Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T13:17:14.855Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attractiveness biases are the tip of the iceberg in biological markets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2017

Pat Barclay
Pat Barclay*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada. barclayp@uoguelph.ca http://www.patbarclay.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Physical attractiveness affects how one gets treated, but it is just a single component of one's overall “market value.” One's treatment depends on other markers of market value, including social status, competence, warmth, and any other cues of one's ability or willingness to confer benefits on partners. To completely understand biased treatment, we must also incorporate these other factors.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e21
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arnocky, S., Piché, T., Albert, G., Ouellette, D. & Barclay, P. (in press) Altruism predicts mating success in humans. British Journal of Psychology. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12208. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12208/full.Google Scholar
Barclay, P. (2004) Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the “tragedy of the commons.” Evolution & Human Behavior 25(4):209–20.Google Scholar
Barclay, P. (2006) Reputational benefits for altruistic punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior 27:325–44.Google Scholar
Barclay, P. (2010) Altruism as a courtship display: Some effects of third-party generosity on audience perceptions. British Journal of Psychology 101:123–35.Google Scholar
Barclay, P. (2013) Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans. Evolution & Human Behavior 34(3):164–75.Google Scholar
Barclay, P. (2015) Reputation. In: Handbook of evolutionary psychology, 2nd edition, ed. Buss, D., pp. 810–28. Wiley.Google Scholar
Barclay, P. (2016) Biological markets and the effects of partner choice on cooperation and friendship. Current Opinion in Psychology 7:33–38.Google Scholar
Barclay, P. & Reeve, H. K. (2012) The varying relationship between helping and individual quality. Behavioral Ecology 23(4):693–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barclay, P. & Willer, R. (2007) Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 274:749–53.Google Scholar
Cuesta, J. A., Gracia-Lázaro, C., Ferrer, C., Moreno, Y. & Sánchez, A. (2015) Reputation drives cooperative behaviour and network formation in human groups. Scientific Reports 5:7843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallo, E. & Yan, C. (2015) The effects of reputational and social knowledge on cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112:3647–52.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W. & Buss, D. M. (1993) Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology 14:89–96.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. & Gil-White, F. J. (2001) The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 22:165–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kafashan, S., Sparks, A., Griskevicius, V. & Barclay, P. (2014) Prosocial behaviour and social status. In: The psychology of social status, ed. Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L. & Anderson, C., pp. 139–58. Springer.Google Scholar
Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S. & Perrett, D. I. (2001) Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 268:39–44.Google Scholar
Lyon, B. E. & Montgomerie, R. (2012) Sexual selection is a form of social selection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 367:2266–73.Google Scholar
Marlowe, F. W. (2003) The mating system of foragers in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. Cross-Cultural Research 37:282–306.Google Scholar
McNamara, J. M., Barta, Z., Frohmage, L. & Houston, A. I. (2008) The coevolution of choosiness and cooperation. Nature 451:189–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melis, A. P., Hare, B. & Tomasello, M. (2006) Chimpanzees recruit the best collaborators. Science 311:1297–300.Google Scholar
Milinski, M., Semmann, D. & Krambeck, H.-J. (2002) Donors to charity gain in both indirect reciprocity and political reputation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 269:881–83.Google Scholar
Nelissen, R. M. A. & Meijers, M. H. C. (2011) Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status. Evolution and Human Behavior 32:343–55.Google Scholar
Noë, R. & Hammerstein, P. (1994) Biological markets: Supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology 35:1–11.Google Scholar
Noë, R. & Hammerstein, P. (1995) Biological markets. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10:336–39.Google Scholar
Vail, A. L., Manica, A. & Bshary, R. (2014) Fish choose appropriately when and with whom to collaborate. Current Biology 24:R791–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West-Eberhard, M. J. (1979) Sexual selection, social competition, and evolution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 123:222–34.Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. J. (1983) Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Quarterly Review of Biology 58:155–83.Google Scholar