Usually, I’m proud to be a social psychologist. It is a great field. Today, though, I am ashamed. The most prestigious journal for the publication of empirical research on social psychology just published a paper addressing a question about the sex ratio and women’s career choices: “Does a scarcity of men lead women to choose briefcase over baby?”

I bet you can guess what their answer is – Yes.

It gets worse. There are particular women who are especially likely to pursue a career when there is a scarcity of men – those with “low mate-value.” Can you decode that evolutionary-psychology-speak? You don’t have to. The authors translate for you: “higher mate-value women (e.g., women who are more physically attractive).”

My objection is not that the authors conducted the research, offered their evolutionary psychology interpretation, and published the results in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. It is that they did so little of what is typically mandatory in the very best academic writings: (1) seriously consider alternative interpretations, and (2) acknowledge the major limitations of your work.

In this first post about the research, I will simply summarize the studies and the results. You can start generating your own critiques and alternative explanations. Then in the next post, I’ll offer my own assessment, which will be less credulous than some of what you have seen in the media.

Brief Summary of the Studies and the Results

Study 1. The authors retrieved U.S. government data for each of the 50 states and D.C. documenting (1) the ratio of unmarried men to unmarried women, ages 15 to 44 – the range was from .93 to 1.34; (2) the average age at which women had their first child; (3) the average number of babies that women had; and (4) the percentage of women in the 10 best-paying careers for women.

They found that for 6 of the 10 careers, a scarcity of men was correlated with a greater proportion of women in those careers. Or, in the authors’ words, “more women choose high-paying careers when there are fewer available men.”

About those babies: The authors also found that in states with fewer “marriageable men,” women had fewer babies and they had their babies at an older age.

Study 2. Undergraduate women were shown photos in which there were more women, more men, or an equal number of both. The photos (actually just stock stuff) were described in ways that made them seem relevant to the students’ lives. The photos were recently taken on campus, the women were told, or they were from a local dating site, or they showed recent graduates still living in the area. The sex ratio in the photos (# of men / # of women, or vice versa) ranged from 2.0 to 3.5.

The women were then asked to rate, on 9-point scales, “which is more important to you in terms of your future.” The scale endpoints were labeled as “having a family” vs. “having a career;” “spending quality time with my future children” vs. “having a satisfying job;” and “having a happy and well-adjusted family” vs. “reaching my full career potential.”

The authors found that the women who saw the pictures showing a scarcity of men were more likely to say that career mattered more to them than were the women who saw pictures with a scarcity of women or an equal number of men and women.

Study 3. In this study, the authors again tried to create an impression of a scarcity of men, only this time they used a bogus newspaper story. (The authors wrote it but made it look like it was published in a reputable local paper.) In a heavy-handed 7 paragraphs, the article quoted (bogus) university officials saying things like, “College campuses are overflowing with young women” and “We’ve had to turn some of our boy’s bathrooms into girl’s bathrooms.” [Bella’s note: That’s their word choice and grammar, not mine.] In another version, the ratio of men to women was said to be even.

The women who participated in Study 3 were asked some of the same questions about the importance of career vs. family. In addition, they answered questions about how difficult they thought it would be to find someone to marry and how difficult they thought it would be to find a good job.

The authors found that the women who read the story about how campuses are “overflowing with young women” were more likely to say that career was important to them than were the women who read a story suggesting that the ratio of men to women was about even. The new point was that the women who thought it would be more difficult to find someone to marry were more likely to say that career was especially important. Whether they thought it would be difficult to find a good job was not so important in predicting whether they would say that career was important to them. (For those who trudge in the weeds of statistical analyses, this was shown using a mediation model.)

Study 4. This was the study that measured “mate value.” The undergraduate women indicated the extent to which they agreed with statements such as “Members of the opposite sex notice me” and “I receive many compliments from members of the opposite sex.” Those who tended to agree with those kinds of statements were categorized as having “high mate value.” Those who didn’t were considered to be of “low mate value.”

Again, the women read bogus newspaper articles. Again, they were asked questions about the importance of career vs. family. There were some new questions, too, about the importance of money. For example: “How important is it for you to have a job/career in which you can make a lot of money?”

So did the women again value career more when they read the article about how scarce men were on campus? Not if they were “high mate-value.” Only the “low mate-value” women said that career was more important when they read the men-are-scarce article (instead of the equal ratio article). Those “low mate-value” women were also more likely to say that it was important to find a high-paying job.

Stay Tuned for Part 2 – My Critique of This Research

[Note: Thanks to Anoosha and to Kim Calvert for the heads-up about this article and the attention it is getting.]

Bella DePaulo (Ph.D., Harvard; Visiting Professor, UC Santa Barbara), an expert on single life, is the author of several books, including "Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After" and "Singlism: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How to Stop It." Dr. DePaulo has discussed singles and single life on radio and television, including NPR and CNN, and her work has been described in newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today, and magazines such as Time, Atlantic, the Week, More, the Nation, Business Week, AARP Magazine, and Newsweek. Visit her website at www.BellaDePaulo.com.

Like this author?
Catch up on other posts by Bella DePaulo, Ph.D (or subscribe to their
feed).

Comments

This post currently has
no comments.

You can read the comments or leave your own thoughts.

    Last reviewed: 24 Apr 2012