Assortative mating arises from rank-sorting dynamics, not similarity preference

Evidence

When the likelihood of an offer was set to correlate with the attractiveness of the potential partner (e.g., . for a 9/10 on attract iveness, . for a 1/10), the result was a correlation in attractiveness of the two agents of around . to .6—matching the observed level among humans. The simulation showed that this result occurs because the most attractive agents tend to pair up early and are, therefore, removed from the population. As time passes, the attractiveness of the remaining agents decreases. Once again, the value of this model is in demonstrating the counterintuitive effects of a simple rule (seeking the most attractive possible partner) iterated dynamically across many agents and over time. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 827 (#expands, via linked claim)

Kalick and Hamilton (1986) used ABM to simulate the well-known empirical fact that people tend to end up with romantic partners of about equal attractiveness to themselves. Highly attractive people end up with highly attractive people, moderately attractive people end up with moderately attractive people, and so on. A common explanation for this fact was that people actively seek partners with similar levels of attractiveness, presumably due to the fear of being rejected by more attractive prospects (e.g., Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971) or from a general preference for similarity in all attributes. However, repeated studies found no support for the proposed similarity preference. Instead, all people demonstrate a strong preference for the most attractive potential partners (e.g., Curran & Lippold, 1975). Kalick and Hamilton sought to resolve this paradox via ABM. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 825 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Within-patch population dynamics partly result from sorting of genotypes over time — S. T. A. Pickett and P. S. White, eds., The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and…, 1639; Seeking the most attractive possible mate produces human-matching assortative mating without preference for similarity. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 827; Assortative mating emerges from everyone desiring the most attractive partner (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Seeking the most attractive possible mate produces human-matching assortative mating without preference for similarity. #expands (0.95) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 827
• Assortative mating emerges from everyone desiring the most attractive partner #corroborates (0.95)
• Assortative matching arises without anyone preferring a similar partner #corroborates (0.92) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 825