Alleviating The İnformation Problem In Mate Selection: Choice Of The Length Of Courtship And The Degree Of Commitment

Abstract

There is an inherent information problem in mate selection. Marital success requires a high level of compatibility between the mates but credible information about the attributes of a potential marriage partner is not easily obtainable. The institutions of courtship and its later stage, engagement, are essentially information gathering processes. We argue that a couple's display of their commitment to the relationship and their choice of the length of the courtship reveal information about their marriage compatibility. The efficacy of courtship and engagement depends on the parameters of the social and cultural context.

Keywords

• Information Economics, Game Theory, Engagement, Family Economics, Signaling, Incomplete Information

References

1. Abik, Y. (2005) “Nişanlanma ve Nişanlılık”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 54(2): 65-152.
2. Bolle, F. (2001) “Why to Buy Your Darling Flowers: On Cooperation and Exploitation”, Theory and Decision, 50(1): 1-28.
3. Camerer, C. (1988) “Gifts as economic signals and social symbols”, American Journal of Sociology 94, Supplement: S180–S214.
4. Farmer, A. and A. W. Horowitz (2004) “The Engagement Game”, Journal of Population Economics, 17(4): 627-644.
5. Gibbons, R. (1992) “Game Theory for Applied Economists”, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
6. Harsanyi, J. (1967-8) “Games with Incomplete Information Played by Bayesian Players”, Management Science, 14: 159-82,320-34, 486-502.
7. Niehuis, S., Huston, T. L. and R. Rosenband (2006) “From Courtship Into Marriage: A New Developmental Model and Methodological Critique”, Journal of Family Communication, 6(1): 23-47.
8. Riley, J. G. (2001) “Silver signals: Twenty-five years of screening and signaling”, Journal of Economic Literature, 39(2): 432-478.

9. Surra, C. A. (1985) “Courtship types: Variations in interdependence between partners and social networks”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49: 357-375.