Monday, April 23, 2007
Juding men to be too attractive: how women fear that a high-status AND good-looking partner will be less likely to say faithful
This paper looks at an interesting 'cross-categorisation': on the face if it, evolutionary psychology would have it that women should be more attracted to men who are both good-looking and possess high status than if they only possess one of these assets. This study does not find confirmation for this view, and argues that the evidence seems to point to women being afraid that a 'doubly attractive' male will be more likely to be unfaithful (presumably in terms of his capacity to attract other women, and to be more confident of success if he were to decide to flirt).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Excuses,excuses... OR maybe just a balanced polymorphism
Martin, any 'Matching' theory that you could add to this?
Mismatch in the markets for relationships is quite a serious matter. If one ends up disliking a partner after making substantial investments in emotional capital, the cost of ending the match can be quite high. One would hope that substantial investments in emotional capital are only made with the confidence that matches are optimally calibrated and sustainable.
There's a big difference between relationship markets and labour markets though. Most of us always need a job (unless we want to be unemployed), whereas we can do without relationships if we don't enter into them or sustain them just for the sake of social status or not feeling lonely. I wonder if these motivators are more likely to lead to badly matched relationships that end in separation?
Kevin actually put up a post about the paper Ken mentioned earlier on in February. When Kevin's post went up then, I responded with the following comment:
"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 self-rated importance on 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".
Post a Comment