, This Buddy Can Spare A Dime
Men are far more likely to give money to a female panhandler than to a male because they unconsciously see the woman as a potential mate.
At least that’s the startling implication of a new study of panhandling in the Boston area that found men walking alone donated much more often to female than to male panhandlers, reported Tony Goldberg in the journal Human Nature.
Goldberg said his work and other research suggest that such altruism toward women may be hard-wired into males, part of nature’s way of helping men get what they want (and we all know what guys want).
“Even though female panhandlers in this study are unlikely to be ‘potential mates,’ males who pass by them may still respond as if they were, in accordance with evolved psychological tendencies,” suggests Goldberg, a doctoral student in biological anthropology at Harvard University.
Perhaps. But couldn’t guys just give more often to women panhandlers because they felt less threatened by them, were more likely to believe that women really were down on their luck or simply felt sorrier for them?
“I’m sure that the men would give you answers very much like those if you asked why they gave,” Goldberg said. “These, however, are just the sorts of emotions that might have come about as a way to elicit behavior that might be evolutionarily advantageous, even though the actor may not be aware of the reasons behind the behavior.”
Goldberg also found that men walking with women “disproportionately avoided giving to female panhandlers,” possibly to avoid the appearance of engaging in “philanderous” behavior and “inciting sexual conflict” between female companions and the panhandlers.
Survival and reproductive strategies left over from humankind’s hunter-gatherer days also may influence women’s behavior toward beggars.
Goldberg said he found that women were less likely to give to female panhandlers than to men. This unexpected behavior “could operate in an analogous way to the male trend, as an adaptive response to competition among females over resources,” he wrote.
In any case, these evolutionary urges apparently aren’t that strong. Fewer than 2 percent of the 6,396 passers-by during the four-month study period gave money to one of 18 targeted panhandlers, who earned on average an estimated $7.94 an hour, he reported.
It only counts if I win
One currently hot idea to unclog America’s courtrooms is to make losers in civil suits pay the legal expenses of the winners. In a recent Washington Post-ABC News national survey, half of a random sample of 1,524 adults were asked whether they would support a law that required them to pay the defendant’s legal expenses if they sued and lost. The result: a roughly even split. But when the other half of the sample was asked whether they supported a law in which they would be reimbursed by the loser in a civil suit against them, eight out of 10 said yes. It seems Americans just don’t want to pay. xxxx WHAT PEOPLE SAID Q. Would you support or oppose a law that says if you sue someone and lose, you have to pay their legal expenses? Support: 47% Oppose: 50% No opinion: 3% But they do want to collect… Q. Would you support or oppose a law that says if someone sues you and loses, they have to pay your legal expenses? Support: 80% Oppose: 18% No opinion: 2%
NEW COLUMN Richard Morin’s “Unconventional Wisdom” column debuts today. Morin, 44, is the director of polling and a staff writer and columnist for The Washington Post. His column offers new facts and hot stats from the social sciences.