Throughout history, men have tended to be more violent than women. Evolutionary theories suggest that this sex difference derives in part from their historically greater need to compete with other men over access to potential mates. In the current research, men and women (Experiment 1) or men only (Experiments 2 and 3) underwent a mating motive prime or control prime, and then performed a task designed to measure aggression toward a same-sex partner. The mating prime increased aggression among men, but not women (Experiment 1). Furthermore, mating-related increases in aggression were directed only toward men who were depicted as viable intrasexual rivals, including a dominant (vs. non-dominant) male partner (Experiment 2) and a man who was depicted as single (versus married) and looking for a mate (Experiment 3). This research provides a picture of male intrasexual aggression as highly selective and aimed strategically at asserting one’s dominance over sexual rivals.
AinsworthS. E.ManerJ. K. (2012). Sex begets violence: Mating motives, social dominance, and physical aggression in men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 819-829. doi:10.1037/a0029428
2.
AndersonC. A.BushmanB. J. (1997). External validity of “trivial” experiments: The case of laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology, 1, 19-41. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.1.1.19
3.
AndersonC. A.BushmanB. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-21. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231
4.
AndersonC. A.CarnageyN. L. (2004). Violent evil and the general aggression model. In MillerA. (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 168-192). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
5.
AndersonC. A.LindsayJ. J.BushmanB. J. (1999). Research in the psychology laboratory: Truth or triviality?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3-9. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00002
6.
AnderssonM. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
ArcherJ. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291-322. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291
8.
ArcherJ. (2006). Testosterone and human aggression: An evaluation of the challenge hypothesis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 319-345. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.12.2007
9.
ArcherJ. (2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex difference in aggression?Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 32, 249-311. doi:10.1017/S0140525X09990951
10.
ArcherJ.CoyneS. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality Social Psychology Review, 9, 212-230. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2
11.
BakerM. D.ManerJ. K. (2008). Risk-taking as a situationally sensitive male mating strategy. Evolution & Human Behavior, 29, 391-395. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.06.001
12.
BetzigL. L. (1986). Despotism and differential reproduction: A Darwinian view of history. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine Transaction.
13.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
14.
BushmanB. J.BaumeisterR. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, and self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-229. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.219
15.
BussD. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616-628. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616
16.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex-difference in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypothesis tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 12, 1-14.
17.
BussD. M.SchmittD. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
18.
BuunkB. P.DijkstraP. (2004). Gender differences in rival characteristics that evoke jealousy in response to emotional versus sexual infidelity. Personal Relationships, 11, 395-408. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00089.x
19.
ChagnonN. A. (1988). Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science, 4843, 985-992. doi:10.1126/science.239.4843.985
20.
Clutton-BrockT. H.VincentA. C. J. (1991). Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature, 351, 58-60. doi:10.1038/351058a0
21.
DalyM.WilsonM. (1983). Sex, evolution, and behavior: Adaptations for reproduction (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Willard Grant Press.
22.
DarwinC. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London, England: Murray.
23.
DeWallC. N.AndersonC. A.BushmanB. J. (2011). The General Aggression Model: Theoretical extensions to violence. Psychology of Violence, 1, 245-258. doi:10.1037/a0023842
24.
DonnersteinE.DonnersteinM.EvansR. (1975). Erotic stimuli and aggression: Facilitation or inhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 237-244. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.32.2.237
25.
GangestadS. W.Garver-ApgarC. E.SimpsonJ. A.CousinsA. J. (2007). Changes in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 151-163. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.151
26.
GearyD. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
27.
GiancolaP. R.ZeichnerA. (1995). Construct validity of a competitive reaction-time aggression paradigm. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 199-204. doi:10.1002/1098-2337(1995)21:3<199::AID-AB2480210303>3.0.CO;2-
28.
GriskeviciusV.TyburJ. M.GangestadS. W.PereaE. F.ShapiroJ. R.KenrickD. T. (2009). Aggress to impress: Hostility as an evolved context-dependent strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 980-994. doi:10.1037/a0013907
29.
GutierresS. E.KenrickD. T.PartchJ. J. (1999). Beauty, dominance, and the mating game: Contrast effects in self-assessment reflect gender differences in mate selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1126-1134. doi:10.1177/01461672992512006
LeighS. R. (1996). Evolution of human growth spurts. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 4, 455-474. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199612)101:4<455::AID-AJPA2>3.0.CO;2-V
32.
LiN. P.BaileyJ. M.KenrickD. T.LinsenmeierJ. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the trade-offs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947-955. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947
33.
LiN. P.KenrickD. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468-489. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468
34.
MalamuthN. M. (1986). Predictors of naturalistic sexual aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 953-962. doi:10.1037/0022-2514.50.5.953
35.
ManerJ. K.DeWallC. N.GailliotM. T. (2008). Selective attention to signs of success: Social dominance and early stage interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 488-501. doi:10.1177/0146167207311910
36.
ManerJ. K.GailliotM. T.RoubyD. A.MillerS. L. (2007). Can’t take my eyes off of you: Attentional adhesion to mates and rivals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 389-401. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.389
37.
ManerJ. K.KenrickD. T.BeckerD. V.DeltonA. W.HoferB.WilburC. J.NeubergS. L. (2003). Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1107-1120. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1107
38.
MayerJ. D.GaschkeY. N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 102-111. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.102
39.
MussweilerT.FörsterJ. (2000). The sex-aggression link: A perception-behavior dissociation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 507-520. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.507
40.
PriceT. F.DieckmanL.Harmon-JonesE. (2011, October). The effect of body posture on startle eyeblink responses to erotic pictures. Paper presented at the 51st annual meeting of the Society of Psychophysiological Research, Florence, Italy.
41.
SadallaE. K.KenrickD. T.VershureB. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730-738. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.730
42.
SchmittD. P.BussD. M. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and competition derogation: Sex and conflict effects on perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1185-1204. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1185
43.
SimpsonJ. A.GangestadS. W.ChristensenP. N.LeckK. (1999). Fluctuating asymmetry, sociosexuality, and intrasexual competitive tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 159-172. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.159
44.
TriversR. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In CampbellB. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1971-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction.
45.
TurkeP.BetzigL. (1985). Those who can do: Wealth, status, and reproductive success on Ifaluk. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 79-87. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(85)90001-9
46.
WilsonM.DalyM. (1985). Competitiveness, risk-taking, and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 59-73. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(85)90041-X
47.
WilsonM.DalyM. (1988). Homicide. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
48.
WilsonM.DalyM. (2004). Do pretty women inspire men to discount the future?Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences (Biology Letters), 271, S177-S179. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0134
49.
WingfieldJ. C.HegnerR. E.DuftyA. M.BallG. F. (1990). The challenge hypothesis: “theoretical implications” for patterns of testosterone secretion, mating systems, and breeding strategies. The American Naturalist, 136, 829-846. doi:10.1086/285134
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
