The psychology of partner choice

Martin, J. C.; young, lee chang; McAuliffe, Katherine

doi:10.31234/osf.io/weqhz

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 123 publications

(239 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This metaperception -perceiving whether others value us-generates a unique source of value in partner choice (Byrne & Rhamey, 1965;Heider, 1946;Montoya & Horton, 2014;Shanteau & Nagy, 1979). Whereas past research has examined how people learn to interact with partners who have valuable qualities (Barclay & Willer, 2007;Hackel et al, 2015;Martin et al, 2019), here, we demonstrate that people learn to affiliate with others who value them in part by making choices and experiencing acceptance feedback along two dimensions-outcome and intention. People learn to interact with individuals who show a desire to interact with them and with individuals who do concretely interact with them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Instrumental learning of social affiliation through outcome and intention.

Cho¹,

Hackel²

2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To build social ties, humans need to find others who want to interact with them. How do people learn, over time, to interact with partners who want to affiliate with them? Theories of social cognition suggest that people try to infer whether others value them, but theories of instrumental learning suggest that rewarding outcomes reinforce choices. In three studies, we provide evidence that both social acceptance outcomes and cues to a partner’s acceptance intentions reinforce social partner choices. Even when outcomes were experimentally dissociated from a partner’s intentions, outcomes influenced how people felt, which partners people chose, and how well people believed they were liked by partners. Finally, people acted kindlier both to partners who demonstrated acceptance intentions and to partners who provided acceptance outcomes. These findings support an integrative instrumental learning model of social affiliation, wherein social cognition and rewarding outcomes jointly shape affect, partner choice, and prosocial behavior.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Instrumental learning of social affiliation through outcome and intention.

Cho¹,

Hackel²

2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both choices -sending nothing or sending 1/10 th of the endowment -do not encourage a willingness to cooperate with the decision-maker since both indicate low ability to generate benefits. As mentioned above, the ability to generate benefits is an important factor that influences the choice of a partner (Martin et al, 2019). It seems rational and obvious to prefer another, unknown person over a person with low ability to generate benefits when choosing a partner for a cooperative task.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ability to generate benefits is one of the factors influencing the partner's choice for cooperation (Martin, Young and McAuliffe, 2019). Thus, very cautious people, who, being trustors in a trust game, keep their endowment or send a very small fraction of it would rather be avoided as partners for cooperative tasks.…”

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

No Trust vs. Some Trust in a Game Framed as Trust or Investment: Avoiding the Distrustor

Macko¹

2020

CEMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The study aimed at examining how observing a person showing no trust or some trust, in interaction framed as a trust or an investment, influences two variables: anticipated dissatisfaction from cooperating with the trustor and willingness to avoid such a person in future cooperative tasks. Additionally, the perception of the trustor and anticipated feelings in the role of the trustee were analyzed. Methodology: A scenario describing the trust game framed as trust or investment was used in the study. Participants (N = 166) were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions: 2 (amount sent in the game: zero vs. one-tenth of the endowment) x 2 (game framing: trust vs. investment) and after reading the scenario made three types of evaluations: (1) their feelings in the position of the trustee from the scenario; (2) the trustor’s sociability, morality, and competence and (3) anticipated dissatisfaction from cooperating with the trustor in the future, and finally (4) willingness to avoid the trustor in future interactions. Results: Interaction effects were found for evaluations of anticipated dissatisfaction from cooperating with the trustor and willingness to avoid the trustor in future interactions. Observing sending nothing in the trust game framed as trust, rather than investment, resulted in stronger anticipated dissatisfaction from cooperating in the future with the trustor, and stronger willingness to avoid such a person as a partner for cooperation. Moreover, independent of the framing of the game, in condition of no trust, participants reported stronger negative feeling when imagining themselves in the role of the trustee and perceived the trustor as less sociable and less competent. Surprisingly, the perception of trustor’s morality did not differ across the conditions. Conclusions: Observing distrust, particularly when the interaction is interpreted in social terms as trust, rather than in economic ones as non-investing, with all other aspects of the situation the same, results in different attitude towards the distrustor on the side of observers. Distrust, in comparison to just non-investing, evokes in observers a stronger propensity to avoid such the distrustor as a partner for cooperation and lowers their anticipated satisfaction from cooperation with him/her.

show abstract

“…The success of these cooperative interactions is an area of active interest (Boyd & Richerson, 1992, 2005; Henrich, 2015; Henrich & Henrich, 2007; McCullough, 2020; Richerson & Boyd, 1998, 2005; Wrangham, 2019). One mechanism for building and maintaining cooperative interactions is partner choice: We choose the best partners and avoid those who are bad (Bull & Rice, 1991; Baumard et al, 2013; Barclay, 2013, 2016; Barclay & Raihani, 2016; Barclay & Willer, 2007; Fu et al, 2008; Noë & Hammerstein, 1994; for a recent review, see Martin et al, 2019). Often, the best partner is someone who is able to deliver resources or benefits.…”

Section: Costly Signaling Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Signaling benefits of partner choice decisions.

Dhaliwal¹,

Martin²,

Barclay³

et al. 2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When deciding whom to choose for a cooperative interaction, two features of prospective partners are especially relevant: ability to provide benefits, and willingness to provide those benefits. Often, these traits are correlated. But, when ability and willingness are in conflict, people often indicate that they value willingness over ability, even when doing so results in immediate losses. Why would such behavior be favored by natural selection acting at the level of the individual? Across nine experimental studies (seven preregistered) and a mathematical model we explore one way of explaining this costly choice, demonstrating that choosing a willing over an able partner affords one a moral reputation and makes one more likely to be chosen as a cooperation partner. In fact, even people who choose an able over a willing partner for themselves prefer others who choose a willing over an able partner. Crucial to our model, we find that valuing willingness over ability is an honest signal of both higher levels of generosity in an economic game and lower levels of trait Machiavellianism. These findings provide the first extensive exploration of the signaling benefits of partner choice decisions. Furthermore, this work provides one explanation for why we choose those who are willing over those who are able, even at a cost to ourselves: By doing so, we in turn look like good potential partners.

show abstract

The psychology of partner choice

Cited by 6 publications

References 123 publications

Instrumental learning of social affiliation through outcome and intention.

Instrumental learning of social affiliation through outcome and intention.

No Trust vs. Some Trust in a Game Framed as Trust or Investment: Avoiding the Distrustor

Signaling benefits of partner choice decisions.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About