advertisement
Home » News » Little Chance for Romance May Impact Risky Decisions
Little Chance for Romance May Impact Risky Decisions

Little Chance for Romance May Impact Risky Decisions

New research finds that when a person believes the odds are slim for romance, his or her decision-making will tend to be risky.

Investigators theorize that unfavorable sex ratios lead to riskier choices as the approach is perceived to be an appropriate strategy so as to stand out in the crowd among competitors — be it in romance or in other aspects of life.

The insights stem from a series of studies published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

“Environmental cues indicating that one will have a relatively difficult time finding a mate can drive people to concentrate their investment choices into a few high-risk, high-return options,” said psychological scientist Dr. Joshua Ackerman of the University of Michigan, lead author on the research.

“This is true even when the decisions people are making are not explicitly relevant to romantic outcomes.”

“This is exactly opposite from the pattern of investing we would predict if we assumed people were using an economically ‘rational’ decision strategy,” Ackerman explains.

“From an evolutionary perspective, if the options are to do whatever it takes to find a romantic partner or risk not finding one, the more rational choice may be to do whatever it takes.”

Diversification is often used as strategy to mitigate risk when facing uncertain outcomes — if one investment or option falls through, they still have other investments or options to fall back on. Ackerman and colleagues speculated that diversification may not be the optimal strategy if romantic success depends on passing above a certain threshold when it comes to resources, status, or attractiveness.

On the other hand, choosing high-risk, high-reward strategies, even in domains unrelated to romance, could help an individual surpass the threshold and stand out from his or her competitors.

To test their hypothesis, the researchers designed a series of studies in which they manipulated the perceived odds of romantic success by presenting participants with information about the ratio of women to men in their area.

An unfavorable sex ratio — a majority of men if you’re a heterosexual man, for example — indicates that it will be harder for most people to find and attract a potential partner.

In one study, 93 heterosexual participants looked at three photos displays containing images of men and women aged 18 to 35 who supposedly lived in the local community. Participants, who thought they were participating in a memory study, looked at the photos and were then asked to recall how many men and women appeared in each display. In this way, the researchers were able to ensure that participants were aware of the sex ratio depicted in the displays.

Then, as part of an ostensibly unrelated task, participants were asked to imagine they were buying scratch-off lottery tickets and were told to choose which option they would purchase: one $10 ticket for a $10,000 prize or ten one dollar tickets for $1000 each.

Participants who saw an unfavorable sex ratio were more likely to concentrate their resources, choosing the riskier $10 ticket option, than those who saw a favorable sex ratio. In other words, they were more likely to put their proverbial eggs in one basket.

In a second online study, 105 participants read a newspaper article discussing demographic trends in the U.S. They then evaluated stock packages with equivalent values (e.g., 100 shares in eight companies, 200 shares in four companies, etc.) and chose which package they would invest in.

Again, the data showed that both male and female participants who read about unfavorable sex ratios opted for riskier investments, choosing more shares in fewer companies, than those who read about favorable ratios.

A similar pattern emerged when the researchers had participants engage in other types of investing decision making, including allocating funds in a hypothetical retirement account and distributing resources among companies for vaccine research and development. Importantly, the effect did not depend on participants’ own investing experience and relationship status.

The fact that sex ratio had an impact on decisions that were not directly linked with mating success suggests that sexual competition elicits a general mindset geared toward achieving the largest possible reward, regardless of the risk involved.

As such, the researchers argue, these findings could have implications for decision making in domains as diverse as retirement planning, gambling, and even making consumer purchases.

“This research has the potential to affect anyone making decisions with uncertain outcomes, including both single and romantically committed men and women,” says Ackerman

Source: Association for Psychological Science
 
Man without a date photo by shutterstock.

Little Chance for Romance May Impact Risky Decisions

Rick Nauert PhD

Rick Nauert, PhDDr. Rick Nauert has over 25 years experience in clinical, administrative and academic healthcare. He is currently an associate professor for Rocky Mountain University of Health Professionals doctoral program in health promotion and wellness. Dr. Nauert began his career as a clinical physical therapist and served as a regional manager for a publicly traded multidisciplinary rehabilitation agency for 12 years. He has masters degrees in health-fitness management and healthcare administration and a doctoral degree from The University of Texas at Austin focused on health care informatics, health administration, health education and health policy. His research efforts included the area of telehealth with a specialty in disease management.

APA Reference
Nauert PhD, R. (2016). Little Chance for Romance May Impact Risky Decisions. Psych Central. Retrieved on December 17, 2018, from https://psychcentral.com/news/2016/04/19/less-chance-for-romance-more-risk-taking/101992.html

 

Scientifically Reviewed
Last updated: 19 Apr 2016
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 19 Apr 2016
Published on PsychCentral.com. All rights reserved.