PSYCH> Vol.5 No.3, March 2014

Selecting Egg and Sperm Donors: The Role of Age, Social Class, Ethnicity, Height and Personality

DownloadDownload as PDF (Size:283KB)  HTML    PP. 220-229  

ABSTRACT

This paper reports two studies where respondents were asked to help a friend make a decision about egg and sperm donation. In both studies they were presented with 16 hypothetical person’s which they were asked to rate for suitability. In the first study on egg donation the hypothetical donors differed on age (18 - 20 years vs. 30 - 33 years), social class (I/II vs. III/IV), Ethnicity (Caucasian vs. Asian) and Personality (Extraversion vs. Introversion). Effects were strongest for age and ethnicity with a preference for younger Caucasians. In the second study 16 sperm donors were described who differed similarly in age, social class and ethnicity, but personality was substituted for height (5'6" to 5'8" vs. 6'1" to 6'3"). There were strong main effects for social class, ethnicity and height with the respondents choosing middle class, tall, Caucasians. There were various significant interactions. Between subject factors (sex, ethnicity and religion) were also examined. Implications and limitations were considered.

Cite this paper

Furnham, A. , Salem, N. and Lester, D. (2014) Selecting Egg and Sperm Donors: The Role of Age, Social Class, Ethnicity, Height and Personality. Psychology, 5, 220-229. doi: 10.4236/psych.2014.53033.

References

[1] Birenbaum-Carmeli, D., & Carmeli, Y. (2002). Psysiognomy, Familism and Consumerism: Preferences among Jewish-Israeli Recipients of Donor Insemination. Social Science and Medicine, 54, 363-376.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00035-1
[2] Box, G. E. P. & Cox, D. R. (1964). An Analysis of Transformation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 26, 211-243.
[3] Buss, D. M. (1985). Human Mate Selection. American Scientist, 73, 47-51.
[4] Buss, D. M. (1987). Sex Differences in Human Mate Selection Criteria: An Evolutionary Perspective. In Sociobiology and Psychology: Issues, Ideas and Application (Edited by Crawford C., Smith M. and Krebs D.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[5] Buss, D. M. & Angleitner, A. (1989). Mate Selection Preferences in Germany and the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1269-1280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(89)90239-0
[6] Furnham, A. (1988). Lay Theories. Oxford: Pergamon.
[7] Furnham, A. (2009). Sex Differences in Mate Selection Preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 622-627.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.013
[8] Furnham, A., Ariffin, A., & McClelland, A. (2007). Factors Affecting Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources across Life-Threatening Medical Conditions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2903-2921.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00287.x
[9] Furnham, A. F., Hassomal, A., & McClelland, A. (2002). A Cross-Cultural Investigation of the Factors and Biases Involved in the Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources. Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 381-391.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1359105302007004327
[10] Furnham, A., Thomas, C., & Petrides, K. V. (2002). Patient Characteristics and the Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources. Psychology, Health, and Medicine, 7, 99-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13548500120101595
[11] Furnham, A., Thomson, K., & McClelland, A. (2002). The Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources across Medical Conditions. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 75, 189-203.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/147608302169643
[12] Greenlees, I. A., & McGrew, W. C. (1994). Sex and Age Differences in Preferences and Tactics of Mate Attraction: Analysis of Published Advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 59-72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(94)90017-5
[13] Harrison, A. A., & Saeed, L. (1977) Let’s Make a Deal: An Analysis of Relevations and Stipulations in Lonely Hearts Advertisements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 257-264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.257
[14] Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005) Hurrydate: Mate Preferences in Action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227-244.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.012
[15] Lampic, C., Svanberg, A., & Sydsjo, G. (2009). Attitudes towards Gamete Donation among IVF Doctors in the Nordic Countries. Journal of Assisted Reproductive Genetics, 26, 231-238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-009-9311-0
[16] Prokosch, M., Coss, R., Scheib, J., & Blozis, S. (2009). Intelligence and Mate Choice. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 30, 11-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.07.004
[17] Purewal, S., & van den Akker, O. (2006). British Women’s Attitudes towards Acolyte Donation. Patient Education and Counselling, 64, 43-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.11.007
[18] Scheib, J. (1994). Sperm Donor Selection and the Psychology of Female Mate Choice. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15, 113-129.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(94)90035-3
[19] Scheib, J., & Ruby, A. (2006). Impact of Sperm Donor Information on Parents and Children. Sexuality, Reproduction and Menopause, 4, 17-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sram.2006.03.005
[20] Shackelford, T., Schmitt, D., & Buss, D. (2005). Universal Dimensions of Human Mate Preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447-458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.023
[21] Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2008). The Psychology of Physical Attractiveness. Hove: Psychology Press.
[22] Wood, D., & Brumbaugh, C. (2009). Using Revealed Mare Preferences to Evaluate Market Force and Differential Preference Explanations for Mate Selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1226-1244.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015300

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.