{"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, 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, 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}
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.