Blatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption: When Romantic Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signals

Abstract

Conspicuous displays of consumption and benevolence might serve as "costly signals" of desirable mate qualities. If so, they should vary strategically with manipulations of mating-related motives. The authors examined this possibility in 4 experiments. Inducing mating goals in men increased their willingness to spend on conspicuous luxuries but not on basic necessities. In women, mating goals boosted public--but not private--helping. Although mating motivation did not generally inspire helping in men, it did induce more helpfulness in contexts in which they could display heroism or dominance. Conversely, although mating motivation did not lead women to conspicuously consume, it did lead women to spend more publicly on helpful causes. Overall, romantic motives seem to produce highly strategic and sex-specific self-presentations best understood within a costly signaling framework.

Full text

Blatant Benevolence and Conspicuous Consumption: When Romantic
Motives Elicit Strategic Costly Signals
Vladas Griskevicius
Arizona State University
Joshua M. Tybur
University of New Mexico
Jill M. Sundie
University of Houston
Robert B. Cialdini
Arizona State University
Geoffrey F. Miller
University of New Mexico
Douglas T. Kenrick
Arizona State University
Conspicuous displays of consumption and benevolence might serve as “costly signals” of desirable mate
qualities. If so, they should vary strategically with manipulations of mating-related motives. The authors
examined this possibility in 4 experiments. Inducing mating goals in men increased their willingness to
spend on conspicuous luxuries but not on basic necessities. In women, mating goals boosted public— but
not private— helping. Although mating motivation did not generally inspire helping in men, it did induce
more helpfulness in contexts in which they could display heroism or dominance. Conversely, although
mating motivation did not lead women to conspicuously consume, it did lead women to spend more
publicly on helpful causes. Overall, romantic motives seem to produce highly strategic and sex-specific
self-presentations best understood within a costly signaling framework.
Key words: costly signaling, altruism, conspicuous consumption, mating goals, self-presentation
We should often blush at our noblest deeds if the world were to see all
their underlying motives.—Francois de La Rochefoucauld
On Valentine’s Day 2003, America’s leading authority on phi-
lanthropy announced that real estate mogul Donald Trump had
pledged $1 million to charity (Foundation Center, 2003). A few
years earlier, media tycoon Ted Turner had pledged an entire
billion dollars to humanitarian causes (Cable News Network
(CNN) Interactive, 1997). Although such valiant spectacles of
public philanthropy are actually fairly common (Plotz, 2006), they
seem somewhat puzzling. Trump and Turner, for example, epito-
mize many people’s stereotypes of self-interested and self-serving
capitalists; both men appear to obtain great satisfaction from lavish
lifestyles and openly flaunt their extravagant private jets, luxurious
yachts, and chauffeured limousines. Yet each of these seemingly
selfish tycoons chose to give away a phenomenal amount of their
own money to complete strangers. What motives might underlie
such costly and apparently selfless deeds?
The current research investigated the idea that self-sacrifice
might actually be self-presentation. Although it may have been
mere coincidence that Trump’s donation was announced on Val-
entine’s Day, there may indeed be a connection among philan-
thropic displays, lavish spending, and courtship. In particular, we
examined whether public philanthropy—and conspicuous displays
of consumption and benevolence— can be elicited by romantic
motives. In our framework, such displays are considered through
the lens of costly signaling theory, which is a biological model that
has inspired a number of studies of animal behavior but has thus
far received little attention in psychology. The central tenet of
costly signaling theory is that a variety of conspicuous animal
displays, such as the peacock’s tail, can serve important commu-
nicative functions, advertising an individual’s ability to garner
scarce resources and possibly signaling the possession of desirable
traits that could be passed on to offspring (Grafen, 1990; Miller,
2000; Zahavi, 1975). More generally, our research builds on pre-
vious work on mate preferences not only by examining specific
tactics that are triggered by romantic contexts but also by consid-
ering how behaviors that at first glance do not appear to be linked
to mating may be indirectly linked to broader mating strategies
(Daly & Wilson, 1988; Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cial-
dini, & Kenrick, 2006; Simpson, Gangestad, Christensen, & Leck,
1999).
Vladas Griskevicius and Douglas T. Kenrick, Department of Psychol-
ogy, Arizona State University; Joshua M. Tybur and Geoffrey F. Miller,
Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico; Jill M. Sundie,
Department of Marketing and Entrepreneurship, University of Houston;
Robert B. Cialdini, Departments of Psychology and Marketing, Arizona
State University.
This research was facilitated by a National Science Foundation Graduate
Research Fellowship awarded to Vladas Griskevicius and by National
Institutes of Health Grant 5R01MH64734 awarded to Douglas T. Kenrick.
We thank Chad Mortensen and Elaine Perea for their helpful comments on
a previous version of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Vladas
Griskevicius, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University,
Tempe, AZ 85287-1104. E-mail: vladasg@asu.edu
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association
2007, Vol. 93, No. 1, 85–102 0022-3514/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.85
85

Evolution of Prosocial Behavior
Donating one’s own resources to a charitable cause seems to be
the essence of altruism—an action that provides a benefit to others
while incurring a cost to the self (Barrett, Dunbar, & Lycett, 2002).
Research on prosocial behavior has a rich history in psychology
and has focused mainly on identifying situational factors that
promote helpful behavior (Batson, 1998; Penner, Dovidio, Pili-
avin, & Schroeder, 2005). Impressively, decades of work have
uncovered many such help-promoting factors, including social
norms, rewards, empathy, mood, and number of bystanders
(Berkowitz, 1972; Cialdini et al., 1987; Latane & Darley, 1970;
Schaller & Cialdini, 1990). However, psychological models of
helping have only more recently begun to address the questions of
why and how factors such as empathy became so relevant in
eliciting prosocial behavior (MacAndrew, 2002; Van Vugt & Van
Lange, 2006).
From an evolutionary perspective, the manner in which proso-
cial behavior evolved has always been somewhat puzzling. On the
surface, natural selection would not appear to favor individuals
who give away their own resources to benefit others. However,
such helping is comprehensible in light of inclusive fitness or kin
selection theory (Hamilton, 1964), which posits that individuals’
actions are designed not so much to ensure the survival of the
individual but to ensure the survival of the genes making up that
individual— genes that are shared with one’s kin (Dawkins, 1989).
Consistent with kin selection theory, individuals across cultures
and animals across species behave more benevolently toward
others the more closely the givers are related to the recipients of
the aid (Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994; Essock-Vitale &
McGuire, 1985; Neyer & Lang, 2003; Sherman, 1981).
Kin selection theory, however, does not explain benevolence
toward nonrelatives. Evolutionary theorists have explained such
nonkin helping in light of the theory of reciprocal altruism (Triv-
ers, 1971), whereby individuals are believed to help nonrelatives
because the helpers benefit by being helped in return. This theory
has not only been fruitful in explaining helping and cooperative
behaviors across societies and species (Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981;
Fehr, Gachter, & Kirchsteiger, 1997; Hawkes, 1992; Stanne, John-
son, & Johnson, 1999; Wilkinson, 1984), but it is also congruent
with psychological mechanisms related to detecting nonrecipro-
cating cheaters (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992).
Yet neither kin selection nor reciprocal altruism can fully ex-
plain large philanthropic gifts to nonkin or even handouts to
beggars who will never reciprocate these favors (Dugatkin, 1997;
MacAndrew, 2002). For instance, it is difficult to understand from
either perspective why 70% of U.S. households give money to
charity (American Association of Fundraising Counsel, 2005) or
why nearly 10 million Americans each year give blood to strangers
whom they’ll never meet (Piliavin & Callero, 1991).
Costly Signals and Handsome Rewards
A theory that may help explain such benevolent and often
expensive behaviors is costly signaling theory (Grafen, 1990;
Zahavi, 1975). Costly signaling theory, which is related to the
handicap principle (Zahavi & Zahavi, 1997), suggests that indi-
viduals often engage in behaviors that are costly (i.e., involve
significant amounts of economic resources, energy, risk, or time)
as a way of signaling to others useful information about them-
selves (Bird & Smith, 2005; MacAndrew, 2002). This theory was
developed in the field of behavioral ecology and has garnered
much empirical support in studies of both animal signaling and
anthropology (Gurven, Allen-Arave, Hill, & Hurtado, 2000;
Lotem, Fishman, & Stone, 2002; Smith & Bird, 2000; Sosis,
2000). However, costly signaling theory is only beginning to
influence thinking in psychology (Miller, 2000). The classic ex-
ample of a costly signal is the peacock’s tail, whereby the quality
of the tail—its size, color, luminosity, and symmetry—serves as an
honest signal of the quality of the peacock’s genes to potential
mates. A high-quality tail is costly to have because it takes much
metabolic energy and resources to grow and maintain such a
resplendent ornament, which is useless and even detrimental in
other aspects of a peacock’s life; a high-quality tail is an honest
signal of good genes because only those peacocks who are in good
health and who have the traits required to survive and acquire
abundant supplies of food can afford to waste their energy and
resources to grow and maintain this showy and nutritionally costly
ornament (Loyau, Saint Jalme, Cagniant, & Sorci, 2005; Møller &
Petrie, 2002).
According to a costly signaling perspective, public philanthropy
might be a conspicuous display of resources and generosity that
signals an individual’s ability to incur costs by sacrificing—or
even wasting—money and time (without reaping the benefits of
aiding kin or future reciprocation). Such philanthropic displays
serve to increase the signaler’s status and prestige (Boone, 1998;
Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006; Roberts, 1998), which may ultimately
increase the signaler’s ability to attract and retain desirable mates
(Goldberg, 1995; Miller, 2000; Mulcahy (1999) as cited in Barrett
et al., 2002). Costly signaling theory has several similarities with
classic social theories dating back to Thorstein Veblen (1899/
1994) and Marcel Mauss (1924). Although these classic sociolog-
ical theories did not connect conspicuous behaviors directly to
mating, they did view public displays of luxuries and magnanimity
as a form of social competition, in which the most generous,
self-sacrificial, or wasteful individuals gain the most prestige (see
Bird & Smith, 2005). For example, in the Northwest American
Kwakiutl tribal practice of potlatching, local chiefs compete to
give away— or sometimes even publicly burn—enormous quan-
tities of their own possessions, often going into great debt to do so
(Cole & Chaikin, 1990; Rosman & Rubel, 1971; Suttles, 1991).
The chief who is able to give away or waste the most resources,
and thus is able to bear the highest costs, is regarded as the highest
status member in the group (Murdock, 1970).
For a behavior to qualify as a costly signal, it must meet four
criteria (Smith & Bird, 2000). First, it must be costly to the signaler
in terms of economic resources, time, energy, risk, or some other
significant domain, whereby the costlier the behavior the more
likely it is to be an honest indicator. Second, it must be easily
observable by others. Third, the display must ultimately increase
the odds that the signaler will gain some fitness advantage through
the display, such as increased ability to attract desirable mates.
Finally, the signal must be an indicator to potential mates of some
important trait or characteristic, such as access to resources, proso-
cial orientation, courage, health, or intelligence (Zahavi & Zahavi,
1997). Public acts of philanthropy clearly meet the first three
criteria: They are costly, observable, and produce an increase in
prestige. However, conspicuous generosity can signal multiple
86
GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

traits in the philanthropist—and the displays of some such traits
may be more important depending on whether the signaler is a man
or a woman.
Sending Mixed Messages
A public act of philanthropy can signal at least two clusters of
important characteristics about a person: First, it can signal that an
individual has resources or, at least, that a person is capable of
procuring resources (Boone, 1998; Miller, 2000); second, it can
signal that an individual has a prosocial personality, whereby the
willingness to use one’s resources to help others instead of helping
only oneself suggests that a person is kind, sympathetic, and
helpful (Miller, 2007). Although both resource-related and proso-
cial traits are generally desirable in a romantic partner (Buss,
2003), their relative desirability in a mate may differ for men and
women (Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990; Li, Bailey, Ken-
rick, & Linsenmeier, 2002; Saad & Gill, 2003). If so, men and
women may be differentially likely to display one or perhaps both
traits when motivated to attract a mate.
Resources and Conspicuous Consumption
Although public philanthropy can convey that one has many
resources, perhaps a more common way to display one’s wealth is
by purchasing lavish and unnecessary things—a concept dubbed
conspicuous consumption (Veblen, 1899/1994). Conspicuous con-
sumption is the act of spending money to gain status and impress
others by indicating that one has enough money to purchase
frivolous and wasteful goods. For instance, although Americans
donated around $2 billion to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina,
Americans spend almost $2 billion each year to purchase and fuel
their Hummers—a highly conspicuous and wasteful sports utility
vehicle (SUV) that consumes a gallon of fuel every 8 –11 miles. In
fact, Americans spend over $130 billion on SUVs each year (many
of which are used by the owners only to commute alone to
white-collar office jobs) and spend much more than that on ex-
travagant mansions, dinners, yachts, jewelry, and other conspicu-
ous purchases (see Frank, 1999; Silverstein & Fiske, 2003;
Twitchel, 2003). From a purely rational perspective, spending
money on unnecessary and wasteful purchases as opposed to
making more efficient investments might seem counterintuitive.
From a costly signaling perspective, however, conspicuous con-
sumption in humans may serve a conceptually analogous function
to a peacock’s conspicuous display of his tail (Miller & Todd,
1998; Saad, 2007).
Although much research already indicates that the ability to
procure resources is a highly valued trait in a potential mate (e.g.,
Buss & Schmitt, 1993), little work has examined whether mating
contexts would indeed lead to displays of conspicuous consump-
tion, which should generally enhance the likelihood of attracting a
mate. Research on human mate choice, however, suggests that the
conspicuous display of resources ought to be used more frequently
by men than women because women place considerably more
emphasis on cues of wealth and status when selecting a romantic
partner (Buss, 1989; Kenrick, Sundie, Nicastle, & Stone, 2001;
Townsend & Levy, 1990). For example, women indicate that
economic resources in a man are a necessity, whereas men ap-
praise economic resources in a woman as a luxury (Li et al., 2002;
Li & Kenrick, 2006). Consistent with this asymmetry in prefer-
ences, mere exposure to an attractive opposite-sex individual in-
duces men, but not women, to place a higher value on having
wealth and being ambitious (Roney, 2003; Wilson & Daly, 2004).
Thus, a romantic motive should lead men, but not necessarily
women, to increase their displays of conspicuous consumption.
Prosocial Orientation and Blatant Benevolence
In addition to signaling wealth, public philanthropy can also
convey prosocial personality traits (Penner & Finkelstein, 1998;
Van Lange, Otten, DeBruin, & Joireman, 1997). Whereas conspic-
uous consumption may reveal a person’s selfishness and narcis-
sism, public philanthropy may reveal virtuous characteristics, such
as kindness, sympathy, and helpfulness (Miller, 2007). However,
one does not need to give away wads of cash to be seen as helpful.
Even a poor person could do public volunteer work in the com-
munity, donate blood, or solicit donations for noble causes in a
crowded mall—all of which are types of publicly visible prosocial
behavior called blatant benevolence (Alexander, 1979; Penner et
al., 2005; Roberts, 1998). Blatant benevolence is a prosocial be-
havior that is costly in terms of time and effort, that is useful for
publicizing one’s prosocial nature, and that is not necessarily
efficient at providing aid to those in need. For example, a wealthy
venture capitalist can donate several hours of his or her time to
publicly volunteer for a good cause, even though that person can
use the same time to earn and donate money that would provide
significantly more aid to those who need it.
Although previous work has established that prosocial traits are
generally desirable in a potential mate (Brase, 2006; Graziano,
Jensen-Campbell, Todd, & Finch, 1997), little work has examined
whether mating contexts lead to an increase in the display of
helpfulness, which is likely to increase the probability of attracting
a mate. It is also unclear whether there are sex differences in the
tendency to display prosocial traits in a mating context. For in-
stance, although it is reasonably clear that men value prosocial
traits in romantic partners, the degree to which a man improves his
desirability as a mate by displaying helpfulness is less obvious.
On the one hand, women seem to value prosocial traits in a man
(Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997; Brase, 2006; La Cerra,
1995), possibly because such characteristics reveal a man’s will-
ingness to invest in offspring (Ellis, 1992; Feingold, 1992; Miller
& Todd, 1998). On the other hand, women seem to prefer a
combination of prosocial and dominance-related traits over either
trait alone (Green & Kenrick, 1994; Jensen-Campbell, Graziano, &
West, 1995, Study 2; Kelly & Dunbar, 2001). Moreover, women
sometimes prefer male sexual partners who are openly competitive
rather than warm and agreeable (Gangestad, Simpson, Cousins,
Garver-Apgar, & Christensen, 2004). Such findings are also con-
sistent with research showing that although romantic motives lead
women to generally become more group-oriented, they lead men to
become less group-oriented (Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen,
Cialdini, et al., 2006). Overall, this reasoning suggests two com-
peting hypotheses: A mating motive could either lead both women
and men to blatantly display benevolence given that helpfulness is
a desirable trait to either sex, or it might lead to a boost in blatant
benevolence only for women.
87
ROMANTIC MOTIVES AND COSTLY SIGNALING

Study 1
An evolutionary perspective generally holds that mental mech-
anisms should be highly sensitive to ecological cues indicating
particular adaptive problems or opportunities, such as mating
opportunities (Bugental, 2000; Kenrick, Li, & Butner, 2003;
Schaller, Park, & Mueller, 2003). Much research has also shown
that various cues can activate specific goal states that can influence
behavior (e.g., Chartrand & Bargh, 2002; Schaller, 2003). In line
with this work, cues related to mating can activate a mating goal
and its associated affective responses (Fisher, 2002; Plutchik,
1980), which in turn promote a cascade of functional perceptions,
cognitions, and behaviors associated with mating success
(Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini, et al., 2006; Maner
et al., 2005; Roney, 2003; Wilson & Daly, 2004). We therefore
reasoned that if conspicuous displays of consumption or benevo-
lence are costly signals that can function to attract a mate, cues that
prime romantic motives should increase people’s inclination to
engage in such displays.
The initial experiment tested whether priming individuals with
mating cues would increase their willingness to spend or help
compared with people primed with neutral cues. To test this
possibility, participants in the mating condition were first primed
with photographs of desirable opposite-sex individuals. Partici-
pants then indicated how much money they would spend on
various conspicuous purchases and how many hours they would
volunteer at various prosocial organizations. Given the literature
on sex differences in mate choice, we generated several specific
predictions. Because women value wealth and status in a mate
more than men do (Buss, 2003; Li et al., 2002), we predicted that
a mating prime would increase conspicuous consumption primar-
ily for men. For blatant benevolence, previous findings lent them-
selves to two competing hypotheses: A romantic prime could
produce an increase in helping for both women and men, or it
could produce an increase in helping for women but not for men.
Method
Participants
One hundred fifty-nine participants (89 men and 70 women)
were recruited from introductory psychology classes as partial
fulfillment of their class requirement. All participants came to the
laboratory in groups of 2– 6 and were each seated between parti-
tions at a computer. The mean age for women was 18.7 years (SD
⫽ .97), and the mean age for men was 19.1 years (SD ⫽ 1.58).
Design and Procedure
The overall design of the experiment was a 2 (Participant
Sex) ⫻ 2 (Motivation: Mating vs. Control) ⫻ 2 (Behavior: Con-
sumption vs. Benevolence) mixed-factorial design. Sex and Moti-
vation were between-participants factors, whereas Behavior was a
within-participants factor, meaning that everyone answered ques-
tions regarding both spending and helping. At the beginning of the
study, half of the participants were exposed to mating-related cues
while the other half were exposed to cues unrelated to mating.
Participants then indicated how much money they would spend on
five types of conspicuous purchases and how many hours they
would help at five prosocial community organizations.
Mating induction. To induce a romantic mindset in the partic-
ipants, we displayed the photographs of three attractive opposite-
sex individuals on the participants’ computer screen (see Griskevi-
cius, Cialdini, & Kenrick, 2006; Roney, 2003; Wilson & Daly,
2004). Participants were asked to select the person whom they
thought was the most desirable romantic partner, and, after making
their selection, to imagine that they were preparing to go on a first
date with this individual. They were to spend up to 3 min writing
on the computer about their idea of the perfect first date with the
person they selected.
Control participants underwent a similar procedure devoid of
any romantic connotations. They saw a photograph of an ordinary
street with several buildings and were asked to imagine being on
that street. They then spent up to 3 min writing about their idea of
the most pleasant weather conditions in which to walk around and
look at the buildings. After the manipulation, the computer ran-
domly determined whether participants responded first to the con-
sumption or benevolence items (see below). The order of the
questions within each set was randomized.
Consumption measures. To ascertain spending preferences,
we gave the participants the following instructions: “Imagine that
you have $5,000 in your bank account and that you’re considering
buying a few new things. We’d like to know how much money you
would consider spending on each type of purchase.” Participants
indicated how much money they would consider spending on five
items that might be purchased by either men or women—(a) a new
car, (b) a new watch, (c) taking a group of friends out to dinner, (d)
a new cell phone, and (e) a nice vacation to Europe—and where
each purchase could conspicuously convey one’s resources. Par-
ticipants responded on an 11-point scale for each item, with each
point on the scale representing a specific dollar amount. Each item
had a different dollar range—watch ($25–$275), dinner ($50–
$300), cell phone ($25–$275), European vacation ($500 –$3,000),
car ($5,000 –$50,000⫹)— but the scale increments remained con-
stant for each item.
Benevolence measures. To ascertain willingness to help, we
gave the participants the following instructions:
Imagine that you have 60 hr of free time a month. These 60 hr include
some of your evenings and parts of your weekends. We’d like to know
how much of this time you would consider spending doing volunteer
work at some organizations in your community. That is, although you
would only volunteer at one place, we’d like to know how many hours
each month you would consider volunteering there.
Participants then indicated how much time they would consider
volunteering to (a) help at a homeless shelter, (b) help build
housing for poor families, (c) help teach underprivileged youths to
read, (d) be a Big Brother or Sister, or (e) help at a children’s
hospital. Participants responded to each item on an 11-point scale,
where each point represented a specific amount of time across the
scale (0 –50 hr in units of 5 hr).
Motivational booster. After responding to the initial set of
consumption or benevolence items, all participants underwent a
“booster shot” to ensure that they were still in a romantic or in a
control frame of mind. The boosters were procedurally identical to
the original prime, except that they consisted of photographs of
different attractive individuals or buildings. After the booster,
participants responded to the counterpart set of benevolence or
consumption questions.
88
GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

Cover story. To decrease potential suspicion and possible de-
mand characteristics, we devised a cover story. Participants were
told that they were going to take part in three unrelated studies in
the current session (i.e., rate photographs for future studies, write
stories to examine their visualization ability, and answer survey
questions about various preferences). The cover story noted that
participants in the past have become bored when working on each
study without a break (e.g., rating all of the photographs at once),
so participants were told that each study would be split up into
different sections throughout the session, so people wouldn’t have
to do the same thing over and over. Participants were also told that
the various parts of the studies would be presented in random order
chosen by the computer.
Because half of the participants answered one set of the depen-
dent measures (e.g., the consumption items) immediately after the
motive induction, whereas the other half answered the same items
after the motivational booster, we checked whether the initial
manipulation and the booster had different effects: As expected, no
order effects emerged, indicating that the initial manipulation and
the booster produced similar effects.
Results and Discussion
Consistent with predictions, an omnibus repeated-measures
analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated a three-way interaction
between Sex, Motivation, and Behavior, F(1, 155) ⫽ 4.41, p ⫽
.037 (see Figure 1). To examine the specific hypotheses of the
study, we performed a series of planned contrasts.
Consumption
As seen in Figure 1, men in the mating condition spent more
money than men in the control condition, F(1, 87) ⫽ 3.82, p ⫽
.053, ␩
2
⫽ .042. However, a romantic prime had no effect on
women’s spending ( p ⫽ .95). Thus, as predicted, a romantic
motive led men but not women to increase their spending on
conspicuous purchases.
Benevolence
As seen in Figure 1, women in the mating condition were more
helpful than women in the control condition, F(1, 68) ⫽ 7.10, p ⫽
.010, ␩
2
⫽ .095. However, the mating prime had no influence on
men’s helping ( p ⫽ .68). Thus, consistent with the latter hypoth-
esis, a mating motive led women but not men to be more helpful.
Study 2
According to costly signaling theory, a display of a desirable
characteristic is only useful if it can be observed, meaning that the
expenditure of economic resources, time, or energy should be
focused on displays that are likely to be seen and to influence one’s
reputation (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006; Smith & Bird, 2000). Thus,
if displays of benevolence function as costly signals for women, a
mating goal should not make women more helpful per se; it should
instead produce an increase in the desire to appear more helpful in
public. Similarly, if displays of consumption function as costly
signals for men, a mating goal should not lead men to spend more
CONSUMPTION
BENEVOLENCE
6.0 3.8
ACTIVE MOTIVE
Neutral
2.6
3.0
3.4
3.6
3.2
2.8
Men
Women
5.8
HELPING
MONEY SPENT
5.6
5.4
5.2
Mating
Neutral Mating
Figure 1. The influence of romantic motives on men’s and women’s conspicuous consumption and blatant
benevolence (Study 1).
89
ROMANTIC MOTIVES AND COSTLY SIGNALING

money on just any purchase; it should instead increase spending
primarily on those purchases that can effectively act as public
displays of wealth to others.
Study 2 tested whether inducing romantic motives would influ-
ence consumption and benevolence when such behaviors were
conspicuous versus inconspicuous. In line with findings of Study
1, we predicted that while a romantic motive should increase
men’s spending on conspicuous products—relatively luxurious
and wasteful purchases that can easily be observed in public—the
same romantic motive should not increase men’s spending on
inconspicuous products—in this case, necessities that are usually
consumed in private. Similarly, we predicted that while a romantic
motive should increase women’s benevolence when it was con-
spicuous—when it was blatantly social and easily observable—the
same romantic motive should not increase women’s helping when
it is unlikely that others would observe the behavior.
Method
Participants
One hundred sixty-eight participants (73 men and 95 women)
were recruited from introductory psychology classes as partial
fulfillment of their class requirement.
Design and Procedure
The overall design of the experiment was a 2 (Participant
Sex) ⫻ 2 (Motivation: Mating vs. Control) ⫻ 2 (Behavior: Con-
sumption vs. Benevolence) ⫻ 2 (Conspicuousness: Conspicuous
vs. Inconspicuous) mixed-factorial design. Sex and Motivation
were between-participants factors, while Behavior and Conspicu-
ousness were within-participants factors, meaning that everyone
answered all questions about spending and helping. The general
procedure of the study was similar to that of Study 1 with two
exceptions: We induced mating motivation using written scenarios
instead of photographs in hopes of increasing confidence in the
conceptual framework; the study also included additional items
measuring inconspicuous benevolence and consumption.
Mating induction. To induce a mating state, we asked the
participants to read a romantic scenario on the computer. In the
scenario, participants imagined meeting a highly desirable person
of the opposite sex and spending a romantic afternoon with that
person. They then imagined having a romantic dinner and pleasant
conversation later that evening, finding themselves strongly moti-
vated to romantically pursue the person. In the control scenario,
participants imagined getting ready to go to a much-anticipated
concert with a same-sex friend. The control scenario ended as the
person heads off in a great mood anticipating a delightful musical
experience.
To test whether the mating scenario elicited romantic feelings
and desires, we collected self-report measures from an additional
33 men and 74 women. After reading either the romantic or the
control scenario, participants indicated to what extent they were
experiencing (a) romantic arousal, (b) sexual arousal, (c) a desire
to have a romantic partner, and (d) a desire to have others be
attracted to them. Responses were provided on a 7-point scale with
endpoints 1 (not at all)and7(very much). Compared with the
control scenario, the mating scenario elicited a higher level of
romantic arousal (Ms ⫽ 5.23 vs. 1.21; p ⬍ .001) and sexual
arousal (Ms ⫽ 4.14 vs. 1.37; p ⬍ .001); these data indicate that the
scenarios induced a goal-based construct, given that sexual arousal
is a motivational state. Moreover, the mating scenario elicited a
stronger desire to have a romantic partner (Ms ⫽ 5.45 vs. 1.29; p ⬍
.001) and a stronger desire to have others be attracted to the reader
(Ms ⫽ 5.20 vs. 1.32; p ⬍ .001). There were no sex differences for
any of the ratings (all ps ⬎ .35), meaning that the mating scenario
appeared to elicit fairly strong romantic emotions and motivations
about equally for both men and women.
1
Consumption measures. Participants again indicated how
much money they would spend on the same public wealth-
displaying purchases as in Study 1 (i.e., new car, new watch, and
so forth), which constituted the five conspicuous items. In addi-
tion, participants indicated their spending on five different types of
inconspicuous purchases (that sometimes included an example of
a specific good in that category): (a) basic toiletries (e.g., tissues),
(b) household medication (e.g., headache medicine), (c) a bedroom
alarm clock, (d) kitchen staples (e.g., salt), and (e) household
cleaning products (e.g., tile cleaner). Instead of asking participants
about specific dollar amounts that they would consider spending
on each purchase, we asked them following question: “Compared
with the average student at your university, please indicate how
much money you would want to spend on . . . .” Responses were
given on a 9-point scale with the following labels: 1 (much less
than the average student),5(about average), and 9 (much more
than the average student).
Pilot testing with the same group of 33 men and 74 women as
above indicated that people clearly understood the differences
between the conspicuous and inconspicuous purchases. In provid-
ing responses on 7-point scales, participants indicated that they
were significantly more likely to talk about and show off the
conspicuous compared with the inconspicuous purchases (Ms ⫽
5.61 vs. 2.21; p ⬍ .001). The conspicuous products were also rated
as less of a necessity and more of a luxury than the inconspicuous
items (Ms ⫽ 5.67 vs. 1.43; p ⬍ .001). There were no sex differ-
ences in any of these ratings.
Benevolence measures. Participants again indicated their will-
ingness to help in the same five publicly helpful situations de-
scribed in Study 1 (i.e., homeless shelter, being a Big Brother or
Sister, and so forth), which constituted the five conspicuous be-
nevolence items. Participants also indicated their willingness to
help in five inconspicuous situations: (a) spend an afternoon each
weekend picking up trash alone at the park, (b) take much shorter
showers in order to conserve water, (c) put money into strangers’
parking meters when time had expired, (d) mail a letter that
someone had dropped on the way to the post office, and (e) go to
the library to drop off a found library book in the drop box. Instead
of participants being asked about the number of hours that they
1
We actually included two types of romantic scenarios. Although the
scenarios were highly similar to each other, one subtly noted the short-term
nature of the romantic relationship, whereas the other noted the long-term
nature of the relationship. Despite expectations that the short-term versus
long-term elements would produce different degrees of romantic interest
from men and women, the scenarios elicited nearly identical levels of
sexual arousal and desire from both sexes. Moreover, because each sce-
nario influenced the dependent measures in a highly similar fashion, the
two scenarios were combined in the analyses.
90
GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

would consider helping, they were asked the following: “Com-
pared with the average student at your university, how willing
would you be to . . . .” Responses were given on a 9-point scale
with the same labels described for the consumption items above.
Pilot testing with the same group of 33 men and 74 women
revealed that people clearly understood the difference between the
conspicuous and inconspicuous benevolence items. Responding on
7-point scales, participants indicated that they were more likely to
tell someone they knew about the conspicuous versus inconspic-
uous acts (Ms ⫽ 4.88 vs. 3.48; p ⬍ .01). The conspicuous acts
were also perceived as much more public than the inconspicuous
acts (Ms ⫽ 5.67 vs. 2.37; p ⬍ .001). There were no sex differences
in these ratings.
Motivational booster. As in Study 1, there was a motivational
booster after participants answered the randomly assigned first set
of questions about consumption or benevolence. In the booster for
the romantic condition, participants imagined themselves back in
the romantic scenario that they had read earlier and were given up
to 3 min to write about the characteristics they would desire in
their ideal mate. In the control condition, they were asked to think
back to the scenario they had read earlier and to write about the
characteristics of the anticipated concert venue.
Cover story. As in the first study, a cover story was used to
prevent potential suspicion or possible demand characteristics.
Unlike in Study 1, however, the cover story consisted of telling
participants that we were interested in their various preferences
and behaviors. However, to reduce extraneous bias in the study, we
needed to make sure that everyone was “on the same page” by
having everyone read a standard scenario before we could ask the
survey questions. Thus, participants were led to believe that ev-
eryone was reading the same scenario and that the nature of the
scenario was irrelevant to the study as long as it served to focus
everyone on the same thing. Consistent with the cover story,
participants were told that the purpose of the booster was to bring
everyone back to an “equivalent frame of mind” by focusing them
back on the scenario they had read earlier before going further in
the study. As in Study 1, no order effects emerged regarding
whether participants responded to the consumption or the benev-
olence items after the initial motive manipulation or after the
booster, indicating that the motive manipulation and the booster
produced similar effects.
Results
Consistent with predictions, an omnibus repeated-measures
ANOVA indicated a four-way interaction among Sex, Motivation,
Behavior, and Conspicuousness, F(1, 163) ⫽ 15.12, p ⬍ .001 (see
Figures 2 and 3 combined). To examine the specific hypotheses of
the study, we performed a series of planned contrasts.
Consumption
Replicating Study 1, men in the mating condition spent more
money on conspicuous products compared with men in the control
condition, F(1, 71) ⫽ 4.83, p ⫽ .031, ␩
2
⫽ .064 (see Figure 2). By
contrast, a romantic motive actually reduced men’s spending on
inconspicuous purchases, F(1, 71) ⫽ 4.04, p ⫽ .048, ␩
2
⫽ .054.
Thus, a mating motive did not simply lead men to spend more in
general, but it led them to strategically spend more only on
conspicuous products. For women, romantic motives did not have
any significant influence on spending in either condition (all ps ⬎
.67).
Benevolence
Replicating Study 1, women in the romantic condition helped
more on the conspicuous items compared with women in the
control condition, F(1, 93) ⫽ 6.37, p ⫽ .013, ␩
2
⫽ .064 (see
Figure 3). In contrast, a mating motive did not influence women’s
helping when the help was inconspicuous ( p ⫽ .83). Thus, a
mating motive did not simply lead women to be more helpful in
general, but it led them to be more helpful only in public and
conspicuous situations. Romantic motives had no effect on men’s
helping in either condition (all ps ⬎ .28), and women were
generally more helpful than men across conditions, F(1, 164) ⫽
9.39, p ⫽ .003, ␩
2
⫽ .054.
Discussion
Using different methodologies to induce mating goals, different
control conditions, and different phrasing for the dependent mea-
sures, we found support from the first two studies for the hypoth-
eses that men’s conspicuous displays of consumption and wom-
en’s blatant displays of benevolence can function tactically as
costly signals in attracting mates. Specifically, a romantic desire
led men to increase their spending on conspicuous purchases—
products that are luxurious, relatively frivolous, and publicly con-
sumed. But a romantic desire did not lead men to spend more on
inconspicuous purchases—products that are necessities and are
generally consumed in private. In fact, mating motives actually
caused men to spend less money on inconspicuous products,
leading them to be penny-wise but pound-foolish, possibly because
mating goals encouraged men to divert their resources from ne-
cessities to conspicuous displays. For women, a romantic desire
increased blatant benevolence— helping that is social and public.
However, mating motives did not increase women’s inconspicuous
helping— helping that is nonsocial and unlikely to be observed by
one’s friends or acquaintances.
Although previous work has shown that resources and prosoci-
ality are desirable traits in mates, it is important to note that
romantic motives did not merely lead men to spend more money
and lead women to be more prosocial. Instead, for both men and
women, romantic motives triggered highly strategic and sex-
specific self-presentations consistent with costly signaling theory,
whereby men signaled their resources and women signaled their
prosocial virtues.
Notably, the specific boosts triggered by the mating primes
occurred despite there being no actual incentive for men to appear
wealthier or for women to appear more helpful. That is, the
romantic cues were photographs or imaginary scenarios, and par-
ticipants could not actually impress a romantic partner with their
displays.
Study 3
Although the findings so far are consistent with the literature on
mate preferences, it is somewhat puzzling that mating motives did
not increase men’s displays of benevolence. Recall that Study 1
91
ROMANTIC MOTIVES AND COSTLY SIGNALING

contained an unsupported competing hypothesis stating that ro-
mantic goals could have led men to display helpfulness. This lack
of a male benevolence boost is consistent with findings that
helpfulness, per se, does not always enhance a man’s desirability
(Kelly & Dunbar, 2001). However, other findings suggest that men
do often perform conspicuous acts of helpfulness: Men are 10
times more likely than women, for example, to be the recipients of
Carnegie Hero Medals, which are awarded for extreme acts of
heroism (Johnson, 1996).
One possibility is that men’s displays of heroism are simply not
linked to mating but are instead linked to status or some other
motivation. However, the display of heroic behaviors would cer-
tainly be consistent with costly signaling theory. In addition to
conveying one’s helpfulness, a heroic act can also signal health,
vigor, and willingness to act courageously (Hawkes & Bird, 2002).
Indeed, such heroic signaling has been observed in other animal
species. For example, Zahavi and Zahavi (1997) reported that in
Arabian babblers, a social bird species, males compete to be the
group’s “sentinel,” who watches for predators from tree-tops and
thereby puts himself at the highest risk of being eaten. In line with
costly signaling theory, the more time a male spends as a sentinel,
the more he receives preferential access to mates. Similarly in
humans, men who display heroic helpfulness are also preferred as
romantic partners (Farthing, 2005; Kelly & Dunbar, 2001). Thus,
mating goals might increase men’s blatant benevolence if their
helping behavior could also signal heroic qualities. For women,
however, heroism and risk-taking involve a less favorable ratio of
benefits to costs (e.g., endangering offspring who depend on the
mother’s proximity, Taylor et al., 2000) and might therefore not
yield an equivalent mating advantage
In the first two studies, romantic motives increased altruistic
displays for women, but they did not produce a parallel increase in
women’s conspicuous consumption. Although the notion that
women do not flaunt their wealth to attract a mate is consistent
with our predictions, our earlier findings suggest that there may be
at least one context in which romantic motives would lead women
to spend more money: when that money goes toward helping other
people in an obvious way. For instance, although in the United
States, women as a group earn less money for every dollar that
men earn, the percentage of women who give to charity is actually
greater (Coffman, 2000), and almost half of the top philanthropists
in the United States are women (Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2006).
Thus, while romantic motives may not increase women’s spending
when purchases serve mainly to signal wealth, they might increase
spending for both men and women when the spending is conspic-
uous and can convey both one’s helpfulness and one’s financial
generosity.
In Study 3, we tested whether romantic motives might influence
benevolence and consumption in two specific contexts. First, we
examined how romantic motives influence blatant benevolence
when the behavior could signal either nonheroic or heroic benev-
olence. We predicted that mating goals would once again not
influence men’s nonheroic helpfulness (as in Studies 1 and 2), but
they would increase men’s heroic helpfulness. Second, the study
tested how romantic motives influence conspicuous consumption
when spending could either signal only wealth or could signal both
CONSUMPTION
3.4
3.8
4.4
4.0
3.6
5.0
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
Inconspicuous Purchases
Conspicuous Purchases
Men
Women
4.2
MONEY SPENT
MONEY SPENT
5.2
Mating
Neutral Mating
Neutral
ACTIVE MOTIVE
Figure 2. The influence of romantic motives on men’s and women’s spending depending on whether the
consumption is conspicuous versus inconspicuous (Study 2).
92
GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

helpfulness and financial generosity. We predicted that while
mating goals would increase wealth-related consumption only for
men (as in Studies 1 and 2), they should increase conspicuous
financial generosity for both men and women.
Finally, the study examined whether romantic motives may
differentially influence behavior depending on a person’s socio-
sexual orientation— one’s inclination toward pursuing sex without
commitment versus pursuing monogamous relationships as mea-
sured by the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI; Simpson &
Gangestad, 1991, 1992). Given some previous findings (Sundie,
Kenrick, Griskevicius, & Tybur, 2007), we expected that romantic
motives might especially increase displays among “unrestricted”
men—those men who score high on the SOI, indicating a procliv-
ity to pursue multiple sexual partners.
Method
Participants
One hundred ninety-nine participants (103 men and 96 women)
were recruited from introductory psychology classes as partial
fulfillment of their class requirement.
Design and Procedure
The overall design of the experiment was a 2 (Participant
Sex) ⫻ 2 (Motivation: Mating vs. Control) ⫻ (Benevolence:
Helpful vs. Heroic) ⫻ 2 (Consumption: Wealth vs. Generosity)
mixed design. Sex and Motivation were between-participants fac-
tors, and Benevolence and Consumption were within-participants
factors, meaning that everyone answered all question regarding
spending and helping. The general procedure of the study was very
similar to that of Study 2, including use of the same scenarios to
prime romance, the same motivation booster, the same manner of
phrasing the behavioral questions, and the same cover story. The
only additions to the current study were the inclusion of heroic
helping and charitable consumption items and the measurement of
participants’ sociosexual orientation.
Heroic benevolence measures. In addition to obtaining re-
sponses to the original five blatant (but nonheroic) benevolence
items from Studies 1 and 2 (i.e., working at a homeless shelter,
being a Big Brother or Sister, and so forth), participants also
indicated their willingness to help in five heroic situations: (a) dive
into icy water after a stranger falls from a boat in a storm, (b) run
into a burning building in which someone is trapped, (c) distract a
grizzly bear that is attacking a stranger, (d) confront two armed
burglars who are robbing a house, and (e) swim out into the ocean
to help a person being dragged out by the undercurrent.
Generous consumption measures. In addition responding to
the original five conspicuous consumption items from Studies 1
and 2 (i.e., new car, European vacation, and so forth.), participants
also indicated their willingness to spend money on the following
publicly helpful acts: (a) donate money to natural disaster victims
at a booth on campus, (b) leave an extra large tip when at dinner
with friends after noticing that others are not leaving tips, (c) bid
on something that they do not need at a public auction where
proceeds go to help children with life-threatening illnesses, (d)
BENEVOLENCE
4.2
5.0
5.8
5.4
4.6
4.6
5.0
5.4
5.8
6.2
Inconspicuous Helping
Conspicuous Helping
HELPING
HELPING
Men
Women
Neutral Mating
Neutral
Mating
ACTIVE MOTIVE
Figure 3. The influence of romantic motives on men’s and women’s benevolence depending on whether
helping is conspicuous versus inconspicuous (Study 2).
93
ROMANTIC MOTIVES AND COSTLY SIGNALING

give money to a charity booth at the mall that purchases holiday
gifts for poor families, and (e) buy dinner for a homeless family
who approach them when they are leaving a restaurant with a
group of friends.
Results
To examine the specific hypotheses of the study, we performed
a series of a priori lower order interactions and planned contrasts.
Benevolence
Consistent with predictions, a three-way interaction emerged
among Sex, Motivation, and Benevolence Type, F(1, 195) ⫽ 3.31,
p ⫽ .071, ␩
2
⫽ .017 (see Figure 4
). As in the first two studies,
women in the romantic condition were more helpful in volunteer
situations than women in the control condition, F(1, 94) ⫽ 4.57,
p ⫽ .035, ␩
2
⫽ .046. Women were also more helpful than men
across conditions, F(1, 195) ⫽ 11.81, p ⫽ .001, ␩
2
⫽ .057, and a
romantic desire again had no influence on men’s helpfulness ( p ⫽
.75).
For the heroic items, there was a main effect of Sex, whereby
men were more willing to be heroic across both motive conditions,
F(1, 195) ⫽ 57.36, p ⬍ .001, ␩
2
⫽ .28. However, in line with
predictions, men in the romantic condition were significantly more
helpful on the heroic items compared with men in the control
condition, F(1, 101) ⫽ 4.84, p ⫽ .030, ␩
2
⫽ .046. For women, a
romantic prime did not influence heroic helping ( p ⫽ .67).
Consumption
As seen in Figure 5, men in the mating condition again spent
more on conspicuous purchases than did men in the control con-
dition, F(1, 101) ⫽ 4.31, p ⫽ .040, ␩
2
⫽ .041, but a romantic
motive did not influence women’s spending on these items ( p ⫽
.86). However, when conspicuous spending was related to helping,
a romantic prime led both men and women to spend more money
than participants in the control condition, F(1, 195) ⫽ 10.64, p ⫽
.001, ␩
2
⫽ .052. Nevertheless, women were still more likely to be
conspicuously charitable across both generous spending condi-
tions, F(1, 195) ⫽ 9.38, p ⫽ .003, ␩
2
⫽ .046.
Effects of Sociosexual Orientation
SOI generally did not have a significant influence on men’s or
women’s benevolence or consumption in the control conditions or
on how such behaviors were influenced by the mating primes.
However, there were two specific instances in which SOI produced
notable findings—in both cases for men.
First, SOI affected how romantic motives influenced men’s
financial generosity. Although there were no differences in finan-
cial generosity between high and low SOI men in the control
condition using a median split ( p ⫽ .92), mating motives led to a
significant increase in financial generosity for unrestricted men—
those men inclined to pursue short-term mating strategies, F(1,
46) ⫽ 7.49, p ⫽ .009, ␩
2
⫽ .14. Although restricted men—those
less inclined toward having sex without commitment—also
BENEVOLENCE
3.5
4.5
6.0
5.0
4.0
4.6
5.0
5.4
5.8
6.2
Heroic Helping
Non-Heroic Helping
5.5
HELPING
HELPING
Men
Women
Neutral Mating
Neutral
Mating
ACTIVE MOTIVE
Figure 4. The influence of romantic motives on men’s and women’s benevolence depending on whether the
helping is heroic versus nonheroic (Study 3).
94
GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

showed a moderate increase in financial generosity in the romantic
condition, this difference did not approach significance ( p ⫽ .18).
Second, sociosexual orientation affected how romantic motives
influenced men’s heroic helping. Although we found no differ-
ences in heroic helping between high and low SOI men in the
control condition using a median split ( p ⫽ .71), a romantic prime
produced a sizable boost in heroism for unrestricted men, F(1,
46) ⫽ 11.31, p ⫽ .002, ␩
2
⫽ .20. Conversely, a romantic motive
produced no difference in the heroic behavior of restricted men
( p ⫽ .76).
Discussion
The results of Study 3 revealed two theoretically meaningful
contexts in which romantic motives boosted men’s blatant benev-
olence and boosted women’s conspicuous consumption. First, al-
though romantic motives did not lead men to be more helpful in
general, they did lead men to be more helpful in situations that
could signal heroism. That is, when men’s helpfulness could
simultaneously allow them to display courage and strength, a
romantic motive caused a boost in such behavior. This result is
consistent with findings that heroic men are preferred as mates
(Farthing, 2005; Kelly & Dunbar, 2001) and with the notion that
heroic displays can function as costly signals of helpfulness and
courage. These findings, however, are the first of which we are
aware to indicate that romantic contexts can actually trigger such
tactics for men.
Although romantic motives once again did not lead women to
conspicuously consume, they did lead both men and women to
increase their conspicuous financial generosity—that is, to spend
more money in publicly charitable ways. This finding is congruent
with the fact that both men and women behave philanthropically.
However, the first three studies together suggest that men and
women may differ in the characteristics they signal through their
philanthropic acts (at least to potential mates): Men’s philanthropy
may signal mostly wealth, whereas women’s philanthropy may
signal mostly helpfulness.
Study 4
Although the first three studies show an empirically clear and
theoretically consistent relationship among romantic motives, bla-
tant benevolence, and conspicuous consumption, one piece of the
puzzle in the current research remains poorly understood: Al-
though mating goals led men to be more heroically helpful in
Study 3, it is still unclear why mating motives did not increase
men’s nonheroic helpfulness. After all, kindness and agreeableness
are desirable characteristic in both women and men (Botwin et al.,
1997; Brase, 2006; Buss, 1989; Graziano et al., 1997), and men
engage in all sorts of helpful acts, including nonprofit volunteer
work. Given this discrepancy, we sought in Study 4 to explore two
theoretically derived nonheroic helping contexts in which romantic
motives might trigger men to become more benevolent.
One context in which romantic motives might spur helping in
men—and in women—arises when the helpful behavior could
CONSUMPTION
4.6
5.4
6.2
5.8
5.0
4.2
4.6
5.0
5.4
5.8
Generosity Signaling Purchases
Wealth Signaling Purchases
Men
Women
MONEY SPENT
MONEY SPENT
Neutral Mating
Neutral
Mating
ACTIVE MOTIVE
Figure 5. The influence of romantic motives on men’s and women’s consumption depending on whether
spending signals wealth versus financial generosity (Study 3).
95
ROMANTIC MOTIVES AND COSTLY SIGNALING

increase the helper’s status or prestige. For example, although
volunteering at a homeless shelter or working with underprivileged
kids is not very prestigious, volunteering to do charitable work at
the White House or rebuilding New Orleans along with profes-
sional athletes is likely to make a much more favorable impression
on others. Given that people tend to strategically associate them-
selves with successful or prestigious others to convey a positive
impression (see Cialdini, 1989; Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford, 1986),
a romantic desire might produce a boost in people’s willingness to
perform prestigious helpful acts because such acts could convey an
impression of high status and prestige to potential mates.
A second context in which romantic motives might spur helping
in men arises when the helpful act could display other desirable
male traits. For example, women show a strong preference for men
who are both prosocial and dominant (Green & Kenrick, 1994;
Jensen-Campbell et al., 1995; Kelly & Dunbar, 2001; Sadalla,
Kenrick, & Vershure, 1987), suggesting that a romantic desire
should cause men to be more helpful when the behavior can also
signal dominance or other male-related traits, such as leadership
and assertiveness (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997; Buss, 2003).
Specifically, given that romantic motives led primarily unrestricted
men to behave more heroically in Study 3, romantic motives may
also induce primarily unrestricted men to be more helpful when
such acts could display their dominance and leadership.
Overall, in addition to including the same prosocial community
organization contexts as in the first three studies, Study 4 tested
whether romantic motives influence displays of blatant benevo-
lence in two additional contexts: when the helpful acts are asso-
ciated with prestige or when the helpful acts can signal dominance
and leadership. We predicted that although mating motives would
lead only women to display helpfulness in low-prestige or low-
dominance contexts (as in the first three studies), mating motives
should lead both women and men to become more benevolent in
high-prestige contexts. Also, we predicted that a romantic desire
should lead men— especially unrestricted men—to become more
helpful when such acts could signal characteristics of dominance
and leadership.
Method
Participants
One hundred sixty-eight participants (108 men and 60 women)
were recruited from introductory psychology classes as partial
fulfillment of their class requirement.
Design and Procedure
The overall design of the experiment was a 2 (Participant
Sex) ⫻ 2 (Motivation: Mating vs. Control) ⫻ 3 (Benevolence:
Helpful vs. Prestigious vs. Dominant) mixed-factorial design. Sex
and Motivation were between-participants factors, while Benevo-
lence was a within-participants factor, meaning that everyone
answered all of the helping items. The procedure was similar to
that of Study 3, except the current study included more benevo-
lence items.
Prestigious benevolence measures. In addition to responding
to the original five blatant benevolence items from Studies 1–3
(i.e., working in a homeless shelter, being a Big Brother or Sister,
and so forth), participants also indicated their willingness to help
in five situations associated with famous athletes, celebrities, or
prestigious organizations. The specific items asked to what extent
participants were willing to (a) volunteer to work with Lance
Armstrong to raise money for cancer awareness, (b) volunteer with
Hollywood celebrities to help grant wishes of children with ter-
minal illnesses through the Make a Wish Foundation, (c) volunteer
to work with Magic Johnson to help people with AIDS, (d)
volunteer to go to Washington, DC, to help coordinate meetings
between charities and White House officials, and (e) volunteer to
work with professional athletes to rebuild homes in New Orleans.
Dominant benevolence measures. Participants were also asked
to report their willingness to help in another set of situations that
would require dominance and assertive leadership: (a) give a
speech for a good cause in which they believe to a large and
potentially hostile crowd, (b) lead a public protest in support of an
important cause even though they could be arrested, (c) volunteer
to personally negotiate with state officials to get more funding for
a nonprofit organization, (d) have a public one-on-one debate with
the leader of an organization whose beliefs they find offensive, and
(e) be the first person to speak out publicly against something they
believe to be morally wrong.
Results
Consistent with predictions, a repeated-measures omnibus
ANOVA indicated a three-way interaction among Sex, Motiva-
tion, and Benevolence Type, F(2, 382) ⫽ 4.31, p ⫽ .014. To
examine the specific hypotheses of the study, we performed a
series of planned contrasts.
Helpful Benevolence
In keeping with the outcomes of the first three studies, women
in the mating condition helped more on the original blatant benev-
olence items than women in the control condition, F(1, 58) ⫽ 7.88,
p ⫽ .007, ␩
2
⫽ .12. Women were also more helpful than men in
general, F(1, 164) ⫽ 6.62, p ⫽ .011, ␩
2
⫽ .039, and the mating
prime again did not influence men’s helping on these nonpresti-
gious, nondominant items ( p ⫽ .48).
Prestigious Benevolence
As seen in Figure 6, compared with the men and women in the
control condition, men and women in the mating condition were
more helpful when such acts could signal status or prestige, al-
though this effect was only marginally significant, F(1, 164) ⫽
3.66, p ⫽ .058, ␩
2
⫽ .022. As expected, there was no interaction
between Sex and Motivation on these items ( p ⫽ .91).
Dominant Benevolence
As seen in Figure 6, men in the romantic condition were
somewhat more likely to volunteer in situations that could indicate
dominance and leadership (such as giving a speech, leading a
protest, or engaging in a public debate) compared with men in the
control condition, although this effect did not reach conventional
levels of significance, F(1, 106) ⫽ 6.26, p ⫽ .09, ␩
2
⫽ .027. A
closer inspection of the results showed that this increase was
driven mostly by unrestricted men (as for the heroic items in Study
96
GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

3), who showed a stronger increase in the mating condition than
unrestricted men in the control condition, F(1, 47) ⫽ 3.83, p ⫽
.056, ␩
2
⫽ .079. Although restricted men also increased their
dominant benevolence in the romantic condition, this difference
did not approach significance ( p ⫽ .51). SOI did not influence any
of the other measures, and the romantic prime had no influence on
women’s displays of dominant benevolence ( p ⫽ .91).
Discussion
The findings from Study 4 show that romantic motives can lead
men to be more helpful even in some nonheroic contexts. First,
mating goals led both men and women to be somewhat more
helpful when the helping was prestigious. This finding is congru-
ent with the notion that people often use indirect self-presentation
tactics, such as associating with prestigious others, to be seen in a
more positive light by others (see Cialdini, 1989; Snyder et al.,
1986). Second, mating goals led men, especially unrestricted men,
to be somewhat more helpful when the benevolent behavior could
signal dominance and leadership. This finding fits with the notion
that women value dominance and leadership in men (Buss, 2003;
Sadalla et al., 1987) and with findings that romantic motives lead
men— but not women—to conspicuously rebel against social
norms to assert their individuality by not conforming (Griskevi-
cius, Goldstein, Mortenson, Cialdini, et al., 2006). Overall, al-
though previous findings on mate preferences may have led one to
expect that romantic contexts should cause men to behave in a
generally more prosocial manner, we found that mating goals
actually led men to behave prosocially in a highly strategic way,
whereby men became more helpful only when such helpfulness
could display prestige or dominance.
General Discussion
The current research began with a basic question: Is public
philanthropy related to romantic motives? We examined this ques-
tion using a costly signaling framework, investigating how mating
goals influence conspicuous displays of consumption and benev-
olence—the two key self-presentational facets of philanthropy.
Although previous work on mate preferences has uncovered a
variety of traits that are desired in a mate, we extended this
research by showing that priming individuals with displays of
photographs of attractive members of the opposite sex (Study 1) or
with descriptions of romantic scenarios (Studies 2– 4) elicited
highly strategic, context-sensitive, and sex-specific behavioral dis-
plays. The findings were in line with research showing that men
and women value somewhat different features in a mate and were
consistent with costly signaling theory, marking one of the first
empirical investigations of this approach in psychology.
Specifically for men, mating goals increased resource-signaling
displays of conspicuous consumption, leading them to spend more
money on luxurious and publicly consumed purchases. Mating
motives, however, did not increase men’s spending on inconspic-
uous products, suggesting that romantic cues did not just lead men
to spend more money in general but did so in a strategic manner in
line with costly signaling theory. Although a mating motive did not
BENEVOLENCE
4.0
4.4
4.8
4.2
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.6
Dominance Signaling Helping
Prestige Signaling Helping
5.4
4.6
HELPING
HELPING
Men
Women
Neutral Mating
Neutral
Mating
ACTIVE MOTIVE
Figure 6. The influence of romantic motives on men’s and women’s benevolence depending on whether
helping signals prestige versus dominance (Study 4).
97
ROMANTIC MOTIVES AND COSTLY SIGNALING

increase men’s general helpfulness as might be expected from the
mate preference literature, it did boost men’s helpfulness when
such acts could also signal men’s heroic, dominant, and prestigious
qualities. These findings are consistent with well-established dif-
ferences in mate preferences, which show that women place a
higher value on men’s resource-related and dominance-related
traits (e.g., Buss, 1989; Kenrick et al., 2001; Li et al., 2002; Sadalla
et al., 1987).
However, whereas most previous research has suggested that
wealth may be valued as a cue for future male parental investment,
our work suggests that displays of wealth may also be related to
signaling underlying characteristics that are correlated with wealth
acquisition, such as intelligence, social skills, or the ability to
compete for resources. Thus, just as peacocks’ tail displays indi-
cate that male peacocks are able to successfully absorb the cost of
wasting metabolic resources on such frivolous ornaments, men’s
conspicuous consumption displays seem to indicate that they are
successfully able to absorb the cost of wasting financial resources
on frivolous products. Otherwise, if men were solely advertising
parental investment ability via consumption, it would seem to be
more productive for them to increase their investment in incon-
spicuous consumption goods that would be more useful in future
family life (e.g., vacuum cleaners rather than flashy cars).
Whereas previous research has mostly focused on male tactics,
our studies indicate that women also engage in strategic courtship
displays in line with costly signaling theory. Specifically, mating
motives increased women’s helpfulness-signaling displays of be-
nevolence, whereby women became more helpful across various
public volunteer situations. Mating goals, however, did not in-
crease women’s helpfulness in private, unobservable settings, sug-
gesting that romantic motives mostly led women to want to appear
publicly more helpful. Although romantic primes did not lead
women to conspicuously consume products that could display their
wealth, mating primes did cause women to spend more money
when the resources went to charitable causes. These findings
should not be read to imply that women display more benevolence
only in mating contexts; it may also be beneficial for women to
advertise prosocial traits in several other domains (e.g., when
trying to attract friends and allies). However, our findings suggest
that mating goals are one of the factors that can induce women to
act more prosocially.
Motivation and Strategic Self-Presentation
The current studies indicated that fundamental social motives,
such as mate-attraction, can stimulate specific costly displays in
the service of strategic self-presentation. Notably, the effects of the
mating prime were obtained even when such displays could not
produce any genuine social, sexual, or reproductive benefits. As
suggested by other recent work (e.g., Griskevicius, Goldstein,
Mortensen, Sundie, Cialdini, & Kenrick, 2006; Maner et al., 2005;
Wilson & Daly, 2004), it is likely that the activation of fundamen-
tal social motives stimulates specific mental sets that activate a
cascade of functional perceptions, cognitions, and behaviors that
can occur outside of people’s awareness. For example, Roney
(2003) found that men report greater ambition and desire to earn
money not only in the presence of desirable women but also after
merely looking at photographs of such women.
It is important to note that the current framework does not imply
that conspicuous consumption and blatant benevolence are sexu-
ally motivated at a conscious level. Instead, our framework implies
that these behaviors are influenced by mating-related factors—
such as pictorial or verbal cues of mating opportunities, individual
sex, and public observability—in ways that would be expected if
these behaviors served underlying adaptive courtship functions.
Alternative Explanations
The current research was inspired by existing theories of goal
activation (e.g., Chartrand & Bargh, 2002) and costly signaling
(Miller, 2000). It would no doubt be possible to derive predictions
regarding benevolence, consumption, and mating from other the-
oretical perspectives. However, it is not clear whether any of these
other perspectives would offer as parsimonious an account of the
highly nuanced pattern of results obtained in this series of studies.
For example, perhaps a link among helping, spending, and mating
arises because of simple mechanisms of associative priming (Srull
& Wyer, 1979; see Higgins, 1996). The findings presented here,
however, suggest that the associative networks involved in con-
spicuous displays of benevolence and consumption are different
for women and men and are differentially triggered by mating
motives. A functional approach to cognition is by no means an
alternative to associative network models because both approaches
presume that there are associative links among motivation, cogni-
tion, and behavior. However, the functional model in the current
research does more than just assert that priming specific ideas will
lead to the activation of associatively linked semantic and affective
categories. Rather, it leads to more finely articulated predictions
about the particular links between specific goals and specific
cognitive and behavioral responses (Maner et al., 2005; Schaller,
Park, & Kenrick, 2007).
Similarly, a social learning model might suggest that men and
women have been differentially rewarded for blatant benevolence
and conspicuous consumption. However, it would seem difficult
for social learning models to explain the precisely patterned results
we obtained concerning mating primes, sex differences, display
conspicuousness, different forms of benevolence, and sociosexu-
ality. Also, it is not always clear whether men or women receive
more reward or punishment for various forms of display. For
example, boys are often encouraged to show nonheroic benevo-
lence (e.g., “Be nice,” “Share”), and girls are often encouraged to
conspicuously consume (e.g., “Buy a Barbie to be popular”). Yet
we found that men became more helpful in some situations and
increased their conspicuous consumption in others. These context-
specific displays make sense in the light of a costly signaling
theory but do not follow directly from general social learning
processes alone.
A social role theory might also posit that it is part of the male
role to be the provider and part of the female role to be the
caregiver. Although our results are consistent with such roles, it
would be difficult for social role theories to have predicted a priori
why helping is part of the female role in public but not in private
contexts; why men spend more money on public but not on private
purchases; why men are helpful in heroic, dominant, and philan-
thropic contexts; why men’s sociosexuality moderates some of the
mating-prime effects; and why women primed for mating do not
increase their spending on domestic goods to display their abilities
98
GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

as housekeepers. The fact that such context-specific displays
changed as a function of activating mating motives follows most
directly from a costly signaling perspective (see Saad, 2007).
Neither social role theories nor social learning theories are
incompatible with evolutionary accounts, because evolutionary
theorists presume that social roles and social reinforcements across
societies reflect evolved adaptations in men and women and arise
through an adaptive interplay of learning and evolved predisposi-
tions (Kenrick, Trost, & Sundie, 2004; O
¨
hman & Mineka, 2001).
We are not aware, however, of social role or social learning
theorists who have offered predictions that would match the artic-
ulated pattern of results obtained here—a pattern that follows
directly from considering evolved mate preferences and costly
signaling.
Limitations and Future Directions
One potential limitation of the current work is that the costly
behaviors in these studies did not involve real costs. However, it is
important to note that in the current studies we are investigating
the design features of psychological adaptations for conspicuous
consumption and benevolence, not actual consumption and benev-
olence behavior. Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that our
findings would indeed correspond to actual behaviors. Although
we did not measure behaviors, for instance, our items were similar
to “behavioroid” or behavioral intention measures, which in com-
parison to attitudes, have been shown to have a relatively strong
relation to behaviors (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Petty & Cacioppo,
1981). Participants in our studies also appear to be responding as
though there was a cost and as though they had a monetary or a
time budget. If this was not the case, responses should be closer to
ceiling and show less variance—after all, why not say that one
would be highly prosocial when it does not cost one much to do
so? Moreover, Norm Li and colleagues (Li et al., 2002; Li &
Kenrick, 2006), using a budget allocation method, have found
indications that men and women respond in predictably different
ways when their budgets vary, suggesting that people are quite
capable of make these kinds of calculations.
Whether people actually engage in costly behaviors is likely to
depend on the subjectively assessed costs versus mating benefits of
doing so. For example, everyone may want to display costly
signals—just like all peacocks may want to grow a large and shiny
tail— but not everyone will be able to afford to do so. Although our
results indicate that, on average, people in specific conditions
wanted to display more costly behaviors, some people under
real-world constraints cannot afford the display. Related to this
point, although it might be possible to fake some costly signals,
modern economies are generally well organized to make such
signals fairly difficult to fake; this is the job of anticounterfeiting
systems (trademark and copyright laws to prevent cheap imitations
of luxury branded goods), retail security systems (antishoplifting
tags, mall security, debit payment systems), and credit rating
agencies. In the current work, we are investigating the design
features of the mating motivation system as predicted from costly
signaling theory, and the fact that men’s and women’s calculations
are influenced in different ways by the romantic manipulations is
the key point of the present studies.
The current studies are also potentially limited by the variations
in our manipulation of conspicuousness across several dimensions.
Conspicuous consumption differs from inconspicuous consump-
tion in that a conspicuous good is likely to be more visible, more
expensive, and more frivolous. Similarly, an act of blatant versus
nonblatant benevolence is likely to be more visible, effortful, and
less efficient at helping. Although our manipulations tended to
confound these interrelated dimensions, it would be interesting in
future work to break down the various items into their conceptual
components.
Although the present work focused on the production of costly
displays, future research might also examine how such costly
signals are perceived by intended receivers. Our framework pre-
dicts that observers are likely to be particularly attuned to various
costly signaling displays and that individuals might be adept at
deciphering honest versus dishonest signals. Moreover, given that
men who conspicuously consume are in fact perceived as more
promiscuous (Sundie et al., 2007), future research could also
explore the specific trait information and sexual strategy informa-
tion conveyed by various displays (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000).
Conclusion
The present research supports the hypothesis that blatant benev-
olence and conspicuous consumption are costly signaling displays
that can function to attract and retain mates. These results might at
first blush seem to confirm the worst suspicions of Puritans,
Marxists, and Freudians, who have traditionally alleged that showy
consumption and charity are narcissistic indulgences of the sexu-
ally self-deceptive bourgeoisie. However, a costly signaling frame-
work suggests that different social norms and social policies could
shift such behaviors from workaholic, shopaholic, or planet-
wasting consumption to more prosocial forms of display. For
instance, media mogul Ted Turner once bemoaned the influence of
the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans, pointing out that it
discouraged the wealthy from giving away their money for fear of
slipping down in the rankings (Plotz, 2006). He suggested instead
that a public ranking of top philanthropists could inspire the
wealthy to compete in a more beneficial way—in essence, by
shifting the signaling arena from conspicuous consumption to
blatant benevolence. Perhaps it was not a coincidence that just
such a list—the Slate 60 —was established the same year that Ted
Turner pledged $1 billion to humanitarian relief. When asked
about the reaction of his then-wife Jane Fonda to this donation,
Turner fondly reminisced, “It brought tears to her eyes . . . . She
said, ‘I’m so proud to be married to you’ ” (CNN Interactive,
1997).
References
Alexander, R. D. (1979). Darwinism and human affairs. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press.
American Association of Fundraising Counsel. (2005). Giving USA. Indi-
anapolis, IN: Author.
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation.
Science, 211, 1390 –1396.
Barrett, L., Dunbar, R., & Lycett, J. (2002). Human evolutionary psychol-
ogy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert,
S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 282–316). Boston: McGraw–Hill.
Baumeister, R. F., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). What do men want? Gender
99
ROMANTIC MOTIVES AND COSTLY SIGNALING

differences and two spheres of belongingness. Psychological Bulletin,
122, 38 – 44.
Berkowitz, L. (1972). Social norms, feelings, and other factors affecting
helping behavior and altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 63–108). New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Bird, R., & Smith, E. A. (2005). Signaling theory, strategic interaction, and
symbolic capital. Current Anthropology, 46, 221–248.
Boone, J. L. (1998). The evolution of magnanimity: When is it better to
give than to receive? Human Nature, 9(1), 1–21.
Botwin, M., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and
mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction.
Journal of Personality, 65, 107–136.
Brase, G. L. (2006). Cues of parental investment as a factor in attractive-
ness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 145–157.
Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisition of the algorithms of social life: A
domain-based approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 187–219.
Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., & Kitayama, S. (1994). Some neo-Darwin
decision rules for altruism: Weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a
function of the biological importance of the decision. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 67, 773–789.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolu-
tionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral Brain Sciences, 12,
1– 49.
Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating
(2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An
evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100,
204 –232.
Cable News Network (CNN) Interactive. (1997, September 19). Ted
Turner donates $1 billion to “U. N. causes.” Retrieved April 17, 2007,
from http://edition.cnn.com/US/9709/18/turner.gift/
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (2002). Nonconscious motivations: Their
activation, operation, and consequences. In A. Tesser, D. Stapel, & J.
Wood (Eds.), Self and motivation: Emerging psychological perspectives
(pp. 13– 41). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Chronicle of Philanthropy. (2006, February 20). The 2005 Slate 60. Re-
trieved April 17, 2007, from http://www.slate.com/id/2136397/
Cialdini, R. B. (1989). Indirect tactics of image management: Beyond
basking. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression manage-
ment in the organization (pp. 45–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman,
A. L. (1987). Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly moti-
vated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 749 –758.
Coffman, S. E. (2000). Women and philanthropy. Retrieved April 17, 2007,
from http://www.guidestar.org/news/features/women.jsp
Cole, D., & Chaikin, I. (1990). An iron band upon the people. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social ex-
change. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby, (Eds.), The adapted
mind (pp. 163–228). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Dugatkin, L. A. (1997). Cooperation among animals: An evolutionary
perspective. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, B. J. (1992). The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mecha-
nisms in women. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The
adapted mind and the generation of culture (pp. 267–288). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Essock-Vitale, S. M., & McGuire, M. T. (1985). Women’s lives viewed
from an evolutionary perspective: II. Patterns of helping. Ethology and
Sociobiology, 6, 155–173.
Farthing, G. W. (2005). Attitudes toward heroic and nonheroic physical
risk takers as mates and as friends. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26,
171–185.
Fehr, E., Gachter, S., & Kirchsteiger, G. (1997). Reciprocity as a contract
enforcement device. Econometrica, 65, 833– 860.
Feingold, A. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection preferences: A
test of the parental investment model. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
125–139.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior:
An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison–
Wesley.
Fisher, H. (2002). Defining the brain systems of lust, romantic attraction,
and attachment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 413– 419.
Foundation Center. (2003, September 14). Trump steps up philanthropy in
New York City. Retrieved May 4, 2007, from http://foundationcenter
.org/newyork/gitn/ny_gitn_021403.html
Frank, R. H. (1999). Luxury fever: Money and happiness in an era of
excess. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). On the evolutionary psychol-
ogy of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–587.
Gangestad, S. W., Simpson, J. A., Cousins, A. J., Garver-Apgar, C. E., &
Christensen, P. N. (2004). Women’s preferences for male behavioral
displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychological Science, 15,
203–207.
Goldberg, T. L. (1995). Altruism towards panhandlers: Who gives? Human
Nature, 6, 79 –90.
Grafen, A. (1990). Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, 144, 517–546.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Todd, M., & Finch, J. F. (1997).
Interpersonal attraction from an evolutionary perspective: Women’s
reactions to dominant and prosocial men. In J. A. Simpson & D. T.
Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 141–167). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Green, B. L., & Kenrick, D. T. (1994). The attractiveness of gender-typed
traits at different relationship levels: Androgynous characteristics may
be desirable after all. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,
244 –253.
Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Peacocks,
Picasso, and parental investment: The effects of romantic motives on
creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 52– 66.
Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Cialdini, R. B., &
Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Going along versus going alone: When funda-
mental motives facilitate strategic (non)conformity. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 91, 281–294.
Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N. J., Mortensen, C. R., Sundie, J. M., Cial-
dini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Fear and loving in Las Vegas:
When fundamental motives cause basic persuasion principle to backfire.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Gurven, M., Allen-Arave, W., Hill, K., & Hurtado, M. (2000). It’s a
wonderful life: Signaling generosity among the Ache of Paraguay.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 263–282.
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior: I and
II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.
Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The com-
petitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
32, 1402–1413.
Hawkes, K. (1992). Sharing and collective action. In E. A. Smith and B.
Winterhalder (Eds.), Ecology, evolution, and human behavior (pp. 269 –
300). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Hawkes, K., & Bird, R. (2002). Showing off, handicap signaling, and the
evolution of men’s work. Evolutionary Anthropology, 11, 58 – 67.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability,
and salience. In E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social
100
GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.

psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York:
Guilford.
Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W., & West, S. G. (1995). Dominance,
prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish
last? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 427– 440.
Johnson, R. C. (1996). Attributes of Carnegie medalists performing acts of
heroism and the recipients of these acts. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17,
355–362.
Kelly, S., & Dunbar, R. (2001). Who dares wins: Heroism versus altruism
in women’s mate choice. Human Nature, 12, 89 –105.
Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary
psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psy-
chological Review, 110, 3–28.
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution,
traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental invest-
ment model. Journal of Personality, 58, 97–117.
Kenrick, D. T., Sundie, J. M., Nicastle, L. D., & Stone, G. O. (2001). Can
one ever be too wealthy or too chaste? Searching for nonlinearities in
mate judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
462– 471.
Kenrick, D. T., Trost, M. R., & Sundie, J. M. (2004). Sex-roles as
adaptations: An evolutionary perspective on gender differences and
similarities. In A. H. Eagly, A. Beall, & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Psychology
of gender (pp. 65–91). New York: Guilford.
La Cerra, M. M. (1995). Evolved mate preferences in women: Psycholog-
ical adaptations for assessing a man’s willingness to invest in offspring.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Bar-
bara.
Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why
doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Croft.
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (2002). The
necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the trade-offs.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in
preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468 – 489.
Lotem, A., Fishman, M. A., & Stone, L. (2002). From reciprocity to
unconditional altruism through signaling benefits. Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 270, 199 –205.
Loyau, A., Saint Jalme, M., Cagniant, C., & Sorci, G. (2005). Multiple
sexual advertisements honestly reflect health status in peacocks (Pavo
cristatus). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 58, 552–557.
MacAndrew, F. T. (2002). New evolutionary perspective on altruism:
Multilevel-selection and costly-signaling theories. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 11, 79 – 82.
Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Robertson, T. E., Hofer, B.,
Neuberg, S. N., et al. (2005). Functional projection: How fundamental
social motives can bias interpersonal perception. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 88, 63–78.
Mauss, M. (1924). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic
societies. London: Cohen and West.
Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the
evolution of human nature. New York: Doubleday.
Miller, G. F. (2007). Sexual selection for moral virtues. Quarterly Review
of Biology, 82, 97–125.
Miller, G. F., & Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 190 –198.
Møller, A. P., & Petrie, M. (2002). Condition dependence, multiple sexual
signals, and immunocompetence in peacocks. Behavioral Ecology, 13,
248 –253.
Murdock, G. P. (1970). Rank and potlatch among the Haida (Yale Uni-
versity Publications in Anthropology Series, No. 13). New Haven, CT:
Human Relations Area Files Press. (Original work published 1936)
Neyer, F. J., & Lang, F. R. (2003). Blood is thicker than water: Kinship
orientation across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 84, 310 –321.
O
¨
hman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness:
Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychology Re-
view, 108, 483–522.
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005).
Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 56, 365–392.
Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. A. (1998). Dispositional and structural
determinants of volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 74, 525–537.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic
and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Piliavin, J. A., & Callero, P. L. (1991). Giving blood: The development of
an altruistic identity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Plotz, M. (2006). Competitive philanthropy: The history of the Slate 60.
Retrieved April 17, 2007, from http://www.slate.com/id/2136385/
Plutchik, R. (1980). A general psychoevolutionary theory of emotion. In R.
Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research, and expe-
rience: Vol. 1. Theories of emotion (pp. 3–33). New York: Academic
Press.
Roberts, G. (1998). Competitive altruism: From reciprocity to the handicap
principle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Bio-
logical Sciences, 265, 427– 431.
Roney, J. R. (2003). Effects of visual exposure to the opposite sex:
Cognitive aspects of mate attraction in human males. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 393– 404.
Rosman, A., & Rubel, P. G. (1971). Feasting with mine enemy. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Saad, G. (2007). The evolutionary bases of consumption. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Saad, G., & Gill, T. (2003). An evolutionary psychology perspective on
gift-giving among young adults. Psychology & Marketing, 20, 765–784.
Sadalla, E. K., Kenrick, D. T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and
heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 730 –738.
Schaller, M. (2003). Ancestral environments and motivated social percep-
tion: Goal-like blasts from the evolutionary past. In S. J. Spencer, S.
Fein., M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Motivated social perception
(pp. 215–231). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
Schaller, M., & Cialdini, R. B., (1990). Happiness, sadness, and helping: A
motivational integration. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 265–296). New
York: Guilford.
Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Kenrick, D. T. (2007). Human evolution and
social cognition. In R. I. M. Dunbar & L. Barrett (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 491–504). Oxford, United
Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Schaller, M., Park, J. H., & Mueller, A. (2003). Fear of the dark: Interactive
effects of beliefs about danger and ambient darkness on ethnic stereo-
types. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 637– 649.
Sherman, P. W. (1981). Kinship, demography, and Belding’s ground
squirrel nepotism. Behavioral Ecology and Sociology, 8, 604 – 606.
Silverstein, M., & Fiske, N. (2003). Trading up: The new American luxury.
New York: Portfolio.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in
sociosexuality: Evidence for converging and discriminant validity. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 870 – 883.
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic
partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31–51.
Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., Christensen, P. N., & Leck, K. (1999).
Fluctuating asymmetry, sociosexuality, and intrasexual competitive tac-
tics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 159 –172.
Smith, E. A., & Bird, R. L. (2000). Turtle hunting and tombstone opening:
101
ROMANTIC MOTIVES AND COSTLY SIGNALING

Public generosity as costly signaling. Evolution and Human Behavior,
21, 245–261.
Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group
success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected
failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 383–388.
Sosis, R. (2000). Costly signaling and torch fishing on Ifaluk Atoll.
Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 223–244.
Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the
interpretation of information about persons: Some determinant and im-
plications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1660 –
1672.
Stanne, M. B., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Does competition
enhance or inhibit motor performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 133–154.
Sundie, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., & Tybur, J. M. (2007).
Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous consumption
as sexual signaling. Manuscript under review.
Suttles, W. (1991). Streams of property, armor of wealth: The traditional
Kwakiutl potlatch. In A. Jonaitis (Ed.), Chiefly feasts: The enduring
Kwakiutl potlatch (pp. 71–133). Seattle: University of Washington
Press.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenwald, T. L., Gurung,
R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in
females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review,
107, 411– 429.
Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partners’
physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and part-
ner selection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 149 –164.
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly
Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.
Twitchel, J. B. (2003). Living it up: Our love affair with luxury. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., DeBruin, E. M. N., & Joireman, J. A.
(1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive ori-
entations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 733–746.
Van Vugt, M., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2006). Psychological adaptations
for prosocial behavior: The altruism puzzle. In M. Schaller, J. Simpson,
& D. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and Social Psychology (pp. 237–262).
New York: Psychology Press.
Veblen, T. (1994). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Dover.
(Original work published 1899)
Wilkinson, G. W. (1984, March 8). Reciprocal food sharing in the vampire
bat. Nature, 308, 181–184.
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (2004). Do pretty women inspire men to discount
the future? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B:
Biological Sciences, 271(Suppl. 4), 177–179.
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection: Selection for a handicap. Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–214.
Zahavi, A., & Zahavi, A. (1997). The handicap principle: A missing piece
of Darwin’s puzzle. New York: Oxford University Press.
Received June 6, 2006
Revision received October 24, 2006
Accepted October 26, 2006 䡲
102
GRISKEVICIUS ET AL.