IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jchals/v8y2017i1p6-d90922.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tie-Up Cycles in Long-Term Mating. Part II: Fictional Narratives and the Social Cognition of Mating

Author

Listed:
  • Lorenza Lucchi Basili

    (Independent Researcher, 20 Chestnut Street, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA)

  • Pier Luigi Sacco

    (metaLAB (at) Harvard, 42 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
    Boylston Hall, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
    Department of Humanities and Geography, IULM University, via Carlo Bo, 1, 20143 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

In the first part of this paper, we have introduced a novel theoretical approach to mating dynamics, known as Tie-Up Theory (TU). In this second part, in the context of the bio-cultural approach to literature, that assigns to fictional narratives an important valence of social cognition, we apply the conceptual tools presented in the first part to the analysis of mating-related interaction dynamics in some blockbuster Hollywood movies from WWII to today. The interaction dynamics envisioned by our theory accurately reflect, to a significant level of detail, the narrative development of the movies under exam from the viewpoint of the mating dynamics of the couple of main characters, accounting for the specific reasons that lead them to react to certain situations via certain behaviors, and for the reasons why such behaviors lead to certain outcomes. Our analysis seems thus to bring some further legitimacy to the bio-cultural foundation of the narrative structure of the movies that we analyze, and moreover to the idea that it is possible to ‘inquire’ characters about their choices according to the narratological-experimental lines suggested by some proponents of the bio-cultural approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Lorenza Lucchi Basili & Pier Luigi Sacco, 2017. "Tie-Up Cycles in Long-Term Mating. Part II: Fictional Narratives and the Social Cognition of Mating," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-60, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jchals:v:8:y:2017:i:1:p:6-:d:90922
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/8/1/6/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/8/1/6/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tobias Greitemeyer & Andreas Kastenmüller & Peter Fischer, 2013. "Romantic motives and risk-taking: an evolutionary approach," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 19-38, January.
    2. Alexander G. Huth & Wendy A. de Heer & Thomas L. Griffiths & Frédéric E. Theunissen & Jack L. Gallant, 2016. "Natural speech reveals the semantic maps that tile human cerebral cortex," Nature, Nature, vol. 532(7600), pages 453-458, April.
    3. Belk, Russell W, 1987. "Material Values in the Comics: A Content Analysis of Comic Books Featuring Themes of Wealth," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(1), pages 26-42, June.
    4. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    5. Ribar, David C., 2004. "What Do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage? A Review of Quantitative Methodologies," IZA Discussion Papers 998, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Lorenza Lucchi Basili & Pier Luigi Sacco, 2016. "Tie-Up Cycles in Long-Term Mating. Part I: Theory," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-43, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lorenza Lucchi Basili & Pier Luigi Sacco, 2019. "Shakespeare in Love: A Fictional Transliteration of the Grammar of Heterosexual Mating," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440188, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katherine Farrow & Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi, 2018. "What in the Word! The Scope for the Effect of Word Choice on Economic Behavior," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(4), pages 557-580, November.
    2. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    3. Potters, Jan & Stoop, Jan, 2016. "Do cheaters in the lab also cheat in the field?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 26-33.
    4. Ruomeng Cui & Dennis J. Zhang & Achal Bassamboo, 2019. "Learning from Inventory Availability Information: Evidence from Field Experiments on Amazon," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1216-1235, March.
    5. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    6. Lechthaler, Wolfgang & Ring, Patrick, 2021. "Labor force participation, job search effort and unemployment insurance in the laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 748-778.
    7. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    8. Erin L. Krupka & Roberto A. Weber, 2013. "Identifying Social Norms Using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game Sharing Vary?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 495-524, June.
    9. Fossen, Frank M. & Glocker, Daniela, 2017. "Stated and revealed heterogeneous risk preferences in educational choice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-25.
    10. Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2008. "Motivating Altruism: A Field Study," IZA Discussion Papers 3770, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter, 2010. "Don’t Tell Me What to Do, Tell Me Who to Follow! - Field Experiment Evidence on Voluntary Donations," Working Papers in Economics 452, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    12. Lackner, Mario & Sonnabend, Hendrik, 2021. "Coping with advantageous inequity—Field evidence from professional penalty kicking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    13. Kasey Buckles & Melanie Guldi & Joseph Price, 2011. "Changing the Price of Marriage: Evidence from Blood Test Requirements," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 46(3), pages 539-567.
    14. John A. List, 2007. "On the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(3), pages 482-493.
    15. Ivan Hilliard, 2013. "Responsible Management, Incentive Systems, and Productivity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 365-377, December.
    16. Steffen Huck & Wieland Müller, 2012. "Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 261-293, June.
    17. Nadine Chlaß & Peter G. Moffatt, 2017. "Giving in Dictator Games - Experimenter Demand Effect or Preference over the Rules of the Game?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-044, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    18. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Claire Mackevicius & Min Sok Lee & Dana Suskind, 2019. "How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? 12 Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling," Artefactual Field Experiments 00679, The Field Experiments Website.
    19. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    20. Blair Cleave & Nikos Nikiforakis & Robert Slonim, 2013. "Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 372-382, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jchals:v:8:y:2017:i:1:p:6-:d:90922. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.