The Matching Hypothesis

23
The Matching Hypothesis Jeff Schank PSC 120

description

The Matching Hypothesis. Jeff Schank PSC 120. Mating. Mating is an evolutionary imperative Much of life is structured around securing and maintaining long-term partnerships. Physical Attractiveness. Focus on physical attractiveness may have basis in “good genes” hypothesis - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of The Matching Hypothesis

Page 1: The Matching  Hypothesis

The Matching Hypothesis

Jeff SchankPSC 120

Page 2: The Matching  Hypothesis

Mating

• Mating is an evolutionary imperative• Much of life is structured around securing and

maintaining long-term partnerships

Page 3: The Matching  Hypothesis

Physical Attractiveness

• Focus on physical attractiveness may have basis in “good genes” hypothesis– Features associated with PA may be implicit

signals of genetic fitness• Social Psychology: How does physical

attractiveness influence mate choice?

Page 4: The Matching  Hypothesis

The Matching Paradox

• Everybody wants the most attractive mate• BUT, couples tend to be similar in attractiveness

• r = .4 to .6 (Feingold, 1988; Little et al., 2006)

Page 5: The Matching  Hypothesis

Matching Paradox

• How does this similarity between partners come about?

• How is the observed population-level regularity generated by the decentralized, localized interactions of heterogeneous autonomous individuals? (That’s a mouthful!)

Page 6: The Matching  Hypothesis

Kalick and Hamilton (1986)

• Previously, many researchers assumed people actively sought partners of equal attractiveness (the “matching hypothesis”)

• Repeated studies showed no indication of this, but rather a strong preference for the most attractive potential partners

• ABM showed that matching could occur with a preference for the most attractive potential partners

Page 7: The Matching  Hypothesis

The Model

• Male and female agents– Only distinguishing feature is attractiveness

• Randomly paired on “dates”• Choose whether to accept date as mate• Mutual acceptance coupling• “Attractiveness” can represent any one-

dimensional measure of mate quality

Page 8: The Matching  Hypothesis

The Model: Decision Rules

• Rule 1: Prefer the most attractive partner• Rule 2: Prefer the most similar partner• CT Rule: Agents become less “choosy” as they

have more unsuccessful dates – Acceptance was certain after 50 dates.

Page 9: The Matching  Hypothesis

The Model: Decision Rules more Formally

• Rule 1: Prefer the most attractive partner

• Rule 2: Prefer the most similar partner

• CT Rule: Agents become less “choosy” as they have more unsuccessful dates – Acceptance was certain

after 50 dates.

Page 10: The Matching  Hypothesis

Model Details

• Male and Female agents (1,000 of each)• Each agent randomly assigned an “attractiveness”

score, which is an integer between 1-10• Each time step, each unmated male was paired

with a random unmated female for a “date”• Each date accepted/rejected partner using

probabilistic decision rule• If mutual acceptance, the pair was mated and left

the dating pool

Page 11: The Matching  Hypothesis

Problem: Model not Parameterized

Page 12: The Matching  Hypothesis

Model Parameterized

• Male and Female agent (1,000 of each) Nm (males) and Nf (females)

• Each agent randomly assigned an “attractiveness” score, which is an integer between 1 – 10 A random number between 1 – Max(A)

Page 13: The Matching  Hypothesis

What Can We Do?

• Replicate the model and check the original results– Are there any other interesting things to check

out?• Modify the model

– Check robustness of findings– Increase realism and see what happens

Page 14: The Matching  Hypothesis

Replication

Rule 1 Rule 2Kalick and Hamilton r .55 .83

Mean r .61 .83

95% Confidence Interval (.57-.65) (.78-.87)

95% confidence interval means 95% of simulations had results in this range.

Page 15: The Matching  Hypothesis

Mathematical Structure of Decision Rules

• Qualitative difference easy to explain:– Accept a mate with a probability that increases an

agent’s objective maximizing: attractiveness (Rule 1) or similarity (Rule 2)

• There are many functions that could fit this description– Why a 3rd-order power function?– What is the probability of finding

a mate? – Is this the same for each rule?

Page 16: The Matching  Hypothesis

Mathematical Structure of Decision Rules

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

-0.05

-4.16333634234434E-17

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Rule 1

Rule 2

Attractiveness

Pro

babi

lity

of M

atch

ing

Rule 1 Rule 2 Rule 30

0.1

0.2

0.3

Ave

rage

Pro

babi

lity

A B

Page 17: The Matching  Hypothesis

Choice of Exponent n

• K & H used a 3rd-order power function with no explanation

• The assumption is that the exact nature of the function, including the value of the exponent, is unimportant

Page 18: The Matching  Hypothesis

Choice of Exponent n

0 1 2 3 4 50

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Rule 1

Rule 2

n

Pop

ulat

ion

Cor

rela

tion

Page 19: The Matching  Hypothesis

Space and Movement

• Usually, agents are paired completely randomly each turn– Spatial structure can facilitate the evolution of cooperation

(Nowak & May, 1992; Aktipis, 2004)

– Foraging: Different movement strategies vary in search efficiency and behave differently in various environmental conditions (Bartumeus et al., 2005; Hills, 2006)

• Agents were placed on 200x200 grid (bounded) allowing them to move probabilistically

• Could interact with neighbors only within a radius of 5 spaces

Page 20: The Matching  Hypothesis

Space and Movement

Zigzag Brownian

Page 21: The Matching  Hypothesis

Space and Movement

Rule 1 Rule 20

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

OriginalZigZagBrownian

Pop

ulat

ion

Cor

rela

tion

Page 22: The Matching  Hypothesis

Space and Movement

• Movement strategies and spatial structure influence mate choice dynamics

• Population density should influence speed of finding mates, as well as likelihood of finding an optimal mate

• Suggests the evolution of strategies to increase dating options (e.g., rise in Internet dating)

• Provides new opportunities for asking questions about individual behavior and population dynamics

Page 23: The Matching  Hypothesis

Conclusions

• By modifying any number of the parameters, either decision rule can generate almost any desired correlation

• The Matching Paradox remains unresolved by Kalick and Hamilton’s (1986) ABM

• It is important to evaluate the effects of parameter values and environmental assumptions of a model