KAMA is a model of mate-choice based on a gradual, stochastic process of building up representations of potential partners through encounters and dating, ultimately leading to marriage. Individuals must attempt to find a suitable mate in a limited amount of time with only partial knowledge of the individuals in the pool of potential candidates. Individuals have multiple-valued character profiles, which describe a number of their characteristics (physical beauty, potential earning power, etc.), as well as preference profiles, that specify their degree of preference for those characteristics in members of the opposite sex. A process of encounters and dating allows individuals to gradually build up accurate representations of potential mates. Individuals each have a “temperature,” which is the extent to which they are willing to continue exploring mate-space and which drives individual decision making. The individual-level mechanisms implemented in KAMA produce population-level data that qualitatively matches empirical data. Perhaps most significantly, our results suggest that differences in first-marriage ages and hazard-rate curves for men and women in the West may to a large extent be due to the Western dating practice whereby males ask women out and women then accept or refuse their offer.
Aron, A. (1988). The matching hypothesis reconsidered again — comment on Kalick and Hamilton. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(3), 441—446.
2.
Bergstrom, C., & Real, L. (2000). Towards a theory of mutual mate choice: Lessons from two-sided matching. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 2(4), 493—508.
3.
Berretty, P.M., Todd, P.M., & Blythe, P.W. (1997). Categorization by elimination: a fast and frugal approach to categorization. In M. G. Shafto & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 43—48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
Buss, D.M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate selection: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 12(1), 1—49.
5.
Buss, D.M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 559—570.
6.
Buston, P., & Emlen, S. (2003). Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: the relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society . Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 100(15), 8805—8810.
7.
Coale, A. (1971). Age patterns of marriage. Population Studies, 25(2), 193—214.
8.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
9.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London: Harvard University Press.
10.
Dunson, D., Colombo, B., & Baird, D. (2002). Changes with age in the level and duration of fertility in the menstrual cycle. Human Reproduction, 17(5), 1399—1403.
11.
Ellis, B.J. (1992). The evolution of sexual attraction: evaluative mechanisms in women. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
Eurostat (n.d.), New Cronos Database, available from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
13.
French, R.M. (1995) The subtlety of sameness. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
14.
Gale, D., & Shapley, L.S. (1962). College admissions and the stability of marriage . American Mathematical Monthly, 69, 9—15.
15.
Gibson, R.M., & Bradbury, J.M. (1987). Lck organization in sage grouse: Variations on a terrestrial theme. Auk, 104, 77—84.
16.
Hofstadter, D.R. (1984). The Copycat project: an experiment in nondeterminism and creative analogies (AI Memo No. 755). Cambridge, MA : Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
17.
Hofstadter, D.R. & the Fluid Analogies Research Group (1995). Fluid concepts and creative analogies. New York: Basic Books.
18.
Jennions, M.D., & Petrie, M. (1997). Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 72, 283—327.
19.
Kalick, S.M., & Hamilton, T.E. (1986). The matching hypothesis reexamined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 673—682.
20.
Kenrick, D.T., Li, N.L., & Butner, J. (2003). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms. Psychological Review , 110(1), 3—28.
Kreider, R.M., & Fields, J.M. (2001). Number, timing, and duration of marriages and divorces: fall 1996. In Current population reports, P70-80. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.
23.
Kurzban, R. & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution andHuman Behavior, 26, 227— 244.
24.
Li, N.P., & Kenrick, D.T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: what, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 468—489.
25.
Luttbeg, B. (1996) A comparative Bayes tactic for mate assessment and choice. BehavioralEcology, 7, 451—460.
Mitchell, M. (1993). Analogy-making as perception. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
28.
Mitchell, M., & Hofstadter, D.R. (1990). The emergence of understanding in a computer model of concepts and analogy-making. Physica D, 42, 322—334.
29.
ONC. (2003). Average age at first marriage: by gender, EU comparison, 1961 and 1998: social trends 32, ST32209 . London, UK: Office for National Statistics.
30.
Pawlowski, B., & Dunbar, R. (1999). Withholding age as putative deception in mate search tactics. Evolution andHuman Behavior, 20, 53—69.
31.
Qu, L. (2003). Expectations of marriage among cohabiting couples. Family Matters (Australian Institute of Family Studies ), 64, 36—39.
32.
Simão, J., & Todd, P.M. (2001). A model of human mate choice with courtship that predicts population patterns. In J. Kelemen , & P. Sosík (Eds.), Advances in artificial life, Sixth European Conference, ECAL 2001, Prague, Czech Republic, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Vol. 2159). Berlin: Springer .
33.
Simão, J., & Todd, P.M. (2002). Modeling mate choice in monogamous mating systems with courtship. Journal of Adaptive Behavior, 10(2), 113—136.
34.
Simão, J., & Todd, P.M. (2003). Emergent patterns of mate choice in human populations . Journal of Artificial Life (special issue), 9(4), 403—417.
35.
Simon, H.A. (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley.
36.
StatBank Norway (2005). 02.02.30 marriages and divorces Retrieved from http://statbank.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/default_fr.asp?PLanguage=1
37.
Todd, P.M., Billari, F.C., & Simão, J. (2005). Aggregate age-at-marriage patterns from individual mate-search heuristics. Demography, 42(3), 559—574.
38.
Todd, P.M., & Miller, G.F. (1999). From pride and prejudice to persuasion: satisficing in mate search. In G. Gigerenzer, P. M. Todd & the ABC Research Group, (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 287—308). New York: Oxford University Press.
39.
Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281—299.
40.
Widemo, F., & Sæther, S.A. (1999). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14, 26—31.
