Women can tell a cheating man just by looking at them: study

Comments (9)

“More masculine-looking men (were) rated as more probable to be unfaithful and having a sexual history of being more unfaithful.”

Did the study account for cultural bias as a source of the predictions made by the women, instead of assuming there’s a correlation between “masculinity” and fidelity?
What control is there in this study to account for lieing on the questionnaires?
Is this study the statistically significant?

First, the women could have made those statements based on the popular non scientific knowledge that “masculine” men are considered more attractive( or consider themselves more attractive, or both) and therefore will be hit on more or will hit on women more or both, increasing the probability that they will cheat.

Second,another popular non-scientific knowledge is that men are more likely to exaggerate about sexual exploits while women are more likely to downplay.

Third, is the study big enough to be meaningful? Can I go to any country in the world, and have similar results?

Dec 05, 2012 8:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
scythe wrote:

men don’t judge a book by its cover

instead they observe the behaviour of women to detect unfaithfulness

a relief that men scored badly with such a superficial proxy as photographs

shallow stereotyping

Dec 06, 2012 1:42am EST  --  Report as abuse
MrRFox wrote:

The grammar in the title … I mean – come on, guys.

OBTW: All guys cheat who are capable of finding the right woman to do it with – not 100%, but close enough.

Dec 06, 2012 6:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
MarkBee wrote:

Funny – wives certainly can’t tell. Nor can girlfriends of men who are cheating on their wives. But total strangers, from a photograph? Yeah, that’s likely.

Dec 07, 2012 1:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
kiryen wrote:

@ReaderAtSunrise
It’s important to note that a statistically significant result simply means “better than 50/50″ (by a set margin).

Based purely on the language used in the article, I’d say that the task given to participants was simply to judge fidelity based on a given photo, i.e. the correlation to “masculinity” would have been
inferred by the researchers or indicated during a subsequent interview after the task was completed.

As for the self-reported sexual histories being suspect, that’s another matter entirely. Given that fidelity is binary, it’s not a matter of exaggeration, but disclosure.

Even projects nominated for the Ig Nobel prize have to get funding from somewhere, which means a proposal had to have crossed the desk of the reserachers’ peers. Rather than attacking the study’s methodologies through “non-scientific knowledge”, perhaps it’d be easier to simply read the original paper?

Dec 07, 2012 2:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Ralphooo wrote:

The tendency of men to perceive attractive women as likely to be unfaithful helps to explain the obsessive hiding and cloaking of wives and daughters in various cultural settings. In many such arrangements, the men are then allowed to run around entirely unrestrained. Inevitably, a certain number of women will be suspected of breaking the rules. The radical advice that such women, whether innocent or guilty, should not be killed by stoning remains unheeded in many parts of the world.

Despite all the effort applied to the problem, no effective system has yet been found, in any culture, to prevent all the endless problems caused by our overwhelmingly powerful human sexual instincts.

Dec 09, 2012 10:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
MollyZin wrote:

Maybe being able to guess who might tend to be unfaithful has nothing to do with the risk of raising another man’s child or losing resources. Maybe it has everything to do with the risk of losing the joy and intimacy of a life-long relationship that grows and deepens over time, and the hope of having a family that is healthy and whole and undevastated by the deep spiritual and emotional wounds that come from abandonment and loss of love. Human beings are much more than the simplistic animalistic scenarios that are constantly being written to try to squeeze them onto evolutionary origin charts. The reality is that the spiritual and emotional aspects of human nature that make humans vastly different than animals make this type of explanation ridiculously inadequate.

Dec 10, 2012 3:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
TheDude911 wrote:

It doesn’t matter if a man is a cheater and a woman can identify it. Women all look at that as a challenge to “change a man”. The fact is that women all say they don’t want the arrogant cheating man, but then that is exactly what they go for. In my fraternity years ago I learned that the best way to get a woman is not to treat them the way they say they want to be treated. Treat them like dirt and they stick like mud. This is a very unfortunate thing, because I and my male friends really want to treat certain women well and give them respect. The problem with doing that is that any man who treats a woman like a diamond may as well say goodbye to her. Her goal is complete if you become the man she said she wanted in the first place. When reading this comment women will grimace and dislike what I am saying, but deep down they will know that this is the truth as much as they will want to deny it.

Dec 10, 2012 11:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
jdl51 wrote:

Vastly different? I don’t think so. You’ve never seen war obviously. Humans are sometimes worse than animals.

Dec 10, 2012 1:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.