Changing her ways: The number of options and mate-standard strength impact mate choice strategy and satisfaction

Researchers know very little about how people choose mates. To remedy this, the present study examined the influence of number of potential mates and mate-standard strength on single women’s choice satisfaction and strategy use. Single women chose one potential partner from a set of 4, 24, or 64 options presented on a real dating website. Participants adjusted to an increasing number of options by changing their decision-making strategies, such that they relied on noncompensatory, attribute-based strategies as the number of options increased. Across conditions they reported similar levels of satisfaction with the choice process and the person selected. Mate-standard strength qualified some of the results, however, as women with higher mate standards preferred extensive choice, and they tended to prefer compensatory choice strategies and were more satisfied with the option selected when he was selected from among many.

[1]  P. Todd,et al.  Mate choice turns cognitive , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[2]  Dan Ariely,et al.  What Makes You Click? Mate Preferences and Matching Outcomes in Online Dating , 2006 .

[3]  B. Fasolo,et al.  Decision technology. , 2001, Annual review of psychology.

[4]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion , 1992 .

[5]  M. Lepper,et al.  Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. , 1996 .

[6]  R. Hegselmann,et al.  Simulating Social Phenomena , 1997 .

[7]  A. Chernev.  Product Assortment and Individual Decision Processes , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  R. Kurzban,et al.  HurryDate: Mate preferences in action , 2005 .

[9]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  Modeling Mate Choice in Monogamous Mating Systems with Courtship , 2002, Adapt. Behav..

[10]  J.W. Payne,et al.  Understanding contingent choice: a computer simulation approach , 1990, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[11]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[12]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  Searching for the Next Best Mate , 1997 .

[13]  A. Tversky.  Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. , 1972 .

[14]  B. Schwartz,et al.  Maximizing Versus Satisficing : Happiness Is a Matter of Choice , 2002 .

[15]  G. Vining,et al.  Data Analysis: A Model-Comparison Approach , 1989 .

[16]  P. Todd,et al.  “Shopping” for a Mate: Expected versus Experienced Preferences in Online Mate Choice , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[17]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[18]  H. Kokko,et al.  Measuring the Mating Skew , 1997, The American Naturalist.

[19]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  Emergent Patterns of Mate Choice in Human Populations , 2003, Artificial Life.

[20]  A. Chernev.  When More Is Less and Less Is More: the Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in Consumer Choice This Research Argues That Choices from Different Size Assort- Ments Are a Function of the Degree to Which Consumers Have , 2022 .

[21]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[22]  Digital dilemmas: a survey of the internet society , 2003, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[23]  B. Schwartz.  Self-determination. The tyranny of freedom. , 2000, The American psychologist.

[24]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion , 1992 .

[25]  E. Langer,et al.  The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: a field experiment in an institutional setting. , 1976, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  Melissa Bateson,et al.  Comparative evaluation and its implications for mate choice. , 2005, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[27]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choice under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision , 1992 .

[28]  Michael C. Bailey,et al.  The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: testing the tradeoffs. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  B. Dosher,et al.  Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[30]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[31]  Ingrid R Olson,et al.  Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. , 2005, Emotion.

[32]  E. Deci,et al.  On the Importance of Self-Determination for Intrinsically-Motivated Behavior , 1978 .

[33]  D. Buss,et al.  Preferences in human mate selection. , 1986 .

[34]  R. Selten,et al.  Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox , 2000 .

[35]  B. Jones.  BOUNDED RATIONALITY , 1999 .

[36]  Joshua Klayman,et al.  Children's decision strategies and their adaptation to task characteristics , 1985 .

[37]  M. Lepper,et al.  The Construction of Preference: When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? , 2006 .

[38]  Laurie Hendren,et al.  The abc Group , 2004 .