Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why Be Generous? Tests of the Partner Choice and Threat Premium Models of Resource Division

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The ability to divide resources is crucial for a social and cooperative species like humans, but how humans divide resources remains unclear. Recent results using economic games have suggested conflicting models: The ‘partner choice’ perspective argues that generosity is (in part) a bid for an ongoing cooperative relationship, so generosity is expected to be elicited by cues of cooperative partner value. The ‘threat premium’ perspective argues that generosity is (in part) an attempt to avoid violent retaliation, so generosity is expected to be elicited by cues of threat potential.

Methods

We tested these competing hypotheses using a dyad study in which pairs of undergraduate participants (N = 312) had a half-hour face-to-face conversation, evaluated each other on components of cooperative partner value and physical dominance, and completed 4 economic tasks comprising 7 resource division decisions.

Results

Generosity was uniquely predicted by cues of the ability to produce material benefits in an ancestral environment, this effect was stronger for men, and generosity tracked other measures of social attraction. In contrast, the partner’s physical dominance did not predict generosity.

Conclusions

We observed support for the partner choice approach to resource divisions. Implications for the study of social preferences and resource divisions are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aktipis, C. A. (2004). Know when to walk away: Contingent movement and the evolution of cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 231(2), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.06.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aktipis, A., de Aguiar, R., Flaherty, A., Iyer, P., Sonkoi, D., & Cronk, L. (2016). Cooperation in an uncertain world: For the Maasai of East Africa, need-based transfers outperform account-keeping in volatile environments. Human Ecology, 44(3), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-016-9823-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apicella, C. L. (2014). Upper-body strength predicts hunting reputation and reproductive success in Hadza hunter–gatherers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(6), 508–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, P. (2013). Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(3), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, P., & Willer, R. (2007). Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1610), 749–753. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.0209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benenson, J. F., Markovits, H., & Wrangham, R. (2014). Rank influences human sex differences in dyadic cooperation. Current Biology, 24(5), R190–R191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breslin, P. A. S. (2013). An evolutionary perspective on food and human taste. Current Biology, 23(9), R409–R418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.04.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bühren, C., & Kundt, T. C. (2015). Imagine being a nice guy: A note on hypothetical vs. incentivized social preferences. Judgment and Decision making, 10(2), 185–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, part II -- case study: A computational theory of social exchange. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10(1–3), 51–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(89)90013-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 163–228). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2005). Neurocognitive adaptations designed for social exchange. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 584–627). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debove, S., André, J.-B., & Baumard, N. (2015). Partner choice creates fairness in humans. Proc. R. Soc. B, 282(1808), 20150392.

  • Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2012). The social cognition of social foraging: Partner selection by underlying valuation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(6), 715–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delton, A. W., & Robertson, T. E. (2016). How the mind makes welfare tradeoffs: Evolution, computation, and emotion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delton, A. W., Krasnow, M. M., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2011). Evolution of direct reciprocity under uncertainty can explain human generosity in one-shot encounters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(32), 13335–13340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16(2), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1996.0081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenbruch, A. B., & Roney, J. R. (2016). Conception risk and the ultimatum game: When fertility is high, women demand more. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 272–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenbruch, A. B., & Roney, J. R. (2017). The skillful and the stingy: Partner choice decisions and fairness intuitions suggest human adaptation for a biological market of cooperators. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3(4), 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0107-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenbruch, A. B., & Roney, J. R. (under review). Social Taste Buds: Evidence of Evolved Same-Sex Friend Preferences from a Policy-Capturing Study.

  • Eisenbruch, A. B., Grillot, R. L., Maestripieri, D., & Roney, J. R. (2016). Evidence of partner choice heuristics in a one-shot bargaining game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(6), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenbruch, A. B., Lukaszewski, A. W., & Roney, J. R. (2017). It is not all about mating: Attractiveness predicts partner value across multiple relationship domains. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16000479.

  • Eisenbruch, A. B., Grillot, R. L., & Roney, J. R. (under review). What are friends for?: Cues of ancestral cooperative partner value predict same-sex friend preferences.

  • Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geniole, S. N., MacDonell, E. T., & McCormick, C. M. (2017). The threat premium in economic bargaining. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(5), 572–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güth, W., & Kocher, M. G. (2014). More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. A. (2011). Sex differences in friendship expectations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(6), 723–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510386192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamermesh, D. S., & Biddle, J. E. (1994). Beauty and the labor market. The American Economic Review, 84(5), 1174–1194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammerstein, P., & Noë, R. (2016). Biological trade and markets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1687), 20150101. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammerstein, P., & Parker, G. A. (1982). The asymmetric war of attrition. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 96(4), 647–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(82)90235-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heifetz, A., & Segev, E. (2004). The evolutionary role of toughness in bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior, 49(1), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2003.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrdy, S. B. (2000). Mother nature: Maternal instincts and how they shape the human species. Ballantine Books.

  • Huck, S., Kirchsteiger, G., & Oechssler, J. (2005). Learning to like what you have: Explaining the endowment effect. The Economic Journal, 115(505), 689–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasnow, M. M., Cosmides, L., Pedersen, E. J., & Tooby, J. (2012). What are punishment and reputation for? PLoS One, 7(9), e45662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasnow, M. M., Delton, A. W., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2016). Looking under the Hood of third-party punishment reveals Design for Personal Benefit. Psychological Science, 27(3), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615624469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krupp, D. B., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2011). Apparent health encourages reciprocity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(3), 198–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laustsen, L., Petersen, M. B., & Klofstad, C. A. (2015). Vote choice, ideology, and social dominance orientation influence preferences for lower pitched voices in political candidates. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 147470491560057. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704915600576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. M., Conroy-Beam, D., Al-Shawaf, L., Raja, A., DeKay, T., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Friends with benefits: The evolved psychology of same-and opposite-sex friendship. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(4), 147470491100900400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, M., & Koff, E. (2013). How conception risk affects competition and cooperation with attractive women and men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maestripieri, D., Henry, A., & Nickels, N. (2017). Explaining financial and prosocial biases in favor of attractive people: Interdisciplinary perspectives from economics, social psychology, and evolutionary psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40.

  • Mandel, D. R. (2006). Economic transactions among friends: Asymmetric generosity but not agreement in buyers’ and sellers’ offers. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(4), 584–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002706290432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F. W. (2007). Hunting and gathering: The human sexual division of foraging labor. Cross-Cultural Research, 41(2), 170–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F. W. (2010). The Hadza: Hunter-gatherers of Tanzania. Berkeley: Univ of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard-Smith, J. (1979). Game theory and the evolution of behaviour. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 475–488. Retrieved from JSTOR.

  • Muggleton, N. K., Tarran, S. R., & Fincher, C. L. (2018). Who punishes promiscuous women? Both women and women, but only women inflict costly punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40, 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelissen, R. M. A., Leliveld, M. C., van Dijk, E., & Zeelenberg, M. (2011). Fear and guilt in proposers: Using emotions to explain offers in ultimatum bargaining. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(1), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noë, R., & Hammerstein, P. (1994). Biological markets: Supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 35(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pareek, A., & Zuckerman, R. (2014). Trust and Investment Management: The Effects of Manager Trustworthiness on Hedge Fund Investments (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1659189). Retrieved from Social Science Research Network website: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1659189. Accessed 2 Sept 2019.

  • Petersen, M. B., Sznycer, D., Sell, A., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). The ancestral logic of politics: Upper-body strength regulates men’s assertion of self-interest over economic redistribution. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1098–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, D., & Wrangham, R. (1997). Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence (10/15/97 edition). Boston: Mariner Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisor, A. C., & Gurven, M. (2016). Risk buffering and resource access shape valuation of out-group strangers. Scientific Reports, 6, 30435. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep30435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisor, A. C., & Gurven, M. (2018). When to diversify, and with whom? Choosing partners among out-group strangers in lowland Bolivia. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raihani, N. J., & Barclay, P. (2016). Exploring the trade-off between quality and fairness in human partner choice. Royal Society Open Science, 3(11), 160510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, G. (1998). Competitive altruism: From reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 265(1394), 427–431. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1998.0312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roney, J. R., Grillot, R. L., Eisenbruch, A. B., & Emery Thompson, M. (in prep). Hormone Responses to Initial Social Interactions: Endocrine Signatures of Human Romantic Attraction.

  • Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rueden, C., & Gurven, M. (2009a). Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1656), 575–584. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sell, A., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2009b). Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(35), 15073–15078. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0904312106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. M., & Apicella, C. L. (2019). Partner choice in human evolution: The role of character, hunting ability, and reciprocity in Hadza campmate selection. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/35tch.

  • Smith, K. M., Olkhov, Y. M., Puts, D. A., & Apicella, C. L. (2017). Hadza men with lower voice pitch have a better hunting reputation. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(4), 1474704917740466. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704917740466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugiyama, L. S. (2015). Physical attractiveness in Adaptationist perspective. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 292–343). Wiley.

  • Sznycer, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2015). The logic of variation in social antagonism. Presented at the 27th annual human behavior and evolution society conference, Columbia, MO.

  • Thomson, R., Yuki, M., Talhelm, T., Schug, J., Kito, M., Ayanian, A. H., Becker, J. C., Becker, M., Chiu, C. Y., Choi, H. S., Ferreira, C. M., Fülöp, M., Gul, P., Houghton-Illera, A. M., Joasoo, M., Jong, J., Kavanagh, C. M., Khutkyy, D., Manzi, C., Marcinkowska, U. M., Milfont, T. L., Neto, F., von Oertzen, T., Pliskin, R., San Martin, A., Singh, P., & Visserman, M. L. (2018). Relational mobility predicts social behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(29), 7521–7526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1713191115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1996). Friendship and the banker’s paradox: Other pathways to the evolution of adaptations for altruism. Proceedings-British Academy, 88, 119–144. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS INC.

  • Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., Sell, A., Lieberman, D., & Sznycer, D. (2008). Internal regulatory variables and the design of human motivation: A computational and evolutionary approach. In A. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 251–271). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigil, J. M. (2007). Asymmetries in the friendship preferences and social styles of men and women. Human Nature, 18(2), 143–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2008). The multiple dimensions of male social status in an Amazonian society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6), 402–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form.

  • Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R. K., & Eckel, C. C. (2006). Judging a book by its cover: Beauty and expectations in the trust game. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290605900202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. P., & Rule, N. O. (2015). Facial trustworthiness predicts extreme criminal-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 26(8), 1325–1331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615590992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrangham, R. W. (1999). Evolution of coalitionary killing. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 110(S29), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaatari, D., & Trivers, R. (2007). Fluctuating asymmetry and behavior in the ultimatum game in Jamaica. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(4), 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaatari, D., Palestis, B. G., & Trivers, R. (2009). Fluctuating asymmetry of responders affects offers in the ultimatum game oppositely according to attractiveness or need as perceived by proposers. Ethology, 115(7), 627–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01648.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by NSF Grant BCS-1349023 to JRR.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Adar B. Eisenbruch

    Present address: Department of Psychology, State University of New York, 735 Anderson Hill Road, Purchase, NY, 10577, USA

  2. Rachel L. Grillot

    Present address: Copperleaf Technologies, Vancouver, Canada

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93016, USA

    Adar B. Eisenbruch, Rachel L. Grillot & James R. Roney

Authors
  1. Adar B. Eisenbruch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel L. Grillot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James R. Roney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adar B. Eisenbruch.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

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

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 16501 kb)

Appendices

Appendix 1: Conversation questions

Set 1

  • If you had to move from California where would you go, and what would you miss the most about California?

  • What was the best gift you ever received and why?

  • Do you read a newspaper or news website often and if so, which one?

  • If you could invent a new flavor of ice cream, what would it be?

  • What is your favorite holiday? Why?

  • What is a restaurant that you’ve been to in the last month that your partner hasn’t been to? Tell your partner about it.

  • Describe the last pet you owned.

Set 2

  • One of you say a word, the next say a word that starts with the last letter of the word just said. Do this until you have said 50 words. Any words will do – you aren’t making a sentence.

  • Who is your favorite actor of your own gender? Describe a favorite scene in which this person has acted.

  • What gifts did you receive during the last holiday season?

  • What is the best TV show you’ve seen in the last month that your partner hasn’t seen? Tell your partner about it.

  • What did you do this summer?

  • What was your impression of UCSB the first time you ever came here?

  • Describe the last time you went to the zoo.

Set 3

  • Where did you go to high school? What was your high school like?

  • What foreign country would you most like to visit? What attracts you to this place?

  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of artificial Christmas trees?

  • How often do you get your hair cut? Where do you go?

  • Did you have a class pet when you were in elementary school? Do you remember the pet’s name?

  • Do you think left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people?

  • Were you ever in a school play? What was your role? What was the plot of the play? Did anything funny ever happen when you were on stage?

  • Do you prefer digital watches and clocks or the kind with hands? Why?

Appendix 2: Partner ratings

Ancestral productivity items (Cronbach’s alpha = .887)

  • If this person were stranded on a desert island, how good do you think he [she] would be at getting food (compared to the average man [woman])?

  • Imagine that this person lived 100,000 years ago, when humans had to hunt or gather food and find or build shelter. Compared to the average man [woman], how productive a member of his [her] group would this person have been?

  • Imagine that this person went on a long camping trip, where they had to find their own food, make tools, etc. Compared to the average man [woman], how well do you think this person would do on this camping trip?

Physical dominance items (Cronbach’s alpha = .636)

  • If this man [woman] was in a fight, how likely do you think he’d [she’d] be to win (compared to the average man [woman])?

  • How likely do you think this person would be to start a physical fight if somebody said or did something they didn’t like?

  • During your conversation, how physically intimidated did you feel by this person?

Prosociality items (Cronbach’s alpha = .854)

  • How kind is this person?

  • How cooperative is this person?

  • How trustworthy is this person?

Opposite-sex attractiveness items (Cronbach’s alpha = .791)

  • How attractive do you think this person is to the opposite sex?

  • To what degree does this person know what the opposite sex finds attractive?

  • To what degree could this person give you fashion advice (e.g. about clothing, hairstyles, etc.)?

Friend desirability items (Cronbach’s alpha = .890)

  • How much would you like to keep in touch with this person to pursue a possible friendship?

  • How attractive do you find this person as a possible casual friend/acquaintance?

  • How attractive do you find this person as a possible close friend?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Eisenbruch, A.B., Grillot, R.L. & Roney, J.R. Why Be Generous? Tests of the Partner Choice and Threat Premium Models of Resource Division. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology 5, 274–296 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-019-00117-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-019-00117-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation