In my previous blog, I implied that people aren’t all that good at assessing the “quality” of potential mates (”The Numbers Game of Love”). I base this conclusion on two observations. First, our cultural success rate in marriages suggests that mate selection judgments are, at best, less than optimal. Since the personality traits and values that appear to be most strongly related to compatibility within couples appear to be fairly static across adulthood, I chalk this up to selection error (i.e., people doing a poor job of assessing who is right for them).

Secondly, I base this observation on a moderate-sized body of literature which has shown that the assessment of personality traits across raters (and between raters and ratees, for that matter) is not overwhelmingly consistent. In fact, on average, about 25% of the variance between raters and ratings is shared when this type of research is done. Now, you can do a lot with a predictive relationship that accounts for 25% of reality, but it is also easy to see why NOT accounting for 75% of the story when it comes to assessing the personality attributes of a potential mate might cause problems. Recent research by Borkenau and colleagues (2004) in Germany has additionally suggested that (1.) How often you interact with a person after a certain point may not affect the level of accuracy, and (2.) The personality attributes which are often seen as most related to relationship success and compatibility (i.e., Neuroticism and Agreeableness) may be among the least accurately assessed.

So WHY are people bad at assessing the value of potential mates, you ask? Is it because we are using our emotions (Do we click?!??!) when we should be checking off lists of pros and cons? Is it because we are driven by hormonal urges leveraging thousands of years of evolved processes of the brain to select a physically “attractive” partner, and then socially motivated to rationalize support for the decision based on socially acceptable values, traits and qualities?

One of the great philosophical debates of the enlightenment (and the topic of many an undergraduate term paper) was the dichotomy espoused between Hume and Kant in regards to reason, emotions and morality. One can argue that the moral theory of Hume was based on his belief that reason alone can never cause action. Virtue does (and therefore must) feel good. Sin… supposedly… feels bad. Therefore, reason is driven by feelings. In contrast, Kant believed that reason alone motivates moral actions, and that morality must therefore be based solely on reason, and not emotion.

This “basic” philosophical question (i.e., is morality based on passion or reason?) has, in some circles (I’m looking at you, ghost of Gene Roddenberry) been reduced to the question of which is better as a personal philosophy for solving all of life’s problems, big and small: Reason, or emotion? Logic, or passion? (Yes, I just implied that Spock and Kirk of Star Trek fame were dramatic metaphors for Kant and Hume.)

Of course, it may surprise no one at all that social researchers have done a pretty good job of debunking both these positions as very useful when it comes to describing the reality of everyday behavior. People are likely to base their actions on emotions when the decision being made is viewed as “high risk,” has extremely tangible rewards or potentially fearful consequences for failure. In other words, if the context of a decision is emotionally stimulating, then emotions are likely to take the fore.

On the other hand, studies of expert problem solving and problem solvers has shown that knowledge has a powerful effect on what kind of information is considered during problem solving. In other words, experts are much less likely to attend to “irrelevant” emotional cues, and much more likely to notice substantive information relevant to solving a task. Expertise also has a normative on how much basic information experts are able to consider while making the decision. From a cognitive modeling standpoint, the observation that what you know factually has a strong causal impact on what and how much information you are capable of processing is tantamount to demonstrating that reason can precede emotion.

So, why do people perform relatively poorly when it comes to their accuracy in assessing the personality attributes of potential mates? Human expertise requires both knowledge and experience gained through practice and observation of actions and effects. A computer program may be able to become an expert chess player based entirely on knowledge (i.e., a computer program consisting of rules for behavior). However, a human must both study and play the game in order to become a grandmaster. Most of us make the great mate decision (Is he/she the right one for ME?) only a scant number of the times, and ideally only once! We then spend the rest of our lives living the results, rather than being able to objectively quantify them. On the other hand, the emotional context of making mate decisions can easily be conceived as powerful. The excitement of possibilities, the fears of rejection or of being pilloried for failing to live up to the expectations of others, not to mention the previously touted power of hormones and physical attraction which we are likely to encounter.

Thus, in my opinion, our abilities (or lack thereof) when it comes to assessing potential mates can be attributed to a combination platter of too little expertise, and too much emotion. My apologies to Hume and Captain Kirk.

Further Reading:

P. Borkenau, N. Mauer, R. Riemann, F. M. Spinath and A. Angleitner (2004) Thin Slices of Behavior as Cues of Personality and Intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 4, 599- 614.

Finucane, Melissa, Ali Alhakami, Paul Slovic and Stephen M. Johnson (2000), The Affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17

Funder, D. C, & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,149-158