Lingerie makes hagglers happy-go-lucky
Quoth the Nature summary:
It seems that the more macho a man is -- at least according to his hormones -- the more the sight of an attractive woman will affect his judgement.
Researchers at the University of Leuven in Belgium asked men to play an ultimatum game, in which they split a certain amount of money between them. High-testosterone men drove the hardest bargain -- unless they had previously viewed pictures of bikini-clad models, in which case they were more likely to accept a poorer deal.
Okay, so it didn't exactly make them "stupid," as the title suggests (but it got you to read this, right?) It may have made them more sensible, according to the rules of the game they played:
In the game, one player, the proposer, was given 10 euros and had to offer a cut to the other, the responder, who had already secretly declared the minimum he would accept. If the offer is less than this minimum, both players get nothing.
Typically, the "macho men" went for the largest cut, even if it ended up that they'd get nothing (if their offer was less than the responder's minimim). After catching a glimpse of the scantily-clad hotties, however, they tended to settle for less money. Reasons the researcher:
"Since a few coins is better than no coins at all, men thus become more economically rational after exposure to lingerie or sexy women," he says.
Supposedly, the effect was only seen with the hot bikini girls and not when they were shown pictures of landscapes or elderly women. I'm obviously not a guy, but many of you are...do you buy this? (And how many of you just clicked on this because of the possibility of pictures of bikini-clad women?)
- Log in to post comments
I'll buy anything that connects sex and irrational behavior on the part of human brains. I often cynically think of "market research" as an oxymoron (given my understanding of "research"), but the fact that adverising has been consistently using sex-related images for decades indicates that it must have some efficacy, or they'd have given it up by now.
However -- given the reaction of the macho men in the study, I might categorize it as "Bikinis make macho men nicer" rather than "...stupid". Of course, this also comes from an equation of "less aggressive" with "nicer," which some may dispute. On the other hand, being in academia, I know that "nicer" shoud, perhaps, unfortunately, be equated with "stupid".
-Rob
Actually I clicked because I blogged on this earlier today and wanted to see your take. I was all ready to fight you about scooping me etc., but then I saw the picture you posted and became suddenly a bit...mellow...
(And how many of you just clicked on this because of the possibility of pictures of bikini-clad women?)
*raise hand*
P.S. I thought abot illustrating my post as well, but my wife reads my blog...
Heh. Haven't been through my blogroll yet today...got the link off of Science in the News.
Well, you win...because a picture is worth a 1000 words!
I clicked through because I saw the first few lines in my rss reader, and was extremely dubious. Then I saw the picture and read the article, and everything made perfect sense. Yeah, you're right.
What was it you were saying?
As an anthropology student, I'd have to say this hypothesis makes perfect sense. We are, after all, animals -undoubtedly with many animal instincts that remain not only as vestiges of our ancestoral hominid selves, but also as a matter of function. Sagan and Druyan asserted that sports, for instance, was a modern human response to the hunter instinct: we "kill" our opponents on the football field.
It seems only logical that a vestigial (if I can use the word for instincts rather than actual physical features) need to appeal to a potential mate and compete with other males for that mate would interfere with the critical thought processes that are relatively recent in hominid evolution.
Wait... it just occured to me that I have Opera set to exclude images... *clicks*...
Wow. Breasts.
I forgot where I was going with this post.
razib said:
I only read Tara's posts for the articles. What was this post about again? :)
*sigh* OK....*raises hand*
Doesn't make sense to me, but then, I'm not a "macho-man".
I've thought for a while that the influence of "sex appeal" represented the natural counterweight to the physical/social dominance of males. That is, males not only run to being bigger/stronger, they also have an "half-rank" advantage over women in "pecking order" in otherwise neutral social settings. That advantage seems clearly to be implemented in instinct, but it's countered by another instinctual response which favors females. Of course, over the past few centuries, there's been a concerted effort by certain groups to repress female sexuality....
Advertising, etc., has overloaded my system. I doubt very much that a picture of *anything* is going to affect my judgement at this point. However, an actual woman clad suggestively is likely another animal entirely, uhm, so to speak.
So...unbikini'd men (so to speak) want it all and get nothing, while bikini'd men compromise and get something.
Which could mean lust makes men more sociable, manipulable, or even gullible. Try reversing the test, so that compromise gives no reward, but being a hardnosed asshole pays. If the men who've seen the femme-flesh still compromise, that would mean men in heat are less greedy. Maybe.
Yes, I clicked hoping for picture, and my behaviour was beautifully reinforced.
BTW - If you need someone to interact with the above pictured babes, I mean "test subjects", just let me know, as I would be happy to interact with them in a more deeper, more meaningful manner.
I wonder how this result corresponds to work done in the field of "neuroeconomics," in particular that involving the role of the hormone oxytocin in trust and cooperation.
Tara,
My hand has been up so long, my arm feels as if it will fall off. And that's you second from the left, correct?
Hey, this is a very important post -- I'm a big fan of the synergistic intersection of chicks in bikinis with epidemiological inquiries.
My prediction has not yet come to pass, but we are heading in the right direction:)
Were there words on this link????
I thought I'd see a blow up of the Bikini Babes!
Please, don't tell me anyone's really surprised that "babes" in a bikini turn a guys head, or that, that's exactly why the "babe" wears it in the first place.
It's what makes the world go round!
As a real macho kind of a guy, I can honestly say... "What was the question?"
HOMER: Now listen Mr Burns: I want a raise, and I'm NOT GOING TO TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER! I've been working in this plant for TWENTY YEARS and I think that-
(Smithers holds up placard displaying above picture)
Oooohhh! Boobies!
Anyway, Mr Burns, I'd better get back to my station: it's almost lunch time. (exits)
BURNS: Well, Smithers, that worked even better than I anticipated. Though it pains me to admit it, it looks like those tree-hugging, anti-progress "scientists" actually got one right...
SMITHERS: Even a blind chicken, sir.
This is all very interesting and useful information. The next time that I want to buy a new (or even a used) car, besides the armloads of Consumer Reports printouts, comparison spreadsheets, and compromising pictures of the salesman, I'll have a colleague's daughter tag along in a Brazilian bathing suit. I'm sure to get a great deal, it would seem; the haggling will actually be pleasant and my friend's daughter will make enough money to buy enought new clothes to cover up her...uhmmm...negotiating points.
I wanted to say something important, but for the life of me I can't remember what it was... ;)
Hmmm... it would seem that "Lingerie Makes the POSTERS Happy-go-Lucky" as well...
Now I'm wondering what effect [i]your[/i] picture has on me when I read your blog Tara! - and no this is not an appeal for you to wear a bikini!!!
If a few coins are better than no coins, what difference does the presence of the women make? What does it mean to be "more economically rational" - what are the incentives to be less rational in the first place?
I think the explanation is quite different. Both strategies are rational in different circumstances, because the money isn't the only thing being played for. Their brains just subconsciously misinterpret the circumstances.
The brain is (likely) wired to assume that if you can see women, they can see you; so if you're instinctively poised and/or culturally conditioned not to be a greedy asshole in front of women... in short, it's just another example of how people behave differently in the presence of the opposite sex. They just don't completely realize on a subconscious level that pictures are not presences that can react to their actions.
Probably they would react even more strongly to the same women actually being in the room watching the game - their continued presence would reinforce the stimulus. You could even design a continuum of stimulus strengths - look at pictures and then play, have a life-size poster in the room where the game takes place, have the women as a live audience.
Trying to analyze that game makes my head hurt (a sensation probably shared by the participants)... a simple utility=money won approach gets you nowhere fast as you wind up with infinitely many distinct Nash equilibria, so you have to make at least some attempt to include the intangible utilites of "not getting ripped off", "beating the opponent", and perhaps most relevant to this example, "appearing to onlookers to be playing fair" if you want to model players' actual thought processes.
Especially given the small financial stakes - nobody is paying their next month's rent with their cut of 10 euros - the money payoff is unlikely to be a good approximation of player perceived utility. It's much more important to impress those women as a sane and reasonable type of guy and not some kind of knuckle-dragging baboon than to get an extra euro or two out of the guy across the table.
Too many comments to read through, so apologies if someone mentioned it -- but sexual arousal is activated by the parasympathetic division (relax-based) of the autonomic (involuntary) nervous system. If the parasympathetic is activated, typically that turns off the sympathetic division (fight/fright/flight/orgasm).
So, imagine you just digested a large meal -- how eager are you to play sports or chess? So, being highly sexually aroused probably dialed down their sympathetic division, which would make them less aggressive.
I would have to admit that attractive women throw off my judgment as well. However, I'm not sure that pictures of attractive women would have any effect. And the effect on my judgment that the presence of attractive women have on me normally is limited to things that I say.
They tend to cause me to blurt out stupid and embarassing things.
They've just covered this on the BBC under this title:
'Men really do have 'Benny Hill moments''
ah! - I can hear that soundtrack now (Yackity Sax):
http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/play/port_lofi.cfm?sound_iid=29374
Kapitano's right, the study was not well controlled: you need to see what happens when you switch the reward conditions. (Disclaimer: I haven't actually, you know, read the thing; could be they cover this.)
Also, this:
Now I'm wondering what effect [i]your[/i] picture has on me when I read your blog Tara!
makes me wonder what effect my ugly mug has on my readers?
And how many of you just clicked on this because of the possibility of pictures of bikini-clad women?
*raises hand guiltily*
And, uh, how much do you want us to pay you to see the rest of the pictures?
Bob
"Now I'm wondering what effect [i]your[/i] picture has on me when I read your blog Tara! - and no this is not an appeal for you to wear a bikini!!!"
I'd just like to say that I find everything Tara says reasonable and well argued, and I'm sure and the picture in the top right has absolutely no influence on my opinion.
Real expert critiques the study.
I think that sexual stimulus of pretty women caused the men to behave more generously not more rationally. If women do perfer "providers," then it would be adaptive for men to respond to "pretty women" by being more generous with their resources.
No I wonder how this would apply to casinos, where clearly the rational choice is to not gamble.
Now I feel like quoting for the great thinker, Al Bundy: "Pretty women make us buy beer. Ugly women make us drink beer."
Re negative results
Journals might not be the best thing.
I've heard talk of an organic chemistry Wiki devoted to synthesis. In that format, there would be a lot of negatives discussed. I think it's a grand idea and wouldn't want it to be limited to organic.
Don't know if you're still reading this, but:
I'm in my 40s (ahem), and have slightly less...er...testosterone directedness...than I did when younger, which means still more than most men. I'm definitely ruled by it, which means I'll take a chance first, then ensure I get to keep what I took a risk for, which is likely risk and protection behavior (Soc. students feel free to chime in).
Anyway, HTH.
Best,
D
Slate had the best headline on this report that I have seen so far: "This is Your Brain on Jugs"
The effect is obviously real, when I look at Tara's picture (Hot AND Smart- WOW!) I can feel some of my little IQ thingies leaking out.....
LOL .....So... according to this research. Now I get why CASINOS allow sexy girls everywhere!!!!!
So I'm reading all this about bikini clad babes and it's a pretty interesting conversation, but I have a question:
Agnostic -
You're just a barrel of laughs at a pool party, aren't you?
(just kidding you, of course)
:)