A new study by MIT researches, published in the January issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, is part of a growing body of research that examines evolutionary factors that contribute to everyday consumer decisions. This study was kicked off by the observation that ” in cities that had more unmarried men than women, there tended to be greater average personal debt and more credit cards per person.”
“The males who had read the article “Fewer Women for Every Man for Today’s Students’’ said they would borrow 84 percent more money each month. They also opted to save 42 percent less per month. Sex ratio did not affect women’s financial behavior in the experiment.
In another experiment, the researchers tested how much people expected men to spend on “mating-related products.’’ They found that in the male-dominated experimental condition, people of both sexes expected men to pay more to woo women. Men were expected to spend $6.01 more on a Valentine’s Day present, $1.51 more for a dinner entrée, and $368 more on an engagement ring.”
Which led them to conclude:
“Different numbers of men and women trigger a competitive motive, a desire to compete,’’ said Joshua Ackerman, an assistant professor of marketing at the MIT Sloan School of Management and a coauthor of the paper. “The core underlying theme, the evolutionary piece to this, is having different numbers of men and women signals different opportunities for romantic partners.” Although, he added, “It’s not that people are consciously thinking this stuff.’’
What do you think guys, are we really that programmed to spend more money to win love from the opposite sex? I wonder.
Image Tom Matlack (looking in mirror…okay at the zoo)
I wonder how much of it is done because popular stereotypes want men to appear more wealthy, so the flashy car, and other toys is meant to give off that impression? I wonder if many women actually care about that stuff too…But I guess when you are single, alone, you might want more toys to have fun with and a nice car is very high on the list of loved objects by men. Some spend thousands of dollars and hours to make their car perfect, it’s very interesting to see.
‘are we really that programmed to spend more money to win love from the opposite sex?”
Many people – in this case men – recognize that to achieve a future finite goal – that is a limited resource – they need to do the things better than others who they are competing with. I think men are more programmed to do what is necessary win the hunt and capture the wild beast. BTW, it isn’t about winning ‘love’ if women are selling their attention for money. It’s called buying the whore.
We are programmed to compete as all primates are and since women have an overall biologically derived tendency to choose mates who share resources and are of high status men calibrate accordingly. In college I didn’t need to date. I just went to campus parties and bingo. In big cities.. it’s meeting for drinks. Smaller towns is slightly more involved.
@Tom: “are we really that programmed to spend more money to win love from the opposite sex?” I think the question is moot. OF COURSE we are. It’s evolutionary, it’s written in our very biology. But focusing on money is midleading: we are programmed to win love (and spread our genes) no matter what; money is just a mean to an end. When there was no money, the attitude was the same, just the means changed: we fought, we asserted dominance over other males, maybe we killed them. Ugly times. 😉 Waving a credit card instead of a bludgeon, I… Read more »
Women don’t want any parts of gender egalitarianism in the dating scene if it means that they have to do the walk back of shame after being shot down. Women place themselves as prizes to be sought after, Men pay that price. If you want to deal with women on that level you have to play by those rules.
“What do you think guys, are we really that programmed to spend more money to win love from the opposite sex? I wonder.”
Not here! It’s one of those GAY Privilege things – here it’s me looking for a Sugar Daddy with a Platinum and Diamond Coated Amex – a dickey heart – a private Caribbean island and Private Jet!
If you know anyone just email me with his bank balance – photo optional!
Evolutionary imperatives get kind of screwed up when the imperative is not babies! P^)
Not to mention that inheritance rights for gay couples in the carribean probably isn’t all that simple.
Peter – you have that so right!
That’s what the private jet is for! Makes sure you can get to Zurich and the safety deposit box pronto!
Cruising the Caribbean is not a simple life! P^)
I don’t think it’s programming, I think it’s advertising. If there are 20 heterosexual men all after 1 heterosexual woman, she probably is going to give more attention to the men she interacts with the most. It’s an investment in getting her attention if you have the ability to spend more money on things that will catch that attention. The down side is, like in politics, the person with the more money has the better chance of getting the vote.
@The Nerd: “I think it’s advertising.”
How naive. Males (of any – or most – species) have competed for females for eons, well before advertising was even a word. Hey, well before words were even spoken! 😀
It’s still the Darwinian factor: the fittest not only survives, but gets the most partners. “Fittest” nowadays means many things, including – but not only – money. “Fittest” can be handsome, healthy, smart, charismatic, authoritative, intelligent, empathic, etc.
You seem to be in agreement with what I’m saying, so I’m supposing my word choice was unclear. I mean that these men are advertising themselves to women, trying to out-advertise the competition. Not that media advertising has brainwashed men.
@The Nerd: Yes, I misunderstood your “advertising” sentence.
More than “advertising”, though, I’d call it “winning attention or interest” (that is more direct than advertising); driving a luxury car is “advertising” (indirect – I have money), while buying dinner/flower to someone, is winning her interest (direct).
I’d probably call it peacocking.