Gender differences in mate selection: financial stability and physical attractiveness

Evolutionary Understanding of Physical Attraction and Mate Selection

Item Page

Financial stability

Physical attractiveness

Frequency Statistics

Overall Analysis of Preferences Effect

Factors Influencing Mate Choices

Financial stability

Physical attractiveness

Evolutionary Understanding of Physical Attraction and Mate Selection

What factors would usually drive a person to prefer one person as a mate, to another? Are there any observable differences between the mate selection strategies employed by men, and those employed by women? A number of theories have been put forward to provide answers to these questions. Buss and Barnes (1986), while making specific reference to the Evolutionary Theory, posit that the qualities women look for in a potential mate differ considerably from those that men look for. These differences, they suggest, manly accrue from the biological systemic differences between men and women, as well as the common belief that women age faster than men.

Women's fertility has been observed to decrease with age, and owing to this fact, men would often place substantial importance on the quality of youth when making their mate selection choices. On the other hand, women commit a significant chunk of their time and financial resources, first in gestation and infant-nursing, and then in child rearing, and would, naturally, prefer men with the willingness and ability to provide resources for them. Yilmaz, Gungor and Celik (2013) express that mate selection choices and preference attitudes are greatly influenced by psychological, situational, demographic and environmental factors and that the consideration of these "could contribute to studies related to before and after marriage" (p. 425). To this end, the relevance of gaining enhanced understanding of the influence of these factors on mate selection strategies cannot be overstated.

The objective of this text, therefore, remains;

1. Investigate on a per-gender basis, the extent to which financial stability influences mate selection.

2. Investigate on a per-gender basis, the extent to which physical attractiveness influences mate selection.

3. Provide new and valuable information to future studies on marriage and relationships.

So as to explore the objectives mentioned above, the text will embrace the following hypotheses;

The extent, by gender, to which financial stability influences mate selection strategies

H1. Women, more than men, will seek partners with resources

The extent, by gender, to which physical attractiveness influences mate selection strategies

H2. Men, more than women, will seek physically attractive partners

This study was conducted by administering surveys to 10 respondents, all of whom are members of either the non-teaching or the student fraternity at DePaul University.

The limitations of this study include:

1. Use of a self-structured survey sheet that fell short of the SERQUAL standards

2. Use of convenience sampling, rather than random sampling, which is advocated for in empirical studies such as this

2.0. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Financial Stability

Hancock (2000) refers to modern society as one notorious for trying to find "the ideals of potential parental investment." The author posits that, compared to animals, human beings are vulnerable for longer periods of time, and it is only natural that those born to parents with adequate provision abilities stand the best chances of, not only survival, but success. Tramm and Servedio (2008) and Buss and Barnes (1986) express that although both men and women incorporate the potential parental investment factor into their mate selection decisions; women have instincts towards the same, and therefore consider financial stability perhaps the most important factor in mate selection.

Tramm and Servedio (2008), Buss and Barnes (1986) and Kille, Forest and Wood (2013) suggest that biological systemic differences between men and women could be responsible for this phenomenon. According to Kille, Forest and Wood (2013), women may attach significance importance to financial stability because, unlike men, who are able to reproduce faster, and with different partners, they can only reproduce once every nine months, and are, therefore, forced to choose the most ideal parental investment option for a mate. Tramm and Servedio (2008) take this concept a notch higher and introduce the 'sense of motherhood' factor, positing that women would base their decisions on a potential mate's ability to offer the best, in form of financial necessity, to an offspring. Hancock (2002) holds that most Midwestern women would settle for a mate who belongs to either the same, or a higher social class than them, whom they would use to improve their own social status - because women, more than men, focus more on the future than the present.

The concept of financial stability, and how much it influences women's mate selection decisions has been brought under scrutiny in recent years, with many questioning its relevance, more so now that women are becoming more self-sufficient and able to respond to their financial needs by their own means (Kille Forest and Wood, 2013). Cowan and Kinder (1985) express that the trend is not subject to change, despite more women pursuing higher education, taking up more demanding managerial roles, and such. In a research study whose findings follow the pattern, Dr. Connell Cowan and Dr. Melvyn Kinder assert that, single women would, regardless of their degree of achievements, still be subject to pressure to marry from the same social class, as classes strive to maintain 'isolated habitation'.

Kille, Forest and Wood (2013) disagree with Cowan and Kinder's findings, expressing that the things women looked for in a mate in the past are not the same ones they look for today. In their opinion, the days when women viewed men as a catapult to financial security and higher status are long gone, and the definitions of 'marrying up' have undergone drastic change. In their article in the Psychological Science Journal, Kille, Forest and Wood (2013) opine that women are now going out of their way to find men with whom they share valuable interests. Cobb, Larson, and Watson (2003) put it that marriage and relationships are no longer about a Rockefeller 'Mr. Right', but about compatibility.

3.1 Research Method

The descriptive research method was employed so as to effectively look into the study objectives as well as test the hypotheses. Essentially, the questionnaire survey technique was used for data collection. The questions were self-structured, and touched on background (personal); age -- the minimum age was 18, the highest 37; gender -- male/female; ideal education level for self (H.S. diploma, Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, PHD degree and Not applicable); preferable gender for mate (male/female), preferable age range for mate (17 or younger, 18-21, 22-25, 26-29 and 30+); and ideal age for mate (older than respondent, younger than respondent, same as respondent and no preference).

The rest of the questions touched on the variables used to assess the importance of financial stability and physical appearance on mate selection strategies; preferable body type, importance of partner's job title, importance of partner's financial standing, importance of mate's physical attractiveness and ability to maintain attractiveness. The full survey sheet details can be accessed in appendix 1.

Administration of the survey sheets took place 'on the streets'. The study area called for a high-priority method of data collection; with the high mobility of university students, sheet-collection would have proven a challenge had the take-home method been employed (Iorio, 2009). Street interviews, moreover, were less costly, allowed for more rapid data collection and presented better chances of achieving sampling balance (Iorio, 2009).

3.2 Research Framework

This study seeks to determine the factors that influence mate selection strategies, and in so doing, explore how demographic variables such as age influence mate choices. Previous studies on mate selection have suggested that financial stability and physical attractiveness are important constructs of mate selection strategies. Hence, this study employs the aforementioned variables in its investigation. The study's conceptual structure is as represented in figure 1.

Financial stability

Physical attractiveness

Demographics

Mate choices

Figure 1: The study's conceptual framework (research framework)

3.3 Research Design

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) will be utilized for the analysis of collected data. Frequency statistics will be used to measure/assess the extent to which financial stability and physical attractiveness influence mate selection decisions.

Linear regression comes in handy in the modeling of dependent variable's value on the basis of how the variable relates to the predictors. It is important to note, on this front, that the summary table (model) will report on how strong the dependent-independent variables relationship is. R is the indicator of relationship strength, such that the higher the value, the stronger the variable relationship, and vice versa. R2 measures the variation in the dependent variable, and both R. And R2 range between 0 and 1.

Iorio (2009) expresses that independent variables can be categorized as either nominal or ordinal. Ordinal variables are those such as age that allow for distinctions which can quantify variable differences (Iorio, 2009). Nominal variables, on the other hand, allow for distinctions that cannot quantify variable differences (Iorio, 2009). Gender is an example of a nominal variable. The analysis of nominal variables involves the use of dummy variables, which are variables standing in for numerically-encoded nominal data. The gender variable, in this undertaking, will assume two variables (dummy); 1 for male, 2 for female.

4.0 DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Frequency Statistics

Ten survey sheets were distributed in different locations within DePaul University. The data collected was analyzed using SPSS and the summary output sheets attached as appendices in this text. This study main goal was to establish the degrees to which financial stability and physical attractiveness influence gender-based mate selection decisions. Gender, therefore, was the core independent variable for this study. Having used a gender-balanced sample, the frequency statistics, as shown in table 1, give a frequency percentage of 50 apiece.

Table 1: Frequency Statistics

Variable

Frequency

Percentage

Cumulative Percentage

Gender

Male

Female

5

5

50

50

50

4.2 Overall Analysis of the Effect of Preferences on Mate Choices

Analyses revealed that mate preferences influence, to a significantly large extent, the mate choices that human beings make. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that although women place more emphasis on mate preferences than men do, preferences, generally, have a significant effect on the choices of both sexes. This finding follows a similar pattern with past studies, which have, in the past held that mate choices are influenced, significantly, by partner preferences (Buss & Barnes, 1986; Geary, Vigil & Byrd-Craven, 2013; Kille, Forest and Wood, 2013; Yilmaz, Gungor and Celik, 2013; Hancock, 2002). See appendix 2 for full ANOVA details.

All the factors analyzed in appendix 2 have been summed up into; financial capability and physical attractiveness. These two factors have then been analyzed on a per-gender basis, using frequency statistics to determine their effect on human mate choices.

4.3 Factors Influencing Human Mate Choices

The linear regression model was used to explore the extent to which the expectation of financial capability and physical attractiveness influence, by gender, human mate choices. The subsequent subsections present the results. The R. And R2 values run between 0 and 1. Higher values are indicative of stronger relationships.

4.3.1 Relationship between Mate's Financial Capability and Human Choices

Tables 2 and 3 show the relationships between financial capability and mate choices.

Table 2; Model Summary: Men

Model

R

R2

Adjusted R2

Standard error of estimate

1

.782

.613

.483

1.02

Table 3; Model Summary: Women

Model

R

R2

Adjusted R2

Standard error of estimate

1

.458

.3

.067

1.673

Predictors: (Constant), Gender

The results depict a stronger relationship in the case of men, compared to women, strongly contradict hypothesis H1. The interpretation is that financial capability exerts a considerable degree of influence on both sexes' mate choices, but influences men's mating decisions more than it does women's. This result could probably be due to the fact that more women are pursuing higher education, and taking up the challenging positions of management that were traditionally considered 'masculine'. Owing to this, women have become more self-sufficient and more able meet their financial needs by their own means, and, hence, no longer view men as catapults for achieving financial success (Kille, Forest and Wood, 2013).

A second possibility is that, thanks to the ongoing developments on women-empowerment and self-sufficiency, men are getting more choosy regarding the kind of women they would want as mates, especially because of the long-held belief that learned, self-sufficient, and financially stable women are difficult to 'control' and 'own'. This is quite significant, and is probably the most reasonable explanation for the high degree of importance men have been observed to place on such factors as partner's job title, and educational level, which share significant connection with financial stability, and which were also investigated in this study. See appendix 3 for full statistical results.

The study results support the findings of Kille, Forest and Wood (2013) and Debruines, Jones, Crawford, Welling and Little (2010), which reported that today, women are self-sufficient, and no longer need men as 'financial partners', and contradict the findings of Cowan and Kinder (1985), which suggested the contrary.

4.3.2 Relationship between Physical Attractiveness and Mate Choices

Tables 4 and 5 show the relationships between physical attractiveness and mate choices.

Table 4; Model Summary: Men

Model

R

R2

Adjusted R2

Standard error of estimate

1

.496

.246

-0.005

2.56

Table 5; Model Summary: Women

Model

R

R2

Adjusted R2

Standard error of estimate

1

.365

.133

-0.156

1.86

Predictors: (Constant), Gender

The results demonstrate that the influence of physical attractiveness is higher in men's mate choices than in women's, and, hence, agree with hypothesis H2. The interpretation of this result is that although men take physical attractiveness into consideration when making mate selection decisions more than women do, the factor's significance is quite minimal. This result could be attributed to the fact that physical attractiveness is more of an element of subjective judgment. People have different tastes and preferences, and what one person considers 'very attractive' may not appeal, even one bit, to another, and as long as this is the case, then there may be no need to consider the factor after all.

Men link the cues of physical attractiveness to youth, and high reproductive capability, which is probably why they attach relatively higher importance to the factor, than women do. Of significance, however, is that the element of physical attractiveness appears to be more significant to the younger generation, than it is to older people. The explanation for this observation could be that younger people are more interested in showing off, than they are in finding and establishing serious relationships, which is often the main goal for older people.

The study results, in this case, support the findings of Buss and Barnes (1986), which reported that men take physical attractiveness into consideration, when making mate selection decisions than women do. See appendix 4 for full statistical details.

5.0 CONCLUSION

This study sought to establish the degrees to which financial capability and physical attractiveness influence men and women's mate selection decisions. Mate choices are influenced by preferences, in the form of the qualities people look for in a potential mate. With regard to the influence exerted by financial capability on mate selection decisions, the results demonstrated that women put more emphasis on their mates' financial standings, than men do. The interpretation could be that women are becoming more self-sufficient and able to meet their financial needs on their own and hence do not view men as financial catapults anymore. On the same effect, the factor's increasing significance in the case of men could as well be due to the effect of the common belief that learned, self-sufficient and financially stable women are difficult to control and 'own'. The results also demonstrated that factors such as a potential partner's education level, and job title, which are somewhat linked to financial stability are, today, more significant to men, than they are to women. The same explanation on control and ownership could be advanced.

With regard to the physical attractiveness, the study results demonstrated that the factor is more significant to men than it is to women. A possible explanation is that since physical attractiveness has some connection with youth, which is, in turn, linked to high reproductive value, men would go after physical attractiveness so as to get reproductive value.

Despite its potential contribution, this study encountered two significant limitations. First, the data sample was picked on the basis of convenience, yet random sampling is widely accepted as the best technique for such empirical studies. Secondly, the survey sheet used for data collection was self-structured and fell short of the SERQUAL standards; a factor that affected data reliability and made analysis difficult.

Broadly, this study's implication for future studies is that they should investigate the tripartite mechanism presented herein, with specific focus on the concepts of preference asymmetry, integrated effects, and elements of diversity - mainly because there is need to change the untrue stereotypes that people have long-held.

6.0 References

Buss, D.M., & Barnes, M.F. (1986). Preferences in Human Mate Selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559-570.

Cobb, N., Larson, J., Watson, W. (2003). Development of the Attitudes about Romance and Mate Selection Scale. Family Relations, 52(3), 222-231.

Cowan, C. & Kinder, M. (1985). Smart Women Foolish Choices: Finding the Right Men and Avoiding the Wrong Ones. New York: Clarkson N. Potter Inc.

DeBruine, L.M., Jones, B.C., Crawford, J., Welling, L., & Little A.(2010). The Health of a Nation Predicts Their Mate Preferences: Cross-Cultural Variation in Women's Preferences for Masculinized Male faces. Biological Sciences, 277( 1692), 2405-2410.

Geary, D., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of Human Mate Choice. Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 27-42.

Hancock, J.G. (2000). Where is the Money Honey?: the Socioeconomic Effects on Mate Choices. Miami University. Retrieved from http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/humannature00/FinalArticles/WherestheMoneyHoney.TheSoA.html

Iorio, S.H. (2009). Focused Interviews. In Iorio, S. H (Ed.), Qualitative Research in Journalism: Taking It to the Streets. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.

Kille, D., Forest, A., & Wood, J. (2013). Tall, Dark, and Stable: Embodiment Motivates Mate Selection Preferences. Psychological Science, 24(1), 112-114.

Montoya, M. (2008). I'm Hot, So I'd Say You're Not: the Influence of Objective Physical Attractiveness on Mate Selection. PSPB, 34(10), 1315-1331.

Rikowski, A., & Grammer, K. (1999). Human Body Odour, Symmetry and Attractiveness. Biological Sciences, 266(1422), 869-874.

Tramm, N., & Servedio, M. (2008). Evolution of Mate-Choice Imprinting: Competing Strategies. Evolution, 62(8), 1991-2003.

Yilmaz, M., Gungor, H.C. & Celik, S.B. (2013). Investigation of Romance and Mate selection Myths of University Students. International Journal of Asian Social Sciences, 3(2), 416-427.

7.0 APPENDIX 1

SURVEY SHEET

MATE PREFERENCES SURVEY

This research work is a study to measure how mate preferences influence your mate choices. Your cooperation is well appreciated. Thank you.

1. What is your gender? (Please circle one) (GENDER)

a. Male = 1

b. Female = 2

c. Transgender = 3

d. Other =4

2. What is your age? (AGE)

ENTER NUMERIC VALUE

3. What is your ideal level of education for yourself? (IDEALEDU)

a. H.S. Diploma =1

b. Bachelor's Degree =2

c. Master's Degree =3

d. PhD degree =4

e. Does not matter =5

4. What gender would you consider as a dating partner? (DATESEX)

a. Male =1

b. Female =2

c. Other =3

5. What is your desirable age range when considering a dating partner? (AGERANGE)

a. 17 or younger =1

b. 18-21 =2

c. 22-25 =3

d. 26-29=4

e. 30+ =5

6. My significant other is likely to be: (IDEALAGE)

a. Older than me =1

b. The same age as me =2

c. Younger than me =3

d. No preference =4

7. Which body type do you prefer? (BODYTYPE)

a. Curvy =1

b. Athletic = 2

c. Muscular =3

d. Larger side =4

e. Other =5

8. How important is your partner's job title when looking for a mate? (JOBTITLE)

a. Very important =1

b. Important =2

c. Neutral= 3

d. Somewhat important =4

e. Not important =5

9. How important is it that your mate is financially stable? (FINSTABLE)

a. Very important =1

b. Important =2

c. Neutral=3

d. Somewhat important=4

e. Not important =5

10. How important is physical attraction when looking for a mate? (IMPTATTRACT)

b. Important =2

c. Neutral =3

d. Somewhat important =4

e. Not important =5

11. How important is it that your mate is physically attractive? (IMTATRACTIV)

a. Very important =1

b. Important =2

c. Neutral =3

d. Somewhat important =4

e. Not important =5

12. How important is it that your mate stays physically fit? (IMPTFIT)

a. Very important =1

b. Important =2

c. Neutral =3

d. Somewhat important =4

e. Not important =5

13. Who would you prefer to be the primary provider in a relationship? (IMPTPRVDR)

a. You =1

b. Your partner =2

c. Both equal =3

d. Does not matter =4

14. What is your preferred level of education in a potential partner? (IMPTED)

a. H.S. Diploma =1

b. Bachelor's Degree =2

c. Master's Degree =3

d. PhD degree =4

e. Does not matter =5

15. List the top three important attributes when considering a partner.

a. ____ (IMPTATT1)

b. ____(IMPTATT2)

c. ____ (IMPTATT3)

16. List the top three important physical attributes when considering a partner.

a. ____ (PHYSICAL1)

b. ____ (PHYSICAL2)

c. ____ (PHYSICAL3)

8.0 Appendix 2: The Overall Analysis of Preference Influence

ANOVA: Single Factor

SUMMARY

Groups

Count

Sum

Average

Variance

5

15

3

2.5

males

5

5

1

2

females

5

5

1

3

ANOVA

Source of Variation

SS

df

MS

F

P-value

F crit

Between Groups

13.33333

2

6.666667

2.666667

0.110102

3.885294

Within Groups

30

12

2.5

Total

43.33333

14

Factors Influencing Mate Choices

9.0 Appendix 3:

1) Financial Capability

1a. Importance of Mate's Financial Capability to Men

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

R

0.782624

R2

0.6125

Adjusted R2

0.483333

Standard Error

1.01653

Observations

5

ANOVA

df

SS

MS

F

Significance F

Regression

1

4.9

4.9

4.741935

0.117614

Residual

3

3.1

1.033333

Total

4

8

Coefficients

Standard Error

t Stat

P-value

Lower 95%

Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%

Upper

95.0%

Intercept

3.1

1.066146

2.90767

0.062114

-0.29295

6.492951

-0.29295

6.492951

FINSTABLE

-0.7

0.321455

-2.1776

0.117614

-1.72301

0.323013

-1.72301

0.323013

Financial Capability

1b. Importance of Mate's Financial Capability to Women

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

R

0.612372

R2

0.375

Adjusted R. 2

0.166667

Standard Error

1.290994

Observations

5

ANOVA

df

SS

MS

F

Significance F

Regression

1

3

3

1.8

0.272228

Residual

3

5

1.666667

Total

4

8

Coefficients

Standard Error

t Stat

P-value

Lower 95%

Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

Intercept

0.5

0.687184

0.72767

0.5198

-1.68693

2.686927

-1.6869

2.686927

2

0.5

0.372678

1.34161

0.2728

-0.68603

1.686028

-0.6860

1.686028

1c The Importance of Partner's Job Title to Men

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

R

0.387298

R 2

0.15

Adjusted R. 2

-0.13333

Standard Error

1.30384

Observations

5

ANOVA

df

SS

MS

F

Significance F

Regression

1

0.9

0.9

0.529412

0.519498

Residual

3

5.1

1.7

Total

4

6

Coefficients

Standard Error

t Stat

P-value

Lower 95%

Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

males

1.9

1.367479

1.384

0.25887

-2.45193

6.2513

-2.4519

6.25193

JOBTITLE

-0.3

0.412311

-0.727

0.51948

-1.61216

1.0125

-1.6121

1.01216

1d. Importance of Mate's Job Title to Women

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

R

0.223607

R 2

0.05

Adjusted R2

-0.26667

Standard Error

1.591645

Observations

5

ANOVA

df

SS

MS

F

Significance F

Regression

1

0.4

0.4

0.157895

0.717686

Residual

3

7.6

2.533333

Total

4

8

Coefficients

Standard Error

t Stat

P-value

Lower 95%

Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

Women

1.6

1.669331

0.9588

0.40855

-3.71256

6.9127

-3.7125

6.912557

JOBTITLE

-0.2

0.503322

-0.39736

0.71766

-1.8018

1.4016

-1.8018

1.401796

10.0 Appendix 4

II) Physical Attractiveness

11a Importance of physical attractiveness to Men

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

R

0.496139

R2

0.246154

Adjusted R2

-0.00513

Standard Error

2.556039

Observations

5

ANOVA

df

SS

MS

F

Significance F

Regression

1

6.4

6.4

0.979592

0.395265

Residual

3

19.6

6.533333

Total

4

26

Coefficients

Standard Error

t Stat

P-value

Lower 95%

Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

Males

4.4

2.680796

1.641304

0.199272

-4.13149

12.93149

-4.13149

12.93149

IMPTATR

-0.8

0.80829

-0.98974

0.395265

-3.37234

1.772341

-3.37234

1.772341

IIb Importance of physical attractiveness to women

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

R

0.365148

R 2

0.133333

Adjusted R. 2

-0.15556

Standard Error

1.861899

Observations

5

ANOVA

df

SS

MS

F

Significance F

Regression

1

1.6

1.6

0.461538

0.545627

Residual

3

10.4

3.466667

Total

4

12

Coefficients

Standard Error

t Stat

P-value

Lower 95%

Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

females

2.2

1.952776

1.12661

0.34181

-4.0146

8.4144

-4.0146

8.414604

IMPTATR

-0.4

0.588784

-0.6793

0.54567

-2.27377

1.4737

-2.2737

1.473774

IIc Importance of Mate Maintaining Physical Attractiveness to Men

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

R

1

R 2

1

Adjusted R2

1

Standard Error

0

Observations

4

ANOVA

df

SS

MS

F

Significance F

Regression

1

0

0

#NUM!

#NUM!

Residual

2

0

0

Total

3

0

Coefficients

Standard Error

t Stat

P-value

Lower 95%

Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

Males

1

0

65535

#NUM!

1

1

1

1

IMPFIT

0

0

65535

#NUM!

0

0

0

0

IId. Importance of Mate Maintaining Physical Attractiveness To Women

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

R

0.204598

R2

0.04186

Adjusted R2

-0.43721

Standard Error

2.269361

Observations

4

ANOVA

df

SS

MS

F

Significance F

Regression

1

0.45

0.45

0.087379

0.795402

Residual

2

10.3

5.15

Total

3

10.75

Coefficients

Standard Error

t Stat

P-value

Lower 95%

Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

females

2

2.779388

0.71953

0.546507

-9.95874

13.95874

-9.95874

13.95874

IMPFIT