Ermer, Cosmides, Tooby By: Breana & Bryan Relative status regulates risky decision making about resources in men: evidence for the co-evolution of motivation and cognition

The Evolution of Decision Making While many decisions that humans or other organisms make may be mathematically irrational, they can be ecologically rational E.g. ambiguity aversion can be easily reversed by shifting the context Authors primarily explore two concepts If decision-making is fractured into separate systems governing separate domains If it is domain-specific, whether this has implications on a separation of motivation and cognition within domains

Resource and Intrasexual Competition Resources important to male-male but not female-female competition. A motivational system should regulate males’ willingness to take risks in a competitive environment Presence of peers encourages men, but not women, to prefer high risk/high reward options (Daly & Wilson, 2001) Not only the presence of peers should matter, but also the sex and status of those peers This should only apply to problems involving status-relevent resources

Risk-Sensitive Foraging Theory Willingness to take a risk is regulated by an organisms need i.e. if safer choice doesn’t meet organism’s needs, risky choice seems more viable Has successfully predicted both animal foraging behavior (Real & Caraco, 1986) and human risky decision making (Rode et al., 1999) This theory becomes somewhat more complicated when applied to this research

Risk-Sensitive Foraging Theory Resource of interest: Social Status Social status is always relative to who is being compared Everyone aspires to be high-status High-status individuals should seek the low risk/low reward choice Equal or lower-status individuals should seek the high risk/high reward choice

Dominance Theory Motivation to risk injury is regulated by the value of a resource to an individual, and by the risk of a competitor causing injury in pursuit of that resource. Individuals should be less willing to ‘challenge’ higher status individuals, but should be motivated to ‘challenge’ equal status individuals.

Risk-Sensitive Foraging Theory vs Dominance Theory Both theories predict a high level of risk-taking when dealing with equal status individuals Dominance theory predicts less risk-taking in the presence of higher status individuals, and more risk-taking with lower status individuals Motivation for risk-taking Other’s Status Risk-Sensitive Foraging Dominance HigherHighLow EqualHigh LowerLow

Predictions 1. Relative social status will regulate men’s risky decision making about resources 2. The presence of both resource opportunities and status rivals will result in one of two patterns a. Higher status competitors will increase risk-taking motivation b. Only equal status competitors will increase risk-taking motivation 3. Relative status should only regulate decisions within the domain of intrasexual competition 4. Previous predictions will only apply to men

Study 1 - Methods Subjects – 94 (42 male) Psych students Presented with both a resource loss problem and a medical loss problem Both contained a sure option and a risky option Subjects told the experimenter was interested in perceptions of others’ decisions Competitors-the ones observing the videos Competitor status based on the college they were from (e.g. Princeton-high status)

Study 1- Results Relative social status significantly affected how often men chose the risky option on the resource loss problem Dominance theory supported- men who thought they were being evaluated by status equals chose the high- risk/highgain option for acquiring resources significantly more often than men who thought their own status was lower or higher than that of their evaluators

Study 1- Results *proportions of men choosing the risky option in the lower and higher status conditions did not differ significantly from one another

Study 1- Results Relative status had no effect on how often men chose the risky option on the control problem (medical treatments for preventing loss of life) L=64%, E=50%, H=57% Social status did not significantly affect how often women chose the risky option on either problem resource loss: L=35%, E=29%, H=33% medical loss: L=53%, E=47%, H=39%

Study 2 - Methods Subjects (101 male) Psych 101 students Presented with a similar resource gain problem and a medical gain problem, but also with two problems to explore the effect of personal involvement in the problem Competitor status again based on college prestige Virtually identical procedure

Study 2-Results relative status significantly affected how often men chose the risky option on the resource loss problem

Study 2- Results Status had no effect on men's choices in response to the control (medical loss) problem L=41%, E=65%, H=45% Status had no significant effect on men's choices on the medical gain problem L=50%, E=46%, H=74% Dominance theory supported- men chose the risky option more often in the equal status condition than in the lower or higher status conditions

Study 2-Results Relative status had no effect on men's choices on the resource gain problem L=55%, E=52%, H=48% Difference between resource loss and gain problems is expected cues of impending competition are necessary to activate a motivational system regulating competitive inclinations, and it is this system that uses relative status to regulate men's risky decision making

Study 2- Results Status effects for women were present in Experiment 2 (although not in Experiment 1) Does not fit any theory

Study 2- Results Status did not significantly affect women's choices on the resource gain problem L=61%, E=25%, H=35% Social status did not significantly affect women's choices on either medical problems framed in terms of loss of life: L=63%, E=40%, H=42% framed in terms of gains in longevity L=63%, E=50%, H=41%

Follow-Up Studies 2A Women from study 2 given the resource gain/loss problems Also given an identical medical loss problem, but where friends’ lives were at stake 2B Men given the medical loss with friends problem and a variant of the resource gain problem Also given a third, dummy problem

2A- Results Results suggest that experiment 2 represented noise rather than a real difference between populations

2A-Results Relative status did not affect women's risky choices on the medical friends problem L=62%, E=46%, H=69%

2B- Results Men's relative status did not affect their choices on the medical treatment problem L=58%, E=56%, H=33% The resource gain problem found no status effects L=50%, E=44%, H=56%:

Conclusions Supports hypothesis that relative social status will regulate men’s risky decision making about resources Supports hypothesis that equal status competitors will increase risk-taking motivation - losing one’s resources would result in challenge by equal status competitors Supports hypothesis that relative status should only regulate decisions within the domain of intrasexual competition - men's responses were produced by a motivational system specialized for regulating competitive interactions, which is equipped with its own, proprietary decision rules (this is cue regulated) Supports hypothesis that the previous predictions will only apply to men

Discussion Problems with study Imagined situations Results for women on Study 2 Questions?