Physical Attractiveness, Altruism and Cooperation in an Ultimatum Game

Abstract

Explaining cooperative tendencies through an evolutionary lens has been problematic for theorists. Traditional explanations derive from theories of reciprocity, biological markets, and more recently via partner choice and sexual selection. The sexual selection hypothesis has been tested within game-theoretic frameworks gaining empirical sup- port in explaining the evolution of altruism. Males have been found to be more altruistic towards attractive females. However, previous research has predominantly adopted a design where participants are not engaging with ‘real people’. Instead, participants make decisions when viewing images or hypothetical scenarios without visual cues. The present study aimed to investigate the sexual selection hypothesis using a face-to-face game theoretic framework. One hundred and thirty-eight participants played a 2-round ultimatum game with chocolate coins as the monetary incentive. We find, that physical attractiveness had no influence on generosity and cooperation when participants play a face-to-face ultimatum game. Instead, proposers were fair when allocating stakes, offering an average of half the endowment to responders. This study refutes the link between the sexual selection hypothesis and generosity when playing economic games with real people. Fairness appeared to drive generosity and cooperation

Mutual mate choice drives the desirability of altruism in relationships

“…The possible role of altruistic behaviours in romantic relationships has been widely investigated recently, mainly based on the premise that such traits signal qualities that are adaptive in mate choice (Miller, 2000(Miller, , 2007. As such, it has been shown empirically that individuals behave more altruistically in a potential mating scenario (Bhogal, Bartlett, & Farrelly, in press;Bhogal, Galbraith, & Manktelow, 2016, 2017Farrelly, Lazarus, & Roberts, 2007;Iredale, Vugt, & Dunbar, 2008;Raihani & Smith, 2015;Tognetti, Berticat, Raymond, & Faurie, 2012;Tognetti, Dubois, Faurie, & Willinger, 2016) and also that having an altruistic/prosocial character leads to greater mating success in the real world (Arnocky, Piché, Albert, Ouellette, & Barclay, 2016;Stavrova & Ehlebracht, 2015).…”

The synergistic effect of prosociality and physical attractiveness on mate desirability

“…Prosociality is also positively linked to mating success (Arnocky, Pich e, Albert, Ouellette, & Barclay, 2016) and the likelihood of entering a relationship (Stavrova & Ehlebracht, 2015) as well as there being evidence of assortative mating for prosociality among partners (Tognetti, Berticat, Raymond, & Faurie, 2014). Due to female choice being a stronger selection force due to differences in parental investment (Trivers, 1972), the majority of this research has concentrated on showing the importance of prosociality in women's mate choice (e.g., Bhogal, Galbraith, & Manktelow, 2016a;Bhogal et al, 2016b;Farrelly, 2011;Van Vugt & Iredale, 2013). Due to female choice being a stronger selection force due to differences in parental investment (Trivers, 1972), the majority of this research has concentrated on showing the importance of prosociality in women's mate choice (e.g., Bhogal, Galbraith, & Manktelow, 2016a;Bhogal et al, 2016b;Farrelly, 2011;Van Vugt & Iredale, 2013).…”

“…Subsequently, there is now a large and growing body of empirical evidence that supports this theory. For instance, studies have found that individuals increase their prosocial behaviour in mating scenarios, such as when being observed by potential mates (Bhogal, Galbraith, & Manktelow, 2016b;Farrelly, Lazarus, & Roberts, 2007;Iredale, Vugt, & Dunbar, 2008;Tognetti, Berticat, Raymond, & Faurie, 2012;Tognetti, Dubois, Faurie, & Willinger, 2016) and also when competing with others (Raihani & Smith, 2015;Tognetti et al, 2016). Prosociality is also positively linked to mating success (Arnocky, Pich e, Albert, Ouellette, & Barclay, 2016) and the likelihood of entering a relationship (Stavrova & Ehlebracht, 2015) as well as there being evidence of assortative mating for prosociality among partners (Tognetti, Berticat, Raymond, & Faurie, 2014).…”

“…Furthermore, it has also been shown that prosocial individuals are consistently considered more desirable than their non-prosocial counterparts (Barclay, 2010;Farrelly, 2011Farrelly, , 2013Guo, Feng, & Wang, 2015;Moore et al, 2013;Oda, Okuda, Takeda, & Hiraishi, 2014;Oda, Shibata, Kiyonari, Takeda, & Matsumoto-Oda, 2013;Phillips, Barnard, Ferguson, & Reader, 2008). Due to female choice being a stronger selection force due to differences in parental investment (Trivers, 1972), the majority of this research has concentrated on showing the importance of prosociality in women's mate choice (e.g., Bhogal, Galbraith, & Manktelow, 2016a;Bhogal et al, 2016b;Farrelly, 2011;Van Vugt & Iredale, 2013). However, studies that examined both sexes showed prosociality to be important in men's mate choice as well (e.g., Farrelly, 2013;Moore et al, 2013;Stavrova & Ehlebracht, 2015).…”

The psychology of prosocial behavior: An introduction to a special issue

“…We observe prosociality in a variety of contexts, involving family, friends, co-workers, and strangers. Prosociality is also an umbrella term for a variety of forms of behavior including altruism (Farrelly 2019), cooperation (Bhogal, 2019), heroism (Margana et al 2019), fairness (Bhogal et al 2016(Bhogal et al , 2017, and trustworthiness (Ehlebracht et al 2018). This signifies how powerful and varied prosociality is, and why it important to explore through an empirical lens.…”