Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 959–964 | Cite as

The influence of mate choice motivation on non-financial altruism

  • Manpal Singh BhogalEmail author
  • James E. Bartlett
  • Daniel Farrelly
Article

Abstract

Several studies have found that individuals are more altruistic towards potential mates than others, suggesting altruistic behavior may be a mating signal. Much of the literature focuses on financial altruism using economic games, however altruism can also comprise of non-financial acts, which this experiment examined in an attempt to replicate and refine previous findings. A study was conducted with 199 participants, who viewed both high attractive and low attractive opposite-sex images and were asked how likely they would be to altruistically share their research credits with the person in the image, whilst controlling for self-rated attractiveness. The findings suggest that both men and women were more altruistic towards pictures of high attractive than low attractive potential mating partners (Cohen’s d = 0.37). This study therefore partially replicates previous research examining the role of mate choice effects when exploring non-financial altruism.

Keywords

Altruism Sexual selection theory Mate choice Prosocial behavior Attractiveness 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Huaman and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This research involved collecting data from human participants. Informed consent was taken from all participants who took part in this study.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Baguley, T. (2012). Serious stats: A guide to advanced statistics for the behavioural sciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barclay, P. (2010). Altruism as a courtship display: Some effects of third-party generosity on audience perceptions. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 123–135.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X435733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumard, N. (2016). The origins of fairness: How evolution explains our moral nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. OUP.Google Scholar
  5. Bhogal, M. S., Galbraith, N., & Manktelow, K. (2016a). Sexual selection and the evolution of altruism: Males are more altruistic towards attractive females. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 7(1), 10–13.  https://doi.org/10.5178/lebs.2016.42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhogal, M. S., Galbraith, N., & Manktelow, K. (2016b). Physical attractiveness and altruism in two modified dictator games. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 38(4), 212–222.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1199382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhogal, M. S., Galbraith, N., & Manktelow, K. (2017). Physical attractiveness, altruism and cooperation in an ultimatum game. Current Psychology, 36(3), 549–555.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9443-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhogal, M. S., Galbraith, N., & Manktelow, K. (in press). A research note on the influence of relationship length and sex on preferences for altruistic and cooperative mates. Psychological Reports.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118764640.
  9. Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Hard nose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1218–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Earp, B. D., & Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 621.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farrelly, D. (2011). Cooperation as a signal of genetic or phenotypic quality in female mate choice? Evidence from preferences across the menstrual cycle. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 406–430.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000712610X532896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farrelly, D. (2013). Altruism as an indicator of good parenting quality in long-term relationships: Further investigations using the mate preferences towards altruistic traits scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(4), 395–398.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.768595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farrelly, D., & Bennett, M. (2018). Empathy leads to increased online charitable behaviour when time is the currency. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 28(1), 42–46.  https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farrelly, D., Lazarus, J., & Roberts, G. (2007). Altruists attract. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(2), 313–329.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490700500205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farrelly, D., Moan, E., White, K., & Young, S. (2015). Evidence of an alternative currency for altruism in laboratory-based experiments. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 11(1), 100–111.  https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v11i1.855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Farrelly, D., Clemson, P., & Guthrie, M. (2016). Are women’s mate preferences for altruism also influenced by physical attractiveness? Evolutionary Psychology, 14(1), 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704915623698. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill, S. E., & Reeve, H. K. (2004). Mating games: The evolution of human mating transactions. Behavioral Ecology, 15, 748–756.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arh073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iredale, W., Van Vugt, M., & Dunbar, R. (2008). Showing off in humans: Male generosity as a mating signal. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 386–392.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. JASP Team (2018). JASP (Version 0.91). [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://jasp-stats.org/. Accessed 1 June 2018.
  22. Jensen, H. N. (2013). Male mating signaling in social dilemma games. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 11(3), 131–150.  https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.11.2013.3.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for T-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 701–710.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 26, 390–423.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Margana, L., Bhogal, M. S., Bartlett, J. E., & Farrelly, D. (2019). The roles of heroism, altruism, and physical attractiveness in female mate choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 137, 126–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.08.018.
  26. Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, G. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. Quarterly Review of Biology, 82, 97–125.  https://doi.org/10.1086/517857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Open Science Framework(CFZYB) (2018), Bhogal, M. S., Bartlett, J. E., & Farrelly, D. The influence of mate choice motivation on non-financial altruism. Retrieved from https://osf.io/cfzyb/.  https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CFZYB.
  30. Phillips, T., Barnard, C., Ferguson, E., & Reader, T. (2008). Do humans prefer altruistic mates? Testing a link between sexual selection and altruism towards non-relatives. British Journal of Psychology, 99, 555–572.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X298467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Prokop, P., & Fedor, P. (2013). Associations between body morphology, mating success and mate preferences among Slovak males and females. Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 70, 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prokop, P., & Pekárik, L. (2016). Men's perception of raped women: Test of the sexually transmitted disease hypothesis and the cuckoldry hypothesis. European Journal of Ecology, 2(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available from https://www.R-project.org/
  34. Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7(4), 331–363.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roney, J. R. (2003). Effects of visual exposure to the opposite sex: Cognitive aspects of mate attraction in human males. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saad, D., & Gill, T. (2001). Sex differences in the ultimatum game: An evolutionary psychology perspective. Journal of Bioeconomics, 3, 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Said, C. P., & Todorov, A. (2011). A statistical model of facial attractiveness. Psychological Science, 22, 1183–1190.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611419169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shinoda, M., & Yamagishi, T. (2014). Physical attractiveness and cooperation in a prisoner’s dilemma game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 451–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Solnick, S. J., & Schweitzer, M. E. (1999). The Influence of physical attractiveness and gender on ultimatum game decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3), 199–215.  https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stirrat, M., Gumert, M., & Perrett, D. (2011). The effect of attractiveness on food sharing preferences in human mating markets. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(1), 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). The scent of symmetry. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 20, 175–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Todorov, A., & Oosterhof, N. N. (2011). Modeling social perception of faces. Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE, 28, 117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Todorov, A., Dotsch, R., Porter, J., Oosterhof, N., & Falvello, V. (2013). Validation of data-driven computational models of social perception of faces. Emotion, 13, 724–738.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.  https://doi.org/10.1086/406755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  46. van Vugt, M., & Iredale, W. (2013). Men behaving nicely: Public goods as peacock tails. British Journal of Psychology, 104, 3–13.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02093.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Institute of Human SciencesUniversity of WolverhamptonWolverhamptonUK
  2. 2.Brain, Belief, and Behaviour LabCoventry UniversityCoventryUK
  3. 3.School of Psychology, Law, & Social ScienceArden UniversityCoventryUK
  4. 4.School of PsychologyUniversity of WorcesterWorcesterUK

Personalised recommendations