Advertisement

What Do Economically Costly Signals Signal?: a Life History Framework for Interpreting Conspicuous Consumption

  • Daniel J. Kruger
  • Jessica S. Kruger
Research Article
First Online:

Abstract

Compared to women, men have a greater tendency to make conspicuous wealth displays and typically make greater contributions in non-somatic provisioning. Male resource displays often predict future paternal resource investments; however, some conspicuous displays may function as mating effort at the cost of investment potential. Men who tend to make such displays may have less interest in long-term relationship investment and commitment and greater interest in short-term sexual relationships. Undergraduates read descriptions of two men purchasing automobiles with the same budget. One man purchased a new car for the sake of reliability (frugal investment); the other purchased a used car and allocated the remaining funds to conspicuous display features (new paint, larger wheels, louder sound system). Participants rated each character on life history characteristics, relationship interests, and relationship attractiveness. Participants rated the man who invested in flashy display higher on mating effort, lower on parental investment, higher on interest in brief sexual affairs, lower on interest in long-term committed romantic relationships, higher in attractiveness to women for brief sexual affairs, and lower in attractiveness to women for long-term committed romantic relationships, compared to the man with a frugal investment strategy. Participants demonstrated an intuitive understanding that some male conspicuous displays can indicate faster life history strategies. Human male luxury displays associated with high mating effort life histories may mimic the properties of male secondary sexual characteristics across species, and these displays may be more prevalent in environments fostering faster life histories.

Keywords

Conspicuous consumption Costly signaling Life history Mating effort Parental investment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

40806_2018_151_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 24.1 kb)

References

  1. Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beckerman, S., Lizarralde, R., Ballew, C., Schroeder, S., Fingelton, C., Garrison, A., & Smith, H. (1998). The Barí partible paternity project: preliminary results. Current Anthropology, 39(1), 164–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bozon, M., & Héran, F. (2006). La formation du couple. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  4. Bribiescas, R. G. (2001). Reproductive ecology and life history of the human male. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 44(S33), 148–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex difference in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chagnon, N. A. (1992). Yanomamo (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  7. Chisholm, J. S. (1999). Death, hope and sex: steps to an evolutionary ecology of mind and morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chu, S., Farr, D., Muñoz, L. C., & Lycett, J. E. (2011). Interpersonal trust and market value moderates the bias in women’s preferences away from attractive high-status men. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darwin, C. (1871a). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darwin, C. (1871b). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixson, A. F. (2012). Primate sexuality: comparative studies of the prosimians, monkeys, apes, and human beings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunn, M. J., & Hill, A. (2014). Manipulated luxury-apartment ownership enhances opposite-sex attraction in females but not males. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunn, M. J., & Searle, R. (2010). Effect of manipulated prestige-car ownership on both sex attractiveness ratings. British Journal of Psychology, 101(1), 69–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellison, P. T. (2001). On fertile ground: a natural history of human reproduction. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Folstad, I., & Karter, A. J. (1992). Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. American Naturalist, 139(3), 603–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geary, D. C. (2005). Evolution of paternal investment. In D. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 483–505). Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  17. Godoy, R., Reyes-García, V., Huanca, T., Leonard, W. R., McDade, T., Tanner, S., Vadez, V., & Seyfried, C. (2007). Signaling by consumption in a native Amazonian society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(2), 124–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Grueter, C. C., Isler, K., & Dixson, B. J. (2015). Are badges of status adaptive in large complex primate groups? Evolution and Human Behavior, 36, 398–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guéguen, N., & Lamy, L. (2012). Men’s social status and attractiveness: women’s receptivity to men’s date requests. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 71(3), 157–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hamilton, W. D., & Zuk, M. (1982). Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science, 218(4570), 384–387.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hennighausen, C., Hudders, L., Lange, B., & Fink, H. (2016). What if the rival drives a Porsche? Luxury car spending as a costly signal in male intrasexual competition. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(4), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hill, K., & Hurtado, M. (1996). Ache life history: the ecology and demography of a foraging people. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Hopcroft, R. L. (2006). Sex, status, and reproductive success in the contemporary United States. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(2), 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kappeler, P. M., & van Schaik, C. P. (2004). Sexual selection in primates: new and comparative perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kruger, D. J. (2006). Male facial masculinity influences attributions of personality and reproductive strategy. Personal Relationships, 13, 451–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kruger, D. J. (2008). Male financial consumption is associated with higher mating intentions and mating success. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4), 603–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kruger, D. J. (2017). Brief self-report scales assessing life history dimensions of mating and parenting effort. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M., & Jobling, I. (2003). Proper and dark heroes as dads and cads: alternative mating strategies in British romantic literature. Human Nature, 14(3), 305–317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Larsen, C. S. (2003). Equality for the sexes in human evolution? Early hominid sexual dimorphism and implications for mating systems and social behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(16), 9103–9104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leutenegger, W., & Kelley, J. T. (1977). Relationship of sexual dimorphism in canine size and body size to social, behavioral, and ecological correlates in anthropoid primates. Primates, 18(1), 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Low, B. S. (1979). Sexual selection and human ornamentation. In N. Chagnon & W. Irons (Eds.), Evolutionary theory and human social organization (pp. 462–486). North Scituate: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  33. Maynard-Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, G. F., & Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(5), 190–198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Muehlenbein, M. P., & Bribiescas, R. G. (2005). Testosterone-mediated immune functions and male life histories. American Journal of Human Biology, 17(5), 527–558.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Nelissen, R. M., & Meijers, M. H. (2011). Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(5), 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roff, D. A. (1992). The evolution of life histories: theory and analysis. New York: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Roney, J. R. (2003). Effects of visual exposure to the opposite sex: cognitive aspects of mate attraction in human males. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 393–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Setchell, J. M., & Kappeler, P. M. (2003). Selection in relation to sex in primates. Advances in the Study of Behaviour, 33, 87–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Shuler, G. A., & McCord, D. M. (2010). Determinants of male attractiveness: “hotness” ratings as a function of perceived resources. American Journal of Psychological Research, 6(1), 10–23.Google Scholar
  41. Stearns, S. C. (1992). The evolution of life histories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sundie, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Vohs, K. D., & Beal, D. J. (2011). Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: conspicuous consumption as a sexual signaling system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 664–680.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection. The Journal of Psychology, 124(4), 371–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Veblen, T. (1899/1953). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Mentor.Google Scholar
  45. von Rueden, C. R., & Jaeggi, A. V. (2016). Men’s status and reproductive success in 33 nonindustrial societies: effects of subsistence, marriage system, and reproductive strategy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(39), 10824–10829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Walker, L., Butland, D., & Connell, R. (2000). Boys on the road: Masculinities, car culture, and road safety education. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 8(2), 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (2004). Do pretty women inspire men to discount the future? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 271(Suppl 4), S177–S179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wood, B. M., & Marlowe, F. W. (2013). Household and kin provisioning by Hadza men. Human Nature, 24, 280–317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhao, T., Jin, X., Xu, W., Zuo, X., & Cui, H. (2017). Mating goals moderate power’s effect on conspicuous consumption among women. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(3), 147470491772391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Population Studies CenterUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.University at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations