Our logo is bigger now

Are single women more prone to "poach"?

92 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2009-08-13 12:46

#1

josh

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

Thu, 2009-08-13 13:14

#2

martin dufresne

Men "hunt"; women "poach"... Very patriarchal.

Thu, 2009-08-13 13:18

#3

Caissa

The authors use the term "poaching" for both sexes, Martin. One might also note that the authors are women.

Thu, 2009-08-13 13:19

#4

josh

remind wrote:

Josh I do not think the paper's pdf can 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."

If true, a moderator would have to delete it since you can't edit thread starters.

Thu, 2009-08-13 13:23

#5

Snert

Snert's picture

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.

Thu, 2009-08-13 13:25

#6

Caissa

Did you read any of the bloody article, martin?

Thu, 2009-08-13 13:31

#7

martin dufresne

(Back-edited for clarity) Sure, but the focus is on women doing it. And the authors' sex is irrelevant, IMO.

Thu, 2009-08-13 13:35

#8

G. Muffin

martin dufresne wrote:
Sure, but the focus is on women doing it.

That's what the study found. Is that what you mean by "focus"?

ETA: I agree that the gender of the researchers is irrelevant.

Thu, 2009-08-13 13:37

#9

remind

remind's picture

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."

Thu, 2009-08-13 13:41

josh

martin dufresne wrote:

Sure, but the focus is on women doing it.

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?

Thu, 2009-08-13 13:41

Caissa

The relevance of gender was that martin seemed to be implying that the women authors were being "very patriarchal."

Thu, 2009-08-13 13:43

Snert

Snert's picture

In the interest of fairness, they should have given equal time to what they didn't find. Their bias toward "facts" is disconcerting.

Thu, 2009-08-13 13:45

Caissa

LOL, Snert.

Thu, 2009-08-13 13:55

remind

remind's picture

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.

Thu, 2009-08-13 14:00

Coyote

remind wrote:

Plus not all women are Oklahoma women.

[url=http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=oklahoma%20laurey%20williams&rls=c....

Thu, 2009-08-13 14:09

Coyote

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?

Thu, 2009-08-13 14:30

Snert

Snert's picture

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Plus not all women are Oklahoma women.

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.

Thu, 2009-08-13 14:59

martin dufresne

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.

Thu, 2009-08-13 15:02

Michelle

martin dufresne wrote:

Studies tend to find what they set out to find, their working hypothesis.

Does that include studies on domestic abuse?

Thu, 2009-08-13 15:05

Michelle

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).

Thu, 2009-08-13 15:05

Snert

Snert's picture

Quote:
Studies tend to find what they set out to find, their working hypothesis.

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.

Thu, 2009-08-13 15:07

martin dufresne

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.

Thu, 2009-08-13 15:09

Michelle

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.

Thu, 2009-08-13 15:10

josh

martin dufresne wrote:

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.

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.

Thu, 2009-08-13 15:11

Coyote

Re: Michelle's statement.

Which is why an active verb like "poach" is misleading.

Thu, 2009-08-13 15:16

remind

remind's picture

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:.

Quote:
Although men were more interested in the target than women, this was because men were more interested in the target in general,

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.

Quote:
our study showed men’s attractiveness ratings for the female photo were higher than women’s ratings for the male photo.

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.

Thu, 2009-08-13 15:17

Fidel

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 . . .

Thu, 2009-08-13 15:22

Michelle

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?

Thu, 2009-08-13 15:55

remind

remind's picture

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.

Thu, 2009-08-13 15:56

Fidel

Michelle wrote:

Why would you feel sorry for her husband?

Because I know that it bothers him?

Quote:
Why would you assume that her husband has a problem with it if she's that open about it and he still adores her?

Because he said as much to more than just me?

Quote:
Why would you assume that everyone has monogamous relationships?

I don't?

Quote:
And what exactly does the lyrics to Runaround Sue add to this thread, besides sexist stereotyping?

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?

Thu, 2009-08-13 16:00

G. Muffin

remind wrote:
They switched terminology Coyote, for women they ued the term "poach" for men they used the words "target" and "pursue".

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.

Thu, 2009-08-13 16:19

remind

remind's picture

G Pie it is actually a very short study brief, just 3 pages including graphs, though the pdf is 5.

Yes, I saw that value judgement too, along with the glossing over of men's more inclined to "poach" behaviour, than women's.

That the questions they asked participants, were from "eharmony" a religious fundamentalist owned dating service, just threw the whole thing out the window for me.

Just another form of putting a scarlet S on single women, who suddenly and mysteriously turn into a 'madonna' when they get attached/married and who can then suddenly be trusted not to "poach" nor be interested in anyone else even.

Thu, 2009-08-13 16:20

Snert

Snert's picture

Actually, the article is riddled with the gender-unspecific term "mate poaching". Nowhere is there a use of the word "poach" which restricts it to females, and what's more, the preamble should make it clear to anyone that the term is gender-neutral:

Quote:

Schmitt (2004) found that across ten world regions,

57% of men and 35% of women indicated they had engaged in an

attempt at mate poaching, suggesting that this behavior is a universal

mating practice.

Huh. 57% of MEN. Poaching.

What's more, I was unable to find even a single instance of "target" being used as a verb to replace "poach". In every use of the word "target", it's a noun, sometimes referring to a male, sometimes to a female.

Remind didn't read this article.

Thu, 2009-08-13 16:21

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

DUH

nuff women have said

"Listen Ill trust my man around my girls but, if I got a good man Im not trusting my girls around my man" LOL

It put in a weird way to imply something bad on a woman's part and somehow men are immune to it which aint true but tkae that for what it is both sexes cheat lol

Thu, 2009-08-13 16:27

remind

remind's picture

snert they were recounting another study's findings, not detailing their own.

I take target as a verb not a noun.

Thu, 2009-08-13 16:35

Snert

Snert's picture

Quote:
I take target as a verb not a noun.

You just make it up as you see fit? You don't look at the context of the surrounding words??

I don't even know what to make of that.

Thu, 2009-08-13 16:43

remind

remind's picture

I am thinking of this in particular snert, should have been more clear.

Quote:
Our results showed an interesting mate poaching pattern.

Although men were more interested in the target than women, this was because men were more interested in the target in general, regardless of whether she was attached or single. However, as predicted, single women were more interested in poaching an attached man rather than pursuing a single man.

Thu, 2009-08-13 16:47

Michelle

"Target" is clearly a noun in that paragraph.

Thu, 2009-08-13 17:07

remind

remind's picture

I know functionally it is michelle, but in reality look at the sentence structures, when discussing men, they use the passive indicator "interested" as the verb, while with women they use aggressive verbs "poaching" and "pursuing".

thus imv, the words 'the target" is used as a passive aggressive objectifier, as it is used for the word woman, whereas when they discussed men in relations to woman's actions, they did not use the terms "the target" at all, they used the word "man" upon 2 occassions.

They did not say " the attached target".

Thus target imv, becomes an operational verb. Men just "target" women, would have been simplier to say. No?

Thu, 2009-08-13 18:06

sknguy II

I think "target" is a status blind term whereas "poach" or "poaching" is marriage specific. Someone should do a study on who obsesses over such things. Or who would obsess?

Thu, 2009-08-13 18:40

500_Apples

Isn't this a well-known fact?

I think this empirical confirmation, if it holds up statistically, represents yet another triumph for the paradigm of evolutionary psychology. If a man is attached to a woman already, that means he's already passed one woman's seal of approval as a desirable mating partner. It's a viable reproductive macro to have ingrained.

Thu, 2009-08-13 18:59

Michelle

I think "target" is a lot less inflammatory than "poaching" too. "Poach" implies that the target of the "poaching" - the person being "poached" - is an innocent victim. Which, of course, puts the "poacher" (male or female) in the role of the evil tempter/temptress, the homewrecker, etc.

Thu, 2009-08-13 19:38

Fidel

Statistics show that some number out of 10 times, there is a man and a woman involved about 50-50 each in a given consensual relationship

LLLLET me tell you bout the birds and the bees, And the flowers and the trees, and the moon up above...

Thu, 2009-08-13 20:34

Brian White

There is a cookie called "married men" because they taste so good. (To women, i guess). I have heard it from single ladys that they were chased (unknown to them) and caught by married guys. I have also met a few ladys who admitted to going after married guys "to see if I could get him". And men being pigs, they were usually successful. (For a while at least).

I think that for matters sexual, "sisterhood", and "brotherhood" mean nothing.

Secrecy and fatherhood and motherhood are the things that matter. "go forth and multiply" is the prime directive.

Fri, 2009-08-14 07:42

Caissa

It was an interesting academic article. Some good online discussion worthy of a seminar discussion on the article.

I'd love to debate this quote with Martin from post #17, but since he is out of here for a few days we'll have to pursue it at a future time.

Studies tend to find what they set out to find, their working hypothesis.

Fri, 2009-08-14 09:47

Snert

Snert's picture

Quote:

I know functionally it is michelle, but in reality look at the sentence structures, when discussing men, they use the passive indicator "interested" as the verb, while with women they use aggressive verbs "poaching" and "pursuing".

thus imv, the words 'the target" is used as a passive aggressive objectifier, as it is used for the word woman, whereas when they discussed men in relations to woman's actions, they did not use the terms "the target" at all, they used the word "man" upon 2 occassions.

They did not say " the attached target".

Thus target imv, becomes an operational verb. Men just "target" women, would have been simplier to say. No?

"I guess 'target' wasn't used as a verb - my mistake" would have also been simpler to say. No?

Fri, 2009-08-14 10:02

remind

remind's picture

Brian White wrote:
I have also met a few ladys who admitted to going after married guys "to see if I could get him". And men being pigs, they were usually successful. (For a while at least).

The best indicator of future behaviour, is present/past behaviour.

Fri, 2009-08-14 19:20

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
I take target as a verb not a noun.

I've noticed before how you're rather sloppy in your distinction between verbs and nouns, so this is no major shift.

A few months ago I was addressing a group of about 20 young women, relating a standup comedian's bit on how a guy will say, "My buddy's girlfriend is great; I'd like someone just like her," while a woman will say, "My friend's guy is great, I want him." The women to whom I told this were rather enthusiastic in agreeing that this is how things are.

Fri, 2009-08-14 22:20

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

Chris Rocc LOL it's true tho

Fri, 2009-08-14 22:45

remind

remind's picture

If you read the report's data, or even the thread itself, you would have found many more men are that poaching way, than women, please do stop with the sexist imaginings. It is unpleasant.

Well Al' q, if you have been the "target" and have experienced being a "target" you come to understand it as a verb. The same can be said for many more words that apply specifically to women, and not men.

And it is so nice of you to be so classist on top of sexist.

The little rift between the sexes is astonishingly widened by simply teaching one set of catchwords to the girls and another to the boys. ~Robert Louis Stevenson

I would have girls regard themselves not as adjectives but as nouns. ~Elizabeth Cady Stanton, "Our Girls"

It's hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head. ~Sally Kempton, Esquire, 1970

Fri, 2009-08-14 23:49

Pogo

Pogo's picture

Wasn't this covered 30 years ago with the Naked Ape?

Pages

Topic locked