Running head: MATING OUTRAGE 1 Demonstrate Values: Behavioral Displays of Moral Outrage as a Cue to Long-Term Mate Potential WC: 149 (Abstract) + 9763 (Body) + 2834 (References) + 816 (Tables and Figures) + 46 (Footnotes) = 13608 Mitch Brown1 Lucas A. Keefer2 Donald F. Sacco2 Faith L. Brown2 1University of Arkansas 2The University of Southern Mississippi This paper was accepted for publication at Emotion on 11-30-20 and may not reflect the final product. Contact Information Mitch Brown Department of Psychological Science University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 72701 MATING OUTRAGE 2 Abstract Recent findings suggest that moral outrage signals trustworthiness to others and such perceptions play a uniquely important role in identifying social opportunities. We conducted four studies (N = 870) investigating how displays of moral outrage are perceived in the specific context of mating. Results indicated participants, particularly women, found prospective mates describing outrage-signaling activism to be more desirable for long-term mating (Study 1), and this perception of desirability was similarly inferred among same-sex raters (Study 2). We further replicated findings in Study 1, while additionally considering the basis of women’s attraction toward outraged behavior through candidate mediators (Studies 3). Although we found consistent evidence for the desirability of an ostensibly outraged target, Study 4 finally identified a boundary condition on the desirability of outrage, wherein mere expression of outrage (without activism) was insufficient to bolster attraction. We frame results from complementary perspectives of trust signaling and sexual strategies theory. Keywords: Moral outrage, Long-term mating, Evolutionary psychology, Prosocial behavior, Virtue signaling MATING OUTRAGE 3 Demonstrate Values: Behavioral Displays of Moral Outrage as a Cue to Long-Term Mate Potential Sharing one’s attitudes and values has become a ubiquitous form of social communication in everyday life. Nonetheless, it is unclear whether espousing concern over moral issues is beneficial in fostering positive perceptions from others or is perceived as inauthentic. This espousal could serve as little more than “virtue signaling,” or merely displaying agreement with a moral stance without intentions to act (Brady & Crockett, 2019; Brady, Crockett, & Van Bavel, in press; Jordan & Rand, 2019). Implicit in these accusations is awareness that moral outrage has a signaling function, or that expressing outrage may communicate information to others in the social environment. Moral outrage could have less to do with promoting social change that would remedy a perceived moral transgression, and more with signaling potential social value. Such signaling could prove advantageous when communicating moral status to demonstrate social value. Recent research suggests espousing outrage over wrongdoings, even if such wrongs are self-directed, signals trustworthiness and prosociality (Jordan, Hoffman, Bloom, & Rand, 2016; Jordan & Rand, 2020). Based on this signaling function perspective, it is plausible that one specific function of expressing outrage could be as a strategy to attract potential mates. People seeking mates for long-term relationships typically rely on various interpersonal cues and signals to infer a partner’s benevolence and ability to commit, which are inferred through acts of benevolence (Barclay, 2010; Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002; Li et al., 2013; Lukaszewski & Roney, 2010). Accordingly, outrage over behaviors conventionally deemed immoral, both within relationships (e.g., infidelity) and more global moral standards (e.g., MATING OUTRAGE 4 fairness) effectively conveys relationship-specific moral standards, such as investing in offspring and refraining from infidelity. We thus posit that expressed outrage may implicate an espouser as an optimum long-term mate. This program of research investigates how outrage influences perceptions of prospective mates (Study 1) and intrasexual rivals (Study 2), then explores the specific personality attributions underlying the long-term desirability of outraged mates (Study 3) while also distilling expressions of outrage even further to the mere espousal (Study 4). Outrage as an Interpersonal Signal Moral outrage refers to the anger elicited by the perception of a moral violation, typically committed by and against parties other than the outraged individual (Batson et al., 2007; Thomas, McGarty, & Mavor, 2009). Unlike other forms of anger, such emotional responses typically motivate individuals to respond aggressively toward transgressors (often called third- party punishment) or to intervene on behalf of perceived victims. Although outrage is a response to uphold moral norms, a burgeoning literature suggests espoused moral outrage sometimes serves to maintain a moral self-image. Feelings of guilt elicit espousals of outrage toward harmful third parties, which subsequently bolstered self-ratings of moral character (Rothschild & Keefer, 2017; see also Green et al., 2017). Similar attempts to enhance one’s self-image are already commonplace in attempts to attract a mate, with individuals seeking to present themselves optimally. Although typically considered in terms of increasing attractiveness, salient mating opportunities similarly lead individuals to demonstrate their moral character (e.g., Guadagno, Okdie, & Kruse, 2012; Li, Cohen, Weeden, & Kenrick, 2010; Makhanova, McNulty, & Maner, 2017). While bolstering self-perceptions of moral worth, outrage can effectively communicate one’s prosocial orientation to others. Strong emotional responses to moral transgressions are MATING OUTRAGE 5 most apparent in the presence of an audience (Kurzban, DeScioli, & O’Brien, 2007) or when individuals have no other outlet to demonstrate prosociality (Jordan & Rand, 2020). A game theoretic model of prosociality suggests that third-party punishment could serve as an interpersonal signal of prosociality to others that the outraged individuals are trustworthy and will be altruistic in the future (Jordan, McAuliffe, & Rand, 2016). From within a mating context, this demonstration of one’s own prosociality could be in the service of competitive altruism. Indeed, costly behavior signaling prosociality is useful in heightening social status within a group, which would further increase one’s opportunities to mate (Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van den Bergh, 2010; Griskevicius et al., 2007). Presenting oneself as prosocial is essential for group living to ensure continued access to resources and mates. However, prosociality leaves one vulnerable to exploitation, necessitating selection to favor cooperative groups (Trivers, 1971). Thus, early forms of morality may have evolved to facilitate the reciprocal altruism necessary for group living to be adaptive by defining socially appropriate treatment of others (Krebs, 2008). Game theoretic models of social interactions posit that morality emerged to facilitate cooperative exchanges necessary for group living, with group members espousing outrage toward, and subsequently punishing, those transgressing against shared moral standards (Pedersen, Kurzban, & McCullough, 2013). The positive reputational consequences of outrage could also produce several downstream perceptions of individuals as desirable in other contexts that require prosociality. Beyond general social contexts that implicate outrage as particularly desirable, this current program of research focuses on the downstream consequences of outrage’s signal value in relationships. Contextual Mate Preferences Humans’ highly social nature necessitates selection of group members most capable of MATING OUTRAGE 6 facilitating reciprocal altruism, which would therefore reduce the likelihood of their exploitation. This selection of benevolent conspecifics for group living is critical for various social contexts that include friendships, coalitional alliances, and relationships. This implicates those espousing outrage as particularly desirable for group living. Despite the potential import of selecting those espousing outrage across various contexts (Jordan et al., 2017), given the considerable investments required for successful reproduction, selecting a mate who readily espouses outrage could be especially crucial. Humans’ reproductive success is contingent on identifying physical and psychological traits indicating a potential mate’s ability to satisfy reproductive goals and therefore offset the costs of reproduction. This requires identifying prospective mates exhibiting complementary genetic traits and the potential to invest in offspring (Trivers, 1972). Given that social environments are rich with potential partners, all of whom might be expected to only partially satisfy all of one’s criteria, individuals must prioritize certain traits over others. One key distinction in priorities is based on whether one is pursuing a short-term (STM) or long-term mating (LTM) strategy (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Li et al., 2013). Upon prioritizing one approach, individuals identify contextually desirable constellations of traits that would optimize salient reproductive goals (Jonason, Raulston, & Rotolo, 2012). STM emphasizes acquisition of multiple partners for uncommitted sexual encounters, eliciting prioritization of physical attractiveness (Kenrick, Groth, Trost, & Sadalla, 1993; Li & Kenrick, 2006). Women prefer more muscular men in STM, given its connotation of good genes (Frederick & Haselton, 2007). Conversely, men pursuing