Lab custom essay

1. Results
My sample consists of two interactions, one active (asking out) and one passive (I was asked out). Since the sampling size of available is not enough to make any statistical conclusions, the statistical analysis and significance level are not applicable to this part of the research.
Raw data (the results of the pairing game):
I asked out: 1 time – settled
I was rejected: 0 times
Number of people who asked me out: 1
Number of people I rejected: 1
My adjectives were: dull, dumpy, educated
My date’s adjectives were: neglectful, optimist, self-confident
The hypothesis was partly confirmed regarding my attempts, and was more strongly confirmed judging on overall results of the pairing game.
2. Discussion
The hypothesis consisted of two suggestions: suggestion 1 – although all people are trying to find someone who is the best among available partners, there appears equal distribution of partners (Ellis & Kelley, 2009), i.e. partners seek their match in the same “class” as they belong to; suggestion 2 – in the pairing game with adjectives, people are prone to choose the partner with moderately positive (Ellis & Kelley, 2009) characteristics (or moderately negative if “moderately positive” people are not available)
Concerning my own results, the hypothesis concerning choosing the equal partner did not confirm fully. My set of adjectives can be referred to as “moderately negative” and my date’s set of adjectives is “moderately positive”. However, group results have shown that people with strongly positive and moderately positive adjectives were pairing together, while those with strongly negative adjectives had their mates from the same class, or from “moderately negative”. The pairings between moderately negative and moderately positive also took place (like it was in my case). There were practically no couples with opposite sets of adjectives; this fact, in my opinion, supports the hypothesis. Due to insufficient sampling size, it is difficult to establish the correctness of the hypothesis statistically, but qualitatively, it was confirmed.
The results were surprising in the sense of equality of distribution; though each individual was ruled by egoistic intentions to choose the best possible partner (Kurzban & Weeden, 2005), the majority of matches have happened between people with similar characteristics or neighboring characteristics (i.e. moderately positive + moderately negative, or moderately positive + strongly positive). Also, an unexpected discovery was the fact that in terms of efficient matching (and possibility of mating with a bigger number of partners), it is advantageous to belong to the “golden middle”, i.e. moderately positive or moderately negative, because these social positions offer more possibilities for mating. Moreover, being strongly positive is inefficient in terms of mating since it narrows the scope of possible partners.
Also, it was an interesting experience to witness how the social opinion changes the self-estimate of people: judging on the reactions of the society and on the “class” of those who offered to go out, people made their opinion about the given adjectives and correspondingly have selected their partners (Todd & Penke & Fasolo & Lenton, 2007). Though the adjectives did not correlate with personal qualities of the participants, the self-esteem and pairing process was strongly influenced by these adjectives. This process shows how strong are stereotypes and labels that each of us carries while being in the society.
There were several sources of possible errors: firstly, the size of the sample did not guarantee statistical validity of the research; secondly, the reason related to the previous one: personal preferences of the participants could have influenced the distribution, and the last source – various exclamations, laughter and reactions that could hint the participants about their adjectives slightly distorted the result (human factor).
There can be numerous directions where this research may be applied and continued, but in my opinion, the most important are the following ones: study of influence of self-esteem on mating process and on the “class” of mating partners available to the individual; changes in social position that can be reached by radical changes of self-esteem without changing any other characteristics of an individual; relativity of social position and social mating – in a different society or social group someone’s rating will be different and therefore the “class” of mating partners might change
F. Mention real-world implications
The main value of this research is that it shows the relativity of social mating, and gives the insight into the importance of self-esteem on the social position, on mating process and in general on the success in life. If the papers with adjectives that do not in fact relate to the participant have so strongly defined his or her social position, it can be measured that self-esteem acts as the main driver for gaining a place in any social group (and not the objective characteristics given since birth that cannot be changed). Thus, this experiment gives a clue for improving one’s social position by working with self-esteem.
Also, the application of this research is in showing the equality of mating which can help many individuals improve the expectations concerning mating and the scope of search for their mate. It is a method for correcting mating expectations and truly matching partner since there are many people who have problems with finding their match due to unrealistic expectations.
Moreover, the research results may be used practically for improving self-esteem, by two different method: either changing the social group for a certain time (as a result, social position of the individual will change and self-esteem will adjust to the new position) or by changing the attitude to society and to oneself (which may happen already as a result of understanding the relativity of matching).

Sources
Ellis, Bruce J. & Kelley, Harold H. (2009). The Pairing Game: A Classroom Demonstration of the Matching Phenomenon. Teaching of Psychology, 2(26), 118-121
Kurzban R. & Weeden J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227-244.
Shanhong, Luo & Zhang, Guangjian (2009). What leads to Romantic Attraction: Similarity, Reciprocity, Security, or Beauty? Evidence from a Speed-Dating Study. Journal of Personality, 4 (77). 933-964.
Straaten, Ischa & Rutger C. M. & Finkenauer, C. & Holland, Rob W. (2009). Meeting Your Match: How Attractiveness Similarity Affects Approach Behavior in Mixed-Sex Dyads.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 35, 685-698.
Todd, Peter M. & Penke, Lars & Fasolo, Barbara & Lenton, Alison P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. PNAS, 38 (104), 15011-15016.