资源是女性择偶中的重要维度,根据生命史理论,个体会根据所感知的经济压力,适应性地调整对不同资源类型的偏好。对资源有限性的感知可能促使女性更偏好伴侣的先赋性资源,而对未来的积极期望则可能增强其对自致性资源的重视。结合问卷调查与实验法,当前研究探讨了资源稀缺感及社会流动信念如何影响女性择偶中对两类资源的偏好。结果表明：相比于先赋性资源,女性在择偶中更加重视自致性资源,但资源稀缺感会增强其对先赋性资源的偏好,且社会流动信念在其中发挥调节作用：对于持有高社会流动信念的女性,资源稀缺感增强了其对先赋性资源的偏好;而在低社会流动信念个体中,资源稀缺感的影响并不显著,女性普遍表现出相对较高的先赋性资源偏好。
Abstract
“To govern a country well, one must first manage the family" — marital stability is a cornerstone of social stability. The Status Attainment Model categorizes resources in mate selection into ascribed resources (e.g., dowries or property), which depend on family background or achieved resources (e.g., education) that are acquired through personal effort. In recent years, there have been increasing discussions around issues such as "sky-high dowry" and "no house, no marriage", leading some women to place disproportionate emphasis on ascribed resources in mate selection. This trend has put men from less affluent backgrounds at a disadvantage in the marriage market. Parental Investment Theory suggests that women tend to favor partners who can invest more resources in parental care, due to high reproductive costs. This is particularly pronounced in resource-scarce conditions where women are more likely to prioritize ascribed resources to ensure family stability and caregiving capacity. However, according to the Self-Regulatory Model of Resource Scarcity, individuals’ responses to resource scarcity depend on their perceived mutability of the resource discrepancy. Social mobility beliefs, which represent expectations about future socio-economic changes, are deeply connected to the perception of mutability. Under conditions of high social mobility beliefs, women may view resources as attainable through effort, thus increasing the appeal of achieved resources in mate selection. Conversely, in contexts of low social mobility, women are more likely to prioritize stable ascribed resources, even when resource scarcity is not immediately evident. The present research aims to explore how perceptions of resource scarcity influence women's preferences for ascribed and achieved resources in mate selection, and how beliefs about social mobility moderate this relationship.
To address this research goal, three sequential studies were conducted. Study 1 (N = 412; Mage = 22.00 years old) utilized a questionnaire survey to preliminarily explore the relationships between women's preferences for ascribed and achieved resources in mate selection, perceptions of resource scarcity, and social mobility beliefs. Study 2 (N = 71; Mage = 20.62 years old) experimentally manipulated participants' perceptions of resource scarcity to examine the impact on resource preferences in mate selection, and tested the moderation of self-reported social mobility beliefs. Study 3 (N = 159; Mage = 22.15 years old) simultaneously manipulated both perceptions of resource scarcity and social mobility beliefs to further verify their interaction effect on women's preference for ascribed resources in mate selection. Results of the three studies indicated that women generally tend to prioritize self-acquired resources over ascribed resources in mate selection. Perceptions of resource scarcity generally enhanced women's preference for ascribed resources in mate selection, and social mobility beliefs significantly moderated this relationship. Specifically, under conditions of high social mobility beliefs, perceptions of resource scarcity increased women's preference for ascribed resources; under conditions of low social mobility, the predictive role of resource scarcity was not significant, with participants exhibiting similar preferences for ascribed resources regardless of scarcity levels.
It is noteworthy that the impact of resource scarcity on women's mate preferences varies across studies. This discrepancy may be influenced by the "marriage within one's social class" cultural norm in China. In this context, women experiencing resource scarcity may prefer partners with similar economic backgrounds, thus mitigating the effect of scarcity on mate selection. Importantly, our results provide empirical support for the Self-Regulatory Model of Resource Scarcity. Women with high social mobility beliefs tend to perceive the future as malleable and believe success can be achieved through effort, leading them to prioritize self-acquired resources in mate selection in non-scarcity conditions. Conversely, women with low social mobility beliefs view social status as determined by inherent factors, prompting a greater reliance on ascribed resources, irrespective of resource scarcity.
This study broadens the understanding of social mobility beliefs, which are often considered as protective factors for disadvantaged groups. Our findings reveal that social mobility beliefs may shape mate preferences even in conditions with adequate resources. This highlights the potential negative impact of low social mobility beliefs across different groups, where strategies aimed at influencing women's mate preferences by alleviating resource scarcity may become ineffective. Promoting positive social mobility beliefs could therefore be an effective strategy to reduce "gold-digging" tendencies and further foster a healthier, more inclusive environment for selecting mates..
关键词
资源稀缺感 /
社会流动信念 /
女性择偶偏好 /
先赋性资源 /
自致性资源
Key words
resource scarcity /
social mobility belief /
female mate preference /
ascribed resource /
achieved resource
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 陈永香, 要梦霞. (2018). 资源多寡对大学生择偶线索偏好的影响. 心理科学, 41(3), 674-679.
[2] 雷亮, 王菁煜, 柳武妹. (2020). 稀缺对个体心理和行为的影响: 基于一个更加整合视角下的阐释. 心理科学进展, 28(5), 833-843.
[3] 李煜. (2011). 婚姻匹配的变迁: 社会开放性的视角. 社会学研究, 26(4), 122-136, 244-245.
[4] 刘永芳, 苏丽娜, 王怀勇. (2011). 女性择偶决策的线索偏好及信息加工方式. 心理学报, 43(1), 21-29.
[5] 施民阳, 郭宸玮, 李明昊, 赵娜. (2024). 感知经济流动性对个体跨期决策的影响: 稀缺感的调节作用. 心理技术与应用, 12(9), 527-539.
[6] 田芊, 张雷, 孙时进. (2019). 进化心理学视角下经济压力对女性择偶偏好影响研究. 心理科学, 42(3), 681-687.
[7] 王燕, 侯博文, 刘文锦. (2020). 童年亲子关系与“好资源”对未婚男性性开放态度的影响. 心理学报, 52(2), 207-215
[8] 徐安琪. (2000). 择偶标准: 五十年变迁及其原因分析. 社会学研究, 6, 18-30.
[9] 许琪. (2022). “凤凰男”的婚姻市场地位研究——家庭背景、教育和性别对婚配分层的影响. 华中科技大学学报(社会科学版), 36(1), 23-33.
[10] 张凤, 黄四林. (2022). 社会流动信念: 脱贫家庭青少年发展的内生动力. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), 3, 140-150.
[11] 张韬, 潘琦. (2021). 当代中国女性社会地位变迁及性别角色重构. 沈阳师范大学学报(社会科学版), 45(3), 72-77.
[12] 张彦驰. (2019). 贫困心态对经济决策的影响及其心理机制 (博士学位论文). 华中师范大学, 武汉.
[13] Adler N. E., Epel E. S., Castellazzo G., & Ickovics J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586-592.
[14] Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[15] Browman A. S., Destin M., Carswell K. L., & Svoboda R. C. (2017). Perceptions of socioeconomic mobility influence academic persistence among low socioeconomic status students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 45-52.
[16] Cannon C., Goldsmith K., & Roux C. (2019). A self-regulatory model of resource scarcity. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(1), 104-127.
[17] Davidai, S., & Gilovich, T. (2018). How should we think about Americans' beliefs about economic mobility? Judgment and Decision Making, 13(3), 297-304.
[18] Day, M. V., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). Movin' on up? How perceptions of social mobility affect our willingness to defend the system. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(3), 267-274.
[19] Dillon-Owens, C. M. (2022). Predictors of perceived scarcity: The impact of demographic factors, objective socioeconomic status, and subjective social status (Unpublished master' s thesis). The University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
[20] Eastwick P. W., Luchies L. B., Finkel E. J., & Hunt L. L. (2014). The predictive validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 623-665.
[21] Ellis B. J., Figueredo A. J., Brumbach B. H., & Schlomer G. L. (2009). Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk. Human Nature, 20(2), 204-268.
[22] Griskevicius V., Tybur J. M., Delton A. W., & Robertson T. E. (2011). The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on risk and delayed rewards: A life history theory approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1015-1026.
[23] Hill S. E., Rodeheffer C. D., Griskevicius V., Durante K., & White A. E. (2012). Boosting beauty in an economic decline: Mating, spending, and the lipstick effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 275-291.
[24] Jonason P. K., Li N. P., & Madson L. (2012). It is not all about the Benjamins: Understanding preferences for mates with resources. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 306-310.
[25] Khallad, Y. (2005). Mate selection in Jordan: Effects of sex, socio-economic status, and culture. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(2), 155-168.
[26] Leung K., Bond M. H., de Carrasquel S. R., Muñoz C., Hernández M., Murakami F., Yamaguchi S., Biorbrauer G., & Singelis T. M. (2002). Social axioms: The search for universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(3), 286-302.
[27] Li N. P., Bailey J. M., Kenrick D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947-955.
[28] Lu H. J., Zhu X. Q., & Chang L. (2015). Good genes, good providers, and good fathers: Economic development involved in how women select a mate. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9(4), 215-228.
[29] Menard, S. (2000). Coefficients of determination for multiple logistic regression analysis. The American Statistician, 54(1), 17-24.
[30] Roux C., Goldsmith K., & Bonezzi A. (2015). On the psychology of scarcity: When reminders of resource scarcity promote selfish (and generous) behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(4), 615-631.
[31] Sagioglou C., Forstmann M., & Greitemeyer T. (2019). Belief in social mobility mitigates hostility resulting from disadvantaged social standing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(4), 541-556.
[32] Shah A. K., Mullainathan S., & Shafir E. (2012). Some consequences of having too little. Science, 338(6107), 682-685.
[33] Shariff A. F., Wiwad D., & Aknin L. B. (2016). Income mobility breeds tolerance for income inequality: Cross-national and experimental evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 373-380.
[34] Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14(1), 249-264.
[35] Watson D., Clark L. A., & Tellegen A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
[36] Yang, C., & Zhao, S. C. (2019). Determining preference for potential: The role of perceived economic mobility. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 47(6), 1-8.
[37] Yoon, S., & Wong, N. (2015). The rainbow and the pot of gold: Consumers' beliefs about economic mobility, economic striving and financial risk taking (Unpublished working paper). University of Wisconsin.
基金
*本研究得到国家社会科学基金青年项目 (24CSH065) 的资助
PDF(1033 KB)
