A night on the town: when the importance of mate acquisition overrides intrasexual competition

• Authors: Abraham P. Buunk , Karlijn Massar
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Abstract: It is argued that, while men may be intrasexually more competitive than women, to attract potential mates, men will, more than women, associate with same-sex friends who are attractive to the opposite sex. Therefore, more than women, men will choose more physically attractive and dominant companions in a mating context than in a neutral context. In Study 1 among 262 participants a mating scenario (going to a party) and a neutral scenario (seeing a movie) were developed, and it was shown that the mating scenario did indeed induce more a mating context than the neutral scenario. In Study 2 among 167 participants the hypotheses were tested by examining the preferences for a companion in both scenarios. The findings from Study 2 supported the predictions. In response to the mating as compared to the neutral scenario, men, but not women, found the attractiveness of a companion more important, preferred a more socially dominant companion, and found the social dominance of a companion more important. Men as well as women preferred in general companions who were less attractive than themselves, but preferred a more attractive companion in a mating than in a neutral context. The effects for social dominance were in general more pronounced among individuals high in sociosexual orientation (SOI). To conclude especially mens’ attitude towards same sex others in a mating context may be driven by the desire to associate, rather than to compete, with same-sex others who are attractive to the opposite sex.

Keywords

EN

mate choice; mating; sex differences

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Anthropological Review
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 77
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 273-285

Dates

published

2014-12-01

received

2014-09-26

accepted

2014-11-03

online

2014-12-20

Contributors

author

Abraham P. Buunk

• Department of Psychology, University of Groningen & Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

author

Karlijn Massar

• Work & Social Psychology, Maastricht University

References

• Ainsworth SE, Maner JK. 2012. Sex begets violence: mating motives, social dominance, and physical aggression in men. J Pers Soc Psychol 103:819-29.[Crossref][WoS][PubMed]
• Benenson JF, Saelen C, Markovits H, McCabe S. 2008. Sex Differences in the value of parents versus same-sex peers. Evol Psychol 6:13-28.
• Benenson, JF, Markovits H, Fitzgerald C, Geoffroy D, Flemming J, Kahlenberg SM, Wrangham RW. 2009. Males’ greater tolerance of same-sex peers. Psychol Sci 20:184-90.[PubMed][WoS][Crossref]
• Bleske, A.L., & Shackelford, T.K. (2001). Poaching, promiscuity, and deceit: Combating mating rivalry in same-sex friendships. Pers Relationship 8:407-24.[Crossref]
• Bleske-Rechek AL, Buss DM. 2001. Opposite- sex friendship: sex differences and similarities in initiation, selection, and dissolution. PSPB 27:1310-23.
• Buunk AP, Fisher M. 2009. Individual differences in intrasexual competition. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 7:37-48.
• Buunk AP, Ybema JF. 2003. Feeling bad, but satisfied: The effects of upward and downward comparison with other couples upon mood and marital satisfaction. Br J Soc Psychol 42:613-28. [Crossref]
• Campbell A. 2002. A mind of her own: the evolutionary psychology of women. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chagnon NA. 1988. Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science 239:985-92.[Crossref]
• Chagnon N. 1977. Yanomamo: the Fierce People. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
• Cummins D. 2005. Dominance, status, and social hierarchies. In: DM Buss, editor. The handbook of evolutionary psychology Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. 676-97.
• Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
• Gangestad SE, Simpson JA. 1990. Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. J Pers 58:69-96.[PubMed][Crossref]
• Geary DC. 2005. Evolution of paternal investment. In: DM Buss, editor. The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. 483-505.
• Geary DC. 1999. Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
• Geary DC, Byrd-Craven J, Hoard MK, Vigil J, Numtee C. 2003. Evolution and development of boys’ social behavior. Dev Rev 23:444-70.[Crossref]
• Gilby IC, Brent LJN, Wroblewski EE, Rudicell RS, Hahn BH, Goodall J, Pusey AE 2013. Fitness benefits of coalitionary aggression in male chimpanzees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 67:373-81.[WoS][PubMed][Crossref]
• Goodall J. 1986. Social rejection, exclusion, and shunning among the Gombe chimpanzees. Ethology and Sociobiology 7:227-36.[Crossref]
• Häfner M. 2004. How dissimilar others may still resemble the self: assimilation and contrast after social comparison. J Consum Psychol 14:187-96.[Crossref]
• Hall JA. 2010. Sex differences in friendship expectations: a meta-analysis. J Soc Pers Relat 28:723-74.
• Low BS. 2000. Why sex matters: a Darwinian look at human behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Massar K, Buunk AP, Rempt S. 2012. Age differences in women’s tendency to gossip are mediated by their mate value. Pers Individ Differ 52:106-09.[WoS]
• Schmitt DP. 2005. Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In: DM Buss, editor. The handbook of evolutionary psychology Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. 258-91.
• Simpson JA, Gangestad SW. 1991. Individual differences in sociosexuality: evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. J Pers Soc Psychol 60:870-83.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Simpson JA, Gangestad SW. 1992. Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. J Pers 60:31-51.[Crossref]
• Simpson J, Wilson C, Winterheld H. 2004. Sociosexuality and romantic relationships. In: J Harvey, A Wenzel, and S Sprecher, editors. The handbook of sexuality in close relationships .Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 87-112.
• Simpson JA, Gangestad SW, Christensen PN Leck K. 1999. Fluctuating asymmetry, sociosexuality, and intrasexual competitive tactics. J Pers Soc Psychol 76:159-72.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Tesser A. 1988. Towards a self evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In: L Berkowitz, editor. Advances is experimental social psychology. San Diego: Academic Press. 181-227.
• Tesser A, Campbell J, Smith M. 1984. Friendship choice and performance: self-evaluation maintenance in children. J Pers Soc Psychol 46:561-74.[Crossref]
• Vaillancourt T, Sharma A. 2011. Intolerance of sexy peers: intrasexual competition among women. Aggressive Behav 37:569-77.[WoS][Crossref]
• Van Vugt M, De Cremer D. Janssen DP. 2007. Gender differences in cooperation and competition: the male warrior hypothesis. Psychol Sci 18:19-23.[PubMed][Crossref]
• Vigil JM. 2007. Asymmetries in the friendship preferences and social styles of men and women. Human Nature 18:143-61.[Crossref]
• Wrangham R, Peterson D. 1996. Demonic males: apes and the origins of human violence. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
• Young AF, Gabriel S, Schlager OM. 2014. Does this friend make me look fat? Appearance- related comparisons within women’s close friendships. Basic Appl Soc Psych 36:145-54. [WoS][Crossref]

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/anre-2014-0021