Neither Daredevils nor Wimps: Attitudes toward Physical Risk Takers as Mates

Evolutionary Psychology
www.epjournal.net – 2007. 5(4): 754-777
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Original Article
Neither Daredevils nor Wimps: Attitudes toward Physical Risk Takers as
Mates

G. William Farthing, Department of Psychology, University of Maine, USA. Email: farthing@maine.edu

Abstract: Farthing (2005) tested a prediction derived from costly-signaling theory, that
women would prefer physical risk takers (brave, athletic, fit) over risk-avoiders as long-
term mates. Using scenarios involving high-risk acts, the prediction was confirmed for
heroic (brave, altruistic) but not for non-heroic (brave, non-altruistic) acts. Apparently,
women’s concerns over risks to their mates overrode any positive signal value of men’s
risk taking, when the acts were highly risky and had no redeeming practical value.
The present studies revisited the costly-signaling hypothesis using both medium- and high-
risk scenarios, and it was predicted that for non-heroic acts women would prefer risk takers
over risk avoiders for medium-level risks but not for highly risky acts. The prediction was
supported in two studies. In Study 1, risk takers were preferred for non-heroic medium-risk
acts, but risk avoiders were preferred for high-risk acts. For heroic acts, risk takers were
preferred for both high- and medium-risk acts. Study 2 crossed two act risk levels with two
actor skill levels, with non-heroic risks. Risk takers were preferred for the least risky
combination (medium-risk act, high-skill actor) and also for the two moderately risky
combinations, but risk avoiders were preferred for the riskiest combination (high-risk act,
medium-skill actor). In Study 1, participants compared high-level risk takers versus risk
avoiders on several person adjectives. Both heroic and non-heroic risk takers were
perceived as more brave, athletic, physically fit, impulsive, attention-seeking, and foolish,
and less emotionally stable and self-controlled, compared to risk avoiders. But only heroic
risk takers were perceived as more altruistic, agreeable, conscientious, and sexy than risk
avoiders.

Keywords: risk taking, costly signaling, altruism, heroism, sexual selection, mate choice,
risk perception.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Introduction

Costly signaling theory (Bleige Bird, Smith, and Bird 2001; Hawkes and Bleige
Bird 2002) suggests that some costly or risky behaviors can be explained in terms of a

---

Neither daredevils nor wimps
signaler doing something that calls attention to his or her special qualities, such as
generosity, skill, or courage, where the noticing of these qualities by others has potential
present or future benefits to the signaler. For example, the signaled qualities might make
the signaler more attractive as a mate or as a hunting or coalition partner. In order for costly
signaling behaviors to persist and to possibly become evolved behavioral adaptations, two
other requirements, besides potential benefits to the signaler, must be met. The signal must
be truly costly or risky, so that it cannot be faked, and noticing of the signal must be of
some benefit to the one who notices it (such as the potential mate or coalition partner). For
example, Hawkes and Bleigh Bird (2002) have explained the persistence of hunting among
males as a case of costly signaling, in hunter-gatherer-gardener societies where hunting is a
relatively inefficient way of obtaining food. Successful hunting shows a man’s skill and
courage and physical fitness, and it also shows generosity when he shares the meat with
others, without expecting or receiving any reciprocation in kind. In the modern world,
charitable giving or blood donating may be cases of costly signaling.

Costly signaling theory is a descendant of Zahavi’s (1977; Zahavi and Zahavi,
1997) handicap hypothesis, designed to explain certain sex differences in structure or
behavior among animals (for example, the peacock’s heavy plumage), and of Hawke’s
(1991) show-off hypothesis, intended to explain some aspects of human male behavior as
attention-getting behavior to attract females. Costly signaling theory is broader in
conception than the show-off hypothesis, in that it allows that costly signaling might be
done by either males or females, and that the intended recipients might be of either the
same or opposite sex.

Farthing (2005) tested a hypothesis derived from costly signaling theory in regard to
physical risk taking. Two facts about physical risk taking are particularly striking: (1) It is
done much more by men than by women, and (2) it is done more by men of peak
reproductive age (late teens, early 20s) than by older or younger males (Arnett, 1995;
Byrnes, Miller and Schafer, 1999; Irwin, 1993). These differences have been shown for a
variety of different physically risky activities, such as risky sports, fast driving, aggression,
and petty crime. They also occur for the special case of homicide, for which Wilson and
Daly (1985) coined the term “the young male syndrome.” The term is appropriate also for
non-homicidal physical risk taking by young males.

Farthing (2005; also Kelly and Dunbar, 2001) suggested that part of the explanation
for the young male syndrome in regard to physical risk taking may be that it is a costly
signal designed to attract the favorable attention of young women. When a man engages in
a physically risky activity, such as skiing fast down the expert slope or climbing up a steep
mountain, he is displaying his athleticism, physical fitness and courage. Thinking back to
human ancestral times, for women these characteristics would be desirable in a potential
mate, since they suggest that a man is athletic, brave and healthy and capable of being a
good provider for a woman and her children. A man with such traits would also presumably
have “good genes” for making healthy children. In the modern world, aside from war, men
rarely have an opportunity to demonstrate their bravery and physical prowess by doing
practical things, such as hunting big game with spears. Such qualities can usually be shown
only in rather arbitrary, non-practical risky activities, such as risky sports. One practical
risk-taking situation that occasionally arises, however, is an opportunity for heroism, when
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 5(4). 2007. -755-

---

Neither daredevils nor wimps
one takes physical risks in order to save someone else’s life (for example, jumping into a
river to save a drowning person). Heroic risk taking should be doubly attractive to a
potential mate, since it indicates not only courage and physical prowess, but also altruism.

Farthing (2005) predicted that women would be significantly more attracted to men
who are physical risk takers, compared to risk avoiders, for both heroic and non-heroic
risky acts. Participants read several scenarios in which a person had to decide whether to
engage in a physically risky act. Some scenarios involved heroic acts (both physically risky
and altruistic, such as saving a child from a fire), whereas others were non-heroic (e.g.
whitewater kayaking, high-speed driving, traveling alone in a dangerous country). All of
the acts were explicitly characterized as “very risky.” Participants were asked to indicate
their relative degree of preference, as a long-term mate, for a person who decides to take
the risk versus one who decides not to take the risk.

Farthing’s (2005) results supported the costly signaling theory prediction for a set
of four heroic risky acts: both men and women significantly preferred risk takers over risk
avoiders as potential mates, with the preference being greater for female participants than
for males. However, the prediction was not supported for a set of ten non-heroic physical
risks: neither women nor men preferred risk takers as mates, and in fact, both women and
men significantly preferred risk avoiders over risk takers for non-heroic risks, on the
average.

In explaining the unexpected contrary results regarding women’s preferences for
non-heroic risk takers, Farthing (2005) pointed to the fact that all of the risky acts had been
explicitly characterized as “very risky.” He suggested that women (and men) prefer mates
who avoid highly-risky, non-heroic acts because they don’t want their mates to be seriously
injured or killed doing things that have no compensating practical or altruistic value, such
as heroic life saving. Thus, though women might be attracted to men who display traits
such as bravery, athleticism, and physical fitness, such a preference could be overcome by
concerns about the potential mate’s personal safety.

The question arises, then, whether women would be attracted to takers of non-
heroic physical risks if the risks were not too great. Perhaps the original hypothesis, that
women would prefer non-heroic physical risk takers over risk avoiders as mates, would
hold true for activities described as only low to medium in riskiness. In other words, while
women might not want daredevils as mates (they would prefer avoiders of high risks), they
would not want wimps, either (they would prefer risk takers over risk avoiders for
moderate risks).

Thus, it seems worthwhile to re-open the question of attitudes toward risk takers as
mates by examining the effects of the degree of riskiness of the act in question. The level of
riskiness of an act for a particular individual can be affected by two different factors: (1)
activity riskiness per se, that is, inherent features of the risky act and/or the situation itself
(such as steeper mountain ski slopes, more turbulent whitewater rivers, faster driving
speeds, two bullies or one), and (2) the skill of the actor for the relevant action (e.g. his/her
experience and skill at skiing, kayaking, driving, self-defense). When the actor is more
skilled, his or her effective risk level is lower than for the less skilled actor, regardless of
the inherent riskiness of the situation.

Study 1 examined the effect of activity riskiness per se, for both heroic and non-
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 5(4). 2007. -756-

---

Neither daredevils nor wimps
heroic physical risks, on women’s preferences for risk takers versus risk avoiders as long
term mates. It was predicted that preferences for risk-taking mates would be inversely
related to the riskiness of the acts. More specifically, in accordance with the derivation
from costly-signaling theory, for non-heroic physical risks women would prefer risk takers
as mates where the risk level was only low to moderate, but in accordance with prior results
(Farthing, 2005), it was predicted that women would prefer risk avoiders where the risk
level was very high. Also, in accordance with prior results, it was predicted that the level of
preference for heroic risk takers would be greater than for non-heroic risk takers, at both
high and moderate risk levels.

In Study 2 the relationship between risk level and preference for risk-takers versus
risk avoiders as mates was further examined by varying both the inherent riskiness of the
risky act and the actor’s skill level for the required action, for non-heroic physical risks. It
was predicted that both factors would affect preferences, such that preference for risk-
takers as mates would be greatest for highly-skilled actors taking moderate risks, and
lowest for moderately-skilled actors taking high-level risks.

Study 1: Heroic vs. Non-Heroic Risk Takers


Women rated their degree of preference for risk-takers versus risk-avoiders in 16
different risky-decision scenarios, in a study with a repeated-measures design involving 2
risk types (heroic vs. non-heroic) X 2 risk levels (high vs. medium). After reading each
scenario, participants indicated their degree of preference for either the risk taker or the risk
avoider as a long-term mate. Participants also rated the perceived riskiness of each of the
scenarios, so that relationships between perceived riskiness and mate preferences could be
compared across all 16 scenarios.

A secondary purpose of Study 1 was to assess women’s perceptions of risk takers
versus risk avoiders for a number of person adjectives. It was predicted that risk takers
would be perceived as more brave and athletic than risk avoiders. In addition, it was
predicted that heroic risk takers would be perceived as more altruistic and conscientious
than non-heroic risk takers.

Materials and Methods

Participants were undergraduate women at the University of Maine. As an incentive
to participate they received bonus points in their introductory psychology course. Since it
was not possible to obtain a broadly representative sample, it was decided to create a more
homogenous sample by selecting only participants of American or Canadian nationality. In
addition, since questions about mate preferences are most important for younger women,
only women under age 30 were selected. About 5-10% of potential participants were
eliminated because of these constraints. Usable data were obtained from 76 women (mean
age 19.4 years), over 95% of whom were unmarried.

After signing consent forms, participants responded to three questionnaires in the
following sequence: (1) Activity Riskiness Questionnaire; (2) Person Adjectives Scale; and
(3) Attitudes toward Risk Takers Questionnaire.
Risk
scenarios. The 16 risk scenarios involved four different heroic risk situations
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 5(4). 2007. -757-

---

Neither daredevils nor wimps
and four non-heroic risk situations. Each risk situation was used in two different scenarios,
with one described as and labeled as “very risky” and the other described as and labeled as
“somewhat risky.” The four heroic risk situations were saving a child from a burning
house, saving a child from a river, defending a child from a bully, and saving a skater who
has fallen through the ice on a lake. The four non-heroic physical risk situations were
Alpine (downhill) skiing, speeding in a car, defending oneself from a mugger, and
swimming in a lake. The first three scenarios in each list were similar to those used by
Farthing (2005). See the appendix for the wording of all 16 scenarios on the Attitudes
toward Risk Takers Questionnaire.

Examples of heroic and non-heroic risk scenarios:

Heroic high-risk scenario: “While walking near the shore of a frozen lake, Person sees a
skater fall through the ice into the freezing water. After a minute of struggling the skater cries
“Help! I can’t get out!” Person sees that the skater is far from shore, and the ice near her
looks barely thick enough to support someone. Person is tempted to approach and try to
rescue the skater, though he thinks it would be very risky to do so. The alternative is to go find
someone who can help. Person is somewhat knowledgeable about ice rescues; he has watched
a TV show about it.” (Italics not in the original.)
Heroic medium-risk scenario: The scenario was the same as above, except for the part in
italics: “Person sees that the skater is not far from shore, and the ice near her looks thick and
solid. Person is tempted to approach and try to rescue the skater, though he thinks it would be
somewhat risky to do so.”
Non-heroic high-risk scenario: “While sitting on a beach at a lake, Person sees a small boat
anchored about 400 yards from shore (almost ¼ mile). It is a cool, windy day, and the water is
cold and choppy. Person is tempted to try to swim out to the boat and back, though he thinks it
would be very risky to do so. The alternative is to stay on shore. Person is a moderately skilled
swimmer.”
Non-heroic medium-risk scenario: The same as above, except for the part in italics:
“Person sees a small boat anchored about 200 yards from shore (almost 1/8 mile). It is a
sunny day and the water is calm and warm. Person is tempted to try to swim out to the boat
and back, though he thinks it would be somewhat risky to do so.”


In all scenarios the actor (Person) was described as moderately skilled or
knowledgeable about the risky action, in order to reduce variability that might result from
different participants making different assumptions about Person’s skill level.

Activity Riskiness Questionnaire. The 16 scenarios were presented in matching high
and moderate-risk pairs, with heroic and non-heroic pairs alternating, and the more risky
scenario presented first in each pair. Below each scenario was a question about how risky it
would be for Person to try to do the risky activity. Participants responded by marking a
short vertical line across a 14 cm horizontal scale. The scale was marked “0, Not at all
risky” at the left end, and “100, Extremely risky” at the right end. The scale was divided by
vertical hashmarks into ten segments corresponding to 10, 20, etc. (the hashmarks were not
labeled).

Person Adjectives Scale. Only the eight high risk scenarios (comparable to those
used by Farthing, 2005) were used in the Person Adjectives Scale, since the focus of this
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 5(4). 2007. -758-

---

Neither daredevils nor wimps
part of the study was on the comparison of heroic vs. non-heroic risk takers. Heroic and
non-heroic scenarios were alternated. Following each scenario, two persons were
described, where Person A decides not to take the risk and Person B decides to go ahead
and take the risk. For example, for the ice-skater rescue scenario:
Person A decides to go find someone who can help.
Person B decides to go ahead and try to rescue the skater from the icy water.

Below that were lines labeled 1 through 18. Each number label was followed by a
different adjective. Participants were asked to compare Person B and Person A on the
person adjective by circling a digit on a seven point -3 to +3 scale. For example:
“Impulsive. Person B (risk taker) is ___ impulsive as/than Person A (risk avoider).” Cover-
page instructions defined the ratings as follows: -3 much less; -2 less; -1 slightly less; 0
equally as; +1 slightly more; +2 more; +3 much more.) See Table 1 for the full list of
adjectives.

Attitudes toward Risk Takers Questionnaire. All 16 risk scenarios were used; they
were presented in a quasi-random sequence. Each scenario was followed by a description
of the decisions by Person A (risk avoider) and Person B (risk taker), as in the Person
Adjectives Scale. Below that was the question: “Which person, A or B, would be more
desirable to you as a long-term mate or spouse, other things being equal?” Participants
responded by making a short vertical line through a 15 cm scale. The scale was divided into
ten equal segments by vertical hashmarks, but only the middle and end points were labeled.
At the left end the scale was labeled “100, A is much more desirable than B,” the right end
was labeled “100, B is much more desirable than A,” and the middle hashmark was labeled
“0, A and B are equally desirable.”

Results


Attitudes toward risk takers. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for mate
preference ratings for the four scenarios within each condition (2 risk types x 2 risk levels)
were moderate but high enough to justify using the condition means of each subject in
further data analyses. Alphas were .79, .76, .67 and .62 for the high-risk heroic, low-risk
heroic, high-risk non-heroic, and low-risk non-heroic conditions, respectively.

Figure 1 shows the mean mate preference ratings for each of the four conditions: 2
risk types (heroic vs. non-heroic) x 2 risk levels (medium vs. high). Note that in the data
figures, preferences for Person A (risk avoider) are indicated as negative values to
distinguish them from preferences for Person B (risk taker). However, negative values were
not used on the response scale itself, in order to avoid any connotation that negative was
somehow less desirable than positive.

A repeated-measures GLM analysis (SPSS for Windows 12.0) of 2 risk types X 2
risk levels indicated a significant main effects for risk type, F(1, 75) = 68.6, p < .001, ?2 =
.48, and for risk level, F(1, 75) = 130.0, p < .001, ?2 = .63, and for the interaction between
risk type and risk level, F(1, 75) = 6.89, p < .01, ?2 = .08. Women’s degree of preference
for risk takers as mates was greater for heroic risks than for non-heroic physical risks, and
greater for medium risks than for high-level risks. The interaction effect indicated that the
effect of risk level was somewhat greater for non-heroic risks than for heroic risks.

An additional analysis used single-sample t-tests (two-tailed) to compare each of
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 5(4). 2007. -759-

---

Neither daredevils nor wimps
the four mate-preference means in Figure 1 against the zero reference level (no preference).
For heroic risks, women significantly preferred risk takers over risk avoiders as mates for
moderately risky tasks, t(75) = 11.3, p < .001, though not for highly risky tasks, t = 1.45, p
= .15. For non-heroic risks, women significantly preferred risk takers over risk avoiders for
moderately risky tasks, t = 4.48, p < .001, but for highly risky tasks they significantly
preferred risk avoiders over risk takers, t = - 6.69, p < .001.

Figure 1. Women’s mean preference ratings for risk-takers versus risk-avoiders as long-
term mates, for medium- and high-risk heroic and non-heroic physical risks. Positive values
indicate a preference for risk takers over risk avoiders; negative values indicate a
preference for risk avoiders. The vertical bars represent the standard errors of the means.
50
Heroic Risks
40
Non-heroic
30
aker
20
ce
i
sk T
en
10
er
0
r
ef
R
er
e P
-10
i
d
at
M
vo -20
-30
i
sk A
R -40
Medium High
Risk Level





Mean riskiness ratings were 71.4, 66.5 for high-risk heroic and non-heroic
scenarios, respectively, and 43.9 and 34.6 for medium-risk heroic and non-heroic scenarios,
respectively, on the zero to 100 riskiness scale. A 2 x 2 GLM repeated-measures analysis
showed significant main effects for risk level, as expected, F(1, 75) = 297.1, p < .001, ?2 =
.80, and for risk type, F = 33.6, p < .001, ?2 = .31. The effect of risk type was not expected.
The intent had been to design scenarios that were identical in perceived riskiness for heroic
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 5(4). 2007. -760-

---

Neither daredevils nor wimps
and non-heroic risks at each risk level, on the average. However, the fact that the heroic
risk scenarios were perceived as slightly riskier than the non-heroic scenarios indicates that
the finding that heroic risk takers were more preferred than non-heroic risk takers (Figure
1) cannot be explained by assuming that the heroic scenarios were less risky.

Perceived riskiness varied across the four individual risk scenarios in each of the
four risk type x risk level conditions. The scatterplot in Figure 2 shows that the mean
degree of preference for risk takers as mates was significantly negatively correlated with
mean perceived riskiness across all eight risk scenarios, for both heroic (r = -.91, df = 6, p <
.01) and non-heroic risk scenarios (r = -.89, p < .01). The scatterplot also shows that at any
particular perceived riskiness level, the preference for risk taker mates is greater for heroic
than for non-heroic physical risks.

In addition, within each of the four risk type by risk level conditions there was a
significant negative correlation across participants between mean mate preference ratings
and mean perceived riskiness, r = -.38, -.37, -.45, and -.-44, for the high-risk heroic, low-
risk heroic, high-risk non-heroic, and low-risk non-heroic conditions, respectively (all df =
74, all p < .001).


Figure 2. Scatterplot showing negative correlations between riskiness ratings and
preferences for risk-takers versus risk-avoiders, for eight heroic risk scenarios and eight
non-heroic physical risk scenarios.

60
50
40
aker
T
30
i
sk
20
ce
10
r
en
R
e
0
r
ef
e P
-10 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
at
M
-20
i
der
vo
Heroic High Risk
-30
Heroic Medium Risk
-40
i
sk A
Non-heroic High Risk
R -50
Non-heroic Med. Risk
-60
Riskiness Rating




Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 5(4). 2007. -761-

---

Neither daredevils nor wimps




Person adjectives. Table 1 shows the mean ratings for each of the 18 adjectives of
the Person Adjectives Questionnaire, for heroic and non-heroic risk takers. All of the
scenarios were high risk, with the actor described as moderately skilled or knowledgeable
about the required action. Although the adjectives were originally presented in a quasi-
random sequence (starting with “intelligent”), in Table 1 they are grouped with
conceptually similar items. Columns 2 and 3 show the mean ratings for heroic and non-
heroic risk takers on the seven-point +3 to -3 rating scale. Positive numbers indicate that
the risk taker was rated as “more ___ than” (e.g. more brave than) the risk avoider, while
negative numbers indicate that the risk taker was “less ____ than” (e.g. less emotionally
stable than) the risk avoider.

Participants judged risk takers to be significantly different (all p < .001) from risk
avoiders for most of the person adjectives, for both heroic and non-heroic risks. Risk takers
were judged to be significantly more brave, athletic, and physically fit than risk avoiders, as
predicted. Risk takers were also judged superior on some other desirable traits, including
ambitious, self confident, fun to be with, and open to new experiences. However, for both
heroic and non-heroic risky acts, risk takers were judged to have higher levels of several
undesirable traits, including impulsive, attention-seeking, and foolish, while they were
judged as less self controlled and intelligent compared to risk avoiders. The fact that risk-
takers were rated as less intelligent than risk avoiders suggests that participants perceived
high-level risk taking as reflecting poor judgment by the actors (i.e., the potential mates).

The fourth column in Table 1 shows the differences in mean ratings for heroic
minus non-heroic risk takers. Most noteworthy is the finding that heroic risk takers were
rated significantly more positively (compared to risk avoiders) than non-heroic risk takers
for three pro-social adjectives: agreeable, conscientious, and altruistic. Heroic risk takers
also had higher ratings for brave and sexy, compared to non-heroic risk takers. On the other
hand, heroic risk takers were rated significantly less badly than non-heroic risk takers for
several adjectives, including attention seeking, emotionally stable, self-controlled, and
intelligent (all p < .001).
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 5(4). 2007. -762-

---

Neither daredevils nor wimps
Table 1. Mean person adjective ratings comparing risk takers versus risk avoiders, for
high-risk heroic and non-heroic acts. Ratings were on a scale of -3 to +3, where positive
numbers in columns 2 and 3 indicate that the risk taker was rated as “more ______ than”
the risk avoider and negative numbers indicate that the risk taker was rated “less ____
than” the risk avoider.


Person
Heroic
Non-heroic
Difference: Heroic
Adjective
Risk Takers
Risk Takers
minus Non-heroic
Big 5 Personality Traits


agreeable .21*
-.25*
.46*
conscientious .51*
-.42*
.93*
socially extraverted
.71*
.64*
.06
open to new experiences
1.14*
1.42*
-.28*
emotionally stable
-.17
-.58*
.40*
Physical



attractiveness
athletic .91*
.82*
.10
physically fit
.98*
.80*
.18
sexy .48*
.11
.38*
Other Traits: Desirable



altruistic 1.41*
-.07
1.48*
brave 2.24*
1.68*
.56*
self confident
1.62*
1.63*
-.02
ambitious 1.06*
.95*
.11
intelligent -.92*
-1.36*
.44*
self-controlled
-.77*
-1.12*
.35*
fun to be with
.31*
.25*
.06
Other Traits:



Undesirable
impulsive 1.81*
1.71*
.10
attention-seeking 1.13* 1.56* -.43*
foolish 1.31*
1.55*
-.25

* In columns 2 and 3, * indicates p < .001 for the difference between the mean rating and the zero
indifference level (single-sample t-tests, two-tailed). In column 4, * indicates p < .001 for the difference
between means for heroic versus non-heroic risk scenarios (t-tests, two-tailed).

Study 2: High- vs. Medium-Skilled Risk Takers


Study 1 showed that, for non-heroic physically risky activities, women preferred
risk takers over risk avoiders as long-term mates for moderately risky activities, but not for
high-risk activities, where they preferred risk avoiders as mates. Across the eight non-
heroic risk scenarios, perceived riskiness was negatively correlated with the degree of
preference for risk-takers over risk-avoiders as mates.

The actual physical riskiness of an activity to an individual would depend not only
on the inherent riskiness of the act itself, in its particular context, but also on the
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 5(4). 2007. -763-

---