We examined people's charity contributions while in the presence of an observer of the same sex, opposite sex, or no observer. Inspired by costly signaling theory, we hypothesized that men would be more generous in the presence of a potential mate. Men and women played a number of experimental games in which they could earn money. On completion of these games participants were asked what percentage of their earned money they would be willing to donate to charity. Our results show that men contribute more to charity when observed by a member of the opposite sex than by a member of the same sex or no observer. Conversely, female charity donations did not significantly vary across the three observer conditions. Findings support the notion that men's generosity might have evolved as a mating signal.

The findings should inform the design and interpretation of future quantitative surveys to identify how common the attitudes that we report are. Doctors with the attitudes of those whom we interviewed will not be drawn into research by measures predicated on the assumption that it is intrinsically, clinically or professionally valuable. If they cannot be convinced of its utility, value could be conferred by payment for participation.

Insights from sexual selection and costly signalling theory suggest that competition for females underlies men's public good contributions. We conducted two public good experiments to test this hypothesis. First, we found that men contributed more in the presence of an opposite sex audience, but there was no parallel effect for the women. In addition, men's public good contributions went up as they rated the female observer more attractive. In the second experiment, all male groups played a five round public good game and their contributions significantly increased over time with a female audience only. In this condition men also volunteered more time for various charitable causes. These findings support the idea that men compete with each other by creating public goods to impress women. Thus, a public good is the human equivalent of a peacock's tail.

No abstract