Advertisement

Current Psychology

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 982–990 | Cite as

Perceived attractiveness of two types of altruist

  • Ian NormanEmail author
  • Piers Fleming
Article

Abstract

Empirical evidence has demonstrated that in long-term romantic contexts altruists are favoured over non-altruists. Costly signalling theory suggests that altruism informs observers that cooperating with the altruist is beneficial. This paper distinguishes between types of altruism to investigate if there is a differential effect on desirability across types. Using dating advertisements, participants (observers) received information about a considerate altruist, heroic altruist or neutral character and then rated their attraction to the character in a range of romantic and non-romantic contexts. It was hypothesised that both considerate and heroic characters would be rated by observers as more desirable than the neutral advert in long-term romantic contexts and that there would be a difference in desirability scores between the considerate and heroic characters. The results of study 1 showed that considerate altruists were significantly more desirable than the neutral advert in long-term romantic contexts, but heroic altruists did not differ significantly from neutral or considerate characters. Study 2 confirmed the same pattern of results. These findings suggest that considerate altruism signals good character traits to observers, such as kindness, which could indicate parenting ability and characters who signal these traits will have increased reproductive success because they are more desirable and therefore have access to more/better quality reproductive mates. Furthermore, the results suggest that considerate and heroic altruism may be distinct, and that considerate altruism is the more desirable type of altruism.

Keywords

Costly Signalling Altruism Attraction Heroism Considerate 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors, nor are there any declarations of interest to be made.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee 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 the study.

Conflict of Interest

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

Supplementary material

12144_2019_266_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 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(2), 416–435.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12208.Google Scholar
  2. Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396.Google Scholar
  3. Barclay, P. (2004). Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the “tragedy of the commons”. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(4), 209–220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.04.002.Google Scholar
  4. Barclay, P. (2010). Altruism as a courtship display: Some effects of third-party generosity on audience perceptions. British Journal of Psychology, 101(Pt 1, 123–135.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X435733.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Barclay, P., Mishra, S., & Sparks, A. M. (2018). State-dependent risk-taking. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 285(1881), 20180180.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0180.Google Scholar
  7. Bech-Sørensen, J., & Pollet, T. V. (2016). Sex differences in mate preferences: A replication study, 20 years later. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2(3), 171–176.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-016-0048-6.Google Scholar
  8. Becker, G. S. (1976). Altruism, egoism, and genetic fitness: Economics and sociobiology. Journal of Economic Literature, 14(3), 817–826.Google Scholar
  9. Bereczkei, T., Birkas, B., & Kerekes, Z. (2010). Altruism towards strangers in need: Costly signaling in an industrial society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(2), 95–103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.07.004.Google Scholar
  10. 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(1), 10–13.  https://doi.org/10.5178/lebs.2016.42.
  11. Bhogal, M. S., Bartlett, J., & Farrelly, D. (2018). The influence of mate choice motivation on non-financial altruism. Current Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0070-x
  12. Bhogal, M. S., Galbraith, N., & Manktelow, K. (2019). A research note on the influence of relationship length and sex on preferences for altruistic and cooperative mates. Psychological Reports, 122(2), 550–557.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118764640.
  13. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(01), 1–14.Google Scholar
  14. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559–570.Google Scholar
  15. Clamp, A. (2001). Evolutionary psychology. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
  16. DiPrete, T. A., & Buchmann, C. (2006). Gender-specific trends in the value of education and the emerging gender gap in college completion. Demography, 43(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  17. Ehlebracht, D., Stavrova, O., Fetchenhauer, D., & Farrelly, D. (2018). The synergistic effect of prosociality and physical attractiveness on mate desirability. British Journal of Psychology, 109(3), 517–537.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12285.Google Scholar
  18. 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(3), 406–430.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000712610X532896.Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Farrelly, D., & King, L. (2019). Mutual mate choice drives the desirability of altruism in relationships. Current Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00194-0.
  21. Farrelly, D., Lazarus, J., & Roberts, G. (2007). Altruists attract. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(2), 313–329.  https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490700500205.Google Scholar
  22. Farrelly, D., Clemson, P., & Guthrie, M. (2016). Are women’s mate preferences for altruism also influenced by physical attractiveness? Evolutionary Psychology, 14(1), 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704915623698.Google Scholar
  23. Farthing, G. W. (2005). Attitudes toward heroic and nonheroic physical risk takers as mates and as friends. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 171–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.004.Google Scholar
  24. Farthing, G. W. (2007). Neither daredevils nor wimps: Attitudes toward physical risk takers as mates. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(4), 754–777.Google Scholar
  25. Fehrler, S., & Przepiorka, W. (2013). Charitable giving as a signal of trustworthiness: Disentangling the signaling benefits of altruistic acts. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(2), 139–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.11.005.Google Scholar
  26. Furnham, A. (2009). Sex differences in mate selection preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(4), 262–267.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.013.Google Scholar
  27. Gabb, J., Klett-Davies, M., Fink, J., & Thomae, M. (2013). Enduring love? Couple relationships in the 21st century. Survey Findings Report. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Retrieved January, 1, 2014.Google Scholar
  28. Getty, T. (1998). Handicap signalling: When fecundity and viability do not add up. Animal Behaviour, 56(1), 127–130.Google Scholar
  29. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Miller, G. F., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 85–102.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.85.Google Scholar
  30. Hamilton, W. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 17–52.Google Scholar
  31. Hampton, S. (2009). Essential evolutionary psychology. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Iredale, W., Van Vugt, M., & Dunbar, R. (2008). Showing off in humans: Male generosity as a mating signal. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(3), 386–392.Google Scholar
  33. Kafashan, S., Sparks, A., Rotella, A., & Barclay, P. (2016). Why heroism exists: Evolutionary perspectives on extreme helping. Handbook of Heroism and Heroic Leadership, 36–57.Google Scholar
  34. Kelly, S., & Dunbar, R. I. (2001). Who dares, wins : Heroism versus altruism in women's mate choice. Human Nature, 12(2), 89–105.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-001-1018-6.Google Scholar
  35. Khalil, E. L. (2004). What is altruism? Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(1), 97–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(03)00075-8.Google Scholar
  36. Kurzban, R., Burton-Chellew, M. N., & West, S. A. (2015). The evolution of altruism in humans. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 575–599.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015355.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The Chicago face database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122–1135.Google Scholar
  39. Margana, L., Bhogal, M. S., Bartlett, J. E., & Farrelly, D. (2019). The roles of altruism, heroism, and physical attractiveness in female mate choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 137, 126–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.08.018.Google Scholar
  40. Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82(2), 97–125.  https://doi.org/10.1086/517857.Google Scholar
  41. Mishra, S., Barclay, P., & Sparks, A. (2017). The relative state model: Integrating need-based and ability-based pathways to risk-taking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(2), 176–198.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316644094.Google Scholar
  42. Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437(7063), 1291–1298.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04131.Google Scholar
  43. Rusch, H., Leunissen, J. M., & van Vugt, M. (2015). Historical and experimental evidence of sexual selection for war heroism. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(5), 367–373.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.02.005.Google Scholar
  44. Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 447–458.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.023.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, E. A., & Bird, R. L. B. (2000). Turtle hunting and tombstone opening: Public generosity as costly signaling. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21(4), 245–261.Google Scholar
  46. Souza, A. L., Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2016). Mate preferences in Brazil: Evolved desires and cultural evolution over three decades. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 45–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.053.Google Scholar
  47. Sprecher, S., Sullivan, Q., & Hatfield, E. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1074–1080.Google Scholar
  48. Stich, S. (2016). Why there might not be an evolutionary explanation for psychological altruism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 56, 3–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.10.005.Google Scholar
  49. Számadó, S. (1999). The validity of the handicap principle in discrete action–response games. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 198(4), 593–602.Google Scholar
  50. Számadó, S. (2011). The cost of honesty and the fallacy of the handicap principle. Animal Behaviour, 81(1), 3–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.08.022.Google Scholar
  51. Tessman, I. (1995). Human altruism as a courtship display. Oikos, 74(1), 157–158.Google Scholar
  52. Trivers, R. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.Google Scholar
  53. Trivers, R. (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  54. Van Vugt, M., & Iredale, W. (2013). Men behaving nicely: Public goods as peacock tails. British Journal of Psychology, 104(1), 3–13.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02093.x.Google Scholar
  55. Van Vugt, M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2006). The altruism puzzle: Psychological adaptions for prosocial behaviour. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wiederman, M. W. (1993). Evolved gender differences in mate preferences: Evidence from personal advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(5), 331–351.Google Scholar
  57. Woodhall, M. (1987). Earnings and education. In G. Psacharopoulos (Ed.), Economics of education: Research and studies (pp. 209–217). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  58. Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1), 205–214.Google Scholar
  59. Zahavi, A. (1977). The cost of honesty: Further remarks on the handicap principle. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67(3), 603–605.Google Scholar
  60. Zahavi, A., & Zahavi, A. (1999). The handicap principle: A missing piece of Darwin's puzzle: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of East AngliaNorfolkEngland

Personalised recommendations