MADELEINE A. FUGÈRE, ALITA J. COUSINS, & STEPHANIE A. MACLAREN Presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Please contact Dr. Madeleine Fugère for more information: INTRODUCTION We tend to pursue romantic relationships with those who match our own levels of physical attractiveness. Long-term couples match one another more so than dating couples (Feingold, 1988) suggesting that couples who are more similar in physical attractiveness may be more likely to stay together. Matching in physical attractiveness may influence the partners we desire to date (Thao et al.,2010; Todd et al., 2007) as well as those who agree to date us (Shaw Taylor, Fiore, Mendelsohn, & Cheshire, 2011). A mismatch in physical attractiveness can lead to increased jealousy (Swami et al., 2012). Mate guarding is a behavioral outcome of jealousy and consists of the tactics used to keep a partner faithful such as vigilance, physical aggression, and proprietariness (Cousins, Fugere, & Franklin, 2009). The purpose of this research is to investigate whether a mismatch in physical attractiveness (with women being more attractive) is associated with increased resistance to mate guarding by women. Hypotheses: Men and women in committed relationships will have similar ratings of physical attractiveness. Women who perceive themselves as more attractive than their mates will be less committed to their current romantic relationships. Women who perceive themselves as more attractive than their mates will show more interest in men other than their current mates. Women who perceive themselves as more attractive than their male partners will report more resistance of their partners’ mate guarding tactics. RESULTS In support of the first hypothesis, attractiveness ratings for both partners were significantly and positively correlated (r (958) =.293, p <.001). More attractive women rated their partners as more attractive; less attractive women rated their partners as less attractive. Difference scores were calculated, with positive scores indicating that women rated themselves as more attractive than they rated their partners and negative scores indicating that women rated themselves as less attractive than they rated their partners (M = -.31, SD =.892). The remaining analyses were conducted using these difference scores. In support of our second hypothesis, women who perceived themselves as more attractive than their mates showed less interest in their current romantic relationships reporting both less commitment to their relationships (r (956) = -.166, p <.001) and more thoughts about breaking up with their mates (r (738) = 241, p <.001). In support of our third hypothesis, women who saw themselves as more attractive than their partners reported more interest in other men including more flirting with other men (r (742) =.220, p <.001) and more appealing dating alternatives (r (954) = 233, p <.001). In support of our fourth hypothesis, women who perceived themselves as more attractive than their male partners more strongly resisted mate guarding tactics (r (742) =.221, p <.001) across all subscales including more resistance to: their partners’ attempts at public displays of affection their partners’ controlling behaviors their partners’ confrontation of potential romantic rivals their partners’ mate guarding attempts using high-tech covert behaviors as well as an increased avoidance of contact with their less attractive mates and more covert resistance to their partners’ mate guarding tactics. GENERAL CONCLUSION Women who see themselves as more attractive than their current mates may resist mate guarding in order to pursue more attractive alternatives. This resistance may be one factor which helps to explain the dissolution of relationships between partners who are mismatched in physical attractiveness. This tendency to resist mate guarding may be amplified when women are ovulating (Larson, Haselton, Gildersleeve, & Pillsworth, 2013). Future research should examine this possibility. MEASURES Resistance to Mate Guarding Scale: The scale consists of 34 items (six subscales) rated on a 5 point scale (0 = never to 4 = very often). It measures strategies employed to resist mate guarding in romantic relationships; higher scores indicate more resistance. Covert Tactics : “I hid stuff from my partner, so he wouldn't find it.” Public Displays of Affection: “I wouldn’t let my partner put his arm around me in public.” Control: “I fought with my partner because he didn’t give me enough independence.” Reaction Against Partner’s Confrontation of Rivals : “I was angry because my partner yelled at other people who looked at me.” High-tech Covert Strategies: “I have erased messages/ comments other people have made to me via computer (i.e. Facebook, Myspace, AOL Instant Messenger, ) so my partner would not find them.” Avoiding Partner Contact: “I pretend that I do not receive all text messages/ phone calls from my partner to avoid fighting with him.” Physical Attractiveness: Participants rated their own and their partner’s physical attractiveness (1 = not at all physically attractive to 5 = extremely physically attractive). Commitment: Women rated their degree of commitment to their current relationship (1 = extremely uncommitted to 5 =extremely committed) and whether they had considered breaking up (1 = never seriously considered breaking up with my partner to 5=I think about breaking up with my partner all the time). Interest in Others: Interest in other men was measured by how frequently women reported flirting with other men (1 = never to 8 = at least once a day) as well as how appealing their dating alternatives were (1 = not at all appealing to 5= extremely appealing). (Mis)Matching in Physical Attractiveness and Women’s Resistance to Mate Guarding METHOD Women were recruited both online (n = 976) and in person (n = 93). The average age was (SD=6.37; N = 1069). The average relationship length was more than two years (M = months, SD = 41.42). PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS: Race/EthnicityMarital Status 67.5% Caucasian 34% Single 11.5% African American50.3% Dating 8.6% Hispanic4.2% Engaged 8.8% “Other”8% Married