| Literature DB >> 29312054 |
Zhao Gao1,2,3, Qi Yang2, Xiaole Ma3, Benjamin Becker3, Keshuang Li3, Feng Zhou3, Keith M Kendrick3.
Abstract
Language may have evolved as a signal of mental fitness. However, it remains unclear what language form and topic men use to covertly signal mate quality. In this study 69 men created compliments to impress unfamiliar women they chose to either date or work with and provided hand scans to compute 2D4D ratio as a proxy for prenatal testosterone exposure and masculinity indicator. Compliments were coded in terms of form (literal vs. metaphorical) and topic (women's appearance vs. non-appearance), with metaphorical ones being subsequently rated by 114 women for psycholinguistic features, indices of intelligence and willingness to have a romantic relationship with the author. Results showed that in a dating context, men produced more metaphorical form compliments targeting appearance compared to the working context and they were associated with men's art creativity and negatively with 2D4D ratio (i.e., positively with masculinity). Women preferred establishing a romantic relationship with a higher proportion of the men producing metaphorical compliments in a dating than a working context. Furthermore, in the dating but not the working context, women perceived men producing such compliments as being more intelligent, and importantly this correlated with the men's actual verbal intelligence. Overall, findings suggest that men may use metaphorical language compliments targeting women's appearance in a dating context to signal covertly their mate quality.Entities:
Keywords: 2D:4D ratio; creativity; masculinity; mate selection; metaphor
Year: 2017 PMID: 29312054 PMCID: PMC5742614 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02185
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Groups of male participants in the two contexts.
| Age (years) | 21.39 | 0.39 | 20.47 | 0.39 | 1.67 | 0.10 |
| 2D4D Ratio (right hand) | 0.95 | 0.01 | 0.96 | <0.01 | −0.23 | 0.82 |
| 2D4D Ratio (left hand) | 0.95 | 0.01 | 0.96 | 0.01 | −0.66 | 0.51 |
| Education (years) | 15.06 | 0.34 | 15.14 | 0.33 | 0.23 | 0.82 |
| R SPM | 50.78 | 1.35 | 49.03 | 1.63 | 0.82 | 0.42 |
| CBSS | 33.00 | 1.29 | 36.88 | 1.72 | −1.79 | 0.08 |
| BDI | 7.40 | 0.91 | 9.44 | 1.21 | −1.32 | 0.19 |
| SES | 31.19 | 0.85 | 30.28 | 0.74 | 0.81 | 0.42 |
| Intensity of love (PLS score) | 107.97 | 2.59 | 104.47 | 2.25 | 1.02 | 0.31 |
| Longest relationship (months) | 17.45 | 3.70 | 10.75 | 3.19 | 1.37 | 0.17 |
| Love times | Mean rank: 36.08 | Mean rank: 28.05 | Z = −0.83 | 0.07 | ||
| KDOCS art | 27.94 | 1.14 | 27.53 | 0.85 | 0.29 | 0.78 |
| KDOCS everyday | 38.48 | 1.19 | 36.47 | 0.80 | 1.42 | 0.16 |
| KDOCS performance | 27.94 | 1.37 | 24.19 | 1.50 | 1.84 | 0.07 |
| KDOCS scholarly | 32.32 | 1.12 | 32.94 | 1.02 | 0.26 | 0.80 |
| KDOCS science | 31.58 | 1.31 | 30.06 | 1.04 | 0.91 | 0.37 |
| CEE-Chinese | 113.14 | 1.58 | 112.94 | 1.34 | 0.12 | 0.90 |
| Chinese Writing Test (CWT) | 10.40 | 0.25 | 10.38 | 0.25 | 0.08 | 0.94 |
| Romance of Encounter Description | 4.70 | 0.15 | 3.13 | 0.22 | ||
| WAIS Vocabulary Subscale | 11.74 | 0.25 | 11.29 | 0.22 | 1.34 | 0.19 |
Mann–Whitney test results.
CEE–Chinese was for Chinese Entrance Exam-Chinese, Chinese score in the National College Entrance Exam, which was up to 150. Two writing tasks were administered sequentially prior to experiments: Chinese Writing Test (CWT) in which a short story was to be continued for 15 minutes and account on imaginary encounter for 12 minutes. Romance of Encounter Description was measured on a 7-point scale. WAIS Vocabulary Subscale was the vocabulary test of WAIS VIQ.
The language descriptions on romantic encounter in the dating context were rated significantly higher than that in the working context.
Significance level at p < 0.001 two-tailed.
Figure 1Interactive effect between context and compliment type. A greater number of metaphorical compliments targeting appearance were produced by male subjects in the dating context than in the working context whereas both literal and metaphorical compliments targeting nonappearance were produced more in the working context than in the dating context. No significant difference in literal expression targeting appearance was found between contexts. Bars show means and s.e., *p < 0.05.
Figure 2Women rated metaphorical compliments produced by male subjects in the dating context higher than in the working one across all criteria except for appropriateness, valence and familiarity. Bars show means and s.e., *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Figure 3In the dating context the proportion of metaphorical compliments targeting women's appearance was positively correlated with the scores for K-DOCS art (left) r = 0.421, p = 0.018, and negatively correlated with the right-hand 2D4D ratio (right) r = −0.392, p = 0.029.