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

Authors

  • Abraham P. Buunk Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands
  • Karlijn Massar Work & Social Psychology, Maastricht University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2478/anre-2014-0021

Keywords:

mate choice, mating, sex differences

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

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.
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

Bleske, A.L., & Shackelford, T.K. (2001). Poaching, promiscuity, and deceit: Combating mating rivalry in same-sex friendships. Pers Relationship 8:407–24.
View in Google Scholar

Bleske-Rechek AL, Buss DM. 2001. Opposite-sex friendship: sex differences and similarities in initiation, selection, and dissolution. PSPB 27:1310–23.
View in Google Scholar

Buunk AP, Fisher M. 2009. Individual differences in intrasexual competition. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 7:37–48.
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

Campbell A. 2002. A mind of her own: the evolutionary psychology of women. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
View in Google Scholar

Chagnon NA. 1988. Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science 239:985–92.
View in Google Scholar

Chagnon N. 1977. Yanomamo: the Fierce People. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
View in Google Scholar

Gangestad SE, Simpson JA. 1990. Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. J Pers 58:69–96.
View in Google Scholar

Geary DC. 2005. Evolution of paternal investment. In: DM Buss, editor. The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. 483–505.
View in Google Scholar

Geary DC. 1999. Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
View in Google Scholar

Geary DC, Byrd-Craven J, Hoard MK, Vigil J, Numtee C. 2003. Evolution and development of boys’ social behavior. Dev Rev 23:444–70.
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

Goodall J. 1986. Social rejection, exclusion, and shunning among the Gombe chimpanzees. Ethology and Sociobiology 7:227–36.
View in Google Scholar

Häfner M. 2004. How dissimilar others may still resemble the self: assimilation and contrast after social comparison. J Consum Psychol 14:187–96.
View in Google Scholar

Hall JA. 2010. Sex differences in friendship expectations: a meta-analysis. J Soc Pers Relat 28:723–74.
View in Google Scholar

Low BS. 2000. Why sex matters: a Darwinian look at human behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

Simpson JA, Gangestad SW. 1991. Individual differences in sociosexuality: evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. J Pers Soc Psychol 60:870–83.
View in Google Scholar

Simpson JA, Gangestad SW. 1992. Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice. J Pers 60:31–51.
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

Simpson JA, Gangestad SW, Christensen PN Leck K. 1999. Fluctuating asymmetry, sociosexuality, and intrasexual competitive tactics. J Pers Soc Psychol 76:159–72.
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

Tesser A, Campbell J, Smith M. 1984. Friendship choice and performance: self-evaluation maintenance in children. J Pers Soc Psychol 46:561–74.
View in Google Scholar

Vaillancourt T, Sharma A. 2011. Intolerance of sexy peers: intrasexual competition among women. Aggressive Behav 37:569–77.
View in Google Scholar

Van Vugt M, De Cremer D. Janssen DP. 2007. Gender differences in cooperation and competition: the male warrior hypothesis. Psychol Sci 18:19–23.
View in Google Scholar

Vigil JM. 2007. Asymmetries in the friendship preferences and social styles of men and women. Human Nature 18:143–61.
View in Google Scholar

Wrangham R, Peterson D. 1996. Demonic males: apes and the origins of human violence. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
View in Google Scholar

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.
View in Google Scholar

Downloads

Published

2014-12-20

How to Cite

Buunk, A. P., & Massar, K. (2014). A night on the town: when the importance of mate acquisition overrides intrasexual competition. Anthropological Review, 77(3), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.2478/anre-2014-0021

Issue

Section

Articles

Similar Articles

<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.