Are single women more prone to "poach"?
Researchers have debated for years whether men or women are likelier to engage in "mate poaching." Some surveys indicated that men had a stronger tendency to go after other people's partners, but was that just because men were more likely to admit engaging in this behavior? Now there's experimental evidence that single women are particularly drawn to other people's partners, according to a report in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology by two social psychologists, Melissa Burkley and Jessica Parker of Oklahoma State University.
. . . .
To the men in the experiment, and to the women who were already in relationships, it didn't make a significant difference whether their match was single or attached. But single women showed a distinct preference for mate poaching. When the man was described as unattached, 59 percent of the single women were interested in pursuing him. When that same man was described as being in a committed relationship, 90 percent were interested. . . .
This may be because an attached man has demonstrated his ability to commit and in some ways his qualities have already been ‘‘pre-screened" by another woman.
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/do-single-women-seek-attached-men/
http://www.synergy-pr.com/files/JESP72009%281%29.pdf
Josh can the paper's pdf be posted here?
"Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited."
Men "hunt"; women "poach"... Very patriarchal.
The authors use the term "poaching" for both sexes, Martin. One might also note that the authors are women.
If true, a moderator would have to delete it since you can't edit thread starters.
(Back-edited for clarity) Sure, but the focus is on women doing it. And the authors' sex is irrelevant, IMO.
A web URI is a pointer to a resource. It's a bit like a person pointing their finger at something and saying "you might want to go over there". I would interpret "posting" to another website to mean reproducing the words on that website, not posting a link to the official website. Posting a link isn't copyright violation any more than recommending a book is.
Did you read any of the bloody article, martin?
That's what the study found. Is that what you mean by "focus"?
ETA: I agree that the gender of the researchers is irrelevant.
So, are you saying that the researchers should have ignored the results of their study? Or should they have altered it? How does the fact that "focus" was on single women square with your assertion that it was on women in general?
The relevance of gender was that martin seemed to be implying that the women authors were being "very patriarchal."
In the interest of fairness, they should have given equal time to what they didn't find. Their bias toward "facts" is disconcerting.
LOL, Snert.
This study's finding could just have easily have noted primarily that attached men are more interested in pursuing others, than attached women, and single men.
Plus not all women are Oklahoma women.
And yes, some women are so influenced by patriarchy they do not realize they themselves are buying into it and propagating it.
True.
So what is the basic finding here? Single women are more likely to "poach" than single men?
Isn't the necessary corrollary (sp?) essentially that married men are more likely to "stray" from committed relationships than married women?
It might be if the study were looking at actual rates of "poaching", but even then, single women attracted to married men might still choose not to act on that and so the results would not necessarily mirror what we see here.
The study's results are pretty simple: single women, moreso than married women or men, find potential partners more attractive if they're already spoken for.
Nearly any study will suffer from not being global in scope, or not having n>100000. If you want to start dismissing studies on these grounds, you'll end up also dismissing studies whose findings you find valuable.
Studies tend to find what they set out to find, their working hypothesis. If they limit their subjects to women - because it is well-known that men run around, nothing new there so let's look elsewhere - well, they will "find" that some women do it (more than others). Calling this "poaching" accredits the notion of partners as property, a patriarchal conceit, and of (some) women as stalwarts, another one.
I am just tired of the "women fighting over men" trope. It is as old and stilted as the Bible, and as Baudelaire's poem about two women tearing at each other on the hill for the Prince's favour/entertainment.
Does that include studies on domestic abuse?
I agree with Martin about the term "poaching" though - eww. Like the men who get "poached" are just poor innocent bystanders, instead of the ones who actually, you know, made the commitment to someone else (as opposed to the single women, who did not).
That leaves all of us without the benefit of research, then.
Again, though, this is not a study of anyone "running around". It's studying attraction. It does NOT address people actually acting on that distraction. It may be that men cheat more than women (I've read that they do, by a much smaller margin than you might imagine) but that has nothing to do with this experiment. This experiment simply found that single women are more likely than other subjects to find a potential partner more attractive if they're married. It doesn't suggest that these women are going to seek out married men in real life. It doesn't suggest that these women are going to "fight over a man". All it says is that statistically, photographs of a potential partner shown to single women are rated more attractive when the subject is told that the man is married than if told the man is not.
In response to Michelle, unless it simply wants to measure a known phenomenon, any study trying to create new ground has to starts from an hypothesis, which it either confirms (documenting it with evidence) or infirms (no confirming evidence = no finding).
Out of here for a few days.
No actually snert, the study did not find that single women moreso than "men" at all. Do have a look at the graphs, men just "pursue" the target no matter their attached status. As it found that men overall will pursue the "target" (aka poachee) no matter if they are attached or unattached, moreso than women in general will, as follows from the pdf:.
It also found that attached men, like single men, would pursue a woman, no matter their attached status, if they saw them as the target of their interest, moreso than attached women were found to indicate. In fact, it also showed that attached men more often see attached woman as their target to pursue, and poach, than they do single women.
This study indicates that contrary to men's claims of the cheating spouse, it is not the "attached" women who are intertested in doing so. Or at least for Oklahoma men. ;)
The study also found that men pursued their target based upon looks, while women did not.
I know the study also stated that in future studies more pics should be used in order "to increase the generalizability of the results", but if one focuses upon that mitigating factor then the whole study can be chucked, as they only saw one picture combined with a bunch of made up stuff, geared specifically to their interests, all derived from "eharmony" dating questions.
I agree with Snert - I don't get how this study in any way shows what people actually do. There's a difference between being attracted to a married person and actually actively pursuing them.
The study was not limited to women. Which you would have known had you actually bothered to read it, or about it. But when someone has an axe to grind, they don't worry about the facts.
Re: Michelle's statement.
Which is why an active verb like "poach" is misleading.
I was introduced to a woman and her hubby at a club. I was warned that she runs around and would likely try to with me as well. Nothing happened between her and me, but sure enough I observed that very behaviour with her and other men. It's what she does. And none of us could figure out why she does it. We felt more sorry for her hubby who adores her. Killer queen bee?
Here's my story, its sad but true
It's about a girl that I once knew
She took my love then ran around
With every single guy in town . . .
Why would you feel sorry for her husband? Why would you assume that her husband has a problem with it if she's that open about it and he still adores her? Why would you assume that everyone has monogamous relationships?
And what exactly does the lyrics to Runaround Sue add to this thread, besides sexist stereotyping?
They switched terminology Coyote, for women they ued the term "poach" for men they used the words "target" and "pursue".
Basically the only thing IMV, that the study found was that ALL men, irrespective of their attached status, will target and pursue women they are interested in more than women do.
Because I know that it bothers him?
Because he said as much to more than just me?
I don't?
Because it's true, some partners do run around on one another without the other's approval? It's established to be part of human nature as well as that of certain primates? The thread asks a question, and I am merely stating an opinion from personal experience?
I didn't read the study (because I can't imagine a more boring, irrelevant subject) so I didn't know about the varied terminology. What jumps out at me is that, out of the three words, only "poach" implies a value judgement. Significance? I have no idea.