Advertisement

Do men help only beautiful women in social networks?

  • Sascha Schwarz
  • Lisa Baßfeld
Article

Abstract

Is the Social Network profile photo important when women need help? In two field experiments (N = 681), male and female participants received a help request from a woman of below-average, above-average (Study 1 and 2), or a woman of unknown physical attractiveness (Study 2). Men (but not women) responded more often, answered more detailed, and were more helpful and friendlier to the above-average physical attractive woman (Study 1 and 2), but if they replied, they also answered friendlier to the woman of unknown physical attractiveness (Study 2). In Study 3, participants (N = 298) reported their hypothetical helping intention in an experimental setting. The findings from all three studies indicate that these results are most likely interpretable considering males’ mating strategies and costly signal theory in contrast to the what-is-beautiful-is-good stereotype or attention boost explanation.

Keywords

Attractiveness bias Evolutionary psychology Costly signaling Physical attractiveness Helping behavior Mating strategies 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We want to thank Dr. Sally M. Ischebeck for her help in data collection. Further, we would like to thank Daniel Farrelly and one anonymous reviewer for their careful and insightful reviews of the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie (DGPs) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in Study 3. Due to the nature of the field experiments in Study 1 and 2, informed consent was not obtained prior to the participation of the study. However, all participants were debriefed after participation and encouraged to contact the first author.

Conflict of Interest

Sascha Schwarz declares that he has no conflict of interest. Lisa Baßfeld declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12144_2018_86_MOESM1_ESM.docx (30 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC× 29.7 kb)
12144_2018_86_MOESM2_ESM.docx (30 kb)
ESM 2 (DOC× 29 kb)

References

  1. Arnocky, S., Piché, T., Albert, G., Ouellette, D., & Barclay, P. (2017). Altruism predicts mating success in humans. British Journal of Psychology, 108, 416–435.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barclay, P. (2010). Altruism as a courtship display: Some effects of third-party generosity on audience perceptions. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 123–135.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X435733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barclay, P., & Van Vugt, M. (2015). The evolutionary psychology of human prosociality: Adaptations, byproducts, and mistakes. Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior, 37–60.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399813.013.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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, 10–13.  https://doi.org/10.5178/lebs.2016.42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhogal, M. S., Bartlett, J. E., & Farrelly, D. (2018a). The influence of mate choice motivation on non-financial altruism. Current Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0070-x.
  6. Bhogal, M. S., Galbraith, N., & Manktelow, K. (2018b). A research note on the influence of relationship length and sex on preferences for altruistic and cooperative mates. Psychological Reports., 003329411876464.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118764640.
  7. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex-differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypothesis tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00023992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100–108.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DelPriore, D. J., Prokosch, M. L., & Hill, S. E. (2017). The causes and consequences of women’s competitive beautification. In M. L. Fisher (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of women and competition (pp. 577–595). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199376377.013.34
  12. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033731.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dovidio, J. F., & Penner, L. A. (2001). Helping and altruism. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 162–195). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. 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, 406–443.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000712610X532896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(4), 395–398.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.768595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farrelly, D., Lazarus, J., & Roberts, G. (2007). Altruists attract. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 313–329.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490700500205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farrelly, D., Clemson, P., & Guthrie, M. (2016). Are women’s mate preferences for altruism also influenced by physical attractiveness? Evolutionary Psychology, 14, 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704915623698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 981–993.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 304–341.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups; a study of human factors in housing. Oxford, England: Harper.Google Scholar
  21. Gintis, H., Smith, E. A., & Bowles, S. (2001). Costly signaling and cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 213, 103–119.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2001.2406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grafen, A. (1990). Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144, 517–546.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(05)80088-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iredale, W., Van Vugt, M., & Dunbar, R. (2008). Showing off in humans: Male generosity as a mating signal. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 386–392.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490800600302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. Li, N. P., Kenrick, D. T., Bailey, J. M., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lotem, A., Fishman, M. A., & Stone, L. (2003). From reciprocity to unconditional altruism through signalling benefits. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 270(1511), 199–205.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Margana, L., Bhogal, M. S., Bartlett, J. E., & Farrelly, D. (2019). The roles of altruism, heroism, and phyiscal attractiveness in female mate choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 137, 126–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.08.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McAndrew, F. T. (2002). New evolutionary perspectives on altruism: Multilevel-selection and costly-signaling theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 79–82.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McGuire, A. M. (1994). Helping behaviors in the natural environment: Dimensions and correlates of helping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 45–56.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294201004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, G. F. . (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. Quarterly Review of Biology, 82, 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pearce, P. L., & Amato, P. R. (1980). A taxonomy of helping: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 363–371.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3033956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global Sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at Sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365–392.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raihani, N. J., & Smith, S. (2015). Competitive helping in online giving. Current Biology, 25, 1183–1186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.02.042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rhodes, R. E., & Dickau, L. (2012). Experimental evidence for the intention–behavior relationship in the physical activity domain: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 31, 724–727.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosar, U., Klein, M., & Beckers, T. (2008). The frog pond beauty contest: Physical attractiveness and electoral success of the constituency candidates at the North Rhine-Westphalia state election of 2005. European Journal of Political Research, 47, 64–79.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00720.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2012). Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences. Human Nature, 23, 447–466.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-012-9152-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 870–883.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith, E. A., & Bliege Bird, R. (2005). Costly signaling and cooperative behavior. In H. Gintis, S. Bowles, R. Boyd, & E. Fehr (Eds.), Moral sentiments and material interests: The foundations of cooperation in economic life (pp. 115–148). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Stewart-Williams, S., & Thomas, A. G. (2013). The ape that thought it was a peacock: Does evolutionary psychology exaggerate human sex differences? Psychological Inquiry, 24, 137–168.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.804899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. M. (2008). Communicating online: Adolescent relationships and the media. The Future of Children: Children and Media Technology, 18, 119–146.  https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Subrahmanyam, K., Šmahel, D., & Greenfield, P. M. (2006). Connecting developmental processes to the internet: Identity presentation and sexual exploration in online teen chatrooms. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 420–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Touré-Tillery, M., & Fishbach, A. (2017). Too far to help: The effect of perceived distance on the expected impact and likelihood of charitable action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 860–876.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  48. Van Vugt, M., & Iredale, W. (2013). Men behaving nicely: Public goods as peacock tails. British Journal of Psychology, 104, 3–13.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02093.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verbrugge, L. M. (1977). The structure of adult friendship choices. Social Forces, 56, 576–597.  https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/56.2.576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilson, D. W. (1978). Helping behavior and physical attractiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 313–314.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1978.9924081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zahavi, A. (1977). The cost of honesty: Further remarks on the handicap principle. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67, 603–605.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(77)90061-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zahavi, A. (1995). Altruism as a handicap – The limitation of kin selection and reciprocity. Journal of Avian Biology, 26, 1–3.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3677205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Human and Social SciencesUniversity of WuppertalWuppertalGermany

Personalised recommendations