人类雄性交配策略:2。“质量”和“数量”战略家的道德准则

Luci Paul, Linda R. Hirsch
{"title":"人类雄性交配策略:2。“质量”和“数量”战略家的道德准则","authors":"Luci Paul,&nbsp;Linda R. Hirsch","doi":"10.1016/0162-3095(96)00129-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Men following quality and quantity strategies (pair bond with paternal investment/short-term sexual bonds) should have different, self-serving moral codes. If so, the different strategists should rate dating behaviors differently on ethical (honest and exploitative) and usage (by quality and quantity courters) scales. Quality strategists, who use honest advertisement, should promote their honest behavior by sharp distinctions between what is honest and exploitative and between what men like themselves and others (quantity strategists) do. Quantity strategists, who may exploit (e.g., verbal or physical coercion), should blur these distinctions. Their interests are served by the belief that all men are alike and not morally distinguishable. The companion study obtained men's ratings of quality-strategy behaviors (honest) and quantity-strategy behaviors (exploitative) on ethical and usage scales. Correlations were obtained between those ratings and the same men's scores on bipolar dimensions distinguishing quality from quantity strategists: sexual history, adult characteristics associated with female mate preference, and certain childhood experiences. The correlations supported the hypotheses with two exceptions. First, socioeconomic status and endorsement of a foraging tactic (leave if sexual relations do not start quickly) predicted ratings for quality-strategy behaviors, but did not predict ratings for quantity-strategy behaviors. Sexual history items and childhood experiences related to perceptions of relationships predicted only the ratings for quantity-strategy behaviors. Second, ratings of the lack of honesty in exploitative behavior and its lack of usage by quality courters did not distinguish the strategists. Three conclusions followed. One, there are two kinds of quantity strategists: commodifiers who trade resources for sex and predators who exploit. Two, quantity strategists are mixed strategists while some men follow only a quality strategy. Three, quantity strategists deceive themselves about the exploitative character of their behavior. The data fit evolutionary analyses of human morality and, with a few exceptions, current views of contextual factors governing adoption of different reproductive strategies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":81211,"journal":{"name":"Ethology and sociobiology","volume":"17 1","pages":"Pages 71-86"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0162-3095(96)00129-X","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Human male mating strategies: II. Moral codes of “quality” and “quantity” strategists\",\"authors\":\"Luci Paul,&nbsp;Linda R. Hirsch\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/0162-3095(96)00129-X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Men following quality and quantity strategies (pair bond with paternal investment/short-term sexual bonds) should have different, self-serving moral codes. If so, the different strategists should rate dating behaviors differently on ethical (honest and exploitative) and usage (by quality and quantity courters) scales. Quality strategists, who use honest advertisement, should promote their honest behavior by sharp distinctions between what is honest and exploitative and between what men like themselves and others (quantity strategists) do. Quantity strategists, who may exploit (e.g., verbal or physical coercion), should blur these distinctions. Their interests are served by the belief that all men are alike and not morally distinguishable. The companion study obtained men's ratings of quality-strategy behaviors (honest) and quantity-strategy behaviors (exploitative) on ethical and usage scales. Correlations were obtained between those ratings and the same men's scores on bipolar dimensions distinguishing quality from quantity strategists: sexual history, adult characteristics associated with female mate preference, and certain childhood experiences. The correlations supported the hypotheses with two exceptions. First, socioeconomic status and endorsement of a foraging tactic (leave if sexual relations do not start quickly) predicted ratings for quality-strategy behaviors, but did not predict ratings for quantity-strategy behaviors. Sexual history items and childhood experiences related to perceptions of relationships predicted only the ratings for quantity-strategy behaviors. Second, ratings of the lack of honesty in exploitative behavior and its lack of usage by quality courters did not distinguish the strategists. Three conclusions followed. One, there are two kinds of quantity strategists: commodifiers who trade resources for sex and predators who exploit. Two, quantity strategists are mixed strategists while some men follow only a quality strategy. Three, quantity strategists deceive themselves about the exploitative character of their behavior. The data fit evolutionary analyses of human morality and, with a few exceptions, current views of contextual factors governing adoption of different reproductive strategies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":81211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethology and sociobiology\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 71-86\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0162-3095(96)00129-X\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethology and sociobiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230959600129X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethology and sociobiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016230959600129X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

遵循质量和数量策略(与父亲投资的伴侣关系/短期性关系)的男性应该有不同的、自私的道德准则。如果是这样的话,不同的战略家应该在道德(诚实和剥削)和使用(通过质量和数量计数器)的尺度上对约会行为进行不同的评价。使用诚实广告的质量战略家应该通过区分什么是诚实和剥削,以及像自己这样的人和其他人(数量战略家)所做的事情来促进他们的诚实行为。数量战略家可能会利用(例如,口头或身体胁迫),他们应该模糊这些区别。他们相信所有的人都是一样的,在道德上没有区别,这符合他们的利益。同伴研究获得了男性在道德和使用量表上对质量策略行为(诚实)和数量策略行为(剥削)的评分。这些评分与这些男性在双相维度上的得分之间存在相关性,这些维度区分了质量和数量战略家:性史、与女性择偶偏好相关的成年特征以及某些童年经历。相关性支持假设,但有两个例外。首先,社会经济地位和对觅食策略的认可(如果没有迅速开始性关系就离开)预测了质量策略行为的评分,但不能预测数量策略行为的评分。与关系感知相关的性历史项目和童年经历仅预测了数量策略行为的评分。第二,对剥削行为中缺乏诚实的评分和对高质量的竞争者缺乏诚实的使用并没有区分战略家。得出了三个结论。第一,数量战略家有两种:用资源换取性的商品化者和利用资源的掠夺者。第二,数量战略家是混合战略家,而有些人只遵循质量策略。第三,数量战略家对自己行为的剥削性质进行了欺骗。这些数据符合人类道德的进化分析,除了少数例外,也符合目前关于采用不同生殖策略的环境因素的观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Human male mating strategies: II. Moral codes of “quality” and “quantity” strategists

Men following quality and quantity strategies (pair bond with paternal investment/short-term sexual bonds) should have different, self-serving moral codes. If so, the different strategists should rate dating behaviors differently on ethical (honest and exploitative) and usage (by quality and quantity courters) scales. Quality strategists, who use honest advertisement, should promote their honest behavior by sharp distinctions between what is honest and exploitative and between what men like themselves and others (quantity strategists) do. Quantity strategists, who may exploit (e.g., verbal or physical coercion), should blur these distinctions. Their interests are served by the belief that all men are alike and not morally distinguishable. The companion study obtained men's ratings of quality-strategy behaviors (honest) and quantity-strategy behaviors (exploitative) on ethical and usage scales. Correlations were obtained between those ratings and the same men's scores on bipolar dimensions distinguishing quality from quantity strategists: sexual history, adult characteristics associated with female mate preference, and certain childhood experiences. The correlations supported the hypotheses with two exceptions. First, socioeconomic status and endorsement of a foraging tactic (leave if sexual relations do not start quickly) predicted ratings for quality-strategy behaviors, but did not predict ratings for quantity-strategy behaviors. Sexual history items and childhood experiences related to perceptions of relationships predicted only the ratings for quantity-strategy behaviors. Second, ratings of the lack of honesty in exploitative behavior and its lack of usage by quality courters did not distinguish the strategists. Three conclusions followed. One, there are two kinds of quantity strategists: commodifiers who trade resources for sex and predators who exploit. Two, quantity strategists are mixed strategists while some men follow only a quality strategy. Three, quantity strategists deceive themselves about the exploitative character of their behavior. The data fit evolutionary analyses of human morality and, with a few exceptions, current views of contextual factors governing adoption of different reproductive strategies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信