Peter M. Todd

2 articles
Indiana University Bloomington ORCID: 0000-0003-0231-513X

Loading profile…

Publication Timeline

Co-Author Network

Research Topics

  1. Introduction to Darwinian Perspectives on Electronic Communication
    Abstract

    <para xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> This article provides an introduction to the Special Section on Darwinian Perspectives on Electronic Communication. It starts with a discussion of the motivation for the Special Section, followed by several sections written by the Guest Editor (Ned Kock) and the Guest Associate Editors (Donald Hantula, Stephen Hayne, Gad Saad, Peter Todd, and Richard Watson). In those sections, the Guest Editor and Associate Editors put forth several provocative ideas that hopefully will provide a roadmap for future inquiry in areas related to the main topic of the Special Section. Toward its end, this article provides a discussion on how biological theories of electronic communication can bridge the current gap between technological and social theories. The article concludes with an answer to an intriguing question: Are we as a species currently evolving to become better at using electronic communication technologies? </para>

    doi:10.1109/tpc.2008.2000327
  2. “Shopping” for a Mate: Expected versus Experienced Preferences in Online Mate Choice
    Abstract

    Modern communication technology has greatly increased the number of options we can choose among in a variety of evolutionarily important domains, from housing to food to mates. But is this greater choice beneficial? To find out, we ran two experimental studies to examine the effects of increasing option set-size on anticipated and experienced choice perceptions in the modern context of online mate choice. While participants expected greater enjoyment, increased satisfaction, and less regret when choosing from larger (versus smaller) sets of prospective partners (at least up to a point; Study 1), participants presented with a supposedly ideal number of options experienced no improvement in affect and showed more memory confusions regarding their choice than did those participants presented with fewer options (Study 2). Participants correctly anticipated that greater choice would yield increasing costs, but they overestimated the point at which this would occur. We offer an evolutionary-cognitive framework within which to understand this misperception, discuss factors that may make it difficult for decision-makers to correct for it, and suggest ways in which dating websites could be designed to help users choose from large option sets.

    doi:10.1109/tpc.2008.2000342