Risk-taking as a situationally sensitive male mating strategy

Abstract

Evolutionary theorists suggest that men engage in risk-taking more than women do in part because, throughout human evolutionary history, men have faced greater sexual selection pressures. We build on this idea by testing the hypothesis that risk-taking reflects a male mating strategy that is sensitive to characteristics of a potential mate. Consistent with this hypothesis, the current experiment demonstrated a positive relationship between mating motivation and risk-taking, but only in men who had been exposed to images of highly attractive females. Moreover, risk-taking in men was associated with enhanced memory for attractive female faces, indicating enhanced processing of their attractive facial characteristics. No relationship between mating motivation and risk-taking was observed in men exposed to images of unattractive women, nor was any such relationship observed in women. This experiment provides evidence that psychological states associated with mating may promote risk-taking, and that these effects are sex specific and are sensitive to situational context.

Introduction

When faced with potentially risky decisions, what factors guide people's choices? A growing body of evidence suggests that decision making under uncertainty is profoundly shaped by people's emotions and goals. Although studies have provided a psychologically proximate account of the relationship between affect and decision making, many have fallen short of specifying the more ultimate adaptive functions that risk-taking may be designed to serve. An evolutionary perspective provides an overarching theoretical framework that links affective influences on decision making to the more ultimate adaptive functions potentially associated with risk-taking (cf. Wilson & Daly, 1985). In the current paper, we report on an experiment that adopts an evolutionary framework to better understand when, and in whom, risky decision making is likely to occur.

An evolutionary perspective suggests that emotions and goals motivate specific cognitive and behavioral tendencies designed ultimately to increase reproductive success (e.g., Ackerman et al., 2006, Griskevicius et al., 2007). This perspective has important implications for understanding affective influences on decision making. Fessler, Pillsworth, and Flamson (2004), for example, showed that the experience of anger led men (but not women) to make riskier choices. In contrast, disgust led women (but not men) to make less risky choices. Fessler et al. emphasized that anger may lead men to risk harm by aggressing against rivals and enemies, an adaptive challenge faced primarily by men throughout evolutionary history (Wilson & Daly, 1985, Van Vugt et al., 2007). Conversely, disgust may help women avoid risks associated with exposure to contagion, an especially pernicious adaptive problem for women because of potential infection of offspring (Fessler & Navarrete, 2003). These findings therefore highlight some of the underlying adaptive functions served by risk-taking and risk-aversion.

A large body of evidence suggests that men are more inclined to take risks than women (e.g., Byrnes, Miller, & Schaffer, 1999). Daly and Wilson hypothesized that this sex difference is rooted in the fact that men have faced greater intrasexual competition than women have (e.g., Daly & Wilson, 1994, Wilson et al., 1996). Indeed, parental investment theory (Trivers, 1972) implies that men compete with one another over mating opportunities to a greater extent than women do. Among men, risky behaviors have potential for displaying to potential mates characteristics such as social dominance, confidence, ambition, skill and mental acuity, all of which are highly desired by women seeking a romantic partner (Buss, 1989, Li et al., 2002). In addition, risk-taking can signal to other men one's value as an ally or formidability as an adversary, and thus help men compete with one another over potential mates. Whether the intended audience is women or other men, risk-taking can signal positive traits and, in turn, increase a man's access to mating opportunities. Because male risk-taking is thought to be derived ultimately from intrasexual competition over potential mating opportunities, we predict that interest in procuring a mate will be associated with increased risk-taking among men.

In contrast, interest in mating is not expected to promote risk-taking among women to the same extent. Compared with men, women have not faced the same level of intrasexual competition and, therefore, should not have evolved the same propensity for taking risks to gain access to mating opportunities. Furthermore, men tend to desire women with characteristics that signal high reproductive capacity (e.g., youth), rather than characteristics that might be signaled by risk-taking (Li et al., 2002). Therefore, the link between mating motivation and risk-taking is not expected to be as strong in women as it is in men. This expectation is consistent with research suggesting that men, but not women, increase their propensity for risk-taking when in the presence of an audience (Daly & Wilson, 2001).

In sum, mating motives are expected to promote risk-taking in men to a greater extent than in women. However, because male courtship displays involving risk can result in significant costs, interest in mating may promote risk-taking selectively — that is, primarily when factors in the immediate social situation indicate that risk-taking is likely to result in a reproductively beneficial mating opportunity. Because high levels of physical attractiveness in women signal strong reproductive potential (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992, Singh, 1993, Symons, 1979), mating motives are expected to promote risk-taking when men are exposed to attractive women more strongly than when they are exposed to women who lack attractive features.

This hypothesized pattern is consistent with one recent study examining the effects of exposure to attractive opposite-sex faces on future discounting (Wilson & Daly, 2004). Future discounting occurs when people assign greater value to resources that will be available immediately, compared to resources that will be available in the future. Wilson and Daly found that exposure to attractive opposite sex faces (as compared to unattractive faces) induced higher levels of future discounting in men, but not in women. Although future discounting is related to risk-taking, insofar as focusing primarily on the present can be associated with risky choices, the study by Wilson and Daly did not examine risk-taking per se. We therefore build on their work by examining the link between mating motives, exposure to attractive members of the opposite sex, and risk-taking behavior.

The current research tested the hypothesis that desire to procure a mate is associated with risky decision making, but only in men, and primarily when a man is exposed to cues indicating a desirable mating opportunity. Participants viewed a set of either attractive or unattractive opposite sex faces prior to performing a risk-taking task. After viewing these faces, participants provided a measure of mating motivation and then played a game of blackjack, which provided a behavioral measure of risk-taking. We predicted an interaction such that desire to procure a mate would be positively associated with risk-taking in men (but not in women), and only when men were primed with attractive female faces.

Moreover, to assess whether the hypothesized relationship between mating motivation and risk-taking is associated with enhanced processing of the attractive faces, participants also completed a recognition memory task for the faces. Because enhanced processing of the attractive faces was expected to increase risk-taking, we predicted that men who showed better memory for the attractive female faces would also take more risks.