Abstract: Chronotype influences the success of mate choice. Evening types reproducibly report higher mating success than morning types. In this study, we directly assessed the reasons for these advantages, hypothesizing the degree of choosiness a person has concerning mate choice being causal. A total of N = 1247 (male = 440/female = 807) heterosexuals participated in an experiment. We defined two facets of choosiness: attractiveness rating and dating desire. Participants rated the attractiveness of opposite sex stimuli and indicated whether they had a desire to date the stimuli or not. Morningness in males correlated with a higher attractiveness-rating and dating desire, while results of evening-orientated males, and females in general were not significant. The causes of higher mating success in eveningness remains unclear. Unexpectedly, we showed that eveningness is related to a higher choosiness.
Keywords: ChronotypeMate choiceChoosinessDating desireRated attractivenessMorningness-eveningness
4. Discussion
Based on the work of Piffer (2010), Gunawardane et al. (2011), Randler et al. (2012) and Kasaeian et al. (2019), we hypothesized that higher mating success in evening types could be the consequence of less choosy behavior. Therefore, we studied rated attractiveness/dating desire together with a set of covariates in an experimental setting to add to previous observational studies. We replicated earlier studies. Number of children and relationship length correlated positively with morningness and negatively with eveningness (cf. Kasaeian et al., 2019). Evening types showed less interest in long-term commitment, measured by relationship length, number of partners, number of children, and propensity of going out (cf. Gunawardane et al., 2011; Jankowski et al., 2014; Piffer, 2010; Randler et al., 2012; Randler, Jankowski, et al., 2016). In contrast, morning types were more likely to have a long-term partnership. The evaluation of the covariates basically supports the hypothesis since long-term orientation comes with the need to choose a partner more carefully (to be more selective). Resulting in the consideration, choosiness as a trait could be more related to longtime goal orientation and so, morningness.
However, the main variables (rated attractiveness/dating desire) are inconsistent with these results and the hypothesis. In this study, morning-orientation in males measured by the MESSi was positively correlated with rated attractiveness as well as dating desire, while evening-orientation showed no significant results. We found that only the morningness dimension of the MESSi was related to the attractiveness rating and dating desire, not the eveningness dimension. This supports the psychometric view, that eveningness and morningness are two different dimensions and not two ends of a continuum (Vagos et al., 2019).
In general, these findings contradict the hypothesis. Considering only the male participants, morning-orientation is inversely related to choosiness defined by attractiveness rating and dating desire and therefore cannot explain the higher mating success in evening-oriented ones. For female participants, daytime orientation is not a significant variable at all when attractiveness rating or dating desire is considered. This results in two assertions. First, causes for the higher mating success in evening-oriented could not be clarified by this study and does not seem to be related to choosiness. Second, either evening types are choosier than morning types or the controlled facets attractiveness rating & dating desire are not well representing choosiness. Following these considerations, evening-oriented individuals being choosier could have several reasons. The higher mating success despite their rather choosy behavior could be explained by the correlation between evening-orientation and the propensity of going out. Evening types go out more often than morning types (Kasaeian et al., 2019). Evening types may therefore still have a larger pool of potential partners than morning types. This assumption is supported by the facts that: (1) evening-oriented tend to go out more often (Kasaeian et al., 2019) and therefore encounter more people overall and (2) most sport clubs and other leisure activities (cinema/theatre/concerts etc.) are offered in the evening hours (at least in Germany and therefore applicable for the study population). The sum and option to establish new contacts are important factors in mating success. The probability to find a partner could therefore be higher for evening-oriented, despite their choosier behavior.
It is also conceivable that the biological component of chronotype is overlaid by a socio-economic one. For example, professions that have an attracting effect might be easier to carry out with evening-oriented daytime arrangements and characteristics. For example, compared to health administration students, art and design students reported later bedtime, higher creativity, and a preference for creative activities at night (Wang & Chern, 2008). Creative occupations in the fields of art or music are less restricted by fixed social structures, and therefore are particularly suitable for evening types. These may seem more interesting to the person opposite, than those that are tailored to the chronotype-related characteristics of morning types. Tax consultancy or financial accounting are, due to the inherent market needs, professional fields that must be dealt with starting in the morning. The prerequisites for carrying out this work are therefore both, the early cognitive load as well as conscientiousness and precision. These characteristics are attributed to morning types (Adan et al., 2012). Also, morning-oriented show fewer creative characteristics than evening oriented which may lead to fewer morning types taking up creative careers. Morning-oriented use less imagination and intuition, tend to avoid symbolic and non-concrete content, search for new things less, and are less creative and prepared for new events than evening-oriented (Caci et al., 2004; Díaz-Morales, 2007). Furthermore, evening types are more likely to use creative thinking strategies than morning types (Giampietro & Cavallera, 2007). Another alternative explanation might be found in the personality traits related to chronotype. Usually, morning people are more agreeable (Randler et al., 2017), which means that higher attractiveness ratings may reflect the desire to be more polite, not the actual perceived attractiveness. However, this should not result in a higher dating desire.
The higher mating success of evening type males and females could accordingly be based on secondary effects and not the actual daytime orientation affecting both sexes. Choosiness might also be not adequately examined by an attractiveness-rating. In contrast to dating desire which can ultimately end in mating success, rated attractiveness without a desire to date a specific person cannot. Therefore attractiveness-rating might be secondary to this research question. The threshold value of dating desire above which the participants would date the stimuli could be the primary and more important value.
Moreover, it is also possible that choosiness in terms of mating behavior is not adequately reflected by the evaluation of facial stimuli. However, the evaluation of facial stimuli is a widely used method for comparable questions (cf. Little, 2014; Little et al., 2011; Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999). The cause of higher mating success of evening types could only partly be clarified by the means of this study. In our study design, eveningness in males was a predictor of higher dating desire as well as morningness in females of higher attractiveness rating.
4.1.1.1. Sex differences
Males were older and more often single in our sample. They had more children but were older at first intercourse. The latter was relatively late and differs from the results of other published works (cf. Singh et al., 2000). This may be due to the fact that our study population has a high education (academic background).
Men were more evening-oriented with less distinctiveness, a later midpoint of sleep, and shorter sleep duration than women. These characteristics replicate previous findings (e. g. Randler & Engelke, 2019). Males were less happy with their relationships and had the feeling of being more restricted by their partner. One reason might be the male gender is a predictor for decreased happiness (Nock, 1995). Men had a reduced propensity of going out and were less extraverted than women.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment