T Nation

Life = Short-term

Pretty women … Yeah, yeah, yeah!

HAMILTON, ONT. - Men’s minds may be so rattled by the sight of a pretty woman that they behave irrationally, Canadian psychologists have shown.

Scientists know animals prefer short-term gains to longer-term ones, even if the future payoff is larger. Advertisements featuring attractive women take advantage of the effect in people.

Researchers at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont., designed an experiment to investigate sex-related “irrational discounting.”

Psychologists Margo Wilson and Martin Daly asked 209 students to look at pictures of the opposite sex from the website “Hot or Not.”

The participants were then asked if they’d prefer receiving an average of $19 immediately or waiting for $25 at some future time.

After eyeballing faces of women ranked as pretty on the website, men were more likely to want the immediate payment rather than hang on for a bigger bonus.

Women’s choices, though, were unaffected by photos of handsome men.

The researchers suggest men may want money immediately to impress the ladies.

The study appears in this week’s online issue of Proceedings of the Royal Society London B.

Final comments: We dont need excuses anymore...its in our genes! LOL

I think you mean it’s in our JEANS!!!

There has got to be some type of law suit that I can file with this that details how advertisers direct my not-so-popular actions. Hey, maybe I can blame TC also. rubs hands together maniacally

Just as soon as this McDonald’s suit goes through I will look into it and let you know.

No offense, but most of us already knew that the “problem” was in our jeans already. hehe, get it…jeans…genes. Ok, it was a stretch.

Dan, good one!

Did they used a control group made up of MEN? They didnt mention it.

I know i wouldnt want to wait for as little as $25 - just give me my money and get it out of the way. $6 doesnt make much difference to me.

Also, females can be more logical and more willing to wait for a bit more.

For all we know it could be the natural way we act, completely unrelated to the presence of a hot chick.

All they showed is that guys have a higher tendency to not care much for $6. They have NOT showed it was due to the female presence. That’s why you use th control group.

How about the following research:

209 men were asked to look at the pictures of females from the website ‘hot or not’.

They were then asked if they’d rather watch ESPN or Martha Stewart’s ‘Living’.

The study shows most men chose to watch ESPN.

Conclusion: the sight of a pretty girl causes most men to behave irrationally and prefer ESPN over ‘Living’ even though ‘Living’ teaches them cooking skills.

I mean, come one - who designed this study?!? Watching at PICTURES of females from ‘hot or not’? What the? How about get them some real flesh females, since men may not react very well to a picture?
Does a PICTURE of some average-looking female you don’t know and will never know make your heart jump that much? i seriously doubt it.

This is not an attack on DAN at all. It just seems the researchers, well, could have done a MUCH better job.

Yeah… I think the basis of this study sucks. Men have already been shown to be more impulsive regardless of sexual stimulation. This has been known in marketing for some years now. Men are more likely to buy impulse items than women.

So what does this study show. Possibly:

Men are more cynical. Where’s the guarantee that you’re gonna give me six more dollars tomorrow? One in the hand…

Men value their time more than women. This would have been my answer. $19 and I’m done now vs $25 for me to come back tomorrow? $6 for the drive over, finding parking, and then walking my happy ass across campus to sit in your waiting room with ancient copies of Sports Illustrated and Family Living? Screw you bucko, I’m outta here.

Both of those conclusions could also be construed as more real world practical whereas the female view could be more idealistic.

I find it funny for a couple of things, and could also easily shell out additional scenarios:

  1. Do the same test, with women, with male strippers. Everybody knows women totally lose, specially as a group, in strip bars (or even clubs that give shows).

  2. Do a CAT/MRI scan of the brain, with a before/during/after babewatch session. THEN ask questions, and keep scanning, again before/during/after thinking period.

  3. Very much like the eletrical shock study, give people the opportunity to act out with maximum liberty (without knowledge of adverse consequences). Then you’ll have uninhibited/raw behaviour at work. Compare both sexes. (Belay that. People already do it large scale. Eeheheh!)

The possibilities are endless. So is the fun and findings. ;0)

If I was a Mac student I would be pissed that my tuition bucks were being spent on such nonsensical research. Mac’s a great Canadian univeristy though and does some quality medical research

Just give me a hundred pretty women and I’ll conduct a study.