Sex differences in the attractiveness of hunter‐gatherer and modern risks

1. Sex differences in the attractiveness of hunter‐gatherer and modern risks Petraitis, Boeckmann, Lampman, Falconer (2014)

2. Risk Taking ‘the practice of taking action which might have undesirable consequences’ (Collins English Dictionary, 2014) Within the current study risk taking is divided into two different categories Hunter gatherer risk taking: Risks related to the ancestral environment e.g. death, Disease and/or injury Modern Risk taking: Risks related to the modern environment e.g. focused on behaviors and situations that simply were not present among ancestral humans and are not present in Hunter Gatherer societies today

3. The article builds on the results of three studies • Bassett and Moss (2004) which looked at risks in general and attractiveness • Kelley and Dunbar (2001) who looked at physical heroic and non heroic risks and no risks for short term partners • Farthing (2005) Who looked at physically heroic and non heroic risk in relation to attractiveness • All studies used college students in order to assess the effect of risks when assessing attractiveness of a potential partner

4. The current study builds on previous research through the use of two distinct hypotheses • 1. When rating attractiveness of a long and diverse list of risky behaviors, responses would naturally converge or align around two distinct factors: one composed of Hunter gatherer risks and one composed of modern risks • 2. Hunter gatherer risks might be rated as somewhat attractive when performed by females today, hunter gatherer risks will be especially attractive when performed by males. In contrast modern risks will be rated as unattractive when performed by either males or females.

5. Method - Participants • Undergraduate students • N = 233 • Greater number of Females to Males • Average age 22.1 • Most participants between 18 and 23 (75.3%) • 43.3% in a committed relationship • 14% married

6. Participants - Critique • Not a representative sample • Students • Ages Jianakoplos & Bernasek (2006)- older people tend to make less financial risks than younger people. • Location Weber and Hsee(1998) – cross cultural differences in risk perception Sivak, Soler and Tränkle(1989) – Cross cultural differences were found when undertaking a driving task that involved risk taking

7. 1. Method – 3 part questionnaire • Perceived attractiveness of male behavior to female dating partners • Perceived attractiveness of female behavior to male dating partners • Demographics • Counterbalanced

8. 2. Method- Semantic differential scales • Measures a variety of attitudes to a particular concept or issue. • Provides an average response for an issue/concept • Identifies extremely favorable or objective aspects of issues or concept • Attractiveness (Tovee, Edmonds and Vuong, 2012) • Only useful for questions with responses involving major opposites • (http://personal.stevens.edu/~ysakamot/719/week4/scaletype.pdf)

9. 3. Method- Perceived preference • Participants were asked: • ‘ to indicate which behaviors they believed a typical female of their age would find attractive among male dating partners’ • And: • ‘ to indicate which behaviors they believed a typical male of their age would find attractive among female dating partners’ • Enabled more data to be collected reliably (Farthing, 2005)

10. Results Hypothesis One: When rating attractiveness of a long and diverse list of risky behaviors, responses would naturally converge or align around two distinct factors: one composed of Hunter gatherer risks and one composed of modern risks • Two factors had loading greater than 0.45 simultaneously for males and females • Factor 1 – 20 pairs: 19 pairs link to the kinds of Hunter Gatherer situations where death, disease, and/or injury could be found • Factor 2 – 10 pairs: focused on uniquely modern risks with academics, caustic chemicals, e-mail, power tools, cars, motorcycles, modern medicine, and digital technology.  

11. … Hypothesis Two: Hunter gatherer risks will be especially attractive when performed by males. In contrast modern risks will be rated as unattractive when performed by either males or females. • Subsequent scales were based on only the pairs seen to have high loading for factor 1 and factor 2. • 2 (HG vs. modern) × 2 (male vs. female) ANOVA • There was a significant main effect of type of risk p < .001 • Significant main effect of sex of dating partner, p < .001

12. … • An Interaction was also significant p < .001 • HG risks were rated as more attractive - males p < .001, or performed by females p < .001 • Hunter Gatherer risks were significantly more attractive when performed by males than when performed by females, p<.001. • Modern risks were equally unattractive when performed by males as when performed by femalesp = 0.79.

14. Results - Critique • Cronbachs α : Hunter Gatherer male attractiveness scale α = .89, Hunter Gatherer female attractiveness scale α = .91, modern male attractiveness scale α = .80, and modern female attractiveness scale α=.81. • Conducted two 3-way ANOVA’s

15. Conclusion • The results suggest that some risky behaviors are more attractive in males than females this may be because males and females differ from evolution • Taylor et al (2000)- females tend and befriend, male fight or flight. • Kelly and Dunbar (2001)- physical risks make males more attractive. Farthing (2005) : Women prefer risk takers rather than risk avoiders in long term mates

16. … • Both sexes rated Hunter-gatherer risks as more attractive than modern risks • Hunter gatherer risks advertise fitness to potential mates and rivals • Modern risks have the opposite effect, advertising a weakness in character judgment and have more potential for negative consequences

17. Conclusion - Critique • HG risks could have been rated more attractive because they are deemed positive by our culture, and modern risks negative • For example, in the media • However, culture exaggerates what evolution creates • Ronay and Hippel (2010): males made more risks when observed by attractive females

18. … • Some research has shown that some risks in Hunter Gatherers actually decreased survival. Hunter Gatherers were risk averse depending on seasons. • (Kramer, 2014) • This has also been related to the “Sell in May, then go away” effect on stock markets. Therefore may be linked to a modern risk that wasn’t considered, financial risks.

19. Further research Current study highlighted several criticisms • Dating partners, but not long-term partners. Stewart, Stinnett and Rosenfeld (2000). Individuals look for different characteristics when considering a long term partner However Farthing (2005) - Women prefer risk takers rather than risk avoiders in long term mates • Original list of 101 pairs of risks might have gaps. • Age Gil-Burmann,Peláez andSánchez(2002) – age can play a part in the traits rated as attractive Jianakoplosand Bernasek(2006)

20. Continued .. • Personality traits Gullone and Moore (2000) - found personality factor of risk to be significant however different personality factors related to different risk taking behaviour Nicholson, Soane, Fenton‐O'Creevy, and Willman.(2005) - A clear Big Five pattern emerges for overall risk taking • Sample population • Tested on population with typical roles in society • There are many societies such as Chambri community of Papua New Guinea where gender roles are reversed

21. Any questions ?

22. References • Bassett, J. F., & Moss, B. (2004). Men and women prefer risk takers as romantic and nonromantic partners. Current Research in Social Psychology, 9(10), 135-144. • Farthing, G. W. (2005). Attitudes toward heroic and nonheroic physical risk takers as mates and as friends. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 171-185. • Gil-Burmann, C., Peláez, F., & Sánchez, S. (2002). Mate choice differences according to sex and age. Human Nature, 13(4), 493-508. • Gullone, E., & Moore, S. (2000). Adolescent risk-taking and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of adolescence, 23(4), 393-407. • Jianakoplos, N. A., & Bernasek, A. (2006). Financial risk taking by age and birth cohort. Southern Economic Journal, 981-1001. • Kelly, S., & Dunbar, R. I. (2001). Who dares, wins. Human Nature, 12(2), 89-105. • Kramer, L. 2015, Aug 18. Does the caveman tell you how to invest. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/markets-in-mind/201408/does-the-caveman-within-tell-you-how-invest • Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton‐O'Creevy, M., & Willman, P. (2005). Personality and domain‐specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 157-176. • Petraitis, J. M., Lampman, C. B., Boeckmann, R. J., & Falconer, E. M. (2014). Sex differences in the attractiveness of hunter‐gatherer and modern risks. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

23. … • Risk-Taking (n.d.) retrieved from http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/risk-taking on 21st October 2014 • Ronay R., von Hippel W. (2010), The Presence of an Attractive Woman ELevates Testosterone and Physical Risk Taking in YOung Men, Social Psychological and Personality Science vol 1 57-64 • Sivak, M., Soler, J., & Tränkle, U. (1989). Cross-cultural differences in driver risk-taking. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 21(4), 363-369. • Stewart, S., Stinnett, H., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (2000). Sex differences in desired characteristics of short-term and long-term relationship partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(6), 843-853. • Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological review, 107(3), 411. • Tovée, M. J., Edmonds, L., & Vuong, Q. C. (2012). Categorical perception of human female physical attractiveness and health. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(2), 85-93. • Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Science, 44(9), 1205-1217.