I gotta say this is a tough one just because posing with a cat is such an unnatural thing from the perspective of cat ownership. Guy sitting on sofa with cat lying on the back of the sofa is different from "Here Look At My Cat" guy.
Yeah, as a fan of cats: these results are exactly as I'd hope.
Cats rarely like being posed with. Neither of those pictures have happy-looking cats. If those are representative images, I'd be ranking less-date-able too, a possible inability to understand their pet is not a positive sign.
This reminds of the shirtless / not shirtless studies that use plainly artificial edited in muscles, no scenic background whatsoever (just a wall, not even a basic pool), and are just not generalizable to real (online) dating experiences.
Edit: This is the study. See the supplementary information section at the very bottom is you want to see the photos used.
Also on those pictures, the guy has is back all hunched and is holding the cat like a doll or a baby. Is it really the cat that give a less attractive vibe or the dorky posture of the guy on the picture?
Would the results be different if cat and man were posed differently?
I suspect that a picture of some guy going hiking with his cat would be seen different from some guy playing dolls with his cat in his apartment.
My cat is a total lap cat. She would stay there 24/7 if I let her. I do think she likes it but also likes the heat as well lol. Not all cats are hands off. Some like to be around humans too much and can be annoying they are so clingy. I'm sure she wouldn't mind taking photos while doing it, as she doesn't know wtf a photo is.
That's funny you say that. I met my girlfriend on a dating site and I had a photo of myself with my cat laying on the back of the sofa. And I choose that picture on purpose because it always got people excitedly asking about my cat.
So this "shows a guy is undateable" has not been my experience.
I think there is as difference between having the cat in the background and posing with the cat. It's in the same vein of having a photo of your cat on your shirt.
From a dating point of view, that’s a pretty important part though (for better or worse). Even before the cat person/dog person angle, there’s allergies and wether the person already has a pet or not.
That could be the underlying masculine message. Posing with a cat can be interpreted as "I can stand razor-sharp claws sinking my flesh and still smile for the picture".
A common tactic is to have tons of "special issues" that pump out a lot of articles. This particular journal, Animals, engages in this: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals/sections
Yeah, like, sadly when I see [MDPI + interesting title] my reflex is to switch to "how did they p-hack, publish underpowered studies, or otherwise mess up the stats"-mode, and that's probably not the worst prior to have...
As someone who did have a cat in one of my online dating pictures, I can believe that both: a) having a cat picture decreases the number of matches, especially against having a dog picture; but also that b) it increases the likelihood of hitting it off with those matches that do come.
Yeah when it comes to dating, whether online or IRL, I think standing out (in a way that’s true to yourself)is generally a higher “return” for the same effort vs “standing above”.
Getting a Mohawk may decrease your potential dating pool by a lot, but also the few who see that as a symbol of compatibility will be far more likely to push harder to get a relationship with you.
Whereas competing to be the most classically eligible bachelor wins you the most dates if you can be in the rarefied percentiles…but there’s a lot of competition. And within the population of single men and single women, it does tend to be a “winners-take-most” situation.
I think the real “social crime” though is people pretending to be who they are not in order to score dates. Then even if you get in a relationship it’s usually not what either party actually wanted.
Somewhat similar advice for jobs, actually. (In terms of being true to yourself as much as possible to find a good employer match). Obviously with jobs you just need money sometimes and have to shove yourself through a square hole.
Whereas few people actually need sex/dates. Sometimes it sure feels like it, and human companionship has huge effects on physical and mental well-being (good or bad). Yes, I’m sure it’s saved more than a few people from suicide or poor decisions. But there’s no way to categorize this as a need unless we invent a way to fulfill it, all of which previously have been inhumane. Maybe AI/robotic companionship will allow new options.
Some people seem to have a strong dislike of cats, so posing with one would lend to providing a filtering effect (i.e. Just as you describe: more rejections, but the passes are better matched.)
That said I don't really buy into studying these kinds of perceptions beyond the obvious conclusions because attraction is too subjective to be studied with such simple toggles. To study it this way has the naivety of a reddit thread "LADIES WHAT IS THE ONE THING THAT MAKES YOU INSTANTLY ATTRACTED TO A MAN".
Attraction is more than a sum of the individual parts, and the success of a relationship [interpreted as longevity] has been shown to not rely so much on choosing the perfect partner, but rather how you treat them once you have them.1
This study suggests that a closer look at the effects of different companion species on perceived masculinity and dateability is warranted.
Does it, though? Quantitatively affirming the existence of a stereotype doesn't seem like any great discovery, more like indulging curiosity at best or lazy grant-seeking at worst.
Here, for free, are some other ground-breaking hypotheses:
Men with dogs will be perceived as more masculine than men with cats.
Men with large dogs will be perceived as more masculine than men with small dogs.
Men with snakes or tarantulas will be considered less dateable.
However, this result will not obtain for women who identify as goths, necessitating the formation of a new subfield.
Men with fish will be perceived as more or less dateable depending on whether they appear likely to eat the fish or feed it, with a small exceptional cohort composed exclusively of shark attack survivors.
Men with sheep present a quandary: are cheap sweaters worth the uncertainty?
> Men with dogs will be perceived as more masculine than men with cats.
Would a skinny guy with a chiuaua look more muscular than a bulkier guy with a cat? What about fat guy with a retreiver? If you are average build do cats add a "gentle giant" vibe? As opposed to a "tiny dick"/"he is compensating" stereotype if he had a pitbull?
The car stereotypes are interesting, it use to be that a muscle car or a big truck made you look stronger but now it has the opposite effect. Overt displays if masculinity can be mistaken for insecurity about your weakness these days so this study is interesting in my opinion.
I don't have a problem with a study like this. Companies like match.com have this data and much more. OKCupid's founder used to share some of their insights but he sold out. I'll always welcome adding more data to the public knowledge base even if it's a silly little thing like human matchmaking.
This is actually what scares me about the artificial intelligence revolution, private companies are feeding their exclusive knowledge about humans to machine models that will then know more about us then we do. Those models are already being used to psychologically manipulate us, which after all is the specialty of these advertising companies.
The two particular cat photos they chose for the study seem almost comical, like a parody of a posed cat photo trend from the 80s. There are much more “normal” ways to have a picture with a cat that I wonder if they would perform differently.
Exactly. And this really continues the whole idea that when you have thousands of "researchers" (people) who are judged solely upon quantity/acceptance hierarchy of published papers -- and what's at risk is their livelihoods -- you end up with lots of BS unreproducible research that can't be relied upon.
The cats are obviously engaged with an off-screen handler and not the subject so it does not come across like a person and their companion animal.
The off-screen handler shows up in most animal performances, there is a scene D-movie Devil Dog where the family dog leads the members of a satanic coven to a pentacle and it's obvious the dog is following a handler (Satan?) and being submissive, not dominant.
Not to mention the w/cat photos show poor posture and funny (my interpretation) hair.
The w/o cat photos also show the faces straight on, which makes them look more masculine. ie. thicker neck, more prominent jawline. There are too many subtle differences to list.
I'd like to see this done with identical photos with only the cat being the difference. My belief is that the results would be similar, but with a smaller significance.
I think preselection is the best indicator for success with women. Women are attracted to men who have already attracted other women. So it's best to pose with other female friends.
From what I understand: Muscular, but with a shirt on, and not at a gym, and not so muscular as to look like you're 'roided up. Show forearm vascularity. No dead animals or caught fish, unless it's a hunting/fishing area and everyone does it. Show teeth when smiling, and have at least one smiling picture. Don't do bathroom mirror selfies. And, as mentioned, have a stethoscope, but avoid wearing scrubs.
PSA that there are always other countries, other opportunities, and other people with wider views out there. Nobody should limit themselves to this stuff.
I agree. I was friends with a woman who was quite out of my league as a young man. She went on to be a lingerie model for a time, but she was aware of this and would feign flirting with me when we would go out as a group to great effect. A wingwoman beats a wingman every time.
That only works when you don’t want it to (you’re already in a relationship). Group photos just make you wonder why you’re not dating them already. Or which one of the group owns the profile.
You need to be very careful not to cross the „jerk line“ right away with that. It has to be in a way that the interested female doesn’t feel so threatened that she turns away on the spot.
Readit News
Cats rarely like being posed with. Neither of those pictures have happy-looking cats. If those are representative images, I'd be ranking less-date-able too, a possible inability to understand their pet is not a positive sign.
Pictures involving a cat willingly snuggling up to the subject may perform very differently. E.g. nearly all of these look good, and showcase very different cat-language: https://welovecatsandkittens.com/cat-pictures/12-adorable-ph...
Edit: This is the study. See the supplementary information section at the very bottom is you want to see the photos used.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-022-01278-1
I found it via an article on theguardian.com, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/may/25/keep-yo...
Would the results be different if cat and man were posed differently?
I suspect that a picture of some guy going hiking with his cat would be seen different from some guy playing dolls with his cat in his apartment.
So this "shows a guy is undateable" has not been my experience.
They should repeat the experiment with cats that look their owners.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/oct/10/purrfec...
How do you separate the impact of the cat from the impact of a clear headshot that is front on vs someone sitting awkwardly with one leg up?
A common tactic is to have tons of "special issues" that pump out a lot of articles. This particular journal, Animals, engages in this: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/animals/sections
Which is a net positive.
Getting a Mohawk may decrease your potential dating pool by a lot, but also the few who see that as a symbol of compatibility will be far more likely to push harder to get a relationship with you.
Whereas competing to be the most classically eligible bachelor wins you the most dates if you can be in the rarefied percentiles…but there’s a lot of competition. And within the population of single men and single women, it does tend to be a “winners-take-most” situation.
I think the real “social crime” though is people pretending to be who they are not in order to score dates. Then even if you get in a relationship it’s usually not what either party actually wanted.
Somewhat similar advice for jobs, actually. (In terms of being true to yourself as much as possible to find a good employer match). Obviously with jobs you just need money sometimes and have to shove yourself through a square hole.
Whereas few people actually need sex/dates. Sometimes it sure feels like it, and human companionship has huge effects on physical and mental well-being (good or bad). Yes, I’m sure it’s saved more than a few people from suicide or poor decisions. But there’s no way to categorize this as a need unless we invent a way to fulfill it, all of which previously have been inhumane. Maybe AI/robotic companionship will allow new options.
I’m also generally not looking for a relationship.
So there are also winner takes mosts in the fringes as well.
That said I don't really buy into studying these kinds of perceptions beyond the obvious conclusions because attraction is too subjective to be studied with such simple toggles. To study it this way has the naivety of a reddit thread "LADIES WHAT IS THE ONE THING THAT MAKES YOU INSTANTLY ATTRACTED TO A MAN".
Attraction is more than a sum of the individual parts, and the success of a relationship [interpreted as longevity] has been shown to not rely so much on choosing the perfect partner, but rather how you treat them once you have them.1
1. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/29/us/what-makes-a-relations...
Deleted Comment
That would entirely depend on what you’re looking for. Not everyone one dating sites is looking for a long-term romantic partner.
Does it, though? Quantitatively affirming the existence of a stereotype doesn't seem like any great discovery, more like indulging curiosity at best or lazy grant-seeking at worst.
Here, for free, are some other ground-breaking hypotheses:
Men with dogs will be perceived as more masculine than men with cats.
Men with large dogs will be perceived as more masculine than men with small dogs.
Men with snakes or tarantulas will be considered less dateable.
However, this result will not obtain for women who identify as goths, necessitating the formation of a new subfield.
Men with fish will be perceived as more or less dateable depending on whether they appear likely to eat the fish or feed it, with a small exceptional cohort composed exclusively of shark attack survivors.
Men with sheep present a quandary: are cheap sweaters worth the uncertainty?
Would a skinny guy with a chiuaua look more muscular than a bulkier guy with a cat? What about fat guy with a retreiver? If you are average build do cats add a "gentle giant" vibe? As opposed to a "tiny dick"/"he is compensating" stereotype if he had a pitbull?
The car stereotypes are interesting, it use to be that a muscle car or a big truck made you look stronger but now it has the opposite effect. Overt displays if masculinity can be mistaken for insecurity about your weakness these days so this study is interesting in my opinion.
This is actually what scares me about the artificial intelligence revolution, private companies are feeding their exclusive knowledge about humans to machine models that will then know more about us then we do. Those models are already being used to psychologically manipulate us, which after all is the specialty of these advertising companies.
A Pit Bull Terrier is smaller than a Golden Retriever and yet one is often seen with muscular men, while the other is the prototypical family dog.
The cats are obviously engaged with an off-screen handler and not the subject so it does not come across like a person and their companion animal.
The off-screen handler shows up in most animal performances, there is a scene D-movie Devil Dog where the family dog leads the members of a satanic coven to a pentacle and it's obvious the dog is following a handler (Satan?) and being submissive, not dominant.
The w/o cat photos also show the faces straight on, which makes them look more masculine. ie. thicker neck, more prominent jawline. There are too many subtle differences to list.
I'd like to see this done with identical photos with only the cat being the difference. My belief is that the results would be similar, but with a smaller significance.
"He's a doctor! Wait. He's a cat doctor..."
Deleted Comment