Chapter 11

From Drmills

Chapter 11: THE SEXES TOGETHER

Early developmental sex differences

Hormonal sex differences and how they influence sexual activity and differentiation in females.

Contributor: Claire Greene

The hormonal composition of a female can describe physiological and psychological reproductive strategies in many species whether they are conscious or subconscious. The largest and most influential hormonal group is the androgenic hormones. Androgens are masculinizing hormones, which are synthesized in the adrenal cortex and the ovaries. Testosterone is the primary androgen, which is a precursor to the majority of sex-related endocrine hormones in both males and females. Testosterone is present in higher concentrations in the male bloodstream than the female bloodstream. The primary biological characteristic of testosterone is that it is found in two forms in the blood and urine, bound and unbound. In it’s bound form testosterone binds to albumin and sex hormone-binding globulin. The free testosterone is the active form, which is relevant when studying the androgenic influences on sexual preferences and activity. When testosterone is bound to albumin it is capable of dissociating into the active free form of testosterone under certain conditions. The two other important androgens are androstenedione and dehydroepiandrosterone. Androstenedione is found in higher concentration in female plasma levels than male plasma levels. Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is produced by the adrenal glands and is synthesized in the brain. It is the most abundant endogenous steroid in the body. DHEA influence sex hormones in regulation of stress and immune response.

It has been found that both androstenedione and testosterone were negatively correlated with female sexual avoidance ratings in an experimental survey (Regan, 1999). Similar results were also found when testing males. On the contrary, higher concentrations of testosterone in blood plasma were positively associated with female sexual desire and thoughts as determined by experimental self-report. Women who have undergone oophorectomies and adrenalectomies reported a significant decrease in the frequency of sexual thoughts and desires post-surgery due to the decline in free testosterone concentration in blood plasma. The women didn’t notice a decline in sexual desire after the oopherectomy, but did, however, notice after the adrenalectomy. This indicates that the decline can be attributed to the decrease in androgen levels, not the removal of their ovaries as vital reproductive organs (Regan, 1999). Studies have not determined if the loss of sexual desire due to decrease in androgens is produced by psychological stimulation in regards to sexual experience or if anti-androgenous effects induce physiological responses. Hormone replacement therapy is often administered to individuals with low levels of hormones. Administering testosterone is typically subcutaneous and results in increased sexual interest. As a result of low androgen levels, lack of sexual desires only occurs when concentration of the androgen has dropped below its critical threshold. There is also a maximal threshold of androgens, which when surpassed, doesn’t further increase sexual interest. Within these threshold limitations, however, there is variability with regards to sexual desire among females. Testosterone levels in females are highly correlated with sexual activity.

Estrogens are the feminizing hormones, which are primarily secreted by the ovaries. Estradiol is the estrogenic hormone, which is a metabolic product of testosteron when in the bound and unbound forms. Estradiol is required for females to have normal sexual desires. In contrast, the presence of estrogenic hormones in males decreases sexual desire. In a study performed on guinea pigs, it was found that when the males were injected with estradiol, their body weigh decreased (Czaja, McCaffrey & Butera, 1983). In the same study, the hormonal composition of the female guinea pig was analyzed which was found to have an effect on their male partner. Results showed that when females were treated with estradiol, the body weight of their male partners decreased. Czaja, McCaffrey, and Butera (1983) concluded that this decline in body weight is due to the male’s response to their female partner’s physiological and behavioral changes as a result of the hormone treatments. These changes are most likely detected subconsciously by the male through chemoreception of their female partner’s pheromones. Estrogens have a direct effect on the female reproductive system and the female’s physical satisfaction with intercourse. This effect consequently increases sexual desire, which can be magnified if coupled with exogenous androgenic hormones.

Progesterone is a hormone produced by ovaries and the adrenal cortex. Its effects on sexual desire are circumstantial and not well understood. For example, progesterone is one of the active ingredients in oral contraceptives and thus elevates progesterone levels in the consumer. Progesterone is the reason one of the side effects of oral contraceptives is lower sex drive. Progesterone was found, however, to increase sexual interest in hysterectomized females. These females reported heightened sexual desire when they were administered progestin rather than estrogen or a placebo drug that was used as a control in the study (Czaja et al., 1983). Prolactin is a hormone that is often studied along with progesterone. Prolacting is produced by the pituitary gland and its levels are elevated during the lactational period following pregnancy as well as during ovulation. Prolactin is associated with decreased sexual desire. Women who are hyperprolactinemic reported minimal sexual interest. When they were treated with bromocriptine which lowers prolactin levels, they reported increased sexual desire from baseline (Czaja et al., 1983). Prolactin levels may not have a direct correlation with decreased sexual desire, but rather do so through a mediating factor. Prolactin is associated with anxiety, depression, hostility, as well as decreased androgen levels. All of these factors are capable of decreasing sexual interest.

The hormones described above are also determinants of mate preference. Cyclic variation in female hormonal levels impacts their preferences for male partners, both long-term and short-term. Women’s preferences for physical attributes fluctuate throughout their menstrual cycle. David Andrew Puts (2006) presents several hypotheses that suggest reasoning for the dynamic nature of mate preferences. Puts suggests that the female preference for masculine traits increases during ovulation due to conception risk. The reason masculine traits are preferable can be attributed to the influence of androgens. The masculine trait that is measured in Puts’ experiment is pitch of the male voice. A lower-pitch voice is considered more masculine which is preferable when the female is most fertile. This is because a low-pitched voice is indicative of a fertile mate with good genes, and reinforces why low-pitched male voices are preferable for short-term, primarily sexual relationships. The disadvantage from the female perspective of a masculine mate is most likely a poor investor in any potential offspring. The physiological evidence that androgen receptor sensitivity is associated positively with fertility supports the correlation between masculine traits and fertility. The study conducted by Puts (1983) tested the preference for masculine traits of undergraduate females with no reproductive or hormonal health issues by having them listen to male voices, which had been digitally altered to varying pitches. They were to rate them as to their short-term sexual attractiveness as well as long-term mate attractiveness. Females who were on hormonal contraceptives were used as the control. The results of this study found that levels of progesterone and prolactin were the only hormones that significantly affected female preference for male traits. When levels of progesterone were high, females preferred males with higher pitched voices. This is representative of a male who is less masculine, less fertile, but a better paternal investor. When levels of prolactin were high, females preferred males with lower-pitched voices. This is representative of the male who is more masculine, more fertile, has better genes, but would invest less paternally. The physiological difference between progesterone and prolactin may be the primary reason they produced opposing outcomes. Both hormones are released during the luteal phase when the leutenizing hormone induces maximal fertility in the female. Progesterone stays eleveated throughout the luteal phase. Prolactin is released one to two days around the peak of leutenizing hormone release. This indicates that when the female is in the peak of her fertility she is more likely to forego a male who is willing to invest in her offspring for a male who is highly fertile and composed of high-quality genes, but most likely lacks paternal investment qualities.

In regards to sexual differentiation as it relates to gender identity, there is evidence that supports the correlation between hormonal exposures and sexual orientation. Some of the neuroendocrine factors that contribute to these hormonal variations are timing, duration, dose, type of exposure, and variation in hormone receptor sensitivity. Homosexual men and heterosexual women both have smaller nuclei in the anterior hypothalamus, which is involved in neuroendocrine regulation when compared to heterosexual men. This results in low androgen levels, which reduces male-typical behavior such as spatial ability and aggression. When studying playmate preference in children, Berenbaum and Snyder (1995), discovered that prenatal hormones are more likely to have an affect on sex-typical activity preference rather than sex-dependant playmate preference. Females with higher prenatal levels of adrenal androgens showed a significantly greater preference for male sex-typical activities than females with normal levels of adrenal androgens. In regards to sexual orientation, high levels of prenatal androgens only influence a single childhood behavior differentiating heterosexual and homosexual individuals. Increased androgenic hormone levels increased female preference for male sex-typical activities, which is further believed to increase the likelihood of that child identifying as a homosexual female in the future.

It is obvious that there are many hormonal correlates to sexual interest and involvement. Hormonal composition is in a constant state of flux, which is why there is so much variability upon individuals, even with similar hormonal compositions. Androgenic hormones are the primary determinant of sexual preference, desire, and orientation. Testosterone, being the biochemical precursor to the majority of sex hormones, has the most significant affect on sexual preference and differentiation in humans. As can be seen in the figure below, testosterone has several other behavioral and secondary sex characteristics. This reinforces how integrated sexual desire is in human behavior and personality.

References

Adkins, E. (1975). Hormonal basis of sexual differentiation in the Japanese quail.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 89(1).

Berenbaum, S., & Snyder, E. (1995). Early hormonal influences on childhood sex-typed activity and playmate preferences: Implications for the development of sexual orientation. Developmental Psychology, 31(1).

Czaja, J., McCaffrey, T., & Butera, P. (1983). Effects of female hormonal condition on body weight of male partners: Dependence on testicular factors. Behavioral Neuroscience, 97(6).

Maccoby, E., & Jacklin, C. (1980). Sex differences in aggression: A rejoinder and reprise. Child Development, 51(4).

Meyer, W., Walker, P., & Suplee, Z. (1981). A survey of transsexual hormonal treatment in twenty gender-treatment centers.Journal of Sex Research, 17(4), 344-349.

Puts, D. (2006). Cyclic variation in women's preferences for masculine traits: Potential hormonal causes. Human Nature, 17(1).

Regan, P. (1999). Hormonal correlates and causes of sexual desire: A review. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 8(1), 1-16.

Wachs, T. (2000). Genetic, neural, and hormonal influences. Necessary but not sufficient: The respective roles of single and multiple influences on individual development (pp. 31-67). Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association.

Reproductive Limitations and the Function of Altruism in Females

Contributor: Emily Smith

Altruism (biological definition): behavior that increases the recipient’s fitness at a cost to the performers (de Waal, 2008).

The existence of true altruism has been of controversy for decades and has been scrutinized by skeptical philosophers such as Hobbes. Cynical philosophers have long adopted the belief that selfish motives lie behind altruistic behaviors, rather than sympathetic and compassionate emotions. However, there is much evidence to suggest that this is not the case. Instead, altruism may be considered a basic human instinct that evolved from deep within the animal kingdom. The significance of altruism stems from the struggle for existence. Animals, being social creatures, have depended on mutual benefit associations and altruistic instincts to nourish social solidarity and efficient cooperation. Clearly, those instincts that enhance social solidarity and cooperation would be favored by natural selection, as would selfless behaviors that help the individual. The earliest appearance of blatant altruism is found in parental care for offspring (Holmes, 1945). While traditionally females spend a great deal of time and energy caring for offspring, various reproductive limitations affect the manifestation of altruism in females (Fitzgerald & Colarelli, 2009).

While mothers display altruistic behaviors toward kin, such helping behaviors are not always inevitable. Past research has supported the inclusive fitness theory, which postulates “an individual will behave altruistically to another when the cost of behaving altruistically is less than the product of the reproductive benefits and the degree of genetic relatedness between the actor and the recipient,” (Fitzgerald & Colarelli, 2009, 1). However, there are additional factors that contribute to the likelihood of behaving altruistically toward family. Disorders that limit mating capacity negatively affect the probability of one acting altruistically toward the diseased individual, due to the risk that one’s genes may not be passed along to the next generation. For example, in a study that examined altruistic behavior among mothers and monozygotic twins, in which one twin was healthy and the other was disabled, mothers exhibited a behavioral preference for the healthy twin. Consequently, female actors are less likely to help a recipient with decreased reproductive potential, even when that individual is genetically related (Fitzgerald & Colarelli, 2009).

Altruism directed toward healthy offspring is illustrated in another study (Scheper-Hughes, 1985) which revealed that Brazilian mothers of low socioeconomic status grew emotionally detached from their children who were diseased or deformed. This may be due to the probability that the disadvantaged offspring would die and so the mother ceased investing emotionally because she could not afford to invest extra resources to help the child survive. Interestingly, Fitzgerald and Colarelli (2009) also found that people are more likely to help those without a reproductive limitation in a hypothetical situation in which assistance was needed, than those devoid of reproduction limitation, despite genetic association.

While a popular stereotype is that females are more altruistic than males, research has been widely inconsistent in supporting this notion. In fact, little differences exist between the sexes on measures of altruistic behavior. When sex differences are revealed--which is rarely the case-- females are often found to be more helpful than males. This discrepancy between reputation and behavior may be due in part by females’ willingness to convey empathy with those in distress (Shigetomi, Hartmann, & Gelfand, 1981). While more similarities than differences with regard to sex differences in altruism may exist, research indicates that reproductive limitations negatively affect altruistic behavior in females (Scheper-Hughes, 1985; Fitzgerald & Colarelli, 2009). While K-strategist human females are known to be the most parentally invested creatures in existence, why is relatedness a sometimes-insignificant indication of altruism?

Just as reproductive potential is assessed in the female’s selection of a mate, females may also evaluate their reproductive potential in judging whether or not to act altruistically toward an offspring. Similar to the pressure for a female to choose a male who will invest resources in her and her offspring, a female must assess how her own resources will be beneficially allocated in her children. Consequently, even though the altruistic preference for a healthy child compared to a deformed or disabled child may be subconsciously made, it reflects the underlying goal of evolution, which is to successfully pass ones genes onto the following generation.

References

de Waal, F. (2008). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59279-300. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625.

Fitzgerald, C.J., and Colarelli, S.M. (2009). Altruism and reproductive limitations. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2): 234-252.

Holmes, S. (1945). The reproductive beginnings of altruism. Psychological Review, 52(2), 109112. doi:10.1037/h0060511.

Scheper-Hughes, N. (1985). Culture, scarcity, and maternal thinking: Maternal detachment and infant survival in a Brazilian shantytown. Ethos, 13(4), 291-317. doi:10.1525/eth.1985.13.4.02a00010.

Shigetomi, C., Hartmann, D., & Gelfand, D. (1981). Sex differences in children's altruistic behavior and reputations for helpfulness. Developmental Psychology, 17(4), 434-437. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.17.4.434.

FINAL PAPER:

Kissing as an Implied Evolutionary Adaptation

Contributor: Samantha G. Brown

Viewed as an overt expression of affection or greeting, kissing has been seen as a universal variable persistent throughout evolution. Kissing between sexual and/or romantic partners occur in over 90 percent of human cultures (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1970, Fisher, 1992; as cited by Hughes, Harrison & Gallup, 2007). It can be viewed as a sign of affection, emotion or respect and is often used in greeting (Barrett, Greenwood & McCullagh, 2006). Humans have not been the only species to exhibit kissing behaviors during courtship and sexual intercourse. Suggestive of adaptive potential, de Wall (2000) notes regular deep tongue kissing among bonobos. Bonobos have also been observed to kiss and embrace after fights as an ostensible means of conflict resolution. As a form of nonverbal communication, both females and males interpret and exhibit differing methods and intentions when engaging in kissing behaviors. Considered “most natural” like handedness, kissing behaviors are thought to be influenced by motor and emotive biases. The postures assumed by humans take on adaptive qualities which are exhibited during early gestation. Humans assume a preference to turning their head either to the left or the right when engaging in kissing behaviors. Most people are predisposed to turn their head to the right when kissing. Coryell and Mitchel (1978) discovered that most newborns typically exhibited an asymmetrical supine postural preference as early as the first 3 months postpartum. Head-turning asymmetry when kissing is thought to be linked to brain laterality. By turning one’s head to the right, an individual was revealing their left cheek—which is controlled by the emotive right cerebral hemisphere (Barrett, Greenwood and McCullagh, 2006). It can be implied that similar to human preference for using either their left or right hand, turning one’s head to either the right or the left is equally instinctual.

Kissing Laterality and Handedness
http://0-imageserver.ebscohost.com.linus.lmu.edu/img/imageqv/actual/bae/20061101/877969.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNLr40Sepq84wtvhOLCmrlGepq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS

From an evolutionary perspective, human males and females differ in their approach to mate selection and utilize an evolutionary adaptive significance when engaging in kissing behavior. In an attempt to choose the best partner, courtship behaviors are used as a means of assessment to choose the best potential partner. Females emphasize resources and status when selecting mates while males place a greater significance on appearance, fertility and youth. As the less investing sex, r-reproductive strategy males evolutionarily display less parental care due to their large reproductive potential. Therefore males display less discrimination when choosing partners. Males place less importance on kissing as a mate assessment device (especially with short-term partners) and appear to use kissing to increase the likelihood of having sex (Hughes, Harrison & Gallup, 2007). Possessing a k-reproductive strategy, females assert more discrimination when choosing male partners due to their limited reproductive potential and their large parental investment. Females place more importance on kissing as a mate assessment device and as a means of initiating, maintaining, and monitoring the current status of their relationship with a long-term partner (Hughes, Harrison & Gallup, 2007).

The future of a relationship can be said to simply be determined by a kiss. Smell and taste have been theorized to contribute to mate evaluation. Health is used as an assessment tool to determine a male’s mating potential and as well as a determinate of female fertility. Hughes, Harrison & Gallup (2007) found that females placed a greater emphasis on kissing for making mate assessment as females are more likely to base evaluations of their partners’ kissing ability on chemical cues (i.e., the breath and the taste of the mouth). It was also found that males place a large emphasis on their partner’s face, body and weight as focal characteristics when determining whether to kiss someone. Breath odor and saliva also provides cues to a female’s fertility. During menstruation, the female’s rise in estrogen causes the shedding of body cells creating an ideal environment for bacterial growth. This can cause women to have unpleasant breath near their menstrual period (McCann and Bonci, 2001; as cited by Hughes, Harrison & Gallup, 2007). As male’s are less receptive to chemosensory cues, it is more difficult to assess a female’s fertility through salivary exchange. Therefore, men require a greater preference for wetter, open mouth, tongue kisses to monitor fertility. As opportunistic maters, males showed a greater preference for tongue contact and open mouth when kissing short-term partners, and when sharing a first kiss with someone they would like to have a long-term relationship with, males wanted more tongue involvement.

Physical attraction and sexual desire are defining qualities which distinguish romantic relationships from other relationships. Physical desire for partners is displayed through kissing behaviors. Kissing and desiring a romantic partner correlate positively with relationship satisfaction and commitment (Welsh, Haugen, Widman, Darling & Grello, 2005). Both sexes report higher relationship satisfaction when engaging in more kissing. As a mate assessment device, kissing is seen as a means of promoting pair bonds and inducing sexual arousal and receptivity.

References:

1. Barrett, D., Greenwood, J.G., & McCullagh, J.F. (2006). Kissing laterality and handedness. Psychology Press, 11(6), 573-579.

2. Hughes, S.M., Harrison, M.A., & Gallup, G.G. (2007). Sex differences in romantic kissing among college students: an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary Psychology, 5 (3), 612-631.

3. Welsh, D.P., Haugen, P.T., Widman, L., & Grello, C. (2005). Kissing is good: a developmental investigation of sexuality in adolescent romantic couples. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 2 (4), 32-41.

Courtship

The courtship phase of any relationship is truly an important one. One in which waters are tested, potential mates are sized up, and partners are deemed worthy or unfit. Sexual displays initiate this phase and so begins the careful assessment of potential mates. Particularly interesting are the ways in which males and females actually assess each other during this phase, and how these practices differ between the two sexes. Human cooperation, specifically in regards to altruism, is the first of these practices worthy of our attention.

Studies have shown that human cooperation often goes beyond existing theories of kinship and reciprocal altruism. Therefore, it is plausible that altruism can serve as a sexually selected display that attracts mates. Farrelly, Lazarus, and Roberts (2007) examined this quality in sexual selection. Altruism costs resources, economic or otherwise, which displays a willingness to risk one's own survival for the benefit of a potential mate. The study confirmed that individuals indeed cooperate more with members of the opposite sex, and are actually more cooperative with more attractive members of the opposite sex. Secondly, when rated by participants, partners who were more cooperative were rated as more attractive. This means that investment in altruism may increase perceived attractiveness and, consequently, mating opportunity.

Kissing is another common practice that is used as an assessment tool during the courtship phase, as it allows partners to assess smell, taste, and other features which contribute to mate selection. Also, accepting a kiss may indicate a willingness to accept the possibility of contracting an illness. To observe the difference in the importance each sex places on kissing, Hughes, Harrison, and Gallup (2007) conducted a study in which participants measured kissing preferences, attitudes, styles, and behaviors. Results confirmed their predictions that females consider kissing an important tool in initiating, maintaining, and monitoring the status of their relationship. Males, on the other hand, place less importance on kissing.

Yet another interesting way in which males and females assess potential mates is in the display of qualities that an individual may view as an investment in the production and rearing of offspring. Historically, paternal care was necessary for offspring to reach reproductive age.Today, however, men have both less obligation to invest in offspring relative to women, and less certainty in being the actual father. Since, on average, men are less likely to invest in offspring than women, theorists suggest that women have evolved a preference for males who do show a willingness to invest. Bleske-Rechek, Remiker, Swanson, and Zeug (2006) conducted two studies to qualify this theory and results indicate that women do show preference for a man willing to invest in offpsring. Men, on the other hand, show indifference to a woman's willingness to invest.

Topic: Mate Poaching

Contributor: Sarah Gogin

Class: Psyc 452, Spring 2009

Mate guarding theory is based on three ideas. First, mate guarding is used to “preserve access to a mate” (Buss, 2002). In addition, mate guarding is used to ensure a mate does not leave his or her partner for another prospect. Finally, many partners attempt to mate guard by preventing other individuals from luring their mate into a new relationship or “brief sexual affair.” This concept of “luring another’s mate” is one of today’s most common mate-guarding tactics and is known is known as mate poaching.

Mate Poaching
Mate poaching occurs when one individual attempts to attract another person who is already in a romantic relationship. It is believed that mate poaching is an evolved mating strategy for one reason in particular. Desirable individuals attract many suitors and do not remain unmated for long. As a result, it often is necessary to “seek a mate who is already ‘taken’” (Buss, 2007). Mate poaching can occur for two main reasons. First, a mate poacher may attempt to seduce “a temporary sexual desertion by an already-mated partner” (Schmitt and Shackelford, 2003). This is referred to as short-term poaching. On the other hand, a mate poacher may seek out a more permanent relationship with an already-mated partner. This is referred to as long-term poaching.

Studies have shown that men and women mate poach for different reasons. Men typically are motivated to attract an already-mated individual for his or her physical appearance or to enjoy sexual variety. In contrast, women are motivated by the concepts of “resource acquisition and dominance” (Schmitt and Shackelford, 2003). This shows that while a man’s focus is more physical, a woman’s is more emotional or resourceful

Tactics
There are several tactics used when mate poaching. First, a suitor would try to befriend the couple with the potential mate partner. Next, a suitor will “wait in the wings” for an opportunity to end the relationship or lure the prospective individual into a new relationship be it purely sexual or emotional. From this point on, a poacher may attempt to lure their prospective mate by “derogating the partner (e.g., “She’s not good enough for you; you deserve someone who treats you better . . . like me”)” (Tierney, 2009). A poacher may also show desirable qualities that the current mate lacks.

While mate poaching can be attempted by men and women of all ages, not all mate poaching is successful. Successful poaching includes the actual ending of one relationship and a start of a new relationship between the already-taken mate and the mate poacher.
Studies
One of the first studies on mate poaching was conducted by Schmitt and Buss in 2001. The goal of the study was to look at American undergraduate students who had experiences with mate poaching. For this study, “215 undergraduates at a public university in the southeastern United States (125 men and 90 women)” (Hass, 2007) were surveyed about their mate poaching experiences. Categories in the survey included “have you attempted to poach someone or has another attempted to poach you?” The next part of the survey included temporal contexts that specified each question determining if the poaching relationship was a long or short-term affair or relationship etc. Also, participants were asked if they knew from the start if the individual they desired were in a relationship or not. Finally, participants were asked if their experiences were successful or not.

Results showed that men are more likely than women to attempt to poach another individual, but women are more likely to be successfully poached. “[The study] showed that more men (60%) than women (38%) admitted to having attempted to poach an already mated person for a sexual encounter. The sex difference was smaller for long-term mate poaching, but still present—60% of the men and 53% of the women” (Tierney, 2009).

MatePoaching.jpg

References

Buss, D. (2007). The Evolution of Human Mating.Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(3), 502-512.

Davies, A., Hass, R., and Todd Shackelford. (2006). When a “poach” is not a poach: Re-defining human mate poaching and re-estimating its frequency. Springer Science and Business Media, 36, 702-716.

Flinn, M. (1988). Mate guarding in a Caribbean village. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 1-28.

Schmitt, D. and Todd Shackelford. (2003). Nifty ways to leave your lover: The tactics people use to entice and disguise the process of human mate poaching. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1018.

Tierney, J. (2009). Why poach another’s mate? Ask an expert. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/why-poach-anothers-mate-ask-anexpert-or-brangelina/.

MatePoaching.jpg

Topic: Humor and its role in sexual attraction

Contributor: Robert Como

Class: Psyc 452, Spring 2009

There has been countless research done which demonstrates the differences between the sexes and the type of qualities they look for in a potential mate. Men value physical attractiveness and youth in their potential mates more than women, duebto the fact that reproductive value and fertility are closely correlated with age and health, and physical appearance is an indicator of physical health. Research has also shown that women are searching in men for the characteristics of dependability, good earning capacity, ambition, career-oriented mentality, and high socioeconomic status. (Buss, 1989; Buss, 1994; Regan & Joshi, 2003) It has been documented that humans are similar to all other animals in that their preferences for mate selection is based upon reproductive investment as well as well-being and survival of offspring. These are characteristics that are consistent cross culturally. (Doosje, Rojahn, & Fischer, 1999; Buss, 1994) Humor is one trait that has been documented as highly valued in almost all cultures throughout the world. (Buss, 1988)
It has long been known that both genders highly regard a “sense of humor” while selecting a mate. We know this is important to us by how much individuals over evaluate their own sense of humor. In two different self assessment samples, more than 90% of participants rated themselves as having above-average sense of humor. (Lefcourt & Martin, 1986) Why is having a sense of humor something so important to have within ones self and in a potential mate. And what exactly does having a “sense of humor” mean? McGee and Shevlin (2009) believed that researchers have largely overlooked the aspect of attraction caused by humor. They state that research has been done examining humor as a characteristic with social benefits. The use, as an example, the fact that researchers have shown humor helps individuals to avoid stress and depression (as cited by Dixon, 1980; Goldstein, 1987). 
After surveying 180 undergraduate students (90 male, 90 female), McGee and Shevlin (2009) concluded that humor was a vital characteristic especially for individuals considering long term relationship partners. They also found that there was no significant difference between someone with an “average” sense of humor versus someone with “no” sense of humor. Therefore, only an “above-average” sense of humor was valued. They also found that there was no significant difference between genders even though the female rated person with an “above-average” sense of humor was, on average, rated slightly more sexually attractive than the male rated person with an “above-average” sense of humor. This most likely supports the evolutionary perspective that males are more influenced by physical attractiveness while females remain choosier in mate selection.
However, McGee and Shevlin (2009) go on to report that research has failed to demonstrate how a sense of humor sexual attracts a mate and why, there are merely presented theories which attempt to decipher this phenomenon. McGee and Shevlin explain that if one looks at romantic relationships from Bersheid’s (1983) perspective: that we desire easy achievement of our immediate and higher order goals, one can determine that humor could fulfill these desires. If happiness is an immediate and higher goal of an individual, and happiness is facilitated through humor, then humor directly accomplishes these goals. Also possible is that humor is highly indicative of possession of other positive characteristics such as mood stability, avoids conflict, and intelligence. (Mcgee & Shevlin, 2009; Storey, 2003) Mcgee and Shevlin also summarized that social psychologists have found that individuals are attracted to others who posses similar attributes; and seeing as how almost everyone views themselves as having a “good sense of humor” it becomes a sexually attractive trait in others (as cited by Berscheid, Dion, Walster, & Walster, 1971). 
Storey (2003) summarizes an excerpt from Geoffrey Miller’s book The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature stating that humor reveals a capacity for creativity. And that creativity is one of the strongest indicators of intelligence, energy, youth, and proteanism that one can exude and Miller goes on to argue that humor is in no way linked to an evolutionary trait of survival, it is merely a product of sexual selection, “Humor is attractive, that is why it has evolved [to become such a desired characteristic].” Storey goes on to provide an interesting perspective on what a perceived “good sense of humor” actually means. He explains how the term is elastic and may not actually indicate someone who possesses a humorous disposition, it may merely be a way of communicating the fact that you like being around someone; you find an individual to “be good sport,” you like him or her.

References
Buss, A. H. (1989). Personality as traits. American Psychologist, 44(11), 1378-1388.
Buss, D. M. (1988) The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 616-628.
Buss. D. M. (1994). Individual differences in mating strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(3), 581-582.

Doosje, B., Rojahn, K., & Fischer, A. (1999). Partner preferences as a function of gender, age, political orientation and level of education. Sex Roles, 40(1-2), 45-60.

Lefcourt, H. M. & Martin, R. A. (1984). Situation humor response questionnaire: Quantitative measure of sense of humor. Journal of Peronsality and Social Psychology, 47(1), 145-155.

McGee, E. & Shevlin, M. (2009). Effect of humor on interpersonal
attraction and mate selection. Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, Vol 143(1), pp. 67-77.
Regan, P. C. & Joshi, A. (2003). Ideal partner preferences among
adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, Vol 31(1), pp. 13-20.
Storey, R. (2003). Humor and sexual selection. Human Nature, Vol 14(4).

Topic: Effects of sense of smell on mate selection

Contributor: Alicia Witter

Class: Psyc 452, Fall 2009

We all believe that we know exactly what traits we are looking for in a mate, and that mates are chosen based on these specific traits that are determined to be attractive. However, there are other forces at work that we are not consciously aware of when it comes to mate selection. Our sense of smell, in particular, has a large role in determining who we are and are not attracted to, and unconsciously influences our decisions about mate selection (Foster, 2008). Liking a person's scent signifies compatability of the couple on a genetic level, and if their genes were to combine into offspring, the offspring would typically benefit from the genetic contributions of both parents (Furlow, 2008). Attraction to another person's scent is the gene's way of telling you that the person would make a good mate, and the genetic mix would benefit the offspring.

Although smell does impact both men and women to a certain extent, women's mate selection decisions are much more affected by sense of smell, expecially during ovulation when a woman is fertile and, evolutionarily, would be looking to mate (Thornhill, 1999). This is because a woman's sense of smell is heightened during ovulation, allowing her to better identify the scent of a particular man (Furlow, 2008). One thing that impacts a man's unique scent is his immune system, and the kinds of immunities he carries with him in his genes. Because a man's genetic immunities are reflected in his scent, a woman can unconsciously tell whether or not a man would be a good immunological match for her in terms of benefits for their offspring (Furlow, 2008). If a man smells good to an ovulating woman, it is because their immune systems are different enough from each other that their offspring would benefit from obtaining combined immunities from both parents before ever leaving the womb. These same effects were not found for women who were not ovulating, were infertile or were using oral contraceptives that prevented ovulation, as they were not as evolutionarily motivated to find a mate as the ovulating women were (Thornhill, 1999).

Thornhill’s (1999) study also determined that the body scent of men with greater bilateral symmetry was rated as more attractive by regularly ovulating women, also during the ovulation phase of their menstrual cycle. Because scent has been determined to be an honest representation of genetic quality in males, women have evolved a preference for the scent of symmetrical men, which would lead to more benefits for their children (Thornhill, 1999). This means that offspring will not only get the immunity benefits of the mate, but also the genetic symmetry and health of that same male. In contrast, it was found that men do not prefer the scent of symmetrical women to asymmetrical women (Thornhill, 1999). However, olfactory attraction was rated as equally important to visual attraction (Herz, 2002), meaning that men do take scent into account and may, at some level, base their mate selection decision on this factor.

When asked about the scent of the opposite sex, women ranked body odor as more important for attraction than physical attractiveness, and more important than any social factor other than “pleasantness” (Herz, 2002). Men did not agree with women when asked to rate body scent against attraction; in fact, men rated good looks as more important than any other variable except “pleasantness” (Herz, 2002). Women also tended to single out olfaction from the other senses as the only one to negatively affect sexual arousal, while men regarded odor as a neutral stimulus for arousal (Herz, 1997). However, liking someone’s natural body odor, without fragrance, was the most influential olfactory variable for sexual interest in both men and women (Herz, 2002). This implies that although scent is not equally important among men and women when rated against other variables, it is still recognized as influential for sexual attraction, which would lead to procreation.

In conclusion, olfaction is a much more important variable for mate selection in women than in men because of the Parental Investment Theory, since women are biologically more invested in offspring than men and would want the best combination of genes and immunity for their child. Every decision she makes about a mate is, consciously or unconsciously, based on the potential benefits for her child, since she is the necessary parent for the survival of the child. Because men are not as invested in offspring as women, they tend to be much less picky about mates. This means that olfaction, as well as other bases for mate selection, is not as important to them, but does still affect their selection of mates on some level.

TABLE 1. Regressing Overall Attractiveness Onto Body Odor Attractiveness and Facial Attractiveness Using Samples of Infertile and Fertile Women

  Note. For infertile women, R2 = .542, Adjusted R2 = .492, F(2, 18) = 10.672, p < .01. For fertile women, R2 = .704, Adjusted R2 = .671, F(2, 18) = 21.392, p < .001.
† p > .25. *p < .05. ***p < .001.

References

Foster, J.D. (2008). Beauty is mostly in the eye of the beholder: Olfactory versus visual cues of attractiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(6), 765-773.

Furlow, F.B. (2008). The smell of love : Why do some people smell better to you? A look at how human body odor influences sexual attraction. Psychology Today, 5(3), 45-47.

Herz, R.S. & Inzlicht, M. (2002). Sex differences in response to physical and social factors involved in human mate selection: The importance of smell for women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(5), 359-364.

Herz, R.S. & Cahill, E.D. (1997). Differential use of sensory information in sexual behavior as a function of gender. Human Nature, 8(3), 275-286.

Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, S.W. (1999). The scent of symmetry: A human sex pheromone that signals fitness? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(3), 175-201.

Mating and mating conflict between the sexes

Sexual scripts reveal significant differences between the genders. By definition, a sexual script would refer to the societal assumptions placed upon specific behaviors from an individual. In other words, the actions taken by a male or a female towards a member of the opposite sex from whom they are seeking a sexual encounter. Due to assumed differences reinforced by society, sexual scripts have developed differently for males and females. Current research confirms the ideology that sexual scripts are used in modern society, but also suggests that these scripts may not always be conventional. For both genders, sex scripts provide guidelines for how to behave as members of the opposite sex during interaction. Wiederman (2005) points out the distinctive difference for sexual scripts for boys and girls at a young age and how these are carried over to adulthood. For young boys growing into adulthood, an emphasis is placed on the physical experience. This ideology helps to explain why males tend to begin masturbating at a younger age and engage in it more frequently than women. Incorporating this physical script into the mainstream perception of males as dominant, assertive, and risk taking builds a profile of a male whose intentions are to be aggressive in achieving sexual intercourse for the physical rewards. In opposition, females are brought up with the role of limitation and emotional reward. For a female, emphasis is placed on the ability to limit the sexual successiveness of a male. Interestingly, society suggests that females, despite any true feelings or urges, should always be less eager to have sexual relations with a male to ensure that her character is not diminished. With these default sexual scripts in place, a very specific pattern of approach, initiation, and sexual behavior is put in place for both males and females. However, these generic scripts are not necessarily always followed. Researchers Shari Dworkin and Lucia O’Sullivan (2005) tested the scripts of 32 community college males, producing evidence that the sexual script of aggressive male and submissive female is not always the standard. Within the study, male participants were asked what the structure of sexual initiation was in their respective relationships. Three patterns were found throughout the sample.  While the majority of participants responded that they were the initiators of any sexual activity, more than half of those individuals would have preferred their female partner to initiate more. This suggests that while the dominant male script is still within the majority, an increasing number of males would prefer a reversed or equalized sexual script.

Perception of sexual contact also plays an important role in the setup and execution of sexual scripts for both males and females. Anderson and Sorensen (1999) tested the differences between the perception of males and females with regard to how sexual interactions occur.  The results of the study supported the researchers’ original hypothesis that men and women would report differently on these situations. Men reported that women had initiated more sexual encounters and were more aggressive. In contrast, women reported very little initiation and aggression. The results suggest that men perceive women as more initiative and aggressive than women perceive themselves to be. Having these preconceived notions may influence the sexual script of both genders, with particular impact on males and the way in which they approach females.

Image:Jsin429l.jpg 

Topic: Sexual Scripts

Contributor: Marissa Lerner

Class: Psych 310, Fall 2009

      According to the evolutionary perspective, along with the traditional scripts guiding everyday processes such as going to dinner or driving, we have sexual scripts pertaining to how we act in situations with individuals of the opposite sex. Specifically, sexual scripts guide us through social interactions with people of the opposite gender in which sex is the primary issue or goal. Such instances include mate selection, courtship and dating activities, sexual initiation, and the outcome. Given that females have maternity assurance of their offspring, females naturally invest much of their time and effort on their offspring. Contrary to females’ maternity assurance, males are faced with paternity insecurity as they have no immediate claim on their offspring. Consequently, males primarily invest in rapid indiscriminatory reproduction in order to produce as many offspring as possible, while females seek a long-term mate who will provide sufficient resources and adequate parental investment for their offspring. Therefore, because of their different mating strategies, sexual scripts have evolved, developing a significant sex difference. Males have been designated as the dominant aggressors, and females take the submissive role. Researchers Bartoli and Clark (2006) conducted a study examining similarities and differences in dating scripts among college students, focusing on three pivotal events: initiation, date activities, and date outcomes. Consistent with the evolutionary perspective on male and female sexual scripts, Bartoli and Clark (2006) found that college men reported greater expectations of sexual activity on a date compared to women. Women reported very limiting expectations of sexual activity, suggesting a reluctant attitude towards premarital sexual activity. This coincides with the fact that, in copulation, females take much greater risks than males, as there is a possibility of becoming pregnant.

      However, as previously discussed in the text, the predicted scripts of assertive male and passive female are not always manifested. When Dworkin and O’ Sullivan (2005) investigated males’ preferences in regards to the structure of sexual initiation, a significant number of males indicated a preference for female initiation. Therefore, while the majority of males have dominant scripts, an increasing number of males would prefer a reversed or equalized sexual script, at least pertaining to sexual initiation.

      While it seems a significant number of males would prefer a reversed or equalized sexual script in regards to sexual initiation and courtship initiation, the majority would not share this preference in other domains of their lives such as the work place, pay allocations, education levels, and other forms of achievement or accomplishments. Therefore, males still implement the dominating script when it comes to a potential success for a female. According to Christopher and Wojda (2008), while males want females to take on masculine dominant roles in some aspects of life, dominant males do not want women prevailing in the workforce. Hogue and Yoder (2003) present the same reluctance in regards to pay allocation. Males do not want women to receive higher salaries than they do. This has sadly become such a norm in our society that women even expect to not earn as much as men, resulting in a lack of effort and assertion to receive higher salaries.

      Although males have a new increasing preference for females to take on some characteristically male roles, females prefer males to keep their traditional masculine scripts. Miller, Bilimoria, and Pattni (2000) conducted a study in which subjects rated how desirable masculine and feminine traits were among people of the congruent sex, as well of people of the opposite sex. In terms of our society’s traditional sex role stereotypes, males are considered instrumental while females are considered expressive. As expected, both males and females expressed a desire for sex-typed traits among the congruent sex. However, while males found a limited degree of masculinity to be desirable in females, female subjects expressed a strong dislike of feminine traits among male individuals.

      Following females’ strong dislike of femininity in males, Singleton and Mahler (2004) found the traditional male role prevails. While males encourage women to take on some masculine roles, they are not willing to take on any characteristically feminine roles. Specifically, men refuse to take on the traditional female role and engage in domestic housework. If males refuse to take on female roles, why should women take on masculine roles in addition to their feminine roles?

References:

Bartoli, A. M. & Clark, M. D. (2006). The dating game: Similarities and differences in dating scripts among college students. Sexuality & Culture: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 10(4), 54-80.

Christopher, A. N. & Wojda, M. R. (2008). Social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, sexism, and prejudice toward women in the workplace. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(1), 65-73.

Hogue, M. & Yoder, J. D. (2003). The role of status in producing depressed entitlement in women’s and men’s pay allocations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, '27(4), 330-337.

Miller, L. R., Bilimoria, R. N., & Pattni, N. (2000). Do women want ‘new men’?: Cultural influences on sex-role stereotypes. Psychology, Evolution, & Gender, 2(2),127-150.

Singleton, A. & Mahler, J. M. (2004). The ‘new man’ is in the house: Young men, social change, and housework. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 12(3), 227-240.

Additional Web Resources:

Karpman, S. B. (2009). Sex games people play: Intimacy blocks, games, and scripts. Transactional Analysis Journal, 39(2), 103-116.

Katz, J. & Farrow, S. (2000). Heterosexual adjustment among women and men with non-traditional gender identities: Testing predictions from self-verification

theory. Social Behavior and Personality, 28(6), 613-620.

Muehlenhard, C. L. & Scardino, T. J. (1985). What will he think? Men’s impressions of women who initiate dates and achieve academically. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(4), 560-569.

Ratigan, B. (2008). Review of the sexual self: The construction of sexual scripts. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 23(3), 282.

Ritter, B. A. & Yoder, J. D. (2004). Gender differences in leader emergence persist even for dominant women: An updated confirmation of role congruity theory.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(3), 187-193.

Rollings-Magnusson, S. (2005). Same difference: How gender myths are hurting our relationships, our children, and our jobs. Journal of Comparative Family

Studies, 36(4), 671-672.

Seal, D. W. & Ehrhardt, A. A. (2003). Masculinity and urban men: Perceived scripts for courtship, romantic, and sexual interactions with women. Culture, Health, & 'Sexuality, 5(4), 295-319.

Stewart, T. L., Vassar, P. M., Sanchez, D. T., & David, S. E. (2000). Attitude toward women’s societal roles moderates the effect of gender cues on target individuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 143-157.

Strategic Interference Theory

From Buss, p. 323:

Evolutionary psychologists have predicted conflict between the sexes, but not because men and women are in competition for the same reproductive resources. Rather, many sources of conflict between the sexes can be traced to evolved differences in sexual strategies. As we saw in Chapters 4, 5, and 6, both sexes have evolved short-term and long-term mating strategies. But the nature of these strategies differs for the sexes. One of the most important differences pertains to short-term mating strategies. Men, far more than women, have evolved a deeper desire for sexual variety. This desire manifests itself in many forms, including seeking sexual access sooner, more persistently, and more aggressively than women typically desire. Conversely, women have evolved to be more discriminating in short-term mating, typically delaying sexual intercourse beyond what men usually desire. Clearly, the sexes cannot simultaneously fulfill these conflicting sexual desires. This is an example of a phenomenon called strategic interference.

Topic: Strategic Interference as an Evolutionary Adaptation Against Infidelity

Contributor: Lexi O'Neill

Class: Evolutionary Psychology, Fall 2009

In the ancestral environment, men and women had different adaptive challenges in attaining sexual access and commitment in the mating game. Therefore they have evolved divergent strategies in order to attain their evolutionary goals. Women sought after mates who displayed commitment and love as a strategy for long-term security and dependability to provide for her offspring. Men are typically motivated by short-term mating, which allows them to spread their genes to as many offspring as possible with as little investment as possible. Thus from their ancestral heritage, women have evolved a preference for men with status and resources that will provide for their offspring and will be dependable throughout the lifespan, to assure that the mother won't be left to raise the child alone. Like many other species, humans have evolved an array of exploitation strategies that are designed to expropriate the resources of others through force, deception, intimidation, and coercion (Buss & Duntley, 2008). As soon as strategies for exploitation evolved so too did (a) co-evolved defenses to prevent becoming a victim of an exploiter and (b) co-evolved defenses to minimize the costs of being exploited if being exploited is inevitable or has already occurred. Thus, anti-exploitation defenses evolved in backlash to deception and exploitation. Two recent theories within evolutionary psychology have examined the conflicts between the sexes in mating strategies. According to strategic interference theory certain "negative emotions" function to motivate action to reduce conflict produced by impediments to preferred social strategies. According to error management theory (EMT), asymmetries over evolutionary time in the cost benefit consequences of specific social inferences have produced predictable cognitive biases. Conjointly, these two theories infer that jealousy, anger and fear could actually be evolutionary adaptations to protect oneself against infidelity in a sexual relationships.

According to strategic interference theory (Buss, 1989a) emotions, such as jealousy and anger, are evolutionary adaptations to detect deceit. Following that traumatic emotions are more easily stored in memory, emotions function to (a) draw attention to interfering events, (b) store those events in memory, (c) motivate behavior to reduce or eliminate the source of strategic interference, and (d) link memorial retrieval to emotions. When negative emotions are triggered, it should produce behavior that avoids contexts producing future strategic interference (Buss, 1989a, as cited by Haselton, Oubaid, & Angleteitner, 2005). Negative emotions are triggered when a person's goals, desires, or strategies are blocked. In reaction, the arousal of anger and subjective distress are proposed as strategic adaptations interfering with the recurrence of deception. For example, greater amounts of women report that they would be extremely angry if they were deceived by men who feigned feelings or exaggerated commitment to have sex with them (Haselton et al., 2005). In the ancestral environment, men may have adapted sophisticated sexual deception strategies which were successful enough to be selected. The emotions of anger and fear, specifically linked to forms of strategic interference, are examples of defense mechanisms (Buss, 1989, 2001 from Buss & Duntley, 2008). Men might evolve self-deception about their true desires (replicating their genes by copulating with as many women as possible), in order to convince themselves that their feelings are stronger to make more deceptive displays to women (Buss and Duntley, 2008).

The mating strategies of the sexes are based on uncertain judgements regarding the opposite sex. This uncertainty can lead to errors in male inferences that appear harmful to their mating strategy. For example, men over-infer sexual intent in women in response to cues such as a smile or friendliness (Abbey, 1982, 1991, as cited by Haselton & Buss, 2000). According to error management theory (EMT) decision-making adaptations have evolved through natural or sexual selection to commit predictable errors (Haselton, Buss & deKay, 1998). This theory implies that the strategies of the sexes have had little variation and are now stable enough to predict the outcomes. Haselton and Buss (2000) apply EMT to the domain of cross-sex mind reading, creating the sexual over-expectation bias which hypothesizes that men possess intention-reading adaptations designed to minimize the cost of missed sexual opportunities by over inferring women's sexual intent. Thus they err on the side of excessive approaches because it would be more costly to make an error in judgment and not make a sexual advance because they would risk losing a reproductive opportunity. The benefit of an accepted sexual advance outweighs the cost of wasting the effort of courtship. Contrarily for women, the cost of falsely inferring a mate's commitment is more costly and could lead to: unwanted or untimely pregnancy, raising a child without an invested mate, a reduction in her mate value, and reputation damage (Buss, 1994 as cited by Haselton & Buss, 2000). As predicted by EMT, men's and women's errors occur in different domains and in different directions. The results of Haselton and Buss (2000) conclude that men and women are biased mind readers, which causes men to act sexually forthright while women behave more cautiously. However, its been shown that males imply deceptive strategies to override female precautions. Tooke and Camire (1991) found that men act more polite and considerate than they really are to attract women. They also seem more vulnerable and are more prone to exaggerate their prestige and importance in work settings (Haselton, Buss, Oubaid & Angleitner, 2005). Men may downplay their sexual intent in order to highlight intentions of commitment and love (Schmitt & Buss, 1996 as cited by Haselton & Buss, 2000).
Cultural beliefs represent approximate appraisals of actual sex differences in sexual strategies. For example, men are socialized to be sexual, whereas women are socialized to be coy. Therefore, Abbey (1982, 1991) hypothesizes that men "oversexualize the world" and rate women's sexual intent more highly. Men find it easier than women to have sex without emotional involvement--a tendency that facilitates a short-term sexual strategy known to be more characteristic of men than women worldwide (Schmitt & Buss, 1996). Men sometimes apply tactics, in short-term mating strategies, of targeting a subset of women who are "cognitively disadvantaged" by deceiving them about the depths of their feelings to secure sexual access--a strategy of sexual deception (Haselton, et al., 2005). However by assuming that particular women are naive or ignorant to this mating strategy, males put themselves at risk of being the victims of women's strategic interference strategies.

A strategic interference strategy used by women sometimes is prolonging the courtship process before consenting to sex to widen the window for assessing a man's true intentions women report intentionally acting "ditzy" or "airheaded" in order to appear easily exploitable and attract males (Schmitt & Buss, 1996). For females, this behavior could serve in their favor by having males pursue them as they extract resources (i.e., dinner dates or gifts), without reciprocating the expected sexual intercourse. For males, in both long-term and short-term contexts, sexual deception (from females) was rated 11/2 SDs above the mean more upsetting. This result concludes that delayed or restricted sexual access is a form of strategic interference for men far more than it is for women (Haselton et al., 2005). Women also apply specialized mind-reading abilities to infer men's desires and intentions and enlisting friends, allies, and kin for observation or analysis to obtain inferences from those who have a stake in the woman's well-being (Haselton et al., 2005).

As men and women have faced different adaptive problems uniquely, evolutionary psychologists have hypothesized a domain specific difference in sexual jealousy; the psychological mechanisms of each sex will contain specific features linked with the sex-linked adaptive problems they evolved to solve. For example, men, like women, derogate their same sex competitors' sexual fidelity and long-term romantic intentions (Buss& Dedden, 1990; Schmitt & Buss, 1996). Emotional arousal as a result of deception implies that using a strategic interference strategy can be a negative adaptation in a relationship because jealousy has detrimental consequences, such as divorce, in a relationship. Results supported evolutionary psychological hypothesis of a sex difference in the weighting of sexual vs. emotional triggers of jealousy. Sex was a strong indicator of which type of infidelity was more distressing as a function of infidelity-type, emotional or physical. Jealousy is proposed as an adaptive solution to the problems each sex faced in evolutionary history (Buss et al., 1999). Therefore jealousy is not an irrational emotion that clouds our judgement, but a defense mechanism implied when deception is expected by one's mate.

One study predicted that women would respond with greater upset in response to pre-sex and post-sex commitment deception. In both the long-term and short-term context, the hypothesis was supported. This reaction is evidence of parental investment theory, because female choice is manipulated by this sort of sexual deception. In long-term relationships women appear to be especially upset by the male strategy of feigning interest in order to attain his short-term goal, sex. (Haselton et al., 2005). The most common deceptions centered on mating desires shared by the sexes, such as deception about a partner's sincerity, trustworthiness, or kindness, exaggerated compatibility, and concealed flirtation with others. (Haselton et al., 2005). Predictions about sex differences in attraction, mate preferences, and sexual strategies have all been documented worldwide across a plethora of cultures; exploiting these sexual strategies may have implications for the need for the development of new mating strategies insulated from strategic interference.
References:
Abbey, A. (1982). Do males misperceive females' friendliness? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 42(5), 830-838.
Abbey, A. (1991). Misperception as an antecedent of acquaintance rape: A consequence of ambiguity in communication between men and women. In A. Parrot & L. Bechhofer (Eds.), Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime (pp.96-111). New York: Wiley.
Buss, D. M. (1989a). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of male attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616-628.
Buss, D. ( 2001). Cognitive biases and emotional wisdom in the evolution of conflict between the sexes. Current Direction in Psychological Science, 10(6), 219-223.
Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 395-422.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2008). Adaptations for exploitation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 12(1), 53-62.
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Choe, J. C., Lim, H. K., Hasegawa, M., Toshikazu, H. & Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships, 6, 125-150.
Haselton, M. G., Buss, D. M., Oubaid, V., & Angleitner, A. (2005). Sex, lies, and strategic interference: The psychology of deception between the sexes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 3-23.
Haselton, M. G. & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 81-91.
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: Sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1185-1204.
Done on date:
December 9, 2009

Strategic interference occurs when a person employs a particular strategy to achieve a goal and another person blocks the successful enactment of that strategy. If a woman delays sexual intercourse until she feels some emotional involvement or commitment from a man, for example, and the man persists in his sexual advances even after the woman has indicated her desire to wait, then the result is interference with the woman's sexual strategy. At the same time, however, the delays imposed by the woman interfere with the man's short-term mating strategy of seeking sex sooner. In sum, men and women come into conflict not because they are competing for the same resources, as occurs in same-sex strategic interference, but rather because the strategy of one sex can interfere with the strategy of the other.
The theory of strategic interference applies not just to conflicts about the timing of sexual intercourse. Conflict can pervade all relations between the sexes, from contact in the workplace and on the dating scene to skirmishes that occur over the course of a marriage. Sexual harassment is a form of strategic interference in the workplace. Deception on the dating scene is another form of strategic interference. A man who deceives a woman about his marital status and a woman who deceives a man about her age both violate the desires of the opposite sex and so represent forms of strategic interference. Within a marriage, sexual infidelity represents another form of strategic interference because it violates the desires of the spouse. Coercive control, threats, violence, insults, and attempts to lower a partner's self-esteem constitute other forms of strategic interference in long-term relationships. The key point is that strategic interference-blocking the strategies and violating the desires of someone else-is predicted to pervade interactions between the sexes, from strangers to intimate partners.
The second component of strategic interference theory postulates that the "negative" emotions such as anger, distress, and upset are psychological solutions that have evolved in part to solve the adaptive problems posed by strategic interference (Buss, 1989b). There are quotation marks around negative because although these emotions are generally painful to experience, they are hypothesized to be functional in solving the adaptive problems of strategic interference in several ways. First, they point out problematic events, focusing our attention on them and momentarily screening out less relevant events. Attention, after all, is a scarce resource, and must be allocated judiciously. When a person experiences anger or distress, these emotions guide their attention to the sources of the distress. Second, the emotions mark those events for storage in memory and easy retrieval from memory. Third, emotions lead to action, causing people to strive to eliminate the source of strategic interference or future interference.
In summary, the theory of strategic interference has two main postulates. First, strategic interference is predicted to occur whenever members of one sex violate the desires of members of the opposite sex; historically, such interference would have prevented our forebears from successfully carrying out a preferred sexual strategy and hence would have reduced their reproductive success. Second, "negative" emotions such as anger, rage, and distress represent evolved solutions to the problems of strategic interference, alerting people to the sources of interference and prompting action designed to counteract it.
Before proceeding to the empirical studies that test this theory, we must note two important qualifiers. First, conflict per se serves no adaptive purpose. It is generally not adaptive for individuals to get into conflict with the opposite sex as an end in and of itself. Rather, conflict is more often an undesirable by-product of the fact that the sexual strategies of men and women differ in profound ways.
A second qualification is that the metaphor of the "battle between the sexes" can be misleading. The phrase implies that men as a group are united in their interests and women are likewise united in their interests and that the two groups are somehow at war with each other. Nothing could be further from the truth. An evolutionary perspective helps us to understand why. Men cannot be united with all other men as a group for the fundamental reason that men are in competition primarily with members of their own sex. The same is true for women. Therefore a unification or a "confluence of interests" cannot occur between all members of one sex. Of course, men and women can form specific alliances with particular members of their own sex, but this in no way contradicts the fundamental principle that individuals are primarily in competition with members of their own gender. With these qualifications in mind, let's turn to the empirical evidence that bears on the evolution of conflict between the sexes.

Conflict about the occurrence and timing of sex

Sexual aggression and evolved defenses against sexual aggression

Jealous conflict

Jealousy is an ingrained facet of interpersonal relationships, especially prevalent in sexual relationships between men and women. Jealousy is defined as an emotional state that is aroused by a perceived threat to a relationship or position (Buss, 1992). It causes one to want to protect, maintain and prolong the relationship with one’s partner. Despite its pervasiveness, jealousy is displayed quite differently between males and females. Jealousy is defined as an emotional state that is aroused by a perceived threat to a relationship or position (Buss, 1992). Buss also explains, “A specific set of brain circuits guides our emotional reaction to threats in the context of sexual relationships” (Buss, 1995).

The evolutionary perspective views jealousy as a mechanism that evolved to solve the problem of mate retention. Males and females adapted different techniques to ensure commitment from their mate, their own survival, and the survival of offspring. Therefore, selection pressures seemed to have a preference for women who had a jealous response when a mate diverted resources to another woman. Similarly, selection pressures had a preference for men who responded with jealousy to their mate’s sexual infidelity. From a male’s standpoint, sexual infidelity leads to jealousy because it creates uncertainty in his assumed paternity. Therefore, jealousy is a sexually-dimorphic trait: Men are jealous to discourage sexual infidelity, while women are jealous to discourage emotional infidelity. In other words, males experience jealousy when paternity security is threatened, and females experience jealousy when paternal investment is threatened.

Extrapair copulations, most frequently referred to as cheating, has been a common occurrence for centuries. It is extremely likely that over evolutionary history, men and women participated in extrapair copulation. According to several bodies of research, men and women are predicted to differ in their attitudes about, reasons for, and reactions to cheating. According to evolutionary theory, men and women differ in the amount each invests in reproduction. Women, who contribute the larger egg and endure nine months of pregnancy, endure more than males, who only expend the energy needed to fertilize the woman’s egg. After childbirth, women are dependent on a man’s resources in order to ensure survival of her offspring. Women can be certain of their genetic relation to their child, while fathers have the possibility of being cuckolded. Therefore, the main framework for the following studies rests upon the finding that men are more upset by sexual infidelity and women are more upset by emotional infidelity.

In 1998, Sprecher, Regan, and McKinney designed a study to investigate whether the gender of a cheating spouse made a difference in the opinions of those who were assessing the “forbidden sexual relationship.” Specifically, the authors hypothesized that a person who was highly invested in their marriage (shared assets, children, years married, etc.) would be less likely to leave their spouse for a lover, than someone who was less invested. They also examined whether a person’s marital investments would affect the “perceived outcome of the extramarital sexual relationship.” Results indicated that attitudes about an extramarital relationship were different depending on the gender of the participant. When the cheating spouse was a woman, participants were more likely to predict that the extramarital relationship would turn into a long-term, romantic one as well. When the cheater was a man, participants were more likely to predict that he would not leave his current marriage partner to be with his lover. These results are consistent with both evolutionary and sociocultural factors. However, inconsistent with evolutionary theory, the investment variables did not affect the participants’ perceptions of the outcome of the extramarital relationship. This may be due to the mean age of the participants (20.6), who have yet to experience such investments.

Topic: Jealous Conflict in Response to Unfaithful Partners and Romantic Rivals

Contributor: Scott Swain

Class: Psych 310, Fall 2009

One main source of conflict in interpersonal relationships is jealousy. Jealousy is best understood as an intense emotional arousal due to a perceived threat toward the relationship or relationship position, and is fairly prevalent in intimate relationships between the sexes. Jealous responses are most commonly associated with two types of infidelity. Emotional infidelity involves intimacy with a romantic rival, while sexual infidelity involves sexual transgressions with a romantic rival. Previous research suggests that males elicit greater jealousy toward sexual infidelity, while females elicit greater jealousy toward emotional infidelity. These evolved sex differences may be the result of different mating strategies between the sexes. Research also suggests that evolved sex differences exist with respect to mate value characteristics. In light of these theories, much of the recent research has been devoted to examining the relationship between jealousy and rival characteristics.

Evolutionary theory indicates that each type of infidelity may result in a different type of jealous response. Emotional infidelity is likely to elicit feelings of anxiety, distrust, suspicion, and threat, while sexual infidelity is likely to elicit feelings of hurt, sadness, rejection, anger and betrayal. Both types of jealous response are believed to be protective mechanisms linked to evolutionary theory. In males, jealousy is more likely to be aroused by sexual infidelity, while for females, jealousy is more likely to be aroused by emotional infidelity (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2004 ; Buunk & Dijkstra, 2002).
Providing further evidence for evolved sex differences, a recent study conducted by Schultzwohl (2004) examined response times with respect to different types of infidelity. In a forced-choice response exercise, participants were asked to imagine their partner engaging in different acts of infidelity. They were then asked to indicate which type of infidelity evoked greater feelings of jealousy. Unknown to participants, researchers were examining response times in each case of infidelity. Shorter response times indicated greater feelings of jealousy. Supporting evolutionary theory, males displayed shorter response times toward instances of sexual infidelity, while females displayed shorter response times toward instances of emotional infidelity (Schultzwohl, 2004).
These findings have largely been explained by the parental investment theory. According to the parental investment theory, females have higher reproductive costs than do males and tend to value long-term partnership and security. Males on the other hand have lower reproductive costs and have a tendency to place higher value on physical attractiveness (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2002). Thus, men rely more heavily on their social dominance when attracting a partner, whereas women rely more heavily on their physical attractiveness when attracting a partner. This suggests that in the event of an infidelity, males are more likely to be threatened by a rival’s social status, while females are more likely to be threatened by a rival’s physical attractiveness (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2002).
Research conducted by Massar, Buunk and Dechesne (2009) suggests that jealousy may be a subliminal response, triggered whenever a rival is present. However, it was also hypothesized that the intensity of jealous responses would be moderated by mate value characteristics. Subjects were primed with words related to rival characteristics before reading a jealousy provoking scenario, and were subsequently measured for jealous response. Results indicated that women with low mate value were more jealous overall, but that women with high mate value were significantly more jealous after being primed with rival characteristics. Males with high relationship satisfaction reporter greater overall jealousy than did males with low relationship satisfaction (Massar, Buunk & Dechesne, 2009).
A recent study conducted by Wade and Fowler (2006) investigated the interaction between specific rival characteristics and two types of infidelity. The study found that women elicited higher distress in response to sexual infidelity regardless of the physical attractiveness of their rival. However, with respect to emotional infidelity, women reported greater distress when the rival was physically attractive. Interestingly, males were most distressed by a partner’s sexual infidelity regardless of the financial status of the rival (Wade & Fowler, 2006).
Another recent study conducted by Buunk and Dijkstra (2004) found that in instances of emotional infidelity, males elicit greater jealousy toward a rival of higher financial status (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2004). Interestingly, the same study found that in instances of sexual infidelity men are likely to respond with feelings of anger and betrayal when a rival is more physically attractive. Women on the other hand are likely to respond with feelings of threat and distrust during emotional infidelity, and feelings of anger and betrayal when a rival is physically attractive (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2004). These findings also suggest that sexual infidelity is a lesser threat for women than men.

The current research presents some interesting findings as relates to jealousy and rival mate characteristics. Males show greater jealousy toward sexual infidelity while females show greater jealous toward emotional infidelity. This is linked to evolutionary theory that males are more attracted to physical attractiveness, while females are more attracted to social status. Interestingly, the current findings suggest that physical attractiveness is a jealousy factor for females with respect emotional infidelity, and sexual infidelity for males. The study also suggests that for men, social status is a jealous factor with respect to emotional infidelity. However, these findings were contradictory to predictions that men would show greater jealousy toward a rivals social status in an instance of sexual infidelity, and that women would show greater jealousy toward a rivals physical attractiveness in a instance of emotional infidelity. Future studies will focus on an evolutionary explanation for this phenomenon.

References
Buunk, B.P., & Dijkstra, P. (2004). Gender differences in rival

characteristics that evoke jealousy in response to emotional
versus 
sexual infidelity. Personal Relationships, 11(4),
http://0
web.ebscohost.com.linus.lmu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=3&hid=5&s
d=e9
1a350-a4c3-4bef-b0f3-5e4632b17a01%40sessionmgr14
Buunk, A.P., & Dijkstra, P. (2002). Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking
effect of rival characteristics. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 32(6), 829-852
Massar, K., Buunk, A.P., & Dechesne, M. (2009). Jealousy in the blink of

an eye: jealous reactions following subliminal exposure to rival
characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(5),
Retrieved from
http://0www3.interscience.wiley.com.linus.lmu.edu/jounal/1214269
9
/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Schutzwohl, A. (2004). Which Infidelity type makes you more jealous?
decision strategies in a forced-choice between sexual and emotional
infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 2. Retrieved
from
http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep02121128.pdf
Wade, T.J., & Fowler, K. (2006). Sex differences in responses to
sexual
 and emotional infidelity: considerations of rival attractiveness
and
 financial status. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary
Psychology,
4(1),http://www.akademiai.com/content/lq4253462m6x
2pm/fullte
t.pdf

In 1998, Wiederman and LeMar explored differences between men and women, based upon the threat of extrapair “same-gender sexual contact.” Results from the three studies indicated that men are less upset by a woman’s potential sexual infidelity with another woman, compared to sexual infidelity with a male. Women were just as upset by “male-male sexual infidelity,” and slightly more so than that of “male-female sexual infidelity.” These findings are consistent with evolutionary theory, since males are less threatened by paternity uncertainty if a female has been with his spouse. In addition, women may feel that the “emotional quality” of her relationship is threatened if her husband cheats on her with another man.

Another study explored differences in sexual jealousy among heterosexuals, lesbians and gay men, testing both evolutionary and sociocultural viewpoints (Sheets & Wolfe, 2001). The “doubleshot” hypothesis predicted that men would be more upset by sexual infidelity than women, because women usually mix emotional feelings of attachment with sex. The “discounting” hypothesis predicted that women would be less likely than men to see sexual infidelity as a threat to the end of their primary relationship. Results indicated straight men were more upset by sexual infidelity than straight women, lesbians, or gay men. Lesbians, gay men and heterosexual women discounted their partner’s sexual infidelity, while straight men did not. Results were interpreted as refuting the “sex-linkage” hypothesis. Gay men and lesbians were both more upset by emotional infidelity, which implies that “sexual jealousy did not evolve as part of a sex-specific, biologically based, mating module" (Sheets & Wolfe, 2001).

Does jealous behavior always have negative consequences on relationship quality? D.P.H. Barelds conducted a study to measure three types of jealousy: reactive (responding to an advance on a partner from a third party), possessive (discouraging relationships with the opposite sex) and anxious (worrying that a partner will find someone better). Barelds’ findings were intriguing: in all three studies, relationship quality improved with reactive jealousy and decreased with possessive and anxious jealousy (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007). Partners seemed to appreciate their mate reacting to a flirtatious advance from a third party, but did not like their mate being possessive or distrusting them with friends of the opposite sex as seen in anxious jealousy. Possessive or anxious people in regards to jealousy also had problems with relationship adjustment, most likely dur to trust issues or insecurities. Jealousy is deep-seated in interpersonal relationships. It is rated among the top three of the most frequent problems experienced in intimate relationships (Zusman & Knox, 1998). In order to build a successful relationship, trust and good communication seems to be the antidote to jealousy.

Conflict over access to resources

Marriage and families

Topic: Relationship Satisfaction

Contributor: Sandy Cornejo

Humans are social beings that cannot withold their desire to be a part of someone else’s life. The desire for a satisfactory inter-personal relationship possibly results from the inherent need of a person to find happiness.   On an evolutionary perspective, males need females to produce offspring and females need males to provide resources for her and her offspring. The upbringing of children involves many years of constant communication and interaction between the parents. Therefore, it is convenient for them to live happily during this large portion of their life with a satisfying relationship. Though the components of a satisfying relationship may differ between the sexes, there are similarities in such aspects as passion, commitment, and intimacy. 

Madey and Rodgers (2009) conducted a study in which they investigated a correlation between intimacy, commitment, and passion on relationship satisfaction. Subjects, who all were in romantic relationships, answered a series of questionnaires in which they were asked questions such as “How likely do you think you will be in this relationship one year from now?” (Madey & Rodgers, 2009). Their results showed that the longer the subject had been in the relationship, the more likely they were to commit to their partner and the therefore their satisfaction with their relationship was very high. Also, the more intimate a subject felt with their partner, the greater the satisfaction. These conclusions help support the idea that partners have a strong desire to feel close to their partner because they experience dissatisfaction when they are not intimate and when they do not enjoy the relationship enough to commit.

Though females have maternity assurance, their reproductive window is very small compared to that of males. This is one of the main reasons why males begin to find fertile females more attractive compared to their wife when she is no longer in that stage. Women tend to feel unappreciated and ugly as they get older and their self-esteem begins to decline. Sciangula and Morry (2009) studied the correlation between self-esteem and relationship satisfaction. They found that higher self-esteem correlated with high levels of satisfaction with one’s relationship. Also that perceived regard, that is, one's self-perception unaffected by partner perception of oneself, predicts relationship satisfaction very well because what you think of yourself matters. It is not advantageous for a woman to have low self-esteem because she can decline her duties as a mother and wife. Declining her duties at home will jeopardize the proper development of healthy children. Thus, a satisfying relationship can help in many aspects other than happiness.

A healthy mother and father are definitely essential for raising children. In a study by Floyd et al. (2009) those subjects that were instructed to increase kissing with their partners over a six-week period had a significant decrease in their cholesterol and stress levels and a significant increase in their relationship satisfaction. Not only did these subjects improve their relationship, but they also improved their health. Likewise, Acevedo and Aron (2009) found that in both short-term and long-term relationships, couples experienced higher satisfaction when they maintained their romantic love alive. To maintain their romantic love, for example, they showed physical affection towards each other often. That is to say, when the relationship was much more than pure companionship, the satisfaction was at its peak.

In the ancestral world, males and females were paired off by their parents at a very young age. By the time they were old enough to choose their life partner, they were already married to someone they probably did not know. It must have been very important for them to engage in romantic love such as kissing so that it would be tolerable to spend the rest of their life with this unknown person. In contemporary times, men and women spend a lot of time dating different people so that they may find the one they feel most comfortable with. Males want to find a female that will be faithful so that he does not provide for children that do not carry his genes. Females, in turn, want to find males who will not only provide the necessary resources but will also help raise the children. A satisfactory relationship makes a life-long marriage or a short-term relationship enjoyable and ensures that the offspring will grow healthy enough to pass on both of their genes.

References

Acevedo, B., & Aron, A. (2009). Does a long-term relationship kill romantic love?. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 59-65. Retrieved November 22, 2009 from PsycINFO database.

Floyd, K., Boren, J., Hannawa, A., Hesse, C., McEwan, B., & Veksler, A. (2009). Kissing in marital and cohabiting relationships: Effects on blood lipids, stress, and relationship satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication, 73(2), 113-133. Retrieved November 22, 2009 from PsycINFO database.

Madey, S., & Rodgers, L. (2009). The effect of attachment and Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love on relationship satisfaction. Individual Differences Research, 7(2), 76-84. Retrieved November 22, 2009 from PsycINFO database.

Sciangula, A., & Morry, M. (2009). Self-esteem and perceived regard: How I see myself affects my relationship satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 149(2), 143-158. Retrieved November 22, 2009 from PsycINFO database.

Other relevant websites:

- Quiz to determine your level of relationship satisfaction.
http://www.heartrelationships.com/ARTICLES/oftheweek/Wkdec24SatisfactionQuiz.htm

- Seven signs of relationship dissatisfaction.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/04/seven-signs-of-relationship.php

Topic: Determinants of Parental Choice in Offspring’s Mating Partner Contributor: Wendi Tsukada, PSYC 310, Fall 2009

In today’s world, visits from the “in-laws” can be stressful and dreaded. Despite this, there is evolutionary psychology evidence for why in-laws may seem so harsh and judgmental: they are simply looking out for their own children. Parents can have a powerful influence over their offspring’s mating choices. Parents and their children may clash when it comes to choosing a spouse. However, if examined from an evolutionary perspective, parents are only trying to serve the best interest for their children. It is believed that parents have evolved selection processes that help to look for potential son or daughter in-laws who will help in allowing their inclusive fitness, or increasing the presence of their genes through helping relatives, to reach its greatest potential (Apostolou, 2007). There are a number of factors that parents take into account when considering a potential son-in-law or daughter-in law. Physical attractiveness, family background, and the sex of their offspring are some important factors that play a role in parental preferences when evaluating a potential spouse for their child. It has been indicated that parents do not believe physical attractiveness in a potential son or daughter-in-law is highly important (Apostolou, 2008). Rather, it is their children that place more emphasis on physical attractiveness in their potential spouse. This could be attributed to the fact that physical attractiveness in an in-law would not be advantageous to parents. From an evolutionary perspective, parents have more to benefit from other characteristics, such as an in-law’s resources, rather than physical attractiveness. Also, physical attractiveness is a characteristic that is associated with short-term mating as opposed to long-term mating. Parents would prefer their children to engage in long-term mating because they would not receive any gains from their children’s short-term (Apostolou, 2008). Research indicates that parents prefer a good family background in their potential in-laws because this could increase their inclusive fitness (Apostolou, 2008). Parents also believe that good family background and good family reputation is a more important characteristic to look for in a potential son-in-law than a daughter-in-law (Apostolou, 2008). This could be due to males having more potential to gain more resources than females. The results from this study also indicate that parents prefer a good family background and reputation in an in-law more than their children do in a potential mate. These findings suggest that family background is important in indicating how well and how much a potential in-law will invest in their child and future grandchildren (Apostolou, 2008). An in-law with an inadequate family background could mean less resources and investment will be put into their children, and this would not maximize inclusive fitness. Parents could also possibly benefit from an in-law with a good family background by increasing their own status and resources through their in-law. The sex of a child is crucial in determining how strong of a role parents will play in the selection of a mate for that child. Parents have evolved thought processes which include the protection of their daughter’s sexual behaviors over a son’s. The daughter-guarding hypothesis indicates that parents are very keen on guarding their daughter’s sexual reputation, mate value, and strive to protect them from sexual abuse (Perilloux, Fleischman, & Buss, 2008). Parents exercise this by attempting to control their daughter’s sexual behavior and decisions. Parents control their daughter’s sexual behavior by limiting their daughter’s participation in social and romantic events, objecting to their daughter’s sexual contact, expressing emotional dismay regarding their daughter’s sexual activity, attempting to regulate their daughter’s potential choice in a mate, giving their daughters a curfew, and regulating their daughter’s clothing (Perilloux, Fleischman, & Buss, 2008). The daughter-guarding hypothesis accounts for the sex differences between males and females, as daughters are more prone to negative consequences if they are not careful in their sexual behavior. Females, as opposed to males, are guaranteed maternal assurance because of internal fertilization and gestation. Thus, females will usually provide the most parental investment in offspring. Unwanted pregnancies due to rash sexual behaviors or rape would burden the female and her family, and this will decrease her reproductive success and value as a potential mate. The studies discussed above demonstrate how and why parents have an influential power over their children’s mating choices. Parents mainly seek to fulfill the potential of their inclusive fitness by seeking certain characteristics as opposed to others, when it comes to choosing an in-law and spouse for their child. Parents look for a good family background and good family reputation in a potential son or daughter in-law more than their own children do in a spouse. Parents will also exert more control in choosing a spouse for a daughter over a son. This is because daughters are guaranteed to pass on their genes. Therefore, these findings demonstrate why conflict can occur between parents and children over who their children choose for a spouse.

References: 1. Apostolou, M. (2008). Parent-offspring conflict over mating: The case of beauty. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(2): 303-31 2. Apostolou, M. (2008). Parent-offspring conflict over mating: The case of family background. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(3): 456-468. 3. Perilloux, C., Fleischman, D.S., and Buss, D.M. (2008). The daughter-guarding hypothesis: Parental influence on, and emotional reactions to, offspring’s mating behavior. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(2): 217-233 4. Apostolou, M. (2007). Elements of parental choice: The evolution of parental preferences in relation to in-law selection. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(1): 70-83.

Infidelity -- Extra-Pair Copulation

Topic: Extra-Pair Copulation

Name:  B. Ybarra

The utilization of extra-pair copulation is often advantageous to females because it assures reproductive success while at the same time, may provide extra security for the survival of their offspring. Bellis and Baker (1990) suggest that in extra-pair copulations competition is most prevalent. Certainly from an evolutionary perspective, extra-pair copulations are both a benefit and a detriment. A recent study done by Koehler and Chisholm (2007) suggested that the desire to partake in extra-pair copulations was primarily a result of high stress levels within a relationship. It alluded to the idea that women with high stress levels were more prone to partake in extra- pair copulations simply because it was a more optimistic mating style. Due to the high level of paternal insecurity involved, women seemed more attracted to extra-pair copulations because it presented a higher degree of paternal insurance and security (Koehler and Chisholm, 2007). High levels of stress promote extra-pair copulations because extra-pair copulations minimize the changes of lineage extinction.
     Sexual selection theory claims that males will compete with one another to inseminate the largest numbers of females possible. Thus, the level of stress often increase males desire to revert o their instinctively natural desire(Bellis and Baker,1990).Because males obtain the ability to be successful polygamists and thus pass on their genes in a larger capacity, females have often revered to extra-pair copulation to secure the devotion of males. Women benefit from extra-pair copulation in a number of ways. First, it ensures the fertilization of the egg due to the abundant numbers of competing sperm. Second, extra-pair copulation allots for better genes for their offspring. Also women who partake in extra-pair copulations gain a genetic variety by acquiring genetically diverse sperm (Koehler and Chisholm, 2007). Detriments of extra-pair copulation include uncertain paternity and heritability of fitness (Koehler and Chisholm, 2007).
    

     If women primarily engage in extra- pair copulation to receive more parental investment form males, in what measure then, must the issue of paternal effort be considered? Belsky, Steinberg and Draper (1991) suggest that extra-pair copulation induced by female stress often creates an array of chaos in which males tend to abandon the situation all together. In this sense, females who partake in extra- pair copulations may face more consequences than advantages. When evaluating the significant psychological effect of parental investment in child rearing, Chisholm (1999) found the effect to be intensive. Chisholm (1999) discovered that despite the female reproductive advantage of extra-pair copulation, the act nonetheless, initiated instability within the family structure and dynamic. This in turn further influenced the stress level of both partners and furthermore increased the risk of extra-pair copulation. Therefore, this allows the cycle to repeat.

References:

Bellis, M.A., and Baker,R.R. (1990). Do females promote sperm competition? Data for humans. Animal Behaviour,40,997-999.
Koehler,N and Chrisholm, S.J (2007). Early Psychological Stress Predicts Extra-Pair Copulations, 184-201.
Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., and Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62, 647-670.
Platek, S.M, and Shackelford. (2000). Introduction to theory and research on ant-cuckoldry tactics:overview of current volume. Female Infidelity and paternal uncertainty, 1-5.
Chisholm, J. S. (1999b). Death, Hope and Sex: Steps to an Evolutionary Ecology of Mind
and mortality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The workplace

Religion and the state

Sexual politics in culture

Late developmental sex differences

===

How the sexes might learn to better get along

From Wilson (2003), Science of Love, p 113:

Healthy arguments
So what factors determine whether couples will bail out at the first hint of trouble or will one day be photographed happily cutting their golden anniversary cake? Research suggests that neither material comfort nor compatibility is as critical as romantic novelists would have us believe - although both undoubtedly help.The crucial factor as far as a happy and long-lasting marriage is concerned seems to be the way the couple handles conflict. Those people who do their best to avoid arguments at all costs and those who keep picking away at an argument are most likely to find their relationship heading for the rocks, it would seem. Men are particularly prone to avoidance tactics, while women tend to harp on a disagreement and even deliberately inflame the situation.

A study by Howard Markman, which followed 135 couples over 12 years, found that 21 of them separated or divorced during that period.' Couples' inability to handle conflict was a strong indicator of relationship breakdown. The men in failing marriages were more likely to deny conflicts or withdraw and refuse to deal with them, while women were more likely to exaggerate conflicts or push their partners to the point where they ended up engaging in a swinging war of words. In fact the researchers were able to predict in an astonishing 93 percent of cases which couples were heading for breakdown simply by studying whether they dealt with disagreements in a healthy or unhealthy way. It seems that if the normal disagreements that all couples have aren't handled in a satisfactory way resentment starts to build up. This fuels destructive patterns of behaviour and eventually negative feelings begin to outweigh the positive ones and destroy the marriage.

In later work, Howard Markman further details tactics couples use when arguing. He found that marriages were most likely to break down when the individuals concerned preferred either to walk away from arguments or to let small disagreements fester until they became a serious focus of conflict. He identified several approaches that were particularly inflammatory. The first is a tactic he dubs `Beam me up Scotty' or the `appeal to God', in which the husband, tired of his wife's incessant nagging, rolls his eyes heavenward as if in search of divine intervention.This, he found, was virtually guaranteed to fan the flames rather than cool the conflict. Another risky tactic is to terminate an argument by saying, `I give up. Have it your own way. Just say what you want and I'll do it'. As Markman comments, We know from Neville Chamberlain and Hitler that appeasement doesn't work. It's like saying, "You take Poland and Czechoslovakia but just leave us alone"'.The result is invariably escalation as the frustrated spouse expresses her anger at not being heard and uses ever more powerful weapons in the hope of triggering a response. Another sign that breakdown is likely is when a relatively minor disagreement is allowed to snowball until it becomes much more serious. As Markman puts it, `You start off disagreeing about how to put the soap in the dishwasher and wind up talking about leaving'. The most dangerous tactic of all, according to Markman, is character assassination; an acid gibe, such as `You should get a brain transplant', may only be erased by a great many acts of kindness.

Other psychologists have suggested how a negative spiral can become entrenched within a relationship. By way of illustration, they cite the example of a wife constantly nagging her partner to pick up his socks and put them in the linen basket. If he eventually does so the nagging is reinforced and so is likely to become a regular feature of her behaviour. Concessions to the will of the partner are a good thing but only if made in an open and upfront way, preferably involving trade-offs from the other. If they arise out of a unilateral collapse under pressure, then festering resentment is likely to result.

John Gottman of Washington University has made an extensive study over the last two decades of the differences between happy and unhappy marriages. One of the most revealing was an eight-year study of 130 newlyweds, during the course of which couples filled in questionnaires, were interviewed by researchers and were videotaped to see how they resolved conflict, settled disagreements, handled fights and gave or took advice.' Intriguingly, the researchers found that the traditional advice of marriage counsellors to work at active listening - repeating back what the other person has said using such phrases as, `So what you are really saying is...' - didn't work, They surmise that asking couples to use such techniques in the middle of heated argument is completely unrealistic and requires more self-control than most people possess.

What the researchers did find was that in unhappy Marriages husbands tended to be autocratic, failed to listen to their wives' grievances and were contemptuous when they offered advice. Wives in unhappy marriages tended to voice complaints and advice in aggressive, confrontational ways that sparked an angry riposte from their husbands. Gottman also found that unhappy couples shared too few positive experiences.' He was able to predict which of 2,000 couples would end up parting by working out a simple equation: happy couples have at least five times as many positive as negative experiences; unhappy couples have about the same number of positive and negative experiences. In happy marriages, by contrast, husbands listened and either accepted advice or conceded that there was value in it even if they didn't agree on every detail. Wives in these marriages took care to express grievances and advice in gentle, soothing ways, which their husbands found easier to tolerate.

Nothing too surprising in that really, but it seems that many couples can't get it right. Speaking in interviews with The Times" and the Los Angeles Times," Gottman likens a successful marriage to a jazz quartet. `It's about the music a couple makes together... and the way they improvise.'Arguing, he says,'can be one of the healthiest things a couple can do', provided they make up easily and are as free with affection as with anger. From his observations, he concludes that the best tips to enable a couple to enjoy a happy marriage are: `To improve the quality of friendship between a husband and wife and to help them deal with disagreements differently. There has to be a kind of gentleness in the way conflict is managed. Men have to be more accepting of a woman's position and women have to be more gentle in starting up discussions'.

Peter Fraenkel and colleagues outline a preventive approach to helping couples in marital difficulty. They argue that too many couples seek help too late, after irreversible damage to the relationship has occurred. If problems are addressed in the early stages, couples can be taught attitudes and skills for reducing conflict. One interesting technique is to use an egg timer to ensure that each partner is guaranteed two minutes to have their say in an argument without interruption from the other.

p. 121:
Great Expectations
It is asking a lot to expect everyone to love their partner until death as earlier generations did, because of the greatly increased life expectancy of couples who marry today. In Victorian times, marriages were frequently ended prematurely by death - often as a result of women dying in childbirth - rather than by divorce. And despite politicians' agendas, the happy, unbroken, nuclear family is becoming more and more rare as a greater percentage of the population than ever before now lives in single adult households. Serial relationships are increasingly replacing lifelong partnerships.
Sociologists Kathleen Kiernan and Ganka Mueller analysed three major surveys of adult lives. They identified several groups who are divorce-prone: those who are deprived, those who have lived with a partner more than once before marriage, those who embarked on a relationship at a very young age, those whose parents divorced and those who have low emotional wellbeing. This last group encompasses people who are depressed, lacking in self-esteem or who otherwise feel bad about themselves. In other words, quite a lot of us are at risk.

It should not be thought that divorce is necessarily a pathological phenomenon, however, for others have noted that eminent and creative people (such as many of those listed in Who's Vt/ha) also have a higher than average divorce rate. This may have something to do with their `resale value' - the ease with which new relationships can be formed. Thus divorce is by no means the preserve of people who are failures in life.

Problems such as boredom, disagreements and disillusionment are probably inevitable from time to time in any relationship, especially given that the ideal of modern marriage demands that partners spend so much time together and expect so much from each other. And with the decline of Christianity and traditional morals, infidelity and affairs are not as socially unacceptable as they once were -- although they always existed. However, it may be that infidelity is now more destructive of relationships because people expect their partners to behave perfectly. As Penny Mansfield, director of the marriage and partnership research charity One Plus One, was reported as saying in The Guardian, `The enemy of the long-term relationship is this desire for perfection. The idea that as soon as the partnership doesn't feel right, it must be intrinsically wrong'.

One Plus One conducted its own research to see what makes for a long-lasting relationship. Subjects cited companionship, shared hopes and ideals, mutual respect and, most importantly, the capacity to weather the bad times.' These findings echo earlier research carried out by US psychologists Benjamin Karney and Thomas Bradbury. In a wide-ranging review of different psychological approaches to marriage research they conclude, `Married couples must adapt to a variety of stressful events and circumstances that they encounter over the course of their lives. The capacity of a couple to adapt depends on the degree of stress they experience and the enduring vulnerabilities that each spouse brings to the marriage. Couples' accumulated experiences with adaptive processes gradually influence their perceptions of their marital quality, which ultimately contribute to the stability of the marriage'.

Finally, it seems to help if one can somehow contrive to idealise the partner - to retain the rose-coloured spectacles for as long as possible. In a series of studies by Sandra Murray and colleagues it was found that couples who were able to see their imperfect partners in a charitable light (that is, see attributes in them that they did not even claim for themselves) were able to construct healthy relationships." Their satisfaction increased progressively and conflicts were reduced over time. Murray et al note that positive illusions concerning the partner are self-fulfilling, such that, in their words, `Love is not blind, but prescient'. In marriage, as in other aspects of life, it helps `to look for the silver lining'.

CH 11 REFERENCES:

Farrelly, D.; Lazarus, J.; Roberts, G. (2007). Altruists Attract. Evolutionary Psychology. www.epjournal.net – 2007. 5(2): 313-329

Hughes, S.; Harrison, M.; Gallup, Jr., G. (2007). Sex Differences in Romantic Kissing Among College Students: An Evolutionary Perspective. Evolutionary Psychology. www.epjournal.net – 2007. 5(3): 612-631

Bleske-Rechek, A.; Remiker, M.; Swanson, M.; Zeug, N. (2006). Women More than Men Attend to Indicators of Good Character: Two Experimental Demonstrations. Evolutionary Psychology. human-nature.com/ep – 2006. 4: 248-261

Anderson, P., Sorensen, W. (1999). Male and Female Differences in Reports of Women’s Heterosexual Initiation and Aggression. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28(3), 243-253.

Dworkin, S., O’Sullivan, L. (2005). Actual versus Desired Initiation Patterns among a Sample of college Men: Tapping Disjunctures within Traditional Male Sexual Scripts. The Journal of Sex Research, 42(2), 150-158.

Wiederman, M. (2005). The Gendered Nature of Sexual Scripts. The Family Journal, 13(4), 496-502.

Bartlett, Monica Y. Braverman, Julia. DeSteno, David. Salovey, Peter. (2002). Sex differences in jealousy: evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1103-1116. Retrieved on April 17, 2008 from, http://0-web.ebscohost.com.linus.lmu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=30&hid=109&sid=a1e0faf3-d4f2-411f-a638-10640c22322e%40sessionmgr103

Bassett, Jonathan F. (2005). Sex differences in jealousy in response to a partner’s imagine sexual or emotional infidelity with a same or different race other. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 71-84. Retrieved on April 17, 2008 from, http://0-web.ebscohost.com.linus.lmu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=10&hid=109&sid=a1e0faf3-d4f2-411f-a638-10640c22322e%40sessionmgr103

Fowler, Kim. Wade, Joel T. (2006). Sex differences in responses to sexual and emotional infidelity: Considerations of rival attractiveness and financial status. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 37-50. Retrieved on April 17, 2008 from, http://www.akademiai.com/content/lq4253462m6x52pm/fulltext.pdf

Guadagno, Rosanna E. Sagarin, Brad J. (2004).Sex differences in the contexts of extreme jealousy. Personal Relationships, 11, 319-328. Retrieved on April 17, 2008 from, http://0-web.ebscohost.com.linus.lmu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=22&hid=109&sid=a1e0faf3-d4f2-411f-a638-10640c22322e%40sessionmgr103

Sagarin, Brad J. (2005). Reconsidering evolved sex differences in jealousy: comment on Harris (2003). Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 62-75. Retrieved on April 17, 2008 from, http://0-web.ebscohost.com.linus.lmu.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=19&hid=109&sid=a1e0faf3-d4f2-411f-a638-10640c22322e%40sessionmgr103

Cann, A., Mangum, J.L., & Wells, M. (2001). Distress in response to relationship infidelity: the roles of gender and attitudes about relationships.Journal of Sex Research, ?.

Sheets, V.L. & Wolfe, M.D. (2001). Sexual jealousy in heterosexuals, lesbians and gays.Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 44(5-6),255-276.

Sprecher, S., Regan, P.C., & McKinney, K. (1998). Beliefs about the outcomes of extramarital sexual relationships as a function of the gender of the "cheating spouse."Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 38(3-4),301-311.

Wiederman, M.W. & LeMar, L. (1998). "Not with him you don't!": gender and emotional reactions to sexual infidelity during courtship.Journal of Sex Research, 35(3), ?.

Edlund, J.; Heider, J.; Scherer, C.; Farc, M. & Sagarin, B. (2006). Sex differences in jealousy in response to actual infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 4: 462-470, Retrived April 21, 2008, from http://www.epjournal.net

Jones, D; Figueredo, A; & Dickey, E. (2007) Relations Among Individual Differences in Reproductive Strategies. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(2):387-410, Retrieved April 21, 2008, from http://www.epjournal.net

Schützwohl, A. (2004). Which infidelity type makes you more jealous? Decision strategies in a forced-choice between sexual and emotional infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 2: 121-128, Retrieved April 21, 2008, from http://www.epjournal.net

Strout, S.; Laird, J.; Shafer, A. & Thompson, N. (2005). The effect of vividness of experience on sex differences in jealousy. Evolutionary Psychology, 3: 263-274, Retreived April 21, 2008, from http://www.epjournal.net

Barelds, D. & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Relations Between Different Types of Jealousy and Self and Partner Perceptions of Relationship Quality. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Vol. 14: 176-188.

Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3: 251-255.

Buss, D.M. (1995). Evolutionary Psychology: A New Paradigm For Psychological Science. Psychological Inquiry, 6: 1-30.

Harris, Christine R. (2004). Did Men and Women, Facing Different Selective Pressures, Evolve Different Brands of Jealousy? American Scientist, Vol. 92: 62-71.

Knox, D. & Breed, R. (2006). College Men and Jealousy. College Student Journal, Vol. 41, Issue 2.

Ward, J. & Voracek, M. (2004). Evolutionary and Social Cognitive Explanations of Sex Differences in Romantic Jealousy. Australian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 56, No. 3: 165-171.

Zusman, M. & Knox, D. (1998). Relationship Problems of Casual and Involved University Students. College Student Journal, Vol. 32: 606–609.

Buss, D. & Haselton, M. (2005). The Evolution of Jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Science, Vol. 9, No. 11: 506-507. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/busshaselton2005.pdf.

Denisiuk, Jennifer S. (2004). Evolutionary Versus Social Structural Explanations for Sex Differences in Mate Preferences, Jealousy, and Aggression. Rochester: Rochester Institute of Technology. http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/denisiuk.html.
Schutzwohl, Achim (2004). Which Infidelity Type Makes You More Jealous? EP Journal, Vol. 2: 121-128. http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep02121128.pdf

Relevant Website Links

How Men and Women Handle Jealousy—video segment from the “Today” show:

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/how-men-and-women-handle-jealousy/2960669822

Jealousy—short film dramatizing the origin and nature of a wife’s jealousy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8129617504029078300&q=origins+of+jealousy&ei=FcUWSJeYKYrQrgOd9ZjiBg&hl=en

Why men cheat: how to hook a man for good: www.dating-tips-for-women.com

Discover how to heal the from pain and recover from heartbreak: www.howtosurvivetheaffair.com

Find out why so many women today have affairs: www.womensinfidelity.com

Find out if he’s having an affair/Browse free articles: www.lifescript.com

Back to textbook main page.