards, the students’ attraction to their partners was measured again. The results? Afterwards, males exposed to attractive images of nude women felt that their female romantic partner was less sexually attractive. However, females exposed to attractive images of nude men (from Playgirl centerfolds) did not feel differently than before. So according to this study, men were more likely to discount their current partner in the presence of more attractive women. But the study’s women were more steadfast, despite the imagery of very attractive men. This study became a cornerstone for evolutionary psychology, frequently appearing in textbooks! By 2015, the paper had been cited 249 times on Google Scholar, and over 100 times on PsycINFO. But there’s another paper that begs to differ. Times Have Changed! In 2016, a different group of researchers (Balzarini et al., 2017) wanted to see if the results of the famous Kenrick study could be replicated. Turns out, the results were completely different! In the new study’s first 2 experiments, the subjects’ exposure to opposite-sex nude images had no effect on their attraction to their partner. This was true for both men and women! In the third experiment of this new study, the subjects again were exposed to pictures of the opposite-sex. But now these pictures were of attractive nudes or attractive non-nudes (with conservative clothes). The results? Afterwards, the subjects (both men and women) felt that their romantic partners were now more attractive! Why the Difference? There were some differences in the two studies (1989 vs. 2016). The original 1989 study involved young college students, but the 2016 study involved full-grown adults (average age, 35). The first study was published in 1989 – when attitudes about nudity and eroticism were more polarized between the two sexes. The new study was published in 2017 – with the Internet firmly part of modern life. Has the Internet made nudity so pervasive that it has become less shocking, and thus less powerful? Gender sensitivity has grown in both the private and professional sector since 1989. And a growing attitude of equality has allowed women to practice many of the habits previously accorded to men, including:
In other words, nudity is not as big a deal now. Nude imagery doesn't carry the same emotional power as before. It’s a different America. We’ve Grown Up? Balzarini’s study would seem to show that both American males and females can be more sexually mature now. Whether that maturity comes from personal growth (as we age) or cultural growth (like #MeToo), the improvement seems real. So how erotic should your bachelor/bachelorette party be? Depends. Can you handle it? How mature are you? LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Balzarini, R.N., Dobson, K., Chin, K., & Campbell, L. (2017). Does exposure to erotica reduce attraction and love for romantic partners in men? Indpendent replications of Kenrich, Gutierres, and Goldberg (1989) Study 2. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70 (5), 191-197. Kenrick, D. T., Gutierres, S. E., & Goldberg, L. L. (1989). Influence of popular erotica on judgments of strangers and mates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25 (2), 159-167. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1031 (89)90010-3.  Picture by rigodiaz from Pixabay.com Devil in a Red Dress: How Color Affects Men, Women, and Our Sex Drives
By Heath Shive Did you know that men tip waitresses more when the women wear red? Psychologist Nicolas Gueguen published a paper on this little color insight. But it doesn’t stop there. The story goes that matadors use red capes because the color provokes the bulls, and baboons flash a red butt to signal status. Does red bring out the animal…in you? This is called embodied cognition, and psychologist Thalma Lobel has written an entire book about it called Sensation: The New Science of Physical Intelligence – which is where I found following studies. To the science! Are Men Suckers for Red? Researchers Andrew Elliot and Daniela Niesta published a study in 2008. They showed 2 groups of men a black-and-white photo of a young woman for about 5 seconds. Both groups of men saw the same woman - but half of the men saw on the picture with a red background and the other half saw the picture on a white background. The men were then asked to rate the woman’s attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 9. The men who saw the woman on a red background rated her as more attractive than the men who saw the white background. Typical oversexed men, right? But... Are Women Suckers for Red Too? In 2010, researchers (again including Elliot and Niesta) performed a similar experiment on women. Women were shown the picture of a man. But the women either saw the picture with a red, white or gray background. As expected, women who saw the picture of the man with a red background rated him as more attractive and more desirable than the women who saw the other backgrounds. Red has a measurable effect on humans. But don’t get carried away, guys. Just because an effect is measurable does not mean it is of primary significance. Though women seem to succeed with wearing red dresses, there’s a reason men don’t wear red suits, looking like cartoonish villains. But observe the color of a politician’s tie, a rich man’s car, or even a stop sign. Red gets our attention. Conclusion Psychology frequently tells us that our instincts and experiences (our insides) affect our actions in the outside world. But studies can also show that the outside world (its colors, smells, sounds, and textures) affect our inner selves and thinking too. Whether we admit it or not, we are all are sensual creatures. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: A. J. Elliot and D. Niesta (2008). Romantic red: Red enhances men’s attraction to women. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (5), 1150-1164. A.J. Elliot, D. Niesta Kayser, T. Greitenmeyer, S. Lichtensfeld, R. H. Gramzow, M. A. Maier, and H. Liu (2010). Red, rank, and romance in women viewing men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139 (3), 399-417. Lobel, Thalma. Sensation: The New Science of Physical Intelligence. Atria Books, 2014. N. Gueguen and C Jacob (2012). Clothing color and tipping: Gentlemen patrons give more tips to waitresses with red clothes. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, April 18, 2012.  Photo by kgorz via Pixabay.com The Wedding Ring Effect: The Science of “You Ain’t Taking My Man!”
By Heath Shive Among mammals, males battle each other for access to females. Stallions battle for a herd, lions battle for control of the pride, and bucks charge each other for does. Obviously men compete with each other for prized women – even to the point of violence. It is just as obvious – if often unstated – that women compete with each other for prized men. And some women fight dirty. There is cheating - which is a temporary sexual affair. But there is also mate poaching - strategic acquisition of another woman's man. Turns out, it might have something to do with what is called “the wedding ring effect.” A married woman’s greatest competition is a single woman. Don’t believe me? To the science! Mate Poaching Psychology Psychologists Jessica Parker and Melissa Burkley peformed a study on the impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching. In their study, Parker and Burkley gathered 184 participants, both male and female, roughly half of whom were “attached.” One male face and one female face were chosen in pre-testing as “moderately attractive.” The women were shown the male face, and men were shown the female face. Participants were randomly assigned to read that the target face was either single or in a current romantic relationship. The participants then rated the desirability of the person. The results? Whether the woman was single or attached, single men showed no difference in their attraction, But single women showed a considerably greater interest in the target when he was attached! Unlike single women, attached women were not more attracted to the attached man compared to the single man. Conclusion The researchers concluded that “single women were more interested in poaching an attached man rather than pursuing a single man.” And that is the wedding ring effect! Oddly enough, that means the single women in the study were more interested in the man that was technically less available. In a way, it makes sense. If a woman is looking for commitment, attached men have already proven themselves capable. From an amoral standpoint, why should a single woman deal with an untested man when there is a proven man right there…with another woman? The writer Tucker Max – and I know he is a polarizing figure – wrote something about this in his book Mate: “Sluts” aren’t derogated because women are uncomfortable with their sexuality; it’s because they’re experts at mate poaching, which is a very real threat to most women. Men aren't the only insecure mates in the world. Attached women also have to look over their shoulders. That might be why women always notice dress, styles, and clothing on other women. Have you ever noticed that the Other Woman always has longer hair? LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Parker, Jessica, and Melissa Burkley. Who’s chasing whom? The impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (4) 2009, 1016-1019  Photo by OmarMedinaFilms (via Pixabay.com) A Woman Is the Best Wingman (2): Your Desirability Is Decreed by Committee?
By Heath Shive What did Dean Martin sing? You’re nobody till somebody loves you… We tend to think of the heart as sacred – or fickle – but often the heart is really just a conformist. Romantic desire does not originate solely from inside us – but rather there are external cultural influences on who we want as well. In the last blog, the studies indicated that animals don’t just rely on their instincts to find a mate. Animals also use social cues (external advice) to find out who is the best choice. Are humans any different? To the science! Desirability by Social Decree In an article in Scientific Reports – an online super-journal of science – a team of researchers experimented on the effect of social cues on what a group of women found attractive. It was a small study, involving 49 female subjects. They were presented with pictures of men’s faces…and pictures of men’s hands, and of abstract art too. Faces are a typical reference for desire. The hand-pictures were a way of exploring non-facial attractiveness. The abstract art was used to measure attraction outside the sexual domain (unless that’s your thing?). First, the subjects were asked to rate the attractiveness of the picture. Then – a short while later – subjects were asked to rate the picture again, but they were also shown the average rating of all the other participants in real time. Now the subjects knew what the group thought! The results of the second rating? On average, a participant changed their initial rating of the facial pictures by 13% towards the group rating! They moved in the direction of the group decree. Conclusion It should be noted that the subjects changed their initial ratings on the face-pictures and hand-pictures and abstract art by roughly the same amount (13% for hands, 14% for abstract art). The study was really a reflection of the human tendency to conform. People don’t just conform using their clothing styles or jargon. Our ideas and beliefs conform as well. As noted in the previous blog, we don’t conform to just any old group. We conform to our specific group – whichever group we identify with. Conservative or liberal? Religious or agnostic? Old or young? Male or female? Professional versus blue-collar? Group identity offers many advantages – networking, community resources, solidarity, protection, and support. The group also controls how we will be measured too. So we come back to same old conclusion as last week. Guys, hang out with more women - because other women will notice. And ladies, hang out with men to be seen as more approachable and social. Who knows? We might just learn to talk to each other! LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Street, Sally E, Thomas J.H. Morgan, Alex Thornton, Gillian R. Brown, Kevin N. Laland & Catharine P. Cross. Human mate-choice copying is domain general social learning. Scientific Reports 8, 1715 (2018) – Accessed online 3 Feb 2019  Picture by RachelScottYoga via Pixabay.com A Woman Is the Best Wingman: The Science of Fish Mating...and Modern Dating?
By Heath Shive When I was back in high school, there was a short list of ladies that all the guys thought were "hot." I remember that - a few years later - I was looking at the same old high school yearbook and thought...differently. How could I find a woman desirable in one context, but - a relatively short time later - find the same woman remarkably less attractive. There are whole episodes of TV dedicated to this premise - most notably by Barney Stinson's "cheerleader effect" used in How I Met Your Mother (Season 4, episode 7). Of course, there is a science to this too. Sound fishy? It will. To the science! The Birds and the Bees…and Fish? There is not a one-to-one correlation in the behavior between humans and animals. For example, animals lack our abstract conceptions, like morality, music, honor, or sympathy. But the amazing (or disconcerting) thing is how similarly humans and animals do act - especially in primal activities, like mating. In 1992, the biologists Lee Dugatkin and Jean Godin made a study – which is pretty well-known in academia – involving the mating behavior of guppies. They discovered that small females by themselves will choose mates based on their instincts. But in a group, something else happens. Large female guppies have rank in the group. Large size is a sign of longevity, and therefore a sign of evolutionary success. Small females will likely abandon their first mating choice – to pursue the males that large females pursue. Dugatkin and Godin believed that a female’s choice of mate wasn’t just driven by individual genetics, but also by cultural cues. In 2002, two biological researchers named Klaudia Witte and Michael Ryan performed another similar study using sailfin molly fish. In this study, they discovered that a male fish will choose a female who is already accompanied by a male, rather than pursue a lone female. And a female molly fish will choose a male fish who is already accompanied by a female. The fish only pursued mates that others were pursuing! Your reference group determines your social value, and therefore it determines your options. How Does This Help Me? It is easier to look at animal studies and stay objective. I have found that it is when we mention human studies that listeners can become defensive. So...just so you know, I will be using human studies on this same subject soon. I am trying to warm you up to the idea. But the idea is obvious. You are judged by others around you. Some (and only some, not all) of those judgments carry weight - but the only important and personal judgments are those made by your own reference group, your culture. There are many cultures and sub-cultures in humanity. But the key here is your culture. Your reference group (culture) determines your social value. Whoever has rank in your reference group will determine your own social value…and influence your mate selection. That’s why there are generalized dating sites (e.g. Match.com), but there are also dating sites geared specifically towards specific sub-groupings – e.g., Jewish, Christian, rural, professional, racial, etc. But the studies show us something more too: We want what others have! So, ladies, you can bring male dates to weddings, office parties, and bars that you have no romantic/sexual interest in. The male escort not only gives you external validation, it improves your perceived social value and can cultivate new male interest, even jealousy. Next time you flirt, your attention will have more social value. Next time you ask a man out, your regard will have more power. Guys, next time do not go out with your male buddies. Find a woman to go out with you instead - not as a romantic target per se, but as a way to enhance your social value. If she’s just a friend, that’s fine. Her presence still enhances your value. The more attractive this woman is, the more other women will notice – and increase your social value. That’s why this is a frequent trope in TV and movies. It’s based on reality – our culture and system of social values. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Strauss, Neil. The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pick-Up Artists. Regan Books, 2005. Dugatkin, L. A. & Godin, J.-G. J. 1992. Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 249, 179–184 Witte, Klaudia and Michael J. Ryan. 2002. Mate choice copying in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna in the wild. Animal Behaviour, 2002, 63, 943–949  Image Artist: geralt (via Pixabay.com) Seduction Victims: The 18 Types from Robert Greene’s “The Art of Seduction”
By H. Shive As the saying goes, it takes two to tango. There cannot be seducers without the seduced. Robert Greene - the same author who gave us the 9 Types of Seducers - wrote another list of the 18 Types of Seduction Victims. Do you see yourself somewhere on the list? Be careful! The 18 Types of Seduction Victims
Conclusion Robert Greene wrote of what he called the “Victim Theory” of seduction: “Nobody in this world feels whole and complete. We all sense some gap…When we fall in love, it is often with someone who seems to fill that gap. The process is usually unconscious and depends on luck…But the seducer does not leave such things to chance.” Seducers will not wait for luck. They will make their own luck. They will chase you, hunt you, and ravish you. That’s exactly what some people want! Even if you are a victim, can you honestly say that you went unwillingly into their arms? LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Greene, Robert. The Art of Seduction. Penguin Books, 2003.  Photo by DigitalMarketingAgency via Pixabay.com Sex Appeal, Debt, and Deceit: The Science of a Saturday Night
By Heath Shive Are you the sexiest beast in town? Congratulations! But there is also a price. The biology that's hard-wired into our bodies drives us to action. All actions have consequences. One of the consequences is debt...as no doubt you have experienced after a weekend out. To the science of Saturday night and its bio-economics! Players Are Poor? In 2008, Daniel Kruger released a paper that showed that the more sexually active a man was – thus “successful” in evolutionary terms – the more likely he had large credit card debt. The group tested was comprised of men between the ages of 18 to 45, from different zip codes, incomes, and marital status. But the results were the same. The men who admitted to the largest number of sexual encounters also admitted to having the smallest savings and higher debt. Higher mating success correlated directly to higher financial consumption. Mating Needs Money? Kruger's study is cited - among many others - by psychologists Glenn Geher and Scott Kaufman in their amazing book Mating Intelligence Unleashed. Despite the goofy title, this book is the most comprehensive text on the subject of evolutionary psychology (“mating intelligence”) today! Geher and Kaufman pointed to Kruger’s study for a reason: to show that deceit can be part of a mating strategy too. Kruger’s study showed that “wealth signals” – expressed as higher consumption – were not the same as real wealth. By definition, someone who spends everything doesn’t have “wealth,” they have the opposite – called “debt.” You don’t own a car or house until you make the last payment. You can lose your job. Debt can ruin your credit score. But high financial consumption still “signals” wealth and so can be an effective mating strategy. Women Use Money and Deceit Too? Yes, women can be guilty of deceitful mating strategies as well! For starters, women spend much more money than men on makeup and clothing. Creams and moisturizers can hide wrinkles and smooth skin. High heel shoes lift the buttocks and tone the calves. Hair dye conceals the gray. Makeup can enhance sensuality. Provocative clothing (high heels, short skirts, décolletage, etc.) are ways of provoking a sexually exciting response…even when she herself is not in a sexually aroused state. In another study, researchers found that women could lie about other things to provoke male desire. For example, she could lie about wanting a short- or long-term relationship, about wanting children, or even how much she likes sex! Deceiving Is Believing? There’s an old maxim: Fake it till you make it. And sometimes we fool ourselves! In a study - by researchers Saad and Vongas (2008) - male subjects were given two cars to drive: a “clunker” and a Porsche. Their testosterone levels were measured afterwards. After driving the Porsche, the subjects’ testosterone levels were boosted! Higher financial consumption is not only more attractive, it can genuinely make you feel sexier too! So in a way, our spending can deceive us too. Conclusion Just because a strategy can be effective doesn’t mean that it’s for the best. Debt is poison to long-term finances. You need savings to build wealth. Deceiving people with a false sexual allure is not going to be successful in the long-term either. That’s why we have reputations. Is such deceit a sound basis for a relationship? The mating instinct drives us. What price are we really willing to pay? LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Buss, D.M. The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. Basic Books, 2003. Geher, Glenn and Kaufman, Scott. Mating Intelligence Unleashed: The Role of the Mind in Sex, Dating, and Love. Oxford University Press, 2013. Haselton, M. G., Buss, D.M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005). Sex, lies, and strategic interference: The psychology deception between the sexes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 3-23. Kruger, D.J. (2008) Male financial consumption is associated with higher mating intentions and mating success. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 603-612. Saad, G., & Vongas, J. (2008). The effect of conspicuous consumption on men’s testosterone levels. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 80-92. |
AuthorHello! My name is Heath Shive, content manager at ScholarFox. I'll be the author of most of the blog posts. I'm a former geologist and currently a freelance writer. The world is complex and seemingly crazy. Good! Because when you love to learn, you'll never be bored. Archives
July 2019
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed