Theres hope for you singletons : forthcoming in Personality and Individual Difference
Simon Chu , Romy Hardaker and John E. Lycett
Empirical evidence concerning human mate-choice preferences suggests that females should select partners on the basis of cues to genetic quality and/or ability to contribute resources to childcare. Paradoxically, while high levels of both factors should be an attractive combination to females, they might also dissuade females from entering into a relationship with such males since, by definition, they are likely to be highly attractive to other females, and therefore might increase the likelihood that such a male may cheat or desert the relationship. If so, females should be wary of entering into long-term relationships with physically attractive, high status males as compared with males of lower physical attractiveness or status. We asked females to rate a number of different males in terms of attractiveness as a long-term partner. Females were presented with attractive, average and unattractive male faces paired with lonely-hearts advertisements implying high, medium or low socio-economic status. Highest ratings were consistently given to attractive males of medium status rather than high status. We suggest that females see physically attractive, high status males as being more likely to pursue a mating strategy rather than parenting strategy. Under particular circumstances, high socio-economic status in males can be subtly counter-productive in terms of attractiveness as a long-term partner.
2 comments:
I've often mused as to when a theory of rational behaviour gets very complex, might it be less likely to hold true in reality. This of course would not be the case if we are all "sub-consciously rational actors".
However, one cannot seriously suggest a rationale for under-investment in human capital (or one's human physical capital), on the basis that one will seem more attractive to the opposite sex. Surely not?!
As with all economic theories, there must be an optimum point where a baseline of human capital and physical attractiveness is required, and where some amount of standard deviation above the average is tolerated, up an to a point where an individual is deemed too prone to competitive advances.
However, there are many more factors to control for, such as the degree of match between two individuals in the market for partners and how investment in emotional capital may prevent or reduce reciprocation of competitive advances.
The average punter would deem economists so cynical that we would disregard completely the effects of highly matched partners or investment in emotional capital. However, economist have more appreciation of psychological nuance than we are give credit for, as we would put the emphasis on the maximisation of a subjective utility function, which means that the importance of emotional capital investments is a source of heteropgeneity.
However, it is possible to observe a little more of this heterogeneity by considering the importance of self-control in individuals respones to competitive advances. And also of course, the importance of preferences over the spectrums of time and risk.
I must read the article and see what it says actually instead of musing straight off!
Post a Comment