Looking for a long-term commitment this
Valentine's Day? Then don't call your love interest more than once, don't look
them in the eye too often, and no sexual advances on the first date.
These and other relationship sins can lower
your social price, giving you the image of a cheap bottle of wine, meant to be
guzzled at a party, rather than an expensive vintage, meant to be treasured
for a special occasion, says a U.S. professor of economics who theorizes on
the economics of the mating game.
According to David Anderson's study, coming
across as "eager" or "desperate" for commitment signals a
low social price, which drives away people looking to snag a prize husband or
wife.
Mr. Anderson, co-author of A Theory of
Quality Signalling in the Marriage Market, likens the marriage game to buying
wine.
"People want to buy the most expensive
wine that they can afford," he said. "If all you have to go on is
price, you're going to assume that the higher priced wine is better."
Mr. Anderson, an associate professor of
economics at Centre College in Kentucky, and Shigeyuyki Hamori, an economics
professor at Kobe University in Japan, put their theory together and tested it
by showing student recruits a series of personal ads and asking them to which
ones they'd be most likely to respond.
The results showed that playing hard to get
can often get you what you want in a relationship.
Because it's hard to determine future
qualities that make someone a good spouse (the study cites love, quality and
quantity of children, prestige, esteem, health, altruism, faithfulness and the
quality of meals as examples of household commodities that make up a
"marital income"), an inordinate amount of weight is placed on what
can be gleaned from early surface impressions.
Subjects in the study found phrases such as
"I don't spend time with just anyone" were more intriguing and
suggested more quality than "I'm not picky" or "you won't have
to twist my arm," which signalled desperation.
"Marital search involves highly
uncertain offers based on an initially meager number of signals," the
study found. "This makes it analogous to the choice of a doctor, a
university, or a bottle of wine under uncertainty."
So potential suitors make their judgments
on what the study calls a "social price" by observing the person's
actions in phone conversations, on dates and by talking to friends and family
of the love interest in question.
The study even provides a handy
mathematical formula for determining a possible mate's potential worth: *
(social price)=f (potential contribution to marital income).
A person can set themselves an expensive
social price by keeping their standards high. "Be patient with sexual
advances," Mr. Anderson said. "Don't appear desperate by staring at
someone for a long time or calling them repeatedly. You want to appear
accessible and available, but not too easy to attract."
Still, surface impressions can only tell us
so much, the study warns, and often can't fully predict who has the qualities
that make a good spouse. In those cases of false advertising, traditional
business models come into play.
"Over the long run, we start to see
most things about our spouses," he said. "And if (the person) is not
as advertised, the same thing happens that happens in the real world -- the
good is returned.
"We see it frequently in the marriage
world, where about half of all new marriages end in divorce."
Although this economic model may seem to
give concrete guidelines to nervous daters, not everyone in academia is quick
to accept it as gospel.
"For good or ill, people get married
for all sorts of reasons," said philosophy professor David Checkland, who
teaches a course at Ryerson University in Toronto called the Philosophy of
Love and Sex. "This seems sort of a one-size-fits-all, as if everyone
getting married has the same history, perceptions and preferences.
"Any relationship theory has to
operate on an individual level." - by Jordan
Heath-Rawlings The
Ottawa Citizen
14 Feb 2003
