바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

ISSN : 1229-0653

Article Contents

Next
e-Submission

Vol.32 No.4
Citation Share

Korean College Students’ Materialism and Ideal Mating Partner Standards

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology / Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, (P)1229-0653;
2018, v.32 no.4, pp.1-23
https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.4.001


& (2018). Korean College Students’ Materialism and Ideal Mating Partner Standards. Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 32(4), 1-23, https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2018.32.4.001
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate how materialism would predict Korean college students’ ideal mating partner standards. We hypothesized that the ratio and importance of Warmth/Trustworthiness, Ability/Resources, and Appearance/Attractiveness would be different according to materialism and gender. We also hypothesized that the interaction between materialism and gender is significant. In study 1, we asked 123 college students to freely describe their ideal mating partner standards, and we examined how materialism and gender would predict the ratio of Warmth/Trustworthiness, Ability/Resources, and Appearance/Attractiveness. As a result, we found that students who scored higher on materialism listed more Ability/Resource words as their ideal mating partner standards. We also found the gender difference; women listed more of Ability/Resources related standards while men listed more of Appearance/Attractiveness related standards. The interaction between materialism and gender also predicted significantly the Ability/Resource standard. In study 2, we asked 370 college students to rate the importance of ideal mating partner standard list from study 1 and examined the factor structure. Furthermore, we investigated how the importance of ideal mating partner standards would differ by one’s materialism and gender. As predicted, we found that college student who score higher materialism considered that both Ability/Resources and Appearance/Attractiveness standards were more important. However, materialism did not predict the importance of Warmth/Trustworthiness. Gender and the interaction between materialism and gender were not significantly predicted the importance of any of the standards.

keywords
물질주의, 이상적 배우자상, 한국 대학생, 가치, 성차, materialism, Ideal Standard Model(ISM), Korean college students, values, sex differences

Reference

1.

박성현 (2015). 잡지광고에 나타난 여성의 신체 이미지 변화-1971년부터 2012년까지 의류, 장신구광고를 중심으로-. 커뮤니케이션 디자인학 연구, 51, 32-42.

2.

백지숙, 박성연 (2004). 어머니의 물질주의 가치양육태도가 청소년의 물질주의 가치에 미치는 영향. 대한가정학회지, 42(7), 119-129.

3.

서병숙, 정해은 (1994). 배우자 선택과 결혼연구에 대한 고찰. 한국생활과학연구, 12, 209-227.

4.

유지혜, 설경옥 (2018). 한국판 물질주의 척도 타당화. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 24(3), 385-410.

5.

이순묵 (1995). 요인분석 I. 서울: 학지사.

6.

Barnea, M. F., & Schwartz, S. H. (1998). Values and voting. Political Psychology, 19(1), 17-40.

7.

Brunell, A. B., & Webster, G. D. (2013). Self-determination and sexual experience in dating relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 970-987.

8.

Burroughs, J., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and Well‐Being: A Conflicting Values Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 348-370.

9.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37cultures. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.

10.

Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences:Origins through sexual selection. American Psychologist, 50(3), 164-168.

11.

Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559-570.

12.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204-232.

13.

Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., . . . Tang, K. S. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5-47.

14.

Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D., & Kenrick, D. T. (2002). Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships, 9(3), 271-278.

15.

Chang, L., Wang, Y., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Chinese mate preferences:Cultural evolution and continuity across a quarter of a century. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 678-683.

16.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Kim-Prieto, C., Biswas-Diener, R., & Tay, L. S. (2010). Unhappiness in South Korea: Why it is high and what might be done about it. Seoul: Korean Psychological Association.

17.

Dittmar, H. (2007). The costs of consumer culture and the “cage within”: the impact of the material “good life” and “body perfect” ideals on individuals” identity and well-being. Psychological Inquiry, 18(1), 23-31.

18.

Dittmar, H., Bond, R., Hurst, M., & Kasser, T. (2014). The relationship between materialism and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 879-924.

19.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408-423.

20.

Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Glick, P., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., Fiske, S. T., Blum, A. M., ..., & Manganelli, A. M. (2006). Is traditional gender ideology associated with sex-typed mate preferences? A test in nine nations. Sex Roles, 54(9-10), 603-614.

21.

Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 125-139.

22.

Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). Ideal standards in close relationships: Their structure and functions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 102-105.

23.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). Ideals, perceptions, and evaluations in early relationship development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 933-940.

24.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G., & Giles, I. (1999). Ideals in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 72-89.

25.

Fletcher, G. J. O, Tither, J. M., O’Loughlin, C., Friesen, M., & Overall, N. (2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 659-672.

26.

Goodwin, R., & Tinker, M. (2002). Value priorities and preferences for a relationship partner. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(8), 1339-1349.

27.

Harper, B., & Tiggemann, M. (2008). The effect of thin ideal media images on women’s self-objectification, mood, and body image. Sex Roles, 58(9-10), 649-657.

28.

Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1995). Men's and women's preferences in marital partners in the United States, Russia, and Japan. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(6), 728-750.

29.

Hiew, D. N., Halford, W. K., Van de Vijver, F. J., & Liu, S. (2015). Relationship standards and satisfaction in Chinese, Western, and intercultural Chinese–Western couples in Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(5), 684-701.

30.

Jaspers, E. D., & Pieters, R. G. (2016). Materialism across the life span: An age-period-cohort analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 451-473.

31.

Jonason, P. K. (2013). Four functions for four relationships: Consensus definitions of university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(8), 1407-1414.

32.

Kasser, T. (2016). Materialistic values and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 489-514.

33.

Lam, B. C., Cross, S. E., Wu, T. F., Yeh, K. H., Wang, Y. C., & Su, J. C. (2016). What do you want in a marriage? Examining marriage ideals in Taiwan and the United States. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(6), 703-722.

34.

Li, N. P., Patel, L., Balliet, D., Tov, W., & Scollon, C. N. (2011). The incompatibility of materialism and the desire for children: Psychological insights into the fertility discrepancy among modern countries. Social Indicators Research, 101(3), 391-404.

35.

Moore, F. R., Cassidy, C., Smith, M. J. L., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). The effects of female control of resources on sex-differentiated mate preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(3), 193-205.

36.

Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scale:Measurement properties and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 209-219.

37.

Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303-316.

38.

Rodriguez, L. M., Hadden, B. W., & Knee, C. R. (2015). Not all ideals are equal: Intrinsic and extrinsic ideals in relationships. Personal Relationships, 22(1), 138-152.

39.

Schmitt, T. A., & Sass, D. A. (2011). Rotation criteria and hypothesis testing for exploratory factor analysis: Implications for factor pattern loadings and interfactor correlations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71(1), 95-113.

40.

Schmitt, D. P. (2012). When the difference is in the details: A critique of Zentner and Mitura (2012)“Stepping out of the Caveman's Shadow:Nations' Gender Gap Predicts Degree of Sex Differentiation in Mate Preferences”. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(4), 720-726.

41.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.

42.

Wang, P. Z., & Waller, D. S. (2006). Measuring consumer vanity: A cross‐cultural validation. Psychology & Marketing, 23(8), 665-687.

43.

Zentner, M., & Mitura, K. (2012). Stepping out of the caveman’s shadow: Nations’ gender gap predicts degree of sex differentiation in mate preferences. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1176-1185.

44.

Zhang, S., & Kline, S. L. (2009). Can I make my own decision? A cross-cultural study of perceived social network influence in mate selection. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(1), 3-23.

Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy