No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The type of behavior and the role of relationship length in mate choice for prosociality among physically attractive individuals
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 March 2017
Abstract
Two further key aspects of prosociality as a sexual signal are explored here. First, the context in which it is used (in particular, relationship length) and, second, the different types of prosocial behaviors that exist in social interactions. Therefore, this commentary can show why prosocial behaviors are biased toward physically attractive individuals, as they can gain valuable information from them.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017
References
Barclay, P. (2010) Altruism as a courtship display: Some effects of third-party generosity on audience perceptions. British Journal of Psychology
101:123–35.Google Scholar
Bhogal, M. S., Galbraith, N. & Manktelow, K. (2016) Physical attractiveness, altruism and cooperation in an ultimatum game. Current Psychology. doi:10.1007/s12144-016-9443-1. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-016-9443-1.Google Scholar
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
102:406–30.Google Scholar
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. Journal of Social Psychology
153:395–98.Google Scholar
Farrelly, D., Clemson, P. & Guthrie, M. (2016) Are women's mate preferences for altruism also influenced by physical attractiveness?
Evolutionary Psychology
14:1–6.Google Scholar
Farrelly, D., Lazarus, J. & Roberts, G. (2007) Altruists attract. Evolutionary Psychology
5:313–29.Google Scholar
Farthing, G. W. (2005) Attitudes toward heroic and nonheroic physical risk takers as mates and as friends. Evolution and Human Behavior
26:171–85.Google Scholar
Farthing, G. W. (2007) Neither daredevils nor wimps: Attitudes toward physical risk takers as mates. Evolutionary Psychology
5:754–77.Google Scholar
Guo, Q., Feng, L. & Wang, M. (2015) Chinese undergraduates' preferences for altruistic traits in mate selection and personal advertisement: Evidence from Q-sort technique. International Journal of Psychology. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12207. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijop.12207/suppinfo.Google Scholar
Iredale, W., Van Vugt, M. & Dunbar, R. (2008) Showing off in humans: Male generosity as a mating signal. Evolutionary Psychology
6:386–92.Google Scholar
Jensen, N. H. (2013) Male mating signaling in social dilemma games. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology
11:131–50.Google Scholar
Kokko, H. (1998) Should advertising parental care be honest?
Proceedings of the Royal Society B
265:1871–78.Google Scholar
Miller, G. F. (2000) The mating mind: How sexual selection shaped the evolution of human nature. Doubleday.Google Scholar
Miller, G. F. (2007) Sexual selection for moral virtues. Quarterly Review of Biology
82:97–125.Google Scholar
Moore, D., Wigby, S., English, S., Wong, S., Szekely, T. & Harrison, F. (2013) Selflessness is sexy: Reported helping behavior increases desirability of men and women as long-term sexual partners. BMC Evolutionary Biology
13:182.Google Scholar
Oda, R., Okuda, A., Takeda, M. & Hiraishi, K. (2014) Provision or good genes? Menstrual cycle shifts in women's preferences for short-term and long-term mates' altruistic behavior. Evolutionary Psychology
12:888–900.Google Scholar
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
99:555–72.Google Scholar
Stavrova, O. & Ehlebracht, D. (2015) A longitudinal analysis of romantic relationship formation: The effect of prosocial behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science
6:521–27.Google Scholar
Tognetti, A., Berticat, C., Raymond, M. & Faurie, C. (2014) Assortative mating based on cooperativeness and generosity. Journal of Evolutionary Biology
27:975–81.Google Scholar
Target article
Explaining financial and prosocial biases in favor of attractive people: Interdisciplinary perspectives from economics, social psychology, and evolutionary psychology
Related commentaries (25)
An assessment of the mating motive explanation of the beauty premium in market-based settings
Attention and memory benefits for physical attractiveness may mediate prosocial biases
Attentional and affective biases for attractive females emerge early in development
Attractiveness bias: A cognitive explanation
Attractiveness biases are the tip of the iceberg in biological markets
Context matters for attractiveness bias
Evolutionary explanations for financial and prosocial biases: Beyond mating motivation
Explanations for attractiveness-related positive biases in an evolutionary perspective of life history theory
How should we tackle financial and prosocial biases against unattractive people?
Is there an alternative explanation to the evolutionary account for financial and prosocial biases in favor of attractive individuals?
It is not all about mating: Attractiveness predicts partner value across multiple relationship domains
Just My Imagination: Beauty premium and the evolved mental model
Mating motives are neither necessary nor sufficient to create the beauty premium
Omitted evidence undermines sexual motives explanation for attractiveness bias
Oxytocin drives prosocial biases in favor of attractive people
Prosocial behavior as sexual signaling
Strong but flexible: How fundamental social motives support but sometimes also thwart favorable attractiveness biases
The biasing effects of appearances go beyond physical attractiveness and mating motives
The out-of-my-league effect
The type of behavior and the role of relationship length in mate choice for prosociality among physically attractive individuals
The wolf will live with the lamb
There is more: Intrasexual competitiveness, physical dominance, and intrasexual collaboration
Tinbergen's “four questions” provides a formal framework for a more complete understanding of prosocial biases in favour of attractive people
Understanding the physical attractiveness literature: Qualitative reviews versus meta-analysis
What does evolutionary theory add to stereotype theory in the explanation of attractiveness bias?
Author response
Moving forward with interdisciplinary research on attractiveness-related biases