Perceived attractiveness of two types of altruist
- 102 Downloads
Empirical evidence has demonstrated that in long-term romantic contexts altruists are favoured over non-altruists. Costly signalling theory suggests that altruism informs observers that cooperating with the altruist is beneficial. This paper distinguishes between types of altruism to investigate if there is a differential effect on desirability across types. Using dating advertisements, participants (observers) received information about a considerate altruist, heroic altruist or neutral character and then rated their attraction to the character in a range of romantic and non-romantic contexts. It was hypothesised that both considerate and heroic characters would be rated by observers as more desirable than the neutral advert in long-term romantic contexts and that there would be a difference in desirability scores between the considerate and heroic characters. The results of study 1 showed that considerate altruists were significantly more desirable than the neutral advert in long-term romantic contexts, but heroic altruists did not differ significantly from neutral or considerate characters. Study 2 confirmed the same pattern of results. These findings suggest that considerate altruism signals good character traits to observers, such as kindness, which could indicate parenting ability and characters who signal these traits will have increased reproductive success because they are more desirable and therefore have access to more/better quality reproductive mates. Furthermore, the results suggest that considerate and heroic altruism may be distinct, and that considerate altruism is the more desirable type of altruism.
KeywordsCostly Signalling Altruism Attraction Heroism Considerate
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors, nor are there any declarations of interest to be made.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
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.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
- Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396.Google Scholar
- Barclay, P. (2004). Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the “tragedy of the commons”. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(4), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.04.002.Google Scholar
- Becker, G. S. (1976). Altruism, egoism, and genetic fitness: Economics and sociobiology. Journal of Economic Literature, 14(3), 817–826.Google Scholar
- Bereczkei, T., Birkas, B., & Kerekes, Z. (2010). Altruism towards strangers in need: Costly signaling in an industrial society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.07.004.Google Scholar
- Bhogal, M. S., Galbraith, N., Manktelow, K. (2016) Sexual selection and the evolution of altruism: males are more altruistic and cooperative towards attractive females. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 7(1), 10–13. https://doi.org/10.5178/lebs.2016.42.
- Bhogal, M. S., Bartlett, J., & Farrelly, D. (2018). The influence of mate choice motivation on non-financial altruism. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0070-x
- Bhogal, M. S., Galbraith, N., & Manktelow, K. (2019). A research note on the influence of relationship length and sex on preferences for altruistic and cooperative mates. Psychological Reports, 122(2), 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118764640.
- Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(01), 1–14.Google Scholar
- Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570.Google Scholar
- Clamp, A. (2001). Evolutionary psychology. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
- DiPrete, T. A., & Buchmann, C. (2006). Gender-specific trends in the value of education and the emerging gender gap in college completion. Demography, 43(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
- Farrelly, D., & King, L. (2019). Mutual mate choice drives the desirability of altruism in relationships. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00194-0.
- Farthing, G. W. (2005). Attitudes toward heroic and nonheroic physical risk takers as mates and as friends. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.004.Google Scholar
- Farthing, G. W. (2007). Neither daredevils nor wimps: Attitudes toward physical risk takers as mates. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(4), 754–777.Google Scholar
- Fehrler, S., & Przepiorka, W. (2013). Charitable giving as a signal of trustworthiness: Disentangling the signaling benefits of altruistic acts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.11.005.Google Scholar
- Gabb, J., Klett-Davies, M., Fink, J., & Thomae, M. (2013). Enduring love? Couple relationships in the 21st century. Survey Findings Report. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Retrieved January, 1, 2014.Google Scholar
- Getty, T. (1998). Handicap signalling: When fecundity and viability do not add up. Animal Behaviour, 56(1), 127–130.Google Scholar
- Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.206.Google Scholar
- Hamilton, W. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 17–52.Google Scholar
- Hampton, S. (2009). Essential evolutionary psychology. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Iredale, W., Van Vugt, M., & Dunbar, R. (2008). Showing off in humans: Male generosity as a mating signal. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(3), 386–392.Google Scholar
- Kafashan, S., Sparks, A., Rotella, A., & Barclay, P. (2016). Why heroism exists: Evolutionary perspectives on extreme helping. Handbook of Heroism and Heroic Leadership, 36–57.Google Scholar
- Kurzban, R., Burton-Chellew, M. N., & West, S. A. (2015). The evolution of altruism in humans. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 575–599. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015355.Google Scholar
- Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122–1135.Google Scholar
- Rusch, H., Leunissen, J. M., & van Vugt, M. (2015). Historical and experimental evidence of sexual selection for war heroism. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(5), 367–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.02.005.Google Scholar
- Smith, E. A., & Bird, R. L. B. (2000). Turtle hunting and tombstone opening: Public generosity as costly signaling. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21(4), 245–261.Google Scholar
- Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1074–1080.Google Scholar
- Számadó, S. (1999). The validity of the handicap principle in discrete action–response games. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 198(4), 593–602.Google Scholar
- Tessman, I. (1995). Human altruism as a courtship display. Oikos, 74(1), 157–158.Google Scholar
- Trivers, R. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.Google Scholar
- Trivers, R. (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
- Van Vugt, M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2006). The altruism puzzle: Psychological adaptions for prosocial behaviour. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Wiederman, M. W. (1993). Evolved gender differences in mate preferences: Evidence from personal advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(5), 331–351.Google Scholar
- Woodhall, M. (1987). Earnings and education. In G. Psacharopoulos (Ed.), Economics of education: Research and studies (pp. 209–217). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1), 205–214.Google Scholar
- Zahavi, A. (1977). The cost of honesty: Further remarks on the handicap principle. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67(3), 603–605.Google Scholar
- Zahavi, A., & Zahavi, A. (1999). The handicap principle: A missing piece of Darwin's puzzle: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar