Changing her ways: The number of options and mate-standard strength impact mate choice strategy and satisfaction

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 7, October 2008, pp. 501–511
Changing her ways: The number of options and mate-standard
strength impact mate choice strategy and satisfaction
Alison P. Lenton? and Amanda Stewart
Department of Psychology
University of Edinburgh
Abstract
Researchers know very little about how people choose mates. To remedy this, the present study examined the in?u-
ence of number of potential mates and mate-standard strength on single women’s choice satisfaction and strategy use.
Single women chose one potential partner from a set of 4, 24, or 64 options presented on a real dating website. Partici-
pants adjusted to an increasing number of options by changing their decision-making strategies, such that they relied on
noncompensatory, attribute-based strategies as the number of options increased. Across conditions they reported similar
levels of satisfaction with the choice process and the person selected. Mate-standard strength quali?ed some of the re-
sults, however, as women with higher mate standards preferred extensive choice, and they tended to prefer compensatory
choice strategies and were more satis?ed with the option selected when he was selected from among many.
Keywords: mate choice; choice strategies; heuristics; choice satisfaction; standards.
In the 14th century, when 23 people lived in one farm-
1.1 Too many jams and chocolates
ing village, it must have been pretty easy to select your
spouse. . . Now, with globalization we actually have mil-
It is commonly believed that the more options there
lions of partners to choose from. . . I don’t know about
are, the better (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000). Sustaining
you, but I freeze in the supermarket just looking at four
this belief, many studies have demonstrated extensive
brands of washing powder. (Coren, 2006).
choice’s bene?ts for intrinsic motivation (Zuckerman,
Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978), motivation to learn
(Cordova & Lepper, 1996), and well-being (Langer &
Rodin, 1976). However, studies have shown that an
increase in choice may have potential costs (Simonson
1 Introduction
& Tversky, 1992; Tversky & Sha?r, 1992). Iyengar
and Lepper’s (2000) now-classic research clearly illus-
trates some such downsides. In one study, supermarket
This woman describes a potential quandary of modern
shoppers encountered a stand displaying either 6 (limited
dating. More than 600 million people worldwide have
choice) or 24 (extensive choice) ?avors of jam. Although
Internet access (Manasian, 2003), and with innovations
more shoppers approached the stand displaying the exten-
such as dating websites, people can literally access “mil-
sive selection, more shoppers purchased jam in the lim-
lions of pro?les for millions of [romantic] possibilities”
ited choice condition. In a similar study of chocolates,
(Match.com, n.d.). This may seem like a fantastic de-
participants in the limited choice condition were signi?-
velopment, as we no longer have to settle for the vil-
cantly more satis?ed with their selection than were par-
lager next door. But how — if at all — do we cope with
ticipants in the extensive choice condition. Thus, while
such extensive choice? This study examines the effects of
extensive choice is initially appealing, it may lead to de-
the number of potential mates on single women’s choice
cision avoidance and decreased satisfaction.
strategy and satisfaction, and how mate-standard strength
The choice strategy a chooser uses may similarly de-
moderates these effects.
pend on the number of options available (Payne, Bettman,
& Johnson, 1993).
People are more likely to adopt
noncompensatory choice strategies and/or more attribute-
?We would like to thank Augustina Skoropadskaya for her assistance
based choice strategies when faced with extensive choice;
with data collection. Address: Alison Lenton, Department of Psychol-
ogy, University of Edinburgh, 7 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ,
limited choice elicits the use of relatively more compen-
United Kingdom; email: a.lenton@ed.ac.uk.
satory strategies and/or more option-based choice strate-
501

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 7, October 2008
Number of options and mate choice strategy
502
gies. (Table 1 lists such strategies; see Payne et al.,
Barnes, 1986; Hitsch, Hortacsu & Ariely, 2006; Todd,
1993; Tversky, 1972.) Furthermore, a larger number
Penke, Fasolo, & Lenton, 2007), there has been rela-
of options is more likely to elicit the use of multiple-
tively little investigating how we choose. Of the latter,
strategies, with one used to winnow the set to a smaller
most research focuses on normative or simulated choice
number and another used to examine the remaining op-
strategy use (Simão & Todd, 2002, 2003; Todd, 1997;
tions in greater detail (Edwards & Fasolo, 2001; Payne
Todd & Miller, 1999). Nevertheless, some models sug-
et al., 1993). Use of heuristic-type choice strategies may
gest that mate search strategies may rely on choice heuris-
help choosers deal with the cognitive load and costs that
tics, rather than more information-hungry choice strate-
can result from extensive choice. In fact, their use can
gies, and that the use of such strategies can result in “good
help choosers achieve notable accuracy and time savings
enough” choices (given bounds on rationality), support-
(Payne, Bettman, Johnson, & Coupey, 1990).
ing their adaptiveness in this context (Bateson & Healy,
Chernev (2003a,b) proposed that individual differ-
2005; Todd; Todd & Miller).
ences may moderate the extent to which large option sets
A recent study suggests that, as in consumer choice,
overwhelm. He argued that those with an articulated
reliance on choice heuristics may increase with the num-
ideal point (i.e., people who have well-de?ned prior pref-
ber of potential mates (Lenton, Fasolo, & Todd, in press).
erences) are likely to be even more attracted to exten-
As the number of opposite-sex speed-daters rose, mating
sive choice but, crucially, are less likely to be affected
skew increased (n.b., mating skew is traditionally used
negatively by it. This is because “ideal points imply a
to study non-human animals’ [in]equality in mating suc-
hierarchical attribute structure and readily articulated at-
cess; see Kokko & Lindström, 1997). In other words,
tribute tradeoffs” (p. 175). In other words, those without
with an increasing number of potential mates, individual
an articulated ideal point have to construct their prefer-
speed-daters are more likely to converge upon the same
ences on the ?y, while those with articulated preferences
option(s). To make their choice, speed-daters predomi-
can put them to use immediately and easily. In line with
nantly pay attention to visual cues (e.g., physical attrac-
this theorizing, Chernev (2003b) found that participants
tiveness), which are easy to assess (Olson & Marshuetz,
with (versus without) an articulated ideal point were less
2005) and about which people there exists consensus re-
likely to trade in a chocolate selected from a large as-
garding what makes for an appealing mate; whereas they
sortment, but more likely to trade in a chocolate selected
pay less attention to harder-to-observe cues (e.g., edu-
from a small assortment. And participants faced with
cation level), because they are dif?cult to assess when
choosing a chocolate from an extensive set were more
speed-dating (Kurzban & Weeden, 2005). To explain
likely to search option-by-option, but only if they had ar-
the relationship between the number of options and mat-
ticulated preferences; otherwise, they searched attribute-
ing skew, Lenton et al. argued that participants’ choice
by-attribute (Chernev, 2003a). Thus, people who know
strategy changed as a function of the size of the speed-
what they want are more likely to use option-based (ver-
dating event: In larger sessions, they focused even more
sus attribute-based) choice strategies and to be more con-
intently on easy-to-observe cues that re?ect preferences
tent with their choice when selecting from an extensive
held in common by many other speed-daters, leading to
array, as compared to those with unarticulated prefer-
less spread in their distribution of choices (more skew).
ences. The impact of articulated preferences on the use
Conversely, in smaller sessions participants attempted to
of compensatory versus noncompensatory strategies has
combine more cues, including those re?ecting relatively
not been directly examined to our knowledge. Theory
idiosyncratic preferences and, as a result, their distribu-
would have us predict, however, that the application of
tion of choices became more spread (less skewed). The
compensatory strategies — which are cognition-intensive
evidence for these contentions, however, is only indirect.
(Payne, et al., 1993) — becomes easier when one pos-
More direct evidence regarding the impact of extensive
sesses a well-de?ned preference structure.
choice on the chooser comes from another recent study
(Lenton, Fasolo, and Todd, 2008). Participants viewed a
1.2 Too many mates?
mock dating website comprising either 4 or 20 pro?les,
the former of which a preliminary study identi?ed as be-
According to Klayman (1985), the distinctions between
ing too small, and the latter of which the same study iden-
limited and extensive option sets become fewer when the
ti?ed as being within an ideal range. Thereafter, partic-
choice domain is of import. And what could be more
ipants reported on the dif?culty of selecting a potential
important than choosing a mate (Miller & Todd, 1998)?
mate, their satisfaction with and (preliminary) regret con-
Again, the purpose of the present research is to investi-
cerning their choice, and the enjoyment they experienced
gate the impact of having extensive versus limited choice
making this choice. Participants’ memory for the person
on mate choice strategy and satisfaction. While there has
selected was also tested. The results revealed no differ-
been a great deal of research on who we choose (Buss &
ential affect or meta-cognition as a function of the size

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 7, October 2008
Number of options and mate choice strategy
503
of the mate option set. Analysis of participants’ mem-
mizers are purported to have higher standards, maximiz-
ory indicated that participants selecting from 20 potential
ers’ higher standards supposedly lead them to become
mates had more memory intrusions (i.e., confabulations).
more overwhelmed when faced with extensive choice.
Thus, in the mate choice domain, a “too-small” option set
On the contrary, we expected that mate-standard strength
seemingly leads to the same choice experience as does an
would moderate the effect of the number of options on
“ideal” option set. At the same time, there is evidence
choosers’ choice experience and strategy, such that in-
that even an ideal number of options contributes to the
dividuals with higher standards (i.e., where the ideal
use of search strategies requiring reduced processing of
mate dominates on most attributes) — like those with
the options.
Chernev’s (2003ab) articulated preferences — would pre-
fer extensive choice, be more satis?ed with their selection
from extensive choice, use compensatory strategies and
1.3 Study Overview
process information more by option in extensive choice
Our study improves and expands upon the work by
than would individuals with lower mate standards, who
Lenton et al. (2008) in several ways. Firstly, for this
are relatively more like those without articulated prefer-
study we recruited single women who made their selec-
ences.
tions from a real, rather than mock, dating website. In ad-
dition to enhancing the external validity of the ?ndings,
the present work expands the theoretical implications be-
2 Method
cause participants made their choice from a set of 4, 24,
or 64 potential mates. Not only is the addition of this
2.1 Participants
third — larger-than-ideal — condition more indicative of
We recruited 122 participants via advertisements seeking
what real webdaters might encounter on a dating website,
single, female students between the ages of 18 and 27
but — unlike the study by Lenton et al. (2008) — it pro-
from the University of Edinburgh community. Despite
vides a true test of the effects of “too much choice” on
this directed promotion, 17 participants reported having
choosers in this domain. Furthermore, the present study
a regular dating partner or being in a serious relation-
examines an alternative explanation for the ?nding that
ship (all others had either a casual/sexual partner or no
the number of options has little impact on choosers in
partner); these participants were excluded from the anal-
this important domain. In particular, it is evident that hu-
yses. Additionally, one person reported being male and
mans possess well-de?ned preferences regarding the at-
one person failed to indicate his or her sex; these partic-
tributes they desire in a mate (e.g., Buss & Barnes, 1986;
ipants were also excluded. Finally, three further partici-
Li, Kenrick, Bailey, & Linsenmeier, 2002). As a result,
pants were excluded from the analyses, as they reported
and regardless of the number of options, people may rely
being homosexual or failed to indicate a sexual orienta-
on compensatory and/or option-based choice heuristics in
tion. Homosexual women could not be included, as the
this domain (Klayman, 1985). Accordingly, selecting a
study required participants to consider men as potential
potential mate from a larger set may become just as easy,
romantic relationship partners. The ?nal data set con-
enjoyable, etc., as selecting one from a smaller set.
tained 100 participants for analysis.
Among those with articulated preferences, however,
there remains potential variability in the use of such
choice strategies. Such variability may result from dif-
2.2 Materials and procedure
ferences in mate-standard strength, which is similar to
Simon’s (1955) notion of aspiration level. Unlike the lat-
After
obtaining
consent,
we
gave
partici-
ter construct, however, mate-standard strength does not
pants instructions on using the dating website
concern minimally acceptable levels of the criteria but,
(http://personals.londonist.com1).
These asked par-
rather, optimal or ideal levels of the criteria. In this way,
ticipants to look through the pro?les with the goal of
mate-standard strength might be more akin to what Sel-
“select(ing) the one individual that, hypothetically, you
ten (2001) calls a “permissible” aspiration level, which
would most like to contact for further communication
is potentially optimistic (p. 21). Regardless of the par-
and possibly a date.” These instructions also contained
ticulars of this distinction, we expect that aspiration level
the primary manipulation: Participants were randomly
and mate-standard strength function similarly, as both re-
assigned to instruction set, which told them to look at
late to individuals’ thresholds of acceptability and, thus,
1, 6, or 16 pages of the website (4 pro?les per page).
the ease with which a decision maker can winnow op-
The experimenter then demonstrated how to navigate the
tions in/out. From this perspective, we do not necessarily
website, including how to use the favorites folder (see
view mate-standard strength as being similar to Schwartz
1Since the study’s completion, this dating website has been replaced
et al.’s (2002) notion of maximizing, for, although maxi-
by another.

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 7, October 2008
Number of options and mate choice strategy
504
below). Women’s pro?les were used for this demon-
to indicate on 7-point scales the extent to which their ideal
stration so that participants would not be exposed to
— but realistic — partner should be: attractive, a high-
additional male pro?les. When participants understood
earner, intelligent, witty, warm-hearted, healthy, sociable,
how to navigate the website, they were permitted to
highly educated, and in a high-status occupation (charac-
begin viewing their assigned number of pro?les; at this
teristics known to be important to women in mate choice;
point, the experimenter took note of the time (in minutes)
Buss & Barnes, 1986). The ?nal, demographics section
at which the participant began viewing the pro?les.
of the questionnaire asked participants to report their sex,
Each pro?le initially consisted of the person’s photo-
age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and relationship status
graph, user name, age (per search restrictions put in place
(described previously). Once a participant completed the
prior to participants’ arrival, all men were between the
questionnaire, she was thanked, debriefed, and paid £5.50
ages of 18 and 27), and their location (restricted to men
(approximately $10 at the time).
in the UK). If a participant wanted to see more informa-
tion about a person, she could click on that individual and
?nd out, for example, the individual’s hobbies and career.
The website also contained a favorites folder into which
3 Results & Discussion
the participant could add pro?les for re-viewing and/or
comparing with others at any time.
3.1 Variable Construction
When the participants completed their search, the ex-
perimenter took note of the time again (in minutes), and
Before hypothesis testing, we needed to ensure that the
provided them with a questionnaire, which asked par-
set-size manipulation did not in?uence participants’ ideal
ticipants to write the user name of the person selected.
mate standards, as it has been hypothesized — but not
The questionnaire continued with a series of questions
shown – that one of the ways people deal with extensive
about their choice and method of choosing. In particular,
choice is to raise their standards (Schwartz, 2000). We
nine items asked participants to report their choice ex-
ran a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) on the
perience using 7-point scales (Lenton et al., 2008), such
nine ideal mate ratings, with the number of options (4
as the dif?culty of making the choice, their (preliminary)
vs. 24. vs. 64 pro?les) as the independent variable. The
regret concerning the selected individual, the degree to
multivariate test showed that the effect was nonsigni?cant
which they would like to change their choice, their enjoy-
across the ratings, Wilks’ ? = .83, F (18, 178) = .96, p
ment of the choice process, their (preliminary) satisfac-
= .50. Thus, whether a participant examined 4, 24, or 64
tion and contentment with the individual selected, how
pro?les did not affect her standards regarding what makes
well-informed they thought their choice was, whether
for an ideal partner. The nine responses were averaged to
they had wanted more (versus fewer) pro?les to choose
form our MSS measure (? = .63).3
from, and whether they had wanted more (versus less)
Next we conducted an exploratory factor analysis
information about each of the individuals.
(principal components, varimax rotation) on the choice
Participants indicated whether they used the favorites
experience items. The scree plot and eigenvalues (>1)
folder (yes or no), and (if yes) how many pro?les they
suggested a two factor solution, together explaining 51%
put into the folder (with eight option-clusters provided:
of the variance. Items were assigned to a factor if they
1–2, 3–5, 6–10, 11–15, 16–20, 21–25, 26–30, or 31+).
loaded above .3. If an item loaded above .3 on both,
Following this, the questionnaire asked participants to re-
it was assigned to the higher-loading factor. The ?rst
port the strategy they used to make their choice (“tick all
factor, comprising seven items, was named “choice sat-
that apply”), via exemplar descriptions assessing: Satis-
isfaction,” and relates to items indicating a positive atti-
?cing (Sat), Lexicographic (Lex), Most Con?rming Di-
tude towards the choice process and the selection made
mensions (MCD), Elimination by Aspects (EBA) and/or
(e.g., “I enjoyed choosing” and “I am satis?ed with my
(Weighted) Averaging (WAV; see Appendix).
These
choice”). The second factor, named “wants more,” re-
strategies are among the most commonly used and, to-
lates to the two items asking participants if they wished
gether, they represent all four combinations of compen-
they’d had more pro?les or more information in each pro-
satory versus noncompensatory strategies and attribute-
?le. Only the ?rst factor had satisfactory internal consis-
versus option-based strategies (see Table 1; Edwards &
tency (? = .75 for the ?rst, ? = .57 for the second), so we
Fasolo, 2001; Payne et al., 1993).2
averaged the relevant items to form a choice satisfaction
In order to assess mate-standard strength (MSS, here-
index, whereas the other two items were analyzed inde-
after), participants responded to nine items asking them
pendently of one another.
2Weighted additive/average and equal weight strategies don’t differ
with respect to these features, hence the generality of the WAV descrip-
3The internal consistency of this measure would not improve signif-
tion.
icantly with the removal of any item.

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 7, October 2008
Number of options and mate choice strategy
505
3.2 Outliers
6
High MSS (+1 SD)
For hypothesis testing with the continuous dependent
variables, outliers were detected via analysis of studen-
5
tized deleted residuals, Leverage values, and Cook’s dis-
Low MSS (?1 SD)
tances, and then removed to avoid undue in?uence on the
4
coef?cients.4 Where such outliers were identi?ed and re-
moved, we note it below. With respect to categorical de-
pendent variables, we did not remove outliers because, in
3
some cases, this served to obviate the analysis (e.g., be-
cause the identi?ed outliers were all of the cases in one
Positive choice experience
2
of the set-size conditions); for these, we present the 95%
con?dence intervals around Exp[B].
1
3.3 Choice experience
Small
Large
Number of options
To examine whether the number of options in?uenced
participants’ choice experience and, further, whether this
Figure 1: Choice Experience: Contrast 1 × Mate-
relationship is moderated by MSS, we conducted three
Standard Strength (MSS) Interaction.
multiple linear regressions, one with choice satisfaction
as the dependent variable (DV), another with wants more
pro?les as the DV, and a third with wants more infor-
linear effect of set-size condition indicating that the de-
mation as the DV. Each DV was regressed on the linear
sire to see more pro?les decreased as the number of op-
contrast of set-size condition (contrast 1: –1, 0, +1, in
tions increased, t(96) = –2.70, p = .008, pr = –.27; 2) a
ascending order), the quadratic contrast of set-size con-
marginal quadratic effect of set-size condition suggesting
dition (contrast 2: –1, +2, –1, in ascending order), MSS
that those in the “ideal” set-size condition were somewhat
(centered), contrast 1 × MSS, and contrast 2 × MSS.
less likely than participants in the other two conditions
The analysis of choice satisfaction showed one signif-
combined to want to see additional pro?les, t(96) = –1.73,
icant result (two outliers removed): the linear effect of
p = .087, pr = –.18; and 3) a marginal effect of MSS sug-
set-size condition (contrast 1) depended on MSS, t(95) =
gesting that participants with strong mate standards were
1.99, p = .049, pr (i.e., partial correlation) = .21. For all
somewhat more likely to desire additional options, t(96)
other predictors, | t(95) | < .75, p > .45. To interpret the
= 1.73, p = .087, pr = .18. These effects were quali?ed by
interaction, we examined the relationship between MSS
a signi?cant contrast 1 × MSS interaction, t(96) = 3.13,
and choice satisfaction for the small (4) and large (64)
p = .002, pr = .31, and a contrast 2 × MSS interaction,
conditions separately. Neither relationship reached sig-
t(96) = –2.13, p = .036, pr = –.22. Because the interac-
ni?cance: t(32) = –1.50, p = .15, pr = –.26 and t(30)
tion containing the linear effect (contrast 1) was notably
= 1.43, p = .16, pr = .25, respectively. The interaction
stronger, it is the one we analyze further by examining the
stems from their different signs. Replicating Lenton et
smallest (4) and largest (64) conditions separately. The
al.’s (2008) results, set-size condition had no overall im-
relationship between MSS and wants more pro?les was
pact on the choice experience. Like Chernev (2003a,b),
nonsigni?cant in the small condition, t(34) = –.52, p =
we believe that extensive choice does not necessarily have
.61, pr = –.09, but signi?cant in the large condition, t(30)
sizeable affective or meta-cognitive downsides. The pri-
= 3.37, p = .002, pr = .52. Participants with higher (ver-
mary determinant of whether choosers experienced these
sus lower) mate standards did not differ in their desire to
was MSS. Possessing higher (versus lower) standards
see more pro?les in the small condition; in the large con-
yields more choice satisfaction when confronting exten-
dition, however, those with higher standards still wanted
sive choice, and less choice satisfaction when confronting
to see more pro?les (Figure 2). Thus, the desire of those
limited choice (Figure 1).
with higher mate standards to have abundant choice was
The analysis of wants more pro?les revealed several
not satis?ed by our extensive choice condition. On the
effects (two outliers removed), including: 1) a signi?cant
other hand, those with lower mate standards were more
sensitive to the number of available options.
4The criteria (Judd & McClelland, 1989) were: if | SDR | > 3, the
The third regression yielded one signi?cant result (two
case was removed. If a Leverage value > three times its mean value or
outliers removed): a main effect of MSS indicating that,
if Cook’s distance was unusual, the other indices were inspected. If at
least one additional index also suggested the case was unusual, it was
as mate standards increased, so did participants’ desire to
removed.
have more information about each potential mate., t(96)

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 7, October 2008
Number of options and mate choice strategy
506
7
when faced with many options, a pattern of results corre-
sponding with our prediction that those with strong mate
6
High MSS (+1 SD)
standards would rely less upon noncompensatory strate-
gies (more on compensatory) when confronting extensive
5
choice. A complication exists, however, because Sat is
also an option- rather than attribute-based search strat-
Low MSS (?1 SD)
4
egy; from this perspective, the interaction con?icts with
our prediction regarding the effects of MSS on the use of
3
option-based strategies in large sets. To remedy this con-
Wanted more profiles
?ict, we propose that high MSS preference for compen-
satory strategies outweighs that for option-based search
2
strategies.
1
Analysis of MCD, a compensatory, attribute-based
search strategy, indicated that as the number of options
Small
Large
increased, so did participants’ reliance on MCD. While
this result supports one aspect of prior research on con-
Number of options
sumer choice (increased use of attribute-based strategies),
Figure 2: Wanted More Pro?les: Contrast 1 × Mate-
it con?icts with another (decreased use of compensatory
Standard Strength (MSS) Interaction.
strategies; Payne et al., 1993; Tversky, 1972). This
marginal effect was quali?ed, however, by a marginal
interaction with MSS. Analysis by set-size condition
= 2.15, p = .035, pr = .22. All other effects were non-
showed that the effect of MSS was nonsigni?cant for
signi?cant, | t(96) | < 1.25, p > .20. Not only do those
both the small (Wald ?2 = 2.20, p = .14, Exp[B] .54)
with higher mate standards seem willing and able to deal
and large (Wald ?2 = .73, p = .39, Exp[B] = 1.43) op-
effectively with more options, but they also want to know
tion sets; it was the relationship’s direction that differed.
more about the options’ attributes, regardless of the num-
Having higher mate standards is associated with lesser
ber of options.
use of MCD when confronting limited choice, but in-
creasing use of MCD when confronting extensive choice.
3.4 Choice Strategies
These results are in line with our prediction concerning
the moderating in?uence of MSS on the use of compen-
The adaptive use of choice strategy may help explain the
satory strategies in large option sets and, further, support
choice experience results. We conducted ?ve binary lo-
our contention that strategy use depends more upon its
gistic regressions, one per strategy (Sat, MCD, Lex, EBA,
(non)compensatory nature than whether it is option- or
and WAV). Each DV (code: 0 = no, 1 = yes) was re-
attribute-based. Importantly, the strongest predictor of
gressed on the linear effect of set-size condition (con-
MCD, however, was the quadratic contrast: Participants
trast 1; see Table 1), the quadratic effect of set-size con-
were more likely to use MCD in the ideal-sized set ver-
dition (contrast 2), MSS (centered), and the interactions
sus the other sets combined. This result seems to re?ect
between MSS and each of the two contrasts. Table 1 pro-
MCD’s status as a strategy that lies somewhere between
vides the results.
those that are wholly heuristic and those that are wholly
In line with consumer choice research (Payne et al.,
maximizing for, like the former, it is attribute-based and
1993; Tversky, 1972), for two of the three noncom-
it does not require the chooser to take into account all of
pensatory strategies — both of which are also attribute-
the available information but, like the latter, it is compen-
based (Lex, EBA) — as the number of potential mates
satory, it makes consistent use of the information it does
increased, participants were more likely to report using
incorporate, it leads to the formation of an overall eval-
these heuristics (see Table 2). This effect was observed
uation, and it relies on quantitative (versus qualitative)
for the third noncompensatory strategy (Sat) as well,
reasoning (Payne et al., 1993).
though its expression depended somewhat upon MSS.
As for WAV, our compensatory, option-based search
Analysis of Sat by set-size showed that MSS was non-
strategy, we found signi?cant linear and quadratic effects
signi?cant for the small (Wald ?2 = 1.99, p = .16, Exp[B]
of condition, with the former being stronger and, thus,
= 5.27) and large (Wald ?2 = 1.05, p = .31, Exp[B] =
the one to weigh more heavily. Participants were less
.59) option sets. The interaction stems from the differ-
likely to use WAV as the number of options increased,
ing directions of the focal relationship, such that having
as expected from consumer choice studies (Payne et al.,
higher mate standards is associated with more satis?cing
1993; see Table 2). The quadratic effect suggests, how-
when faced with few options choice, and less satis?cing
ever, that those in the smallest and largest sets combined

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 7, October 2008
Number of options and mate choice strategy
507
Table 1: Effects of condition and mate-standard strength on choice strategy.
Predictors
Wald ?2
Quadratic
Linear Set-size
Mate-Standard
Exp(B)
Set-size
C1 × MSS
C2 × MSS
Contrast (C1)1
Strength (MSS)
[95% CI Exp(B)]
Contrast (C2)2
1.76
.00
2.18
2.90†
.26
Satis?cing
4.00
1.02
2.09
.21
.66
(noncomp, option)
[.52 - 30.91]
[.16 - 6.53]
[.79 - 5.53]
[.04 - 1.26]
[.14 - 3.24]
Most Con?rming
3.08†
5.86*
.11
2.73†
.15
Dimensions
2.02
.41
.93
2.00
.87
(comp, attrib)
[.92 - 4.44]
[.20 - .84]
[.60 - 1.45]
[.88 - 4.54]
[.42 - 1.77]
4.01*
.15
.99
1.94
1.08
Lexicographic
4.22
1.28
1.45
.38
1.88
(noncomp, attrib)
[1.03 - 17.32]
[.36 - 4.55]
[.70 - 3.04]
[.10 - 1.48]
[.57 - 6.21]
Elimination by
5.94*
.01
.45
.41
.52
Aspects
2.45
1.03
1.16
.78
1.29
(noncomp, attrib)
[1.19 - 5.04]
[.51 - 2.08]
[.76 - 1.77]
[.36 - 1.68]
[.64 - 2.59]
(Weighted)
10.82**
7.87**
.05
1.94
2.84†
Averaging
.25
3.10
1.06
.56
1.94
(comp, option)
[.11 - .57]
[1.41 - 6.85]
[.67 - 1.68]
[.243 - 1.27]
[.90 - 4.20]
Search strategy features: comp = compensatory, noncomp = noncompensatory; attrib = attribute-based,
option = option-based.
1 Coded -.707, 000, +.707, in ascending order.
2 Coded +.408, -.816, +.408, in ascending order.
** p < .01, * p < .05, † p < .10.
were more likely to use WAV than were those in the ideal
large condition), Wald ?2 = 26.42, p = .001, Exp[B] =
condition. A marginal interaction with MSS showed that
20.37, 95% CI Exp[B] = 6.45 — 64.27; con?rming prior
this effect was quali?ed such that those with higher (ver-
research (Edwards & Fasolo, 2001; Payne et al., 1993).
sus lower) mate standards were less likely to use WAV
None of the other predictors explained use of the favorites
in the ideal set-size condition (Wald ?2 = 1.65, p = .20,
folder, Wald ?2 < 2.10, p > .35. Of those who used it (N
Exp[B] = .61), and more likely to use WAV in the other
= 56), multiple linear regression analysis (2 outliers re-
conditions combined (Wald ?2 = 1.11, p = .29, Exp[B]
moved) showed a signi?cant effect of the linear set-size
= 1.32), though neither effect was signi?cant. While this
condition contrast such that as the number of potential
?nding is not consistent with our expectation of a linear
mates increased, participants entered more pro?les into
increase in the use of WAV among those with higher (ver-
the folder: M = 1.80, SD = .84 (small), M = 3.45, SD
sus lower) mate standards, we believe the next set of re-
= 2.28 (ideal), and M = 4.45, SD = 2.08 (large), t(52) =
sults offer a potential explanation.
2.77, p = .008, pr = .37. We also obtained a main effect
of MSS: As participants’ mate standards increased, the
We examined the effects of our predictors on winnow-
number of pro?les put into the folder decreased, t(52) =
ing by looking at participants’ use of the favorites folder.
2.01, p = .051, pr = -.28. For all other predictors, t(52) <
Binary logistic regression analysis of whether (+1) or not
1.50 , p > .14.5
(0) participants utilized the folder revealed a signi?cant
main effect of the linear set-size contrast, such that, as
5We also note that the simple correlation between the number of
the number of options increased, participants were more
options that participants put in their favorites folder (of those who used
this folder at all, very few of whom were in the small condition) and
likely to draw upon the favorites folder (14% in the small
choice satisfaction was .09, which was not close to signi?cance. (Use
condition, 69% in the ideal condition, and 91% in the
of log and square-root transforms did not improve the correlation.)

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 7, October 2008
Number of options and mate choice strategy
508
Table 2: Use of choice strategies by set-size condition.1, 2
Set-Size Condition
Small (4)
Ideal (24)
Large (64)
(N=36)
(N=32)
(N=32)
2
3
5
Satis?cing (Sat)
(6%)
(13%)
(16%)
Most Con?rming Dimensions
8
18
13
(MCD)
(22%)
(56%)
(41%)
3
3
9
Lexicographic (Lex)
(8%)
(9%)
(28%)
14
17
22
Elimination by Aspects (EBA)
(39%)
(53%)
(69%)
29
10
13
(Weighted) Averaging (WAV)
(81%)
(31%)
(41%)
1 All 100 participants included: no outliers removed.
2 The columns will not add to 100% because participants tended to use more than one choice strategy, espe-
cially as the number of options increased.
We believe these results provide a possible explana-
p = .001, pr = .43. On the other hand, we expected that
tion for those concerning the relationship between MSS,
participants reporting the use of the (jointly) noncompen-
condition, and the use of WAV, as they indicate that even
satory, attribute-based strategies — i.e., the least cogni-
though women with higher mate standards were no more
tively demanding choice strategies — will have taken less
likely than others to use the favorites folder, if they did
time to conduct their search (versus those who did not re-
use it, they put fewer pro?les into it. Perhaps the pat-
port using such strategies), again, regardless of condition.
tern of strategy use observed in those with stronger mate
To examine this idea, we ran two analyses similar to that
standards (i.e., lesser use of Sat and greater use of MCD
for WAV, but this time looking at participants who re-
when confronted with extensive choice) may have en-
ported using Lex (or not) and participants who reported
abled them to winnow the large set of options to such
using EBA (or not). If a participant claimed to have used
an extent that it made it easier to apply WAV in a second-
Lex, she spent signi?cantly fewer minutes-per-pro?le (M
stage analysis of their options, thereby making their use
= .43, SD = .35) than if she had not adopted this strategy
of WAV comparable to those in the small condition.
(M = .94, SD = .90; four outliers removed), t(94) = -1.99,
Of course, the preceding analyses are based on the
p = .049, pr = ?.20. Similarly, if a participant claimed
self-reported use of choice strategies. Is there any evi-
to have used EBA, she spent signi?cantly fewer minutes-
dence that such reports are valid? To answer this ques-
per-pro?le (M = .68, SD = .71) than if she had not em-
tion, we turn to the data regarding the time it took par-
ployed this strategy (M = 1.20, SD = 1.09; two outliers
ticipants to search and choose. Firstly, we expected to
removed), t(96) = -2.80, p = .006, pr = ?.28.
?nd that those reporting the use of WAV - no matter
Also providing evidence for the validity of the self-
their condition - will have taken longer to search their
reports is the results of an analysis wherein the number
assigned option sets, as conducting a search option-by-
of self-reported strategies (sum of all strategies used) was
option and making trade-offs between those options is
regressed on the linear effect of set-size condition (con-
a time-consuming endeavor. To examine this hypoth-
trast 1), the quadratic effect of set-size condition (con-
esis, we regressed minutes-per-pro?le (total number of
trast 2), MSS (centered), and the interactions between
minutes taken to search and choose divided by the num-
MSS and each of the two set-size contrasts (one out-
ber of pro?les in the condition) on whether the partici-
lier removed): The number of strategies increased lin-
pant claimed to have used WAV (three outliers removed).
early with the number of options viewed, t(93) = 2.47,
On average, participants who reported having used this
p = .041, pr = .21. That is, participants claimed to have
search strategy spent more time exploring each pro?le (M
used more strategies as the number of potential mates in-
= 1.26, SD = 1.03) than did those who did not claim to
creased. Such a ?nding is in line with the notion that
have used this strategy (M = .49, SD = .46), t(95) = 4.68,
choosers facing an extensive number of options use a se-

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 7, October 2008
Number of options and mate choice strategy
509
ries of search strategies in their efforts to winnow down
The marginal interactions between mate-standard
the set to a more manageable size (Edwards & Fasolo,
strength and the number of options on some of the choice
2001; Payne et al., 1993).
strategies provide preliminary support for the idea that
people with higher mate standards, versus those with
lower mate standards, prefer to use compensatory strate-
4 Conclusion
gies when faced with extensive choice. Our ?ndings sug-
gest that people with high mate standards are not remark-
As the world evolves, it seems likely that we will be con-
ably different from those with low mate standards with re-
fronted with ever more choice. Previous research has
spect to the use of attribute-based search strategies when
shown that an increase in choice makes choosing more
faced with option sets of various sizes. Such a ?nding is
dif?cult and can result in choice deferral or even avoid-
in accord with prior research showing that people gener-
ance (e.g., Iyengar & Lepper, 2000). Accordingly, one
ally prefer to use attribute-based (“dimensional”) strate-
might expect the expansion of choice to yield negative
gies, even in decision contexts that are better suited to
consequences. This study adds to the literature indicating
option-based (“holistic”) processing (Russo & Dosher,
that humans are more adaptable than such theorizing sug-
1983), such as searching through on-line daters’ pro-
gests (Gigerenzer, Todd, and the ABC Group, 1999): We
?les. Future research should use objectively-measured,
adjust to an increasing number of options by changing
as opposed to self-reported, choice strategy use (e.g.,
our decision-making strategies. This adjustment means
MouseWeb Lab ), as well as idiosyncratic measures of
we experience no differential affect or meta-cognition,
mate-standard strength to con?rm the obtained pattern of
whether we face the prospect of choosing among as few
results. Nevertheless, the present research represents sig-
as four or among as many as 64 potential mates. Thus,
ni?cant advancement in our understanding of how – not
strategy use is context-dependent in mate choice, just as it
just who – we choose in this very important domain.
is in consumer choice (Bateson & Healy, 2005). Alterna-
tively, perhaps the similar affect and meta-cognition ex-
perienced by those facing limited versus extensive choice
References
is due to statistical chance: for this article reports the re-
sults of a single study. Still, the earlier study on which
Bateson, M., & Healy, S. D. (2005). Comparative eval-
this one was based (Lenton et al., 2008) also found no
uation and its implications for mate choice. Trends in
signi?cant in?uence of the number of options on mate
Ecology and Evolution, 20, 659–664.
choice satisfaction. Perhaps, then, these particular results
Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. F. (1986). Preferences in hu-
are due to the particular choice context: mate choice. Un-
man mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social
like jams or even 401ks, for example, we venture to say
Psychology, 50, 559–570.
that the average single person spends a signi?cant amount
Chernev, A. (2003a). Product assortment and individual
of time considering the attributes that are important to
decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social
them in a potential long-term mate. As we mentioned ear-
Psychology, 85, 151–162.
lier, the distinctions between extensive and limited choice
Chernev, A. (2003b). When more is less and less is more:
are fewer in important domains (Klayman, 1985), per-
The role of ideal point availability and assortment in
haps for this reason.
consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 30,
Our results also indicate that mate-standard strength
170–183.
may further moderate the effects of “too much choice”
Cordova, D.I., & Lepper, M.R. (1996). Intrinsic motiva-
on the choice experience and choice strategy selection.
tion and the process of learning: Bene?cial effects of
People with higher mate standards — i.e., those whose
contextualization, personalization and choice. Journal
exclusion criteria are more restrictive — prefer extensive
of Educational Psychology, 88, 715–730.
choice and are more satis?ed with the mate selected in
this context. These ?ndings indirectly challenge the idea
Coren, V. (2006). The curse of true love. The Observer
that maximizers — because of their presumably higher
Newspaper, October 15 2006
standards — are more likely than satis?cers to experi-
Edwards, W., & Fasolo, B. (2001). Decision Technology.
ence the downsides of too much choice (Schwartz et al.,
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 581–606.
2002). In other words, these results indicate that peo-
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Group. (1999).
ple with higher standards feel relatively content choosing
Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York: Ox-
from a large option set, though we don’t know whether
ford University Press.
such contentment is warranted (i.e., whether making a
Hitsch, G., Hortacsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2006). What
choice from a large array of options in their best inter-
makes you click? — Mate preferences and matching
est).
outcomes in online dating.

---

Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 7, October 2008
Number of options and mate choice strategy
510
Accessed on March 5 2007 at
Russo, J. E. & Dosher, B. A. (1983). Strategies for multi-
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article
attribute binary choice. Journal of Experimental Psy-
=1014&context=ucsc_econ_seminar
chology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 676–
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice
696.
is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good
Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of
thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
freedom. American Psychologist, 55, 79–88.
79, 995–1006.
Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S.,
Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data Analysis:
White, K., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Maximizing ver-
A model comparison approach. New York: Harcourt
sus satis?cing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Jour-
Brace Jovanovich.
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1178–
Klayman, J. (1985). Children’s decision strategies and
1197.
their adaptation to task characteristics. Organizational
Selten, R. (2001). What is bounded rationality? In G.
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 179–
Gigerenzer, R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The
201.
adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kokko, H., & J. Lindström. (1997). Measuring mating
Simão, J., & Todd, P. M. (2002). Modeling mate choice in
skew. American Naturalist, 149, 794–799.
monogamous mating systems with courtship. Adaptive
Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate
Behavior, 10, 113–136.
preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior,
Simão, J., & Todd, P. M. (2003). Emergent patterns of
26, 227–244.
mate choice in human populations. Special issue of
Langer, E.J., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice
Journal of Arti?cial Life, 9, 403–417.
and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational
?eld experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of
choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.
Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 191–198.
Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context:
Lenton, A. P., Fasolo, B., & Todd, P. M. (2008). ‘Shop-
Tradeoff contrast and extreme aversion. Journal of
ping’ for a mate: Expected vs. experienced preferences
Marketing Research, August, 281–295.
in online mate choice. IEEE Transactions on Pro-
Todd, P.M. (1997). Searching for the next best mate. In
fessional Communication (Special Section: Darwinian
Conte, R., Hegselman, R., Terna, P. (Eds.), Simulating
Perspectives on Electronic Communication), 51, 169–
Social Phenomena (pp. 419–436). Heidelberg, Ger-
182.
many: Springer-Verlag.
Lenton, A.P., Fasolo, B., & Todd, P.M. (in press). The re-
Todd, P. M., & Miller, G. F. (1999). From Pride and
lationship between number of potential mates and mat-
Prejudice to Persuasion: Realistic Heuristics for Mate
ing skew among speed-daters. Animal Behaviour.
Search.
In Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., and the
Li, N. P., Kenrick, D. T., Bailey, J. M., & Linsenmeier, J.
ABC Research Group, Simple Heuristics That Make
A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate pref-
Us Smart (pp. 287–308). Oxford University Press,
erences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality
New York.
and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.
Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P.
Match.com (n.d.).
‘Match.com Corporate.’
Re-
(2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human
trieved
March
25,
2008
from
Web
site:
mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of
http://corp.match.com/index/.
the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104, 15011–
Manasian, D. (2003). Digital dilemmas: A survey of the
15016.
Internet society. Economist, Jan. 25, 1–26.
Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of
Miller, G.F., & Todd, P.M. (1998). Mate choice turns
choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.
cognitive. Trends in cognitive sciences, 2, 190–198.
Tversky, A., & Sha?r, E. (1992). Choice under con?ict:
Olson, I.R. & Marshuetz, C. (2005). Facial attractiveness
The dynamics of deferred decision. Psychological Sci-
is appraised in a glance. Emotion, 5, 498–502.
ence, 3, 358–361.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The
Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci,
adaptive decision maker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
E.L. (1978). On the importance of self-determination
University Press.
for intrinsically motivated behavior. Personality and
Payne, J. W., Johnson, E. J., Bettman, J. R., & Coupey, E.
Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 443–446.
(1990). Understanding contingent choice: A computer
simulation approach. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics, 20, 296–309.

---