Поиск по сайту




Пишите нам: info@ethology.ru

Follow etholog on Twitter

Система Orphus

Новости
Библиотека
Видео
Разное
Кросс-культурный метод
Старые форумы
Рекомендуем
Не в тему

список статей


Attitudes toward heroic and nonheroic physical risk takers as mates and as friends

G. William Farthing

1. Introduction

2. Study 1

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Participants

2.1.2. Materials and procedure

2.2. Results

2.2.1. Mates and same-sex friends

2.2.2. Self risk taking

2.3. Discussion

3. Study 2

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Participants

3.1.2. Materials and procedure

3.2. Results

4. General discussion

Acknowledgment

Appendix

1. Attitudes toward risk takers

1.1. Heroic risk items (Cronbach's α=.68, .79, .75)

1.2. Physical risk items (nonheroic) (.81, .81, .81)

1.3. Drug risk items (.77, .73, .72)

1.4. Financial risk items (.51, .54, .41)

References

Copyright

1. Introduction

Why do people take unnecessary physical risks? The first steps in answering this question should be to explain the two most dramatic facts about physical risk taking: (1) It is done more by males than by females; and (2) among males, it is done more by young adults (about 18 to 21 years old) than by any other age group (Arnett, 1995, Byrnes et al., 1999, Irwin, 1993, Nell, 2002). Wilson and Daly (1985) coined the phrase “young male syndrome” in reference to the high level of physical aggression and homicide in young males, and the phrase also applies aptly to their high levels of nonaggressive risk taking.

The fact that the peak age of males' physical risk taking corresponds to their peak reproductive years suggests that an evolutionary approach to this issue would be worthwhile. Is there an adaptive function of a tendency to take physical risks? Of course, physical risk taking for its own sake would be maladaptive. But under certain conditions, it may be adaptive to take risks as a means to important ends or goals, for example, hunting big game animals in the pursuit of food for oneself and one's family. While there are many cases where physical risk taking has obvious net benefits for one's own survival or inclusive fitness, we are particularly concerned here with cases where physical risk taking has no obvious, direct practical or adaptive function. Instances of such nonpractical or apparently maladaptive risk taking are abundant in the modern world, for example, in risky sports, high-speed driving, and avoidable aggression.

The costly signaling theory (CST; Bliege Bird et al., 2001, McAndrew, 2002, Smith & Bird, 2000) suggests that some cases of apparently frivolous risk taking by males may, in fact, serve the function of signaling the male's health and vigor to potential mates. Presumably, a male who has the skill, strength, and vigor to take unnecessary risks would also have the traits necessary for more practical risky activities involved in provisioning and protecting females and their offspring. In addition, such a male presumably has “good genes,” which would make him a desirable mating partner.

CST is similar to the showoff hypothesis, both of which are descendants of the handicap principle of Zahavi (1975). Hawkes (1991) suggested the showoff hypothesis to explain the persistence of hunting by human males, despite the fact that hunting often is not the most efficient way to obtain food. She argued that hunting promotes males' fitness by attracting the favorable attention of potential mates. CST adds that, in some cases, attending to the signal may benefit the audience merely by providing useful information about the signaler, even if that information does not lead to any immediate practical benefit. Furthermore, CST allows that the primary audience for males' costly signals may sometimes be other males, instead of females. For example, a male who shows strength and skill and courage at hunting or warfare may impress other males that he is a good person to have as a friend and coalition partner. The benefit to the signaler is increased status, which may have future benefits of directly or indirectly promoting his survival and inclusive fitness.

CST suggests that displays of physical skill may be effective signals, particularly when the display is honest, by being truly costly or truly physically risky. Furthermore, CST suggests that costly signals will be more effective the greater the real or potential practical benefits to the audience (Hawkes & Bliege Bird, 2002). Risk by the signaler and large potential benefits to the audience come together in cases of heroism, where people take physical risks to defend or save another person. Heroic risk takers should be attractive to both males and females as mates, but more so to females, insofar as females presumably are more likely than males to need a brave and physically adept mate to protect and defend themselves and their children.

Kelly and Dunbar (2001) suggested that women would be more attracted to men who show bravery by taking physical risks, compared with those who do not, and also that women would be more attracted to altruist males than to nonaltruists. Furthermore, heroes—men who are both brave and altruistic—were predicted to be more attractive than those who are only brave or only altruistic. Kelly and Dunbar tested their predictions by asking females to rate the attractiveness of males who were either brave, altruistic, both (heroes), or neither. They found that, as potential long-term mates, brave males were more attractive than nonbrave males were, and altruists were more attractive than nonaltruists were, although heroes were not significantly preferred over men who were only brave or only altruistic.

2. Study 1

We sought to further examine the question whether females prefer physical risk takers as mates over risk avoiders, and furthermore, whether they prefer heroic physical risk takers over males who take nonheroic physical risks. We also examined females' attitudes toward drug and financial risk takers. Besides females, we also asked males about their attitudes toward potential mates who took these types of risks, and we compared attitudes toward risk takers as mates with attitudes towards risk-takers as same-sex friends. We used a different procedure than Kelly and Dunbar (2001) did.

We described a number of different scenarios where persons had to decide whether to engage in risky activities. In each scenario, one person decided to take the risk, and another decided not to do so. Participants were asked to indicate the degree which the risk-taking person was more attractive, or less attractive, than the person who chose not to take the risk (risk avoider). Both male and female participants evaluated opposite-sex risk-takers as potential mates and same-sex risk takers as potential friends. In a third questionnaire, participants judged how likely it was that they themselves would choose to take the risks described in the various scenarios.

Based on the CST, it was predicted that (1) females will prefer mates who take heroic physical risks (henceforth heroic risks) over heroic risk avoiders; (2) females will prefer mates who take nonheroic physical risks (henceforth physical risks) over physical risk avoiders; and (3) the preference for heroic risk takers as mates will be greater than that for physical risk takers. In addition, it was predicted that (4) the preference for risk-taker mates will be higher for females than for males, for both heroic and physical risks. In addition, it was predicted that (5) preference for risk-taker same-sex friends will be greater for males than for females, for both heroic and physical risks. This prediction is derived from the CST, on the rationale that the benefit of recognizing and choosing brave same-sex friends would be greater for males than for females.

Furthermore, it was predicted that (6) reported self risk-taking likelihood will be greater for males than for females, for both heroic and physical risks. This prediction is based on previous studies comparing physical risk taking in males and females (e.g., Byrnes et al., 1999). And finally, it was predicted that (7) self risk-taking scores will be significantly positively correlated with rated preferences for risk-takers both as friends and as mates, for all types of risks. This prediction follows from social–psychological findings that people tend to prefer friends and mates who are similar to themselves in attitudes on topics that are important to them (Byrne et al., 1971).

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Participants

The participants were undergraduate students at the University of Maine. They received extra credit in their introductory psychology course for participating in the study. Data were not scored for participants who were over 30 years old or who were not American or Canadian in nationality. A few participants were eliminated for failure to follow instructions. Usable data were obtained for 48 males and for 52 females (mean age 19.8 years). Over 95% of the participants had never been married, and over 90% were Caucasian.

2.1.2. Materials and procedure

Some 21 different scenarios were constructed in which an actor had to decide whether to engage in a specific risky activity. Four items involved heroic risk taking (physically risky and altruistic), 10 items were physically risky but not heroic, 4 items involved risky drug or alcohol use, and 3 items involved financial risks (see Appendix).

On the questionnaire about potential mates, female participants were instructed, “You will be asked to compare two men, Person A and Person B, in terms of their relative desirability to you as a potential boyfriend or mate.” Each scenario described a risky-choice situation, where the risky option was described as “very risky.” For each scenario, it was indicated that Person A decided not to take the risk, whereas Person B decided to go ahead and take the risk. Then, the participant was asked “How desirable would Person B be to you as a potential boyfriend or mate, compared to Person A, other things being equal?” The participants were told to indicate their judgment by making a 0.5-in. (1 cm) vertical line at any point on a 5.5-in. (14 cm) linear scale. The scale was labeled “+100: B is much more desirable than A” at the right end; “−100: B is much less desirable than A” at the left end; and “0: B is equally as desirable as A” in the middle.

Note that the scenarios ended at the time of Person's decision whether to take the risk. It was not specified whether Person B subsequently succeeded in safely taking the risk and accomplishing his/her goal. (Also, regarding the phrase “a potential boyfriend or mate,” the intent was to imply a long-term mate or a boyfriend who would likely become a long-term mate. In subsequent informal assessments, almost all questionnaire readers have interpreted the phrase in this way.)

For the questionnaire about risk taking in same-sex friends, participants were asked “How desirable would Person B be to you as a potential friend, compared to Person A, other things being equal?” For the questionnaire about self risk taking, the Safe Option A and the Risky Option B were described, and participants were asked “How likely is it that you would choose the riskier option B? Out of 100 opportunities I would probably choose B ___ times.” They marked their responses on a linear scale marked 0 on the left end, 50 in the middle, and 100 on the right end. Although the mates and friends' scales had hash marks every 20 units, and the self-risk scale had hash marks every 10 units, the participants were told that they could place their marks anywhere on the scale. (In practice, most of the participants placed most of their marks either on the hash marks or about midway between hash marks.)

Two questionnaire sequences were used: approximately half of the participants answered the questionnaires in the sequence of friends, mates, and self, whereas the questionnaire sequence was reversed for the other participants. (A preliminary analysis showed no effects of questionnaire sequence, thus, sequence was ignored in further analyses.)

2.2. Results

2.2.1. Mates and same-sex friends

Table 1 shows the mean preference scores for risk takers (+ scores) versus risk avoiders (− scores), for mates and friends, for four different risk types (heroic, physical, drug, and financial), for male and female participants. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for the four risk scales are shown in Appendix. Reliability coefficients were satisfactory for the first three risk scales but not for the financial risk scale.

Table 1.

Mean scores (±S.D.) on four risk type scales for two relationship types (mates and friends) and for self risk taking, for male and female participants

Risk type Mates preference score Same-sex friends preference score Self risk-taking percent likelihood
Heroic
Male +38.7±30.6a, ** +62.6±26.0** 77.8±16.8
Female +51.4±32.4** +35.0±34.3** 57.6±24.0
M vs. Fb, * M vs. F** M vs. F**
Physical
Male −17.0±27.4** +12.4±26.7** 49.5±18.2
Female −16.4±29.7** −17.4±25.0** 31.7±16.2
M vs. F** M vs. F**
Drug
Male −67.7±34.1** −46.6±36.9** 17.2±20.7
Female −61.9±34.0** −51.9±32.9** 14.0±16.6
Financial
Male −4.1±31.8 +11.2±28.9* 67.4±24.4
Female −10.8±30.3* −4.2±22.4 48.3±28.5
M vs. F** M vs. F**

Preference scores could range from +100 (risk taker preferred) to −100 (risk avoider preferred).

Self risk-taking likelihood scores could range from 0% to 100%.

N=48 males and 52 females.

a

Single means vs. zero indifference score.

b

M vs. F: males vs. females within cells (F tests, df=1,98).

*

p<.05 (t tests, two tailed).

**

p<.01.

A GLM analysis (SPSS for Windows 11.0) was conducted: Participant Sex×Relationship Types (mate vs. friend)×4 Risk Types, with repeated measures on the latter two factors. As expected, the Sex×Relationship×Risk Type interaction was highly significant [F(3,96)=7.60, p<.001]. Also significant were main effects for sex (p<.05), relationship type (p<.001), and risk type (p<.001), and interactions of Sex×Relationship (p<.001) and Relationship×Risk Type (p<.01), but not Sex×Risk Type.

The significance of the sex difference within each of the eight cells (2 relationship types×4 risk types) is shown in Table 1. For mates, females preferred risk takers significantly more than males did for heroic risks (p<.05), but not for physical, drug, or financial risks. For same-sex friends, males preferred risk takers significantly more than females did for heroic, physical, and financial risks (all p<.01), but not for drug risks.

Also noteworthy is the finding that, in comparison with the zero indifference score, participants significantly preferred risk takers as mates (+ scores in Table 1) only in the case of heroic risks, whereas both males and females preferred risk avoiders (− scores) as mates for physical and drug risks. In judging same-sex friends, it is noteworthy that males, but not females, significantly preferred physical risk takers over risk avoiders. Both males and females preferred heroic risk takers, and both preferred drug risk avoiders, as friends. In addition, pursuing the main effect for risk type, scores on the heroic risk scale were significantly higher than scores on the physical, drug, and financial risk scales, for both mates and friends (all p<.001 by two-tailed t tests, males and females combined.)

2.2.2. Self risk taking

Table 1 shows the mean risk-taking likelihood scores for self risk taking, for four risk type scales, for males and females. A GLM analysis, Sex×4 Risk Types, with repeated measures on risk types, showed a significant Sex×Risk Type interaction [F(3,96)=5.67, p<.01]. Main effects for risk type and sex were also significant (both p<.001). Self risk-taking scores were significantly greater for males than for females for heroic, physical, and financial risks, but not for drug risks.

Pearson correlation coefficients were computed for self risk-taking likelihood scores versus mate risk-taker preference scores, and for self versus friend risk-taker scores, for four risk types, for males and females participants combined. All of the correlations were statistically significant at p<.01 or better. The correlations were, for mates and friends, respectively, .36 and .75 for heroic risks, .39 and .75 for physical risks, .64 and .78 for drug risks, and .36 and .31 for financial risks. Correlations were significantly higher for friends' risk scores than for mates' risk scores for both heroic and physical risks (both p<.01), but not for drug or financial risks. In addition, in all cases, correlations were higher for same-risk-scale comparisons (e.g., heroic self vs. heroic mate) than for any cross-scale comparisons (e.g., heroic self vs. physical mate).

2.3. Discussion

The validation of the physical risk scales used in these studies was provided by showing that, for both heroic and physical risks, males reported a greater likelihood than females did that they themselves would take the risks if given an opportunity to do so (self risk scales). This finding is consistent with prior studies showing greater physical risk taking by males than by females (Byrnes et al., 1999).

As predicted, there were significant positive correlations between self risk-taking scores and both mates and same-sex friends risk-taker preference scores, for all four risk scales. This is consistent with the common finding that males and females are attracted to people who share their attitudes, as both mates and friends. However, it is noteworthy that the correlations were higher for friends than for mates for both heroic and physical risk taking. This finding is understandable, insofar as there are probably more, and more important, person variables—besides risk-taking tendencies—for choosing mates than there are for choosing same-sex friends.

Both males and females significantly disapproved of drug risk takers as both mates and as friends. This finding gives no comfort to a speculative extension of the handicap hypothesis that using nonmedicinal, mind-altering drugs and alcohol by males may be a kind of showing off, as if to say “Look at me, I am so strong and fit that I can take this drug without doing any harm to myself.”

A surprising finding of Study 1 is that while, as predicted, the preference for heroic risk takers as mates was greater for females than for males, there was no difference between females and males in their preference for physical risk takers as mates. In fact, both females and males preferred physical risk avoiders as mates. On the other hand, for same-sex friends, the preference for risk takers was significantly higher for males than for females, for both heroic and physical risks, as predicted. These results suggest that, insofar as physical risk taking is influenced by the attitudes of one's peers, males' heroic risk taking may be influenced by the attitudes of both females and other males. But for nonheroic physical risks, it appears that males' risk taking is more likely to be influenced by the attitudes of other males than by the attitudes of females. In other words, if physical risk taking by males is a costly signal of their valuable traits, the signal is directed primarily to other males as potential friends or coalition partners rather than to females as potential mates.

3. Study 2

The possibility remains that physical risk taking by males is influenced by what they think women want, even if their perceptions are inaccurate. This possibility was tested in Study 2, where we again asked both males and females to indicate their preferences for risk takers versus risk avoiders as potential mates. In addition, we asked them to predict the relative desirability of risk takers versus risk avoiders as mates for typical members of the opposite sex. Thus, we could compare the accuracy of the cross-sex predictions against the actual judgments of males and females about the desirability of risk takers as mates.

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Participants

The participants were different persons but from the same population as in Study 1. Usable data were obtained from 56 males and 61 females.

3.1.2. Materials and procedure

The questionnaire on preferences for risk takers as mates was the same as in Study 1. The questionnaire on opposite-sex mate preference predictions used the same scenarios, but modified the wording appropriately. For example, for male participants, the persons in the scenarios were described as males, and participants were asked, “How desirable would Person B be to a typical female of your age as a potential boyfriend or mate, compared to Person A, other things being equal?” Judgments were recorded on the same linear scale as in Study 1. The sequence of the two questionnaires was counterbalanced as in Study 1.

3.2. Results

A GLM analysis was conducted, with Participant Sex×Target Type (own mate vs. predicted opposite-sex mate preference)×4 Risk Types, with repeated measures on the latter two factors. The Sex×Target Type×Risk Type interaction was highly significant [F(3,113)=38.4, p<.001]. In addition, main effects were significant for target (p<.001) and risk types (p<.001), but not for sex. Interactions were significant for Sex×Target Type (p<.001) and Target Type×Risk Type (p<.001), but not for Sex×Risk Type.

The mean risk-taker preference scores are shown in Table 2. For the questionnaire on own mate preferences, the pattern of results was very similar to that of Study 1 (Table 1). Both males and females significantly preferred risk takers for heroic risks, but both preferred risk avoiders for physical and drug risks. For mates, females preferred heroic risk takers more than males did (p<.01).

Table 2.

Study 2: Mean preference scores of males and females for own mate versus predicted opposite-sex mate preference, for four risk types, for male and female participants

Risk type Own mate preference Predicted opposite-sex mate preference
Heroic
Male +28.2±35.6a, ** +61.5±26.4**
Female +56.3±28.5** +27.0±34.2**
M vs. Fb, ** M vs. F**
Physical
Male −17.1±38.6** +6.8±31.6
Female −14.5±29.8** −8.3±26.5*
M vs. F**
Cross M p. Fc, **
Drug
Male −53.2±42.6** −36.8±33.6**
Female −57.0±37.5** −32.0±41.8**
Cross M p. F**
Cross F p. M**
Financial
Male +3.9±32.4 +6.9±26.3
Female −1.1±26.6 +6.3±28.6

Scores could range from +100 (risk taker preferred) to −100 (risk avoider preferred).

N=56 males and 61 females.

a

Single means vs. zero indifference score.

b

M vs. F: males vs. females within cells (F tests, df=1,115).

c

Cross M p. F: cross-sex predictions: male predicted female preference vs. female own mate preference; F p. M: female predicted male preference vs. male own mate preference (F tests, df=1,115).

*

p<.05 (t tests, two tailed).

**

p<.01.

The critical point of interest in this study was the cross-sex mate preference predictions. For heroic risks, males and females both accurately predicted opposite-sex mate preferences, insofar as the predicted mate-preference scores did not differ reliably from the own-mate preference scores expressed by the opposite sex. That is, for example, males predicted a female mate heroic risk-taker score of +61.5, which did not differ reliably from females' own-mate preference score of +56.3. However, for physical risks, males reliably overestimated females' preference for risk-taker mates (+6.8 vs. −14.4, respectively, p<.01). Or to be more precise, males failed to predict females' preferences for physical risk avoiders, inasmuch as the female mean score differed significantly from the zero indifference level, whereas the male score did not. For drug risks, both males and females significantly underestimated opposite-sex preferences for risk avoiders as mates.

4. General discussion

To better understand why young adult males take more physical risks than females do, we tested several predictions derived from the CST. In Study 1, it was found, as predicted, that for heroic risks, females preferred risk takers over risk avoiders as mates (Table 1). Furthermore, as predicted, female's preference for heroic risk takers was greater than their preference for takers of nonheroic physical risks (such as risky-sports participants). However, contrary to predictions, for nonheroic physical risks, females preferred risk avoiders over risk takers. These results suggest that physical risk taking per se is not sufficient as a costly signal to make males more attractive to females as mates. Risk taking without some practical purpose may be seen, in fact, as an undesirable trait for a mate because it undoubtedly increases the likelihood that he will be seriously injured or killed and thus unable to continue providing for and protecting the woman and her children. On the other hand, heroism—brave physical risk taking that is a benefit to other people, such as saving their lives—is clearly an attractive feature for a potential mate. A male who takes such altruistic risks for the sake of other people or their children would undoubtedly do the same thing for his mate and her children. Thus, heroic risk taking is an effective costly signal that makes men more attractive to women as potential mates.

Interestingly, like females, males also preferred heroic risk takers over heroic-risk avoiders as mates, although, as predicted, the preference for heroic mates was greater for females than for males. (These results were replicated in Study 2.) These results make sense, insofar as both males and females can potentially benefit from a heroic—brave and altruistic—mate, but the benefit is likely greater for females because her mate could defend both her and her children.

In judging same-sex friends for physical risks, males preferred risk takers over risk avoiders, whereas females preferred risk avoiders over risk takers. This result differs from the judgments of mates, where both males and females preferred physical risk avoiders. These results suggest that, if nonheroic physical risk taking by males functions as a costly signal of their abilities, the signal is likely directed more to their fellow males than to female potential mates.

This conclusion is consistent with the arguments of Daly and Wilson (2001) about reasons for greater risk taking in young men than in women: “Risk taking can yield prestige as well as material gains, especially where accepting or advocating risk is likely to be interpreted as indicative of confidence and, by implication, competence” (p. 9). In ancestral times, status established by displays of bravery and physical prowess would make a male more attractive to other males as a partner in hunting and defense of families and territory. In addition, particularly when these features are established by displays of aggression, they would tend to intimidate other males against attempts to physically attack, steal from, or cuckold the high-status male (Buss, 2004). Thus, men's physical risk taking as a costly signal directed toward other men would have benefits different from any benefits of such signals directed toward women.

In Study 1, it was surprising to find that, contrary to predictions derived from CST, females preferred nonheroic physical risk avoiders as mates over risk takers. However, the possibility remains that male physical risk taking is influenced by male beliefs that females prefer men who are physical risk takers. This possibility was tested in Study 2, where it was found that males significantly overestimated the degree to which females prefer physical risk takers as mates.

The implication of males believing that females prefer physical risk-taker mates is different from females actually preferring such mates. If women preferred takers of nonheroic, nonpractical physical risks as mates, it would support the argument that there was intersexual selection for psychological mechanisms that promote such risk taking in males. But the results of the present study do not support such a conclusion, inasmuch as females did not actually prefer such risk takers as mates.

The finding that both males and females prefer mates who avoid nonheroic physical risks may be understood in terms of error management theory (Haselton & Buss, 2000), which says that, when in doubt, people will be biased to make judgments that minimize errors that would lead to serious negative consequences. Because the risk-taking scenarios did not specify the outcomes of a person's risky choices—whether he or she accomplished the goal and did it without serious injury or death—it would be more prudent for participants to prefer risk avoiders as mates, to ensure that their mate survives.

In conclusion, the present research suggests that heroic physical risk taking by males could be a form of costly signaling directed toward both male and female peers. Nonheroic, nonpractical physical risk taking, on the other hand, could be a form of costly signaling directed toward other males, but probably not toward female potential mates. Insofar as risk taking by males is a form of showing off for females, such showing off is likely based on acquired beliefs about female preferences rather than costly signaling.

In future research, it would be worthwhile to determine whether there are conditions under which women prefer takers of nonheroic, nonpractical physical risks as mates over risk avoiders. For example, are risk takers preferred when the risks are relatively small, although not when they are large? Does it make a difference whether risk taking involves some clearly identified desirable personal feature, such as strength or skill? Does it make a difference whether it is specified that the risk taking was successful, that is, whether it accomplished the goal and/or whether it was done without disastrous consequences?

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Peter LaFreniere and Frank McAndrew for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript, and Kristen Hawkes for relevant correspondence.

Appendix

1. Attitudes toward risk takers

Scenarios from the questionnaire for females judging males as potential mates are shown. The item numbers indicate the item's position on the questionnaire; the same item sequence was used in all questionnaires. For all items, Person A decided not to take the risk, while Person B decided to take the risk. The question and the response scale were the same for all items (see Methods 2.1.2.). For questionnaires with female targets, “He/his” was changed to “she/her.” Other changes for female targets are noted below. The brief item names shown here did not appear on the original questionnaire. Numbers in parentheses are the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for the different scales, for the mates, friends, and self risk questionnaires, respectively.

1.1. Heroic risk items (Cronbach's α=.68, .79, .75)


5.Kitten in tree. While walking in his neighborhood, Person encounters a child who is crying because her kitten has climbed up a tree and can't climb down. The kitten is near the top of a very tall tree that looks very hard for a person to climb. Person is tempted to try to climb the tree to rescue the kitten, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

(A)Person A decides not to try to climb the tree to rescue the kitten.

(B)Person B decides to go ahead and try to climb the tree to rescue the kitten.


8.Bully. Person is walking through a park when he sees a big teenage boy hit a younger, smaller boy in the stomach and knock him to the ground. The smaller boy is crying. Person is tempted to intervene and try to defend the smaller boy from the bully, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so. (Bully changed to “big teenage girl” for female targets.)

14.River. Person is at a picnic beside a raging river that has fast current and big waves. Person sees a child being swept down the river, gasping for breath. A woman cries “Help! Save my child!” Person is tempted to jump into the raging river to try to save the child, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

19.Fire. Person is a member of a volunteer fire department in a small town. On an emergency call, he arrives at a large house that is engulfed in flames. A woman cries “My baby is in the upstairs corner bedroom! Please save my baby!” Person is tempted to enter the burning house to try to save the baby, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

1.2. Physical risk items (nonheroic) (.81, .81, .81)


1.Speeding. Person is driving on a long, straight stretch of interstate highway, where the speed limit is 65 miles per hour. He is tempted to drive over 85 miles per hour, although he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

2.Skiing. Person is an intermediate-level skier. At the top of the ski mountain he sees the entrance to a steep and narrow trail marked “Bone Cruncher Trail: Experts Only.” Person is tempted to try to ski down Bone Cruncher trail, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

4.Rude stranger. Person is leaving a theater when he is verbally assaulted by a stranger who insults him by calling him names like “dumb shit” and “asshole.” The stranger is a man about the same size as Person. Person is tempted to respond to the rude stranger by calling him nasty names, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so. (Stranger changed to woman for female targets.)

7.Travel alone. Person wants to travel to a remote tropical jungle area in Central America to photograph rare birds. He has heard that there has been recently been some trouble with bandits in that area. He is tempted to go ahead and travel to the remote jungle area, although he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

10.Dark alley. Person had to work late at his office. At 11 p.m., he leaves the office to walk to his car. There are two possible walking routes to his car. The first route is three blocks through a well-lit downtown area. The second route is only one block long, but it is through a dark alley. Person is tempted to take the shorter route through the dark alley, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

11.Driving in snowstorm. Person wants to visit a friend in another town that is 100 miles away. However, a powerful snowstorm is raging at the time he wants to leave. The weatherman says that six inches of snow has already fallen, and another foot of snow is predicted. The state police advise people to stay off of the roads while the snowstorm is going on. Person is tempted to go ahead and try to drive through the snowstorm to his friend's house, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

12.Kayaking. Person is an intermediate-level kayaker, paddling down a whitewater river. He arrives at Big Rapids, which has big waves and big boulders to dodge. Person can see that Big Rapids is more difficult than any rapid he has paddled before. Person is tempted to try to paddle through Big Rapid, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

15.Hiking alone. Person wants to hike a section of the Appalachian Trail this weekend. The hike involves going through woods and over mountains for a distance of 25 miles. He will have to camp one night at the half-way point. None of Person's friends are available to do the hike with him this weekend. Person is tempted to do the hike alone, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

18.Mugger. Person is walking alone at night on a city sidewalk when a man about his size grabs his arm and shoves him against a wall and says “Give me your wallet or I'll beat the crap out of you.” Person is tempted to try to resist the mugger by screaming and fighting if necessary, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so. (Changed to woman mugger for female targets.)

21.Climbing. While hiking up a mountain, Person comes to a place where he can take a shortcut to the top by climbing up a steep, 50-foot cliff where he will have to use his hands as well as his feet to climb. Person is tempted to try to climb up the cliff, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

1.3. Drug risk items (.77, .73, .72)


3.Alcohol. Person is at a party when a stranger challenges him to a drinking contest. The stranger, a man about the same size as Person, says “I'll bet you $20 that I can drink more shots of whiskey before passing out than you can. Let's line up the shot glasses. We'll start out standing up. We'll drink the shots together, one at a time. The loser is the first one to sit down or fall to the floor.” Person is tempted to participate in the drinking contest, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so. (Stranger changed to woman for female targets.)

13.Drug. While Person is attending a party at a friend's house, the friend offers him a new recreational drug called Exim. The friend says that Exim will produce a powerful “rush,” followed by a long-lasting, pleasant, mellow feeling. The friend claims that Exim is not habit forming or addictive. Person is tempted to try the new drug Exim, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

16.Mushrooms. While traveling in Mexico, Person meets an old native man who offers him an opportunity to try “magic” mushrooms. The native tells Person that the mushrooms will produce powerful hallucinations and possibly spiritual experiences for several hours. The man also tells Person that he may become sick for about an hour after ingesting the mushrooms, but the mushrooms will do no permanent harm. Person is tempted to try the hallucinogenic mushrooms, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so. (Changed to “old native woman” for female targets.)

17.Drunk driving. Person is at a late-night party where he has drunk several beers. He feels intoxicated. He is tempted to drive home by himself, although he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

1.4. Financial risk items (.51, .54, .41)


6.Gambling. Person has saved an extra $500 beyond what he needs for necessary expenses. While passing through Las Vegas, he stops at a casino to watch the gambling action. Person is tempted join a high-stakes poker game, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

9.Stocks. Person has saved an extra $500 beyond what he needs for necessary expenses. He is tempted to invest his money in the stock market, although he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

20.Job. Person has a secure job at a modest but adequate salary. While traveling on business he is offered a job at a new company in another city. His salary at the new job would be one third more than he is earning now, but there is a risk that the new company will fail and go out of business, leaving Person at least temporarily unemployed. Person is tempted to take the new job with the new company, but he thinks it would be very risky to do so.

References

Arnett, 1995 1.Arnett J. The young and the reckless: adolescent reckless behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 1995;4:67–71.

Bliege Bird et al., 2001 2.Bliege Bird R, Smith EA, Bird DW. The hunting handicap: costly signaling in human foraging strategies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 2001;50:9–19.

Buss, 2004 3.Buss DM. Evolutionary psychology: the new science of the mind. 2nd ed.. Boston: Pearson; 2004;.

Byrne et al., 1971 4.Byrne D, Gouaux C, Griffitt W, Lamberth J, Murakawa N, Prasad MB, et al. The ubiquitous relationship: attitude similarity and attraction: a cross-cultural study. Human Relations. 1971;24:201–207.

Byrnes et al., 1999 5.Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD. Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 1999;125:367–383. CrossRef

Daly & Wilson, 2001 6.Daly M, Wilson M. Risk-taking, intrasexual competition, and homicide. In:  French JA,  Kamil AC,  French JA,  Kamil AC,  Leger DW editor. Evolutionary psychology and motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press; 2001;p. 1–36.

Haselton & Buss, 2000 7.Haselton MG, Buss DM. Error management theory: a new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000;78:81–91. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Hawkes, 1991 8.Hawkes K. Showing off: tests of an hypothesis about men's foraging goals. Ethology and Sociobiology. 1991;12:29–54.

Hawkes & Bliege Bird, 2002 9.Hawkes K, Bliege Bird R. Showing off, handicap signaling, and the evolution of men's work. Evolutionary Anthropology. 2002;11:58–67.

Irwin, 1993 10.Irwin CE. Adolescence and risk taking: how are they related?. In:  Bell NJ,  Bell RW editor. Adolescent risk taking. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Press; 1993;p. 7–28.

Kelly & Dunbar, 2001 11.Kelly S, Dunbar RIM. Who dares, wins: heroism vs. altruism in women's mate choice. Human Nature. 2001;12:89–105.

McAndrew, 2002 12.McAndrew FT. New evolutionary perspectives on altruism: multilevel-selection and costly-signaling theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2002;11:79–82.

Nell, 2002 13.Nell V. Why young men drive dangerously: implications for injury prevention. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2002;11:75–79.

Smith & Bird, 2000 14.Smith EA, Bird RLB. Turtle hunting and tombstone opening: public generosity as costly signaling. Evolution and Human Behavior. 2000;21:245–261.

Wilson & Daly, 1985 15.Wilson M, Daly M. Competitiveness, risk-taking, and violence: the young male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology. 1985;6:59–73.

Zahavi, 1975 16.Zahavi A. Mate selection: a selection for handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 1975;53:205–214. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Department of Psychology, Room 301, Little Hall, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, United States

Tel.: +1 207 581 2053.

PII: S1090-5138(04)00058-3

doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.004



2007:11:26