Provision or Good Genes? Menstrual Cycle Shifts in Women's Preferences for Short-Term and Long-Term Mates' Altruistic Behavior

Abstract

Men's altruism may have evolved, via female choice, as a signal of either their genetic quality or their willingness to allocate resources to offspring. The possibility that men display altruism to signal their genetic quality may be tested by examining women's preference for men's altruism across the stages of the menstrual cycle. Because women can maximize reproductive benefits by mating with men who have "good genes" on highfertility versus low-fertility days, women should show a heightened preference for male altruism on high-fertility days compared to low-fertility days, and this heightened preference should be more apparent when women evaluate men for short-term sexual relationships than for long-term committed relationships. The possibility that men display altruism to signal their willingness to provision, as opposed to their genetic quality, may be tested by examining women's preference for men's altruism toward different recipients. More specifically, altruistic behavior toward family members may reflect a willingness to provide resources for kin and, hence, willingness to provision, whereas altruistic behavior toward strangers may function as an honest signal of genetic quality. In two samples of young women (Ns = 131 and 481), we found no differences between high-and low-fertility participants in preference for men's altruism, and women preferred men's altruism more in long-term than short-term relationships. The findings suggest that men's altruistic behavior functions as a signal of willingness to provide resources rather than genetic quality.

The synergistic effect of prosociality and physical attractiveness on mate desirability

“…Furthermore, both characteristics were preferred more so in long-term partners, which is commensurate with the findings of existing research pointing at the particular value of prosociality in long-term relationships (Barclay, 2010;Farrelly, 2011Farrelly, , 2013Farrelly et al, 2016;Oda et al, 2014;Stavrova & Ehlebracht, 2015), suggesting that prosociality acts predominantly as a signal of good partner/parenting quality to potential mates. Furthermore, both characteristics were preferred more so in long-term partners, which is commensurate with the findings of existing research pointing at the particular value of prosociality in long-term relationships (Barclay, 2010;Farrelly, 2011Farrelly, , 2013Farrelly et al, 2016;Oda et al, 2014;Stavrova & Ehlebracht, 2015), suggesting that prosociality acts predominantly as a signal of good partner/parenting quality to potential mates.…”

“…Hence, both women and men generally exhibit pronounced preferences for physically attractive partners (Buss, 1989b;Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002). In other words, if prosociality is a signal of good partner/parenting quality as has been suggested previously (Farrelly, 2011(Farrelly, , 2013Farrelly et al, 2016;Oda et al, 2014), then its desirability across mating contexts will follow a different pattern to the desirability of a signal of good genetic quality such as physical attractiveness. Therefore, the pattern of its desirability when combined with prosociality across different mating contexts will provide valuable evidence as to whether the latter is predominantly a signal of good genes or good partner/parenting quality.…”

“…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). 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). 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).…”

Sexual selection and the evolution of altruism: males are more altruistic and cooperative towards attractive females

“…Being altruistic towards attractive females, one signals resources and has a higher chance of engaging with the female sexually or romantically. After all, females have been found to value males who display moral traits whereas males place a higher importance on physical attractiveness (Buss, 1989;Farrelly, 2011;Oda, Okuda, Takeda, & Hiraishi, 2014).…”

Altruism predicts mating success in humans

“…In particular, it can be valuable to signal desirable qualities to potential mates. In support of this, evidence suggests that altruists may be viewed by others as more attractive mating partners relative to those who are less altruistic (Barclay, ; Farrelly, Lazarus, & Roberts, ; Moore et al ., ; Oda, Okuda, Takeda, & Hiraishi, ; Phillips, Barnard, Ferguson, & Reader, ). Yet such studies on preferences for altruistic mates fall short of determining whether altruism does indeed confer a mating advantage to the altruist.…”