Intolerance of sexy peers: Intrasexual competition among women

Aggressive Behavior

Volumn 37, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 569-577

  Vaillancourt, Tracy ^a,b   Sharma, Aanchal ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Design; Evolution; Experimental; Indirect aggression; Intrasexual competition; Women

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGGRESSION; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; FRIEND; HUMAN; PEER GROUP; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

ADULT; AGGRESSION; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FRIENDS; HUMANS; PEER GROUP; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; WOMEN; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80053177791     PISSN: 0096140X     EISSN: 10982337     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ab.20413     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Abbey A, Cozzarelli C, McLaughlin K, Harnish J. 1987. The effect of clothing and dyad sex composition on perceptions of sexual intent: Do women evaluate these cues differently. J Appl Soc Psychol 17:108-126. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1987.tb00304.x.
2. Archer J. 2009. Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression? Behav Brain Sci 32:249-311. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X09990951.
3. Arnocky S, Sunderani S, Miller JL, Vaillancourt T. (2011). Jealousy mediates the relationship between attractiveness and females' indirect aggression. Personal Relationships.
4. Barber N. 1995. The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethol Sociobiol 16:395-424. DOI: 10.1016/0162-3095(95)00068-2.
5. Baumeister RF, Twenge JM. 2002. Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Rev Gen Psychol 6:166-203. DOI: 10.1037//1089-2680.6.2.166.
6. Benenson JF. 2009. Dominating versus eliminating the competition: Sex differences in human intrasexual competition. Behav Brain Sci 32:268-269. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X0999046X.
7. Benenson JF, Markovits H, Thompson ME, Wrangham RW. 2011. Under threat of social exclusion, females exclude more than males. Psychol Sci 22:538-544. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611402511.
8. Bjorkqvist K. 1994. Sex differences in physical, verbal and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles 30:177-188.
9. Bleske AL, Shackelford TK. 2001. Poaching, promiscuity, and deceit: Combating mating rivalry in same- sex friendships. Personal Relationships 8:407-424. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2001.tb00048.x.
10. Buss DM. 1988. The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:616-628. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616.
11. Buss DM. 1989. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci 12:1-49. DOI: 0.1017/S0140525X00023992.
12. Buss DM, Dedden LA. 1990. Derogation of competitors. J Soc Pers Relat 7:395-422. DOI: 10.1177/0265407590073006.
13. Buss DM, Schmitt DP. 1993. Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol Rev 100:204-232. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.
14. Buss DM, Shackelford TK, Choe J, Buunk BP, Dijkstra P. 2000. Distress about mating rivals. Pers Relat 7:235-243. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00014.x.
15. Campbell A. 1995. A few good men: Evolutionary psychology and female adolescent aggression. Ethol Sociobiol 16:99-123. DOI: 10.1016/0162-3095(94)00072-F.
16. Campbell A. 1999. Staying alive: Evolution, culture and women's intra-sexual aggression. Behav Brain Sci 22:203-252. DOI: 10.1017/S014025X9900181.
17. Campbell A. 2002. A Mind of Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Card NA, Stucky BD, Sawalani GM, Little TD. 2008. Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence. A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Dev 79:1185-2008. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x.
19. Clutton-Brock TH. 2007. Sexual selection in males and females. Science 318:1882-1885. DOI: 10.1126/science.1133311.
20. Daly M, Wilson M. 1988. Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
21. Darwin C. 1871. The Decent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.
22. Dunbar RIM, Duncan NDC, Marriott A. 1997. Human controversial behavior. Hum Nat 8:231-246. DOI: 10.1007/BF02912493.
23. Durante KM, Li NP, Haselton MG. 2008. Changes in women's choice of dress across the ovulatory cycle: Naturalistic and laboratory task-based evidence. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 34:1451-1460. DOI: 10.1177/0146167208323103.
24. Ekman P, Friesen WV. 2003. Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions From Facial Expressions. Cambridge: Marlor Books.
25. Ekman P, Friesen WV, Hager JC. 2002. The Facial Action Coding System. London: Research Nexus.
26. Fisher ML. 2004. Female intrasexual competition decreases female facial attractiveness. Proc R Soc Lond Biol Lett 271:283-285. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0160.
27. Fisher M, Cox A. 2009. The influence of female attractiveness on competitor derogation. J Evol Psychol 7:141-155. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0160.
28. Gallup AC, Wilson DS. 2009. Body mass index (BMI) and peer aggression in adolescent females: An evolutionary perspective. J Soc Evol Cult Psychol 3:356-371. Retrieved from.
29. Geary DC. 2010. Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences, 2nd edition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
30. Grammer K, Thornhill R. 1994. Human (homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. J Comp Psychol 108:233-242. DOI: 10.1037/0735-7036.108.3.233.
31. Griskevicius V, Tybur JM, Gangestad SW, Perea EF, Shapiro JR, Kenrick DT. 2009. Aggress to impress: Hostility as an evolved context-dependent strategy. J Pers Soc Psychol 96:980-994. DOI: 10.1037/a0013907.
32. Hornstein GA. 1985. Intimacy in conversational style as a function of the degree of closeness between members of a dyad. J Pers Soc Psychol 49:671-681. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.671.
33. Kenrick DT, Sadalla EK, Groth G, Trost MR. 1990. Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. J Pers 58:97-116. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x.
34. Kenrick DT, Neuberg SL, Zierk K, Krones J. 1994. Evolution and social cognition: Contrast effects as a function of sex, dominance, and physical attractiveness. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 20:210-217. DOI: 10.1177/0146167294202008.
35. Leenaars LS, Dane AV, Marini ZA. 2008. Evolutionary perspective on indirect victimization in adolescence: the role of attractiveness, dating and sexual behavior. Aggr Behav 34:404-415. DOI: 10.1002/ab.20252.
36. Schmitt DP, Buss DM. 1996. Strategic self-enhancement and competitor derogation: Sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. J Pers Soc Psychol 70:1185-1204. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1185.
37. Singh D. 1993. Adaptive significance of female attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. J Pers Soc Psychol 65:293-307. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.293.
38. Singh D. 1994. Is thin really beautiful and good? Relationship between physical attractiveness and waist-to-hip ratio. Pers Individ Diff 16:123-132.
39. Singh D, Young RK. 1995. Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: Role in judgments of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethol Sociobiol 16:483-507. DOI: 10.1016/0162-3095(95)00074-7.
40. Symons D. 1979. The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
41. Vaillancourt T. 2005. Indirect aggression among human: Social construct or evolutionary adaptation? In Tremblay RE, Hartup WW, Archer J (editors). Developmental Origins of Aggression. New York: Guilford, pp 158-177.
42. Walters S, Crawford C. 1994. The importance of mate attraction for intrasexual competition in men and women. Ethol Sociobiol 15:5-30. DOI: 10.1016/0162-3095(94)90025-6.
43. Wilson M, Daly M. 1985. Competitiveness, risk taking and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethol Sociobiol 6:59-73. DOI: 10.1016/0162-3095(85)90041-X.