1
Fulano
Com 422—Baldwin—School of Communication—Illinois State University
Updated 10/05/09
Position Paper 3: Build-Your-Own Theory
Grading Sheet
Comments Position Paper 3 (Theory) ISU# Last 5: ______Score __ /25
Evaluation:
ANALYSIS
Balance of theory (breadth/depth) 1 2 3 4 5
Thought behind theory (e.g., in considering
possible connections, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5
Clarity of concept defs, propositions 1 2 3 4 5
Any extras (clear consideration of boundary 1 2 3 4 5
conditions or system states?)
WRITING
Intro/Conc., rationale for theory, etc. 1 2 3 4 5
OVERALL (Subjective) Grade 5 10 15 20 25
THIS PAPER was okay, but had room for improvement for clarity. A stronger paper follows.
Fulano de Tal
Com 422 Dr. Baldwin
Paper #3
October 27, 2005
Building Your Own Theory
The phenomenon I plan to explain is why it is socially acceptable for men to date younger women and why it is less acceptable for women to date younger men.
Elevate the topic to a higher level of abstraction: predicting age in mate selection (operationalized through marital choice as indicated in U.S. Census).
Give an intro paragraph here that gives the overall research issue/direction of paper.
Boundaries (later): marriage (& why); heterosexual (& why)
Variables:
Sex: Male and Female. [Note: I would give each variable or variable “set” a new paragraph, or possibly bullets, for readability]
Age will play a strong role in this theory, and will have multiple significancesbe important in different ways.
[Note: separate age of partner from age difference. I think these are two separate variables. I think “age difference” might be continuous, from no difference to greater difference. Probably, as age diff b/t partners increases, social acceptance (norms) will decrease. As resources partners bring to relationship increase, willingness to date across age diff may increase] For my model, younger will equate to a minimum age difference of 10 years. Next, age is relevant to the maturation of the couple – there seems to be a difference of acceptability between couples whose ages are 30/20 compared to 40/30 and so on. Age also impacts the sexual compatibility of the couple. Age also impacts the couple’s sexual compatibility. [deleted redundant sentence]. [In the para, you have several things that suggest that people will be less likely to date across an age difference, such as sexual compatability unless this is a new variable in your theory. If this is the case on some variable, you might suggest those things that predict the relationship in one direction along with those which might predict it in the other direction. Or maybe I’m just not understanding it quite correctly.] Men sexually peak at a much younger age than women. And finally, age is also a strong indicator for sexual experience. [True—does this relate to likelihood to date across an age difference? Otherwise, it may not be relevant to the theory]
Sex roles: Men’s stereotypical roles are to be successful, aggressive, tough, dominant, and emotionally distant. Men are traditionally valued for their intelligence, competitiveness and economic status. Women’s stereotypical roles are of the mother, nurturer, weakness, and being overly emotional. They are valued for their looks and/or charm. So, instead of “sex roles,” I think what you are looking for is “relational resources” or something like that (men: success or security; women: beauty, though either could have either variable, such as a handsome man or a “successful” woman, though the latter might still be less important in dating behavior). I think that sex roles inform resources, but that it is resources and individual has, and not the societal sex roles, that will predict likelihood to date across an age span.
Socioeconomic implications: means the individual’s status socially and or financially. This, and the next point would all, I think, be part of your discussion of “resources,” but w/not be a separate variable. Also, if you’re taking an ev perspective, “beauty” (however you decide to operationalize it) may be the measurement of “reproductive value”. Evolutionary perspective: meaning historically as men age, they look to mate with younger females for biological purposes of higher fertility. A man is able to father children well into old age. Women’s reproductive opportunities are limited to a relatively short period of time due to length of pregnancy and the nurturing of small children. Maturation levels: Women have been found to mature at a faster rate than men.
Laws of Interaction:
· It is socially acceptable for a man to be involved with a younger women based on evolutionary factor for the continuation of the species (positive). If a man is involved with an older woman, the variable of a high reproduction rate is diminished (negative).
As stated, the first is not a “proposition” as social desirability cannot vary. What you might mean is that as social acceptability increases for a man to be involved with a younger woman, then. . . IF you think that this is already a given, that research supports already that it is socially acceptable, then this would not really be one of your variables and you should pull it out of the model.
· Men are historically driven by physical attraction and women by emotional/relational attraction. Therefore, a younger man defies stereotypical norms by being involved with an older woman, because in our society youth often equals beauty. [If beauty and reproductive value are separate in your model, than this is fine. But if they are related, they may need to be in the same prop. I think what you might want to say here (combining 2) is that as a man’s importance of the woman’s reproductive value decreases, he is more likely to mate across an age span “upward” (an older woman); as the reproductive value increases in importance to him (and likely as his own age increases), he is more likely to mate with a younger woman.
· A younger woman is a symbol of socio-economical success for a man, i.e. the term “trophy wife” (positive); in contrast, “boy toy” (negative) is used for a younger man involved with a woman who is socially and/or economically successful. A very likely and useful prop—but not one that matches your units as described so far. What I think is happening is that you are stating “truisms” for your propositions, that is, things that you believe to be true. The props s/b about relationships between your units of interest (all of which must be able to exist in more than one system state). So here, props might instead be: Societal acceptance will increase for mating across an age span if the man is older and the woman is younger, but not if the woman is older. [The rest of the explanation would be your reason for making this proposition.]
· The phrase “robbing the cradle” loses its significance with the couple’s maturation (20/30 vs. 50/60). Again, not really the prop you’re looking for. Rather: Social acceptance for mating across the age span will increase/decrease (you choose which) as the mating partners’ ages increase.
Okay—I think you prob get the idea of what the props s/look like, yes? And that they need to be clearly reflected in the concepts/units you define above.
· The female sex role as “the mother” can influence both sexes. Both partners can be influenced by cultural values if the couple’s age difference is significant enough to have the woman capable of having offspring the same age as the man (negative). Conversely, men with younger female partners may not have the issue of being old enough to be her father (neutral). Ah! An arrow that goes the other way. As mating across the age span increases (beyond a certain point), societal attitudes will grow more negative. [Key: Be sure to keep straight if your key variable(s) is/are likelihood to mate across a life span, or actual mating across the lifespan, or both. Which you choose will determine how you state props and how you discuss measurement.
· Women stereotypically are attracted to older men, with the thought that an older man embodies intelligence, experience, socio-economic status. Women, who choose younger men, break these stereotypical norms by implying that these traits are less important, suggesting she is driven by the physical attraction, thus breaking traditional sex roles.
· Women can also be seen to support sex roles by ignoring the age difference and having emotion rule over age.
Boundaries:
The theory is based on heterosexual romantic relationships in the United States. And why? This might also be the place to include the “minimal” age diff that you are discussing (10 ys? And why?)
Testing the Hypothesis:
I would test this hypothesis by looking at results of the U.S. Census Bureau. I would also employ the use of questionnaires with photos of various age matched couples. I would also have participants score photos of men and women of various ages for attractiveness. The photos would also include a varied level of attractiveness among the age groups. This would prove/disprove the importance of age versus beauty. Yes—but as measured, unless you actually surveyed people married or dating at different age spans, you would not be able to “connect the dots.” This is one reason “likelihood…” becomes attractive. You could measure that in a survey that people (singles bars? College campus? Where you choose may lead to limitations) can take. To measure connections to actual mating practices, you must survey in some way those who are thus mated. This is possible, if you can locate them! And for this paper, I think you can assume that you could if you wanted to. J
Limitations:
The first limitation of this theory is one that is all too common – it is that humans, by nature, can be unpredictable [We all know this is true. I think I wouldn’t mention it. Spend your attention on “variables” or limitations in sampling, measurement, that might make the theory difficult to prove, or even consider some of Miller’s standards for PP theory…]. There could also be a shift of what is culturally acceptable because of high profile pairings like Demi Moore/ Ashton Kutcher and Cameron Diaz/Justin Timberlake. Beauty may also limit the findings of the theory, giving weight to ageless beauty over youthful fertility.
THIS PAPER has a much stronger rationale and concepts. The concepts have more detail than the student really needs. Definitions can be more concise. The paper stops before the propositions.
Mengano
Position Paper #3
Com 422
24, October 2005
Overview
While leisurely reading a recent edition of Marie Claire I came across a statistic that I found to be of interest. The magazine claimed “college students are 90% more likely to engage in sexual activity than those that don’t attend college”. Combining this with my current research study on the Perceptions of Premarital Sex in College Freshman and Seniors, which I am doing for Dr. Metts’ Interpersonal Communication class, I predict that college students are in fact more likely to engage in casual sex than those that don’t attend college. [Again, as I said this morning, if this is already a given, it is not really a ‘variable’ in your study. Rather, the purpose of your theory might be to predict which college students may be more likely to engage in casual sex.] As a college student myself I can see how college students might be more explorative and curious in college and why they are more likely to engage in casual sex. I will be using college students ages 18 to 25 and predictors such as, sex, alcohol consumption, peer support and/or pressure, group affiliation, parental supervision, level of curiosity, relationship status, attraction, and living situations to determine if the current statistic does hold true. [Again, the list c/get big really fast. So you can protect yourself by, instead, saying “a variety of variables might contribute to casual sex, such as a, b, c, d, and e. However, to maintain the parsimony of this theory, I will focus on what I feel are the most relevant variables. Or something like that in your own words.]
Variables
For this study it is important to define the variables that are consistent with an understanding of my theory. [We talked about these in person, so I won’t say much here.]
· College Student: This is a more traditional student that is between the ages of 18 and 25. Who may live on or off campus, but attends college or university classes and is exposed to the different social and physical aspects of the college environment. Move to boundary conditions.
· Casual Sex: My definition of casual sex is dependent solely on actual penetration; this does include oral, vaginal, and anal sex. This behavior is also temporary and falls outside of a committed relationship. This may be referred to as a “one night stand” or even a “fuck buddy”. By these terms there is the association of non-attachment. In some instances of casual sex the participants may not even know the name of their partner and make the assumption they will never see each other again. In other cases casual sex may be an occasion “hook-up” with someone you know but don’t consider dating. They may be a classmate, friend, roommate, etc. but overall there is still no commitment, but an occasional random physical connection. The physical connection does not lead to attachment. Very nice! Quite clear. This is a key variable, so this clarification is useful.
· Sex: Sex refers to someone’s genetic make-up, whether they are male or female. It is a significant factor because in my experience females and males differ in their desire to engage in more exploratory behavior. [Either insert the proposition here or move next sent to follow prop. It’s really more of an explan for a prop that you have below] Males often prefer relationships that are temporary and casual, where as females are more likely to engage in exploratory behavior when there is relational attachment and closeness.