Support for Beauty-Status Exchange Remains Illusory
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4795695 |
|---|---|
| Authors | E A Mcclintock (0000-0002-9166-2549, University of Notre Dame, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 82 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 1100-1110 |
| Publication date | 2017-10-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Sociological Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0003-1224 • E-ISSN: 1939-8271 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0003122417725175 |
| OpenAlex | W2750279676 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 14 |
In my article, "Beauty and Status: The Illusion of Exchange in Partner Selection?" (McClintock 2014), I used descriptive statistics, three forms of regression, and six measures of socioeconomic status to examine the "trophy wife" stereotype that women "exchange" their beauty for men's status. According to the stereotype, such women would partner with comparatively less-attractive men who are comparatively high in socioeconomic status. I found little support for beauty-status exchange, and this limited support lacked robustness. Gullickson critiques my analysis on two grounds, arguing against the difference-based regression models, and proposing a new specification of interaction effects in the log-linear models. However, the difference models conceptualize exchange as defined in the relevant literature, and Gullickson's modified difference models only replicate my conventional regression models, providing no new evidence for or against beauty-status exchange. Likewise, Gullickson's proposed log-linear specifications are not only non-hierarchical, they also fail to improve model fit or to support exchange when using alternative measures of status. Indeed, Gullickson focuses on the only measure of status that yields any support for beauty-status exchange. Altogether, Gullickson's case for beauty-status exchange overlooks the preponderance of contrary evidence and prioritizes statistical significance, attainable only under narrow model specifications, over robustness and model fit
Beauty · Multilevel model · Occupational prestige · Political science · Population · Regression analysis · Robustness (evolution · Socioeconomic status · Sociology · Statistics · Demography · Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior · Mathematics · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Power and Status Dynamics · Social Psychology
Attractiveness for Status? The Link Between Physical Attractiveness and Male Refugees' Romantic Relationships in Germany
Beauty and status
Sitting pretty
Beauty–status exchange in mate selection in China
The Consolidation of Education and Health in Families
A New Methodological Framework for Studying Status Exchange in Marriage
Race, Gender, and Social Exchange in Young Adult Unions
Estimating the Dimension of a Model
Still Weak Support for Status‐Caste Exchange
Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research
Antifragile
Appearance and Education in Marriage Mobility
Beauty and Status
Choosing Models for Cross-Classifications
Occupational Sex Composition and Gendered Housework Performance
When Does Race Matter? Race, Sex, and Dating at an Elite University
Educational Inequality, Homogamy, and Status Exchange in Black-White Intermarriage
A Critique of Exchange Theory in Mate Selection
The Importance of Being Beautiful
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2019 - 2026 (8) |
| Highly cited | No |