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.

Topic: Pain Perception in Men and Women
Contributor: Jamie Yeung
Semester: Spring 2011

The battle of the sexes over who feels the least pain has been won. Studies have shown that men show less intense pain responses than women. One of the more puzzling differences between the sexes lies in men’s and women’s experiences and responses to pain. Both men and women have the same basic pain mechanisms and receptor functions that lead to the neurons in the brain sensing pain, yet pain is experienced differently between the sexes. Interestingly, gender differences in pain responses widely involve the interactions of biological, psychological, and sociocultural factors. While there are a number of explanations for the variations seen in experiencing pain, one of the explanations lies in cortisol, the hormone released in response to stress. The discovery of cortisol’s effect on how men and women experience pain may be more evolutionary-based, dating back to human’s ancestral history when humans had hunter-gatherer minds (Allen, Lu, Tsao, Worthman & Zeltzer, 2008). Convincing evidence for differences in pain experience can be observed in stimulated regions of the brain responsible for emotion and critical thinking (Mayer, Berman, Suyenobu, Labus, Mandelkern, Nailboff & Chang, 2005).

The gender differences in pain experience have been corroborated in clinical research, which generally observed lower pain threshold in women in comparison to men. Women overall report more severe levels of pain, more frequent pain, and pain of longer duration then men do (Arendt-Nielsen, Bajaj & Mohr Drewes, 2004). Only recent studies, however, have been able to correlate pain levels with varying cortisol concentrations. According to a study conducted by Allen et al (2008), increased cortisol response in boys is associated with decreased pain response, while in girls, increased cortisol is associated with greater pain response. While the mechanism of cortisol-pain is still unclear, these differences can be observed in specific regions of the brain allowing researchers to explain these sex differences through an evolutionary perspective.

To understand the mechanism responsible for different pain responses in the sexes, Meyer et al (2005) conducted a study, looking for answers in the brain. When the participant, male or female, was subjected to a pain stimuli, the brain’s pain processing centers were activated, this includes the neuromatrix centered on the portions of the cerebral cortex. While some overlapping areas of brain activation were found in both men and women such as the neuromatrix, there were other activated areas in the male brain that were not found in the female brain and vice versa. While the female brain showed greater activity in limbic regions, which are emotion-based centers, the male brain showed greater activity in the cognitive regions of the brain.

Researchers have hypothesized that these gender differences in brain-related response to pain may have evolved from the hunter-gatherer world as a part of stress response differences between men and women. In facing stress, such as the appearance of a lion, which causes a higher coritsol production, men need to focus on calculating the fight-or-flight reaction. Thus, the male brain will shower greater activity in the cognitive regions of the brain, while they decide whether they should fight the threat or run from it. As a result, men’s sensory-focused strategy has helped to increase the pain threshold and tolerance; men’s biological system has found it advantageous to inhibit pain responses (Keogh & Holdcroft, 2002). However, the same thing cannot be said in women. In the face of pain or stress, women’s active limbic regions are necessary for triggering the innate caring, protecting response for the young. Women are therefore more attuned to recognizing pain in themselves as a warning sign in case it is something dangerous that would impair their ability to care for others (Breivik, Collett, Ventafridda, Cohen, & Gallacher, 2006). In this case, the women’s biological system has found it more beneficial to not inhibit, and even exaggerate a pain response. In general, women appear to focus more on the emotional aspect of their pain, while men tend to focus on the physicality (Keogh & Holdcroft, 2002).

Researchers have observed the importance of hormonal fluctuations in pain functions and perception. Higher cortisol levels affect men and women oppositely, while pain is inhibited in men, it is exaggerated in women. This corresponds with the highly active cortex regions observed in the male brain for critical thinking, and the limbic regions in the female brain for emotions. Perhaps there is some truth to the stereotype that women tend to be more senstive, while men are encouraged to “act like a man”.

References:

Allen, L., Lu, Q., Tsao, J., Worthman, C., Zeltzer, L. (2009). Sex Differences in the Association Between Cortisol Concentrations and Laboratory Pain Reponses in Healthy Children. Gender Medicine, 6, 193-207.
Arendt-Nielsen, L., Bajaj, P., Mohr Drewes, A. (2004). Visceral Pain: Gender Differences in Response to Experimental and Clinical Pain. European Journal of Pain, 8, 465-472.

Breivik, H., Collett, B., Ventafridda, V., Cohen, R. & Gallacher, D. (2006) Survey of chronic pain in Europe: Prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. European Journal of Pain, 4(10), 287-333.

Keogh, E. & Holdcroft, A. (2002). Sex differences in pain: Evolutionary links to facial pain expression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(4), 465.

Mayer, E. A., Berman, S., Suyenobu, B., Labus, J., Mandelkern, M.A., Nailboff, B.D. & Chang, L. (2005) Differences in brain responses to visceral pain between patients with irritable bowel syndrome and ulcerative colitis. Journal of the International Association for the Study of Pain, 115(3), 398-409.

Referenced Web Links

ScienceDaily, (2003). Gender differences in brain response to pain. Retrieved on 4/4/2011 from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031105064626.htm

BCC News, (2005). Women feel more pain than men. Retrieved on 4/4/2011 from 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4641567.stm

Relevant Web Links
Women Feel More Pain Than Men
http://news.discovery.com/human/women-men-pain.html

Ouch! Why Women Feel More Pain
http://www.livescience.com/433-ouch-women-feel-pain.html

Researchers Explore Gender Differences In Pain Research
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216719,00.html

Topic: Inherent risk-taking in Evolutionary Biology and effects in Society
Contributor: Shaun Hirai
Session: Summer 2011
The neural chemistry associated with the different sexes produces differing characteristics or personality traits within people. Males are in general more aggressive and ambitious, and are often likely to take riskier options. On the other hand, women for the most part are more cautious and generally more nurturing or, at the very least, less confrontational. Even broken down into subject categories (financial, health, recreational, ethical and social), males repeatedly scored higher in risk-taking behavior, with the notable exception in social/emotional situations, due to women reporting notably less percieved risk compared to males (Harris, Jenkins and Glaser, 2006). These differences lend themselves to some interesting gender-based demographics that exist within modern society.
One of the main societal issues where there are observable differences is gambling, and more prominently the attatched addiction. Research estimates approximately twice as many men as women having chronic gambling problems, and in men the symptoms tend to be far more long-term and intense. To the majority of women gamblers, gambling was merely an escape, something designed to occupy their time and attention. Male gamblers, however, reported to be pulled in by a 'rush' they experienced, become addicted to the thrill, or just deluded into trying to make money easily (Heater & Patton, 2006). Men also tended to prefer larger, multiplayer games that incorporated varying degrees of skill, further implying the desire for competition. Women reportedly preferred luck-based individual games, games like slots or video poker (Corney & Davis, 2010). Despite women gambling with lower payout odds, they tend to gamble with far lower values, hence lower perceieved risk.
Similar research in the business management realm offers the same result. Men in general are more likely to take risks or put themselves on the line when it comes to making financial decisions. Also notably, when men were tested while in visible attendance with other male peers, they reportedly took much higher risk options, as compared to when they were tested alone. Women, however, were more cautious, and also, the presence of other women had no noticable effect on their risk-taking (Saad, 2011). It is suggested that the reason that higher levels of management in business is predominantly male is precisely because the more competitive nature and willingness to take risks attatched to the gender (Saad, 2011). More research shows that women are not actually less competent as managers; rather it is shown that they tend to experience much higher levels of anxiety when faced with matters of financal decisions (Powell & Ansic, 1997). Again, it comes to a difference of perceieved risk between genders.
In a sense, society has crafted the financial realm as the new competitive battleground by which males compete and satisfy their risky impulses, in lieu of actual combat or other physical measures. Although women are involved within this 'arena' as well, the actual psychology and reasoning behind actions are radically different, and it shows.

References:
Harris, C, Jenkins, M, & Glaser, D. (2006) Gender Difference in Risk-Assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men? Judgment and Decision Making, Vol 1, No. 1, July 2006, pp 48-63
http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06016.pdf
Heater, J & Patton D. (2006) Gender Difference in Problem Gambling Behavior from Help-line Callers. Journal of Gambling Issues, Issue 16.
http://www.afm.mb.ca/About%20AFM/documents/jgi_16_heater.pdf
Corney, R & Davis, J. (2010) The Attractions and Risks of Internet Gambling for Women: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Gambling Issues, Issue 24.
http://www.nsgamingfoundation.org/articlesReports/Women%20and%20internet%20gambling.pdf
Saad, G. (2011) Evolutionary Psychology in the Business Sciences. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tZCfTU2ns3gC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=gender+differences+evolutionary+workplace&ots=SW2rTEp8De&sig=Mhhy-wAUH29uq7eX-FJerUAB3vE#v=onepage&q=gender%20differences%20evolutionary%20workplace&f=false
Powell, M & Ansic, D. (1997) Gender Differences in Risk Behavior in Financial Decision-Making: An Experimental Analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology 18 (1997) pg 605-628.
http://darp.lse.ac.uk/PapersDB/Powell-Ansic_(JEP_97).pdf

Topic: Evolutionary Perspective on Sex Differences in Childhood Play

Contributor: Courtney Picciolo; Fall 2011

“Play has been considered to be an integral and important part of childhood and one which accounts for a substantial portion of children’s time and energy budgets” (Bjorkland & Pellegrini, 2000, p. 1693).

Much of evolutionary psychology focuses on the adaptations that have evolved for human adults for the simple fact that reproduction occurs in adulthood. However, attention has recently turned to developmental psychology in children from an evolutionary perspective. This is an important area of psychology to investigate because, in order to survive to the time of reproduction, humans had to have evolved adaptations to aid in development and preparation for adulthood (Bjorkland & Pellegrini, 2000). When you watch young boys and girls play, it is quite evident that they have different ideas about how to play, what to play, and even who to play with. Gender differences in play have been of particular interest to evolutionary psychology. Bock (2004) describes evolutionary developmental psychology as interpreting play by examining “time and energy budgets” in both young animals and children. With the amount of time and energy children spend engaged in play, it is reasonable to assume that play serves a vital developmental function (Bock, 2004). From an evolutionary perspective, children’s play is considered not only to have immediate benefits for development, but also to serve as preparation for adulthood.

Evidence of adult sex differences can be noticed in children when they play. Boys and girls typically segregate into same-sex play groups, in which each sex engages in different types of play activities that reflect what is often required of them as adults later in life. Boys participate in more intense “rough-and-tumble” play, whereas girls take part in more imaginary play, particularly play parenting (Bjorkland & Pellegrini, 2000). On the rare occasions that girls do participate in rough and tumble play, however, Jarvis (2006) found that they do so as part of a narrative story that constitutes imaginary play. According to Bjorkland and Pellegrini, similar sex differences in play have been found in other non-human primates as well, lending further support to the idea that there are evolved sex differences in how each sex expends energy.

In her ethnographic observations of preschool aged children at recess, Jarvis (2006) noted that a clear hierarchy existed in the boys’ play that did not exist for girls. While observing mixed-gender groups playing, Jarvis found recurring patterns. When the genders played together, boys chasing girls was the most commonly played game, with girls instructing the boys on what the rules were and boys forming a “hunting party” to capture the girls. Individual boys, however, continued to display competition among one another in a desire to be considered the best chaser. Girls typically remained huddled near one another, and worked together when the boys’ play became too lively.

The immediate physical benefits that boys gain from rough-and-tumble play, as well as the useful information they gather about social competition and fighting for later in life, are crucial to competence as adult males (Bjorkland & Pellegrini, 2000). In the EEA, competition for resources and hunting probably served as the main purpose for males’ aggressive fighting behaviors. Additionally Bjorkland and Pellegrini cite mate choice as another purpose of the heightened male competition. Girls’ tendency to play parenting and ‘house’-type games reflect the greater investment female adults make in their offspring as compared to males. Females often take primary responsibility for parenting their offspring, as mirrored in childhood play (Bjorkland & Pellegrini, 2000). The trend of girls typically huddling together in close proximity, while providing social support, reflects patterns of the EEA in which women relied on one another to rear children (Jarvis 2006). Play behaviors of children are not arbitrary or wasteful exertions of energy. They serve important functions for immediate benefits and more importantly, as future benefits in preparing for responsibilities in adulthood.

References

Bjorkland, D.F. & Pellegrini, A.D. (2000). Child development and evolutionary psychology. Child Development, 71(6): 1687-1708.

Bock, J. (2004). Introduction: New evolutionary perspective on play. Human Nature, 15(1), 1-3.

Jarvis, P. (2006). "Rough and tumble" play: Lessons in life. Evolutionary Psychology, 4: 330-346.

=

Sex Differences in Facial Recognition

Contributor: Cami Robertson, Spring 2012 4/23

       Sad but true, yet it is a rare day when the average woman finds herself naturally more capable at a particular task than her average male counterpart. It is not often said, and rarely statistically proven, that over all, women are superior to men. However, there is a rather interesting and unique ability where women rain supreme. That ability is facial recognition. Women are quicker and better than men at face detection and identity discrimination (Brewster, Mullin, Dobrin & Steeves, 2011).  Females are proven superior in their ability to distinguish emotional expression. This female advantage is believed to be attributed to sex differences in the neural organization of face-processing mechanisms (Brewster, Mullin, Dobrin & Steeves, 2011). Men and women cognitively differ in the way they process information. For example, women use a more bilateral representation of facial processing than men use (Godard & Fjori, 2010).   Men tend to show a right hemisphere bias when tested (Godard & Fjori, 2010). This sex difference in the use of identifying faces was supported by electrophysiology (Brewster, Mullin, Dobrin & Steeves, 2011).

         However, the female advantage of facial recognition becomes compromised when under acute stress (DeDora, Carlson & Mujica-Pardoi, 2011). It has been proven that women are significantly more likely to characterize emotionally ambiguous faces, and aggressive faces less threatening, when under stress. When faced with a stressful situation or when threatened, women are more likely to inaccurately read faces yet reaction time is shortened. (DeDora, Carlson & Mujica-Pardoi, 2011).  This is most likely due to an evolutionary advantageous compromise between rapid decision-making and acquiring information. When a stressor is presented, it may cause a decrease in accuracy yet an increase in the probability of survival by shortening the reaction time (DeDora, Carlson & Mujica-Pardoi, 2011). When under a threatening situation, often a decision must be made without all pertinent information which compromises accuracy (DeDora, Carlson & Mujica-Pardoi, 2011).

        Women are statistically faster than men at identifying learned faces.  Women use different strategies for processing face information than men. However, when under stress, women are slower at processing and become less accurate.  This is due to the evolutionary compromise between rapid decision-making and information acquisition. Some theorize that a possible explanation for why women evolved to superior facial processing is because of the tend and befriend theory set forth by Taylor and colleagues (2000) (DeDora, Carlson & Mujica-Pardoi, 2011).  This is the idea that women are more likely to seek social support as a defense mechanism rather than fight or flight like their male counterparts.  

[[Image:|Image:Faces.jpg]]

=

Non-Verbal Behavior

Contributor: Amanda Dahlstrom, Spring 2011

Women seem to have a superior talent for interpreting expression and tapping into the nonverbal cues of individuals. Women have a tendency to make assumption about emotions and attitudes solely based on facial expression and non-verbal behavior. Those who can read in between the lines and understand what others are saying have an emotional connection with other human beings. Many researchers have explored the dimensions of the human species’ ability to read and interpret facial expressions.
Evidence supports the notion that women are more accurate in decoding the meaning behind non-verbal cues in facial expressions (Hall, Mast & Murphy, 2006). Both males and females were equally accurate and interpreting their own non-verbal cues based on nonverbal recall accuracy (NRA) videotapes. However, accuracy for interpreting other’s non-verbal cues was based on the positive involvement with the partner. Women reported to have higher nonverbal recall accuracy (NRA) when the subject they were interpreting was live and in front of them. Researchers concluded that the cognitive ability for women to interpret nonverbal cues better than men when in person suggests there is a sex difference for interpersonal sensitivity. Women reported to smile, nod the head, and look at the partner more than men when interacting with the subject they were interpreting. Women may be considered more attuned to their emotions and more apt to sensitivity.
Not only do women have a tendency to interpret the meanings of nonverbal cues, they have greater knowledge of non-verbal cues; therefore being able to decode cues easier (Rosip & Hall, 2004). The Test of Nonverbal Cue Knowledge (TONCK) was used to measure the explicit knowledge of the meaning of a nonverbal cue. Four studies were conducted using the Test of Nonverbal Cue Knowledge (TONCK), Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy 2 (DANVA), and the Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity (PONS) to determine that women have a higher cognitive ability of nonverbal cues. These findings can be justified by motivation to interpret cues, as women tend to desire relationships and personal connections more than males.
Women may have the ability to decode the meanings of non-verbal cues and have greater knowledge of facial expression, but they also have better judgment. Researchers examined the ability of women and men to recognize smiles as fast as they could. Result showed that women saw more of the target emotion than men did, but that there were no differences in ratings of non-target emotions (Hall & Matsumoto, 2004). Researchers concluded that one explanation for these findings is that women are socialized from a young age to interpret emotions and read nonverbal behaviors. This would explain the sex differences between males and females’ ability to interpret nonverbal behavior and facial expression.
Image:

Graph:

References

Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Scmid Mast, M. (2006). Recall of nonverbal cues: exploring a new definition of interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 141-155.
Hall, J. A. & Rosip, J. C. (2004). Knowledge of nonverbal cues, gender, and nonverbal decoding accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 267-286.
Hall J. A. & Matsumoto, D. (2004). Gender differences in judgments of multiple emotions from facial expressions. Emotion, 4 (2), 201-206.
C. Hong. (2010, December 28) Psychothalamus: Detecting facial emotions: Women vs Men. Retreived from: http://psychothalamus.blogspot.com/2010/12/detecting-facial-emotions-women-vs-men.html

'Gender Social Differences in Children'
Contributor: Andy Pham

As humans, we have come to accept that men and women are quite different in a variety of ways. In a traditional society, men were expected to be the breadwinners of the family while the women stayed at home as the caretakers. Even in modern American society where women have a commanding presence in the workplace, gender stereotypes still remain. Our society and many others expect women to be more nurturing and share more about their feelings whereas men are expected to be goal-oriented and individualistic. To an extent, these stereotypes of gender differentiation are generally true. Why and when did these gender differences start taking form? To answer these thought-provoking questions, we look at childhood when differences between male and female begin to arise. By examining male and female children, we can start to really understand the origin of gender differences.<br>

One possible explanation for the gender differences that arise during childhood is the influence of parents and their expectations for their son or daughter. In a study by Kane (2006), whenever pre-school aged girls display atypical gender behaviors, the parents usually welcome those actions. However when it comes to boys, parents’ reactions are a little more complicated. Depending on the culture and gender of the parent and also the type of behavior the boy displays, the boy can either be praised or admonished for his actions. Generally, boys are encouraged to uphold the masculine stereotypes and gender roles of their parents. Meanwhile, girls are encouraged to explore and experiment with different behaviors and roles including ones that are not traditionally feminine. This could reflect the changing viewpoint that American society has on gender roles as women become more involved with the workforce, a traditionally masculine responsibility. <br>

In another study (Denham, Bassett, Hamada, &amp; Wyatt, 2010), researchers found that fathers talked more about emotions to their daughters than to their sons. They also found that mothers talked to their sons and daughters equally about emotions but talked more than the father. This study shows that girls are encouraged by their parents to talk more about their emotions and mothers are more likely to talk to their children about emotions than fathers. This last part is extremely interesting considering how children often follow their same-sex parent’s example regarding gender roles (Bronstein, 2006). In essence, parents differ in the way the treat their sons versus their daughters even in today’s society. Parents have a huge impact on their children, encouraging their kids to do what is socially acceptable while discouraging actions that are deemed unusual in societal standards.

Even though parents have such a huge influence on the differentiation of gender roles for their children, other gender differences arise in childhood that cannot be fully explained by parenting. For instance, Benenson et al. (2002) explored gender differences in competition. Studying a group of kindergarteners, the researchers found that girls showed a greater level of discomfort than boys when it came to competition. This can be evolutionary explained since men focused more on competition in order to bring down a hunt or war against a neighboring village. On the other hand, women stayed in the village and worked together to run domestic affairs. As a result, women are less likely to be predisposed to competition than men. 

In another study by Jarvis (2006), it was observed that girls engaged in different styles of play than boys. Typically girls do not engage in rough and tumble play whereas boys are more likely to fight and compete physically with one another. When girls do engage in physical play, there are usually positive emotions and actions involved such as hugging. This further cements the idea that boys are more likely to engage in physical activity and competition because it was an evolutionary necessity. When boys interact with each other in this way, it challenges them physically and hones their fighting skills for war which would have been quite beneficial for them tens of thousands years ago.

Gender differences in societal interactions can already be seen in childhood. Some of this can be attributed to parental and environmental influence while others can be due to basic biological and evolutionary factors. These differences in childhood serve as a foundation for more drastic gender differences in adulthood and as such, should be further observed to fully understand gender differences as a whole.

References

1. Benenson, J.F., Roy, R., Waite, A., Goldbaum, S., Linders, L. &amp; Simpson, A. (2002). Greater discomfort as a proximate cause of sex differences in competition. Merrill-Palmer Quaterly 48.3: 225-247.

2. Bronstein, P. (2006). The Family Environment: Where Gender Role Socialization Begins. Handbook of girls' and women's psychological health: Gender and well-being across the lifespan (pp. 262-271). New York, NY US: Oxford University Press.

3. Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. Hamada, &amp; Wyatt, T. M. (2010). Gender differences in the socialization of preschoolers’ emotional competence. In A. Kennedy Root &amp; S. Denham<br>(Eds.), The role of gender in the socialization of emotion: Key concepts and critical issues. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 128, 29–49.

4. Jarvis, P. (2006). “Rough and tumble” play: Lessons in life. Evolutionary Psychology, 4: 330-346.

5. Kane, E. (2006). 'No Way My Boys are Going to be Like That!': Parents' Responses to Children's Gender Nonconformity. Gender &amp; Society, 20(2), 149-176.<br><br>

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.

Hooking up, Pluralistic Ignorance, and Alcohol

Contributed by: Mollie Bruhl and Kristin Dennis

Recently, a culture of hooking up has spread across today’s youth. College and high school students, even some middle school students, often engage in sexual behaviors without any commitment to or from their sexual partners. This kind of behavior is known as a hook up. According to evolutionary theory, women should not agree to take part in a hook up, especially when it involves intercourse. Theoretically, women should only engage in sexual behavior with a man who is willing and able to provide support for her and the offspring that may result from their copulation. Men have no problem with uncommitted sexual behavior because there are no consequences for their actions. Women, however, can easily be impregnated and have to live with the consequences of an uncommitted act for at the very least the time of gestation. In reality, raising a child will take up decades of a woman’s life. Uncommitted sexual behavior, then, should be a rarely engaged in practice for young and fertile women, according to evolutionary theory. Many people argue that alcohol consumption and abuse by youth is the main reason that hooking up occurs. However, there are studies that show other explanations for the phenomenon. A study by Gute and Eshbaugh (2008) examined the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and hooking up in college students. They found that, controlling for alcohol consumption, personality traits are directly related to the prevalence and type of hooking up a person takes part in. Extraversion can predict both intercourse with someone once and only once and intercourse with someone only known for 24 hours or less (Gute & Eshbaugh, 2008). The study also found that conscientiousness is negatively associated with hooking up, meaning that the more conscientious a person is, the less likely he or she is to engage in uncommitted sexual behavior. Personality, undoubtedly, plays a role in whether a person is likely to engage in hook up behavior or not, but it may not be the only factor involved. Another theory currently circulating is the notion of pluralistic ignorance. Pluralistic ignorance is the idea that an individual perceives their peers or group of people to possess beliefs or attitudes different than their own, and in an effort to conform to group norm will adjust their behavior accordingly (Tracy, Kahn, & Apple, 2003). The pervasiveness of hook up behavior on college campuses nationwide greatly contributes to pluralistic ignorance. An individual is likely to look around and see his/her peers hooking up and then wrongly assume that their peers are far more comfortable with hooking up than they actually are. Women and men, believing that their peers are at ease with no strings attached sex, feel personal pressure to engage in such practices; they are then likely to feel the need to “fit in” with their peers and engage in similar behaviors than they are, in fact, not comfortable with (Reiber & Garcia, 2010). This internalized peer pressure, meaning peer pressure that is not actually experienced but rather imagined by the individual, can lead to the occurrence of hooking up even when the person is not necessarily comfortable with the behavior. Looking at the actual data of real and perceived comfort, it is shown that both men and women rated others as far more comfortable with various sexual components of a hook up- such as oral sex, intercourse, and below the waist touching- than they rated their own personal comfort while engaging in these behaviors (Reiber & Garcia, 2010). Additionally, Reiber and Garcia (2010) found that men on all accounts were rated as more comfortable than women, a finding consistent with evolutionary theory. Although hooking up is increasingly common among young people, there are negative behaviors commonly associated with its occurrence. Uncommitted sexual behaviors can be linked alcohol and drug abuse. Fortunato, Young, Boyd, & Fons (2010) did a study on seventh through twelfth graders that examined how hooking up is interrelated to delinquent behaviors. They found that hook up behaviors in middle and high school is moderately correlated with behaviors such as underage drinking, illicit drug use, truancy, and gambling. This does not necessarily mean that hooking up leads to these behaviors, but it could mean that people who partake in these behaviors are more likely to engage in uncommitted sexual encounters. It has also been discovered that on college campuses hooking up has lead to deleterious effects on women’s mental health. Rieber and Garcia (2010) found that university counseling centers are reporting high numbers of women who exhibit symptoms of sexual assault, but do not claim to have been assaulted. It appears that hook up experiences can have serious emotional and psychological consequences for an individual, even if they do not identify as having been assaulted. This may also be attributed to pluralistic ignorance. Women are agreeing to take part in sexual behavior that they are not completely comfortable with because they believe that most of their peers would be comfortable with the situation. This and the fact that men think women are more comfortable than they actually are leads women to feel pressured into doing more sexually than they normally would. One technique suggested to decrease the prevalence of pluralistic ignorance, and hopefully minimize the negative effects that occur because of a hook up, is raising awareness of the phenomenon (Tracy, et al., 2003). The aim is to reduce the false assumptions that individuals may have and uncover the true beliefs and feelings of young people’s peers toward uncommitted sex. Hopefully, by highlighting the true beliefs and feelings of others, the individual will feel less pressured to engage in a hook up. Regardless of the reasons why youth engage in uncommitted sexual behaviors, it is undeniable that they do. Hopefully, with awareness, young men and women will feel less pressure to do things (like hooking up) that they may not be quite comfortable with. In spite of their lack of comfort and the potential consequences of engaging in uncommitted sexual intercourse, women continue to hook up. Perhaps the recent emergence of effective birth control has contributed to the drastic increase of these types of behaviors. Because some women no longer have the threat of pregnancy when engaging in a hook up, the behavior has become more common and less stigmatized than in generations past.

References

Fortunato, L., Young, A. M, Boyd, C. J., & Fons, C. E. (2010). Hook up sexual experiences and       problem behaviors among adolescents. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 19(3), 261-278. Gute, G., & Eshbaugh, E. M. (2008). Personality as a predictor of hooking up among college      students. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 25(1), 26-43. Lambert, T. A., Kahn, L. S., & Apple, K. J. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and hooking up. Journal      of Sex Research, 40(2), 129-133. Reiber, C., & Garcia, J. R. (2010). Hooking up: gender differences, evolution, and pluralistic     ignorance. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 390-404.

Additional Information

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/relationships/articles/2007/02/13/hooking_up_is_the_rage_but_is_it_healthy/ hookingupsmart.com/about-hooking-up-smart/

Courtship Techniques

        There seems to be an epidemic that has swept across our country. Many college relationships are no longer about the commitment, the wearing of the letterman jacket, or the class ring. As if young adults do not already have enough on their plates, now they have to try to understand a whole other realm of ambiguity- that of hooking up. Researchers have found that 77.7% of female and 84.2% of male college students indicated they had hooked up at least once during their college years (Bradshaw, Kahn, & Saville, 2010). Evolutionary theories may help to explain this phenomenon. These theories suggest that gender should be an important predictor of hook-up behavior. Because males attain reproductive advantages from having multiple partners, they should be more likely to engage in hook-up behavior. According to the evolutionary perspective, females are expected to withhold from hook-up behavior in order to find a mate who would invest more into the relationship (Fielder & Carey, 2010). As we will find, women do prefer dating to hooking up, while men would rather engage in hooking up behavior.        

         Hooking up can be defined as, “a term that refers to a range of physically intimate behavior (e.g., passionate kissing, oral sex, and intercourse) that occurs outside of a committed relationship” (Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, & Fincham, 2008). However, this is just one of the various definitions researchers use to classify hooking up. Another researcher states that hooking up includes, “spontaneous sexual encounters in uncommitted relationships” (Holman & Sillars, 2012). This definition is not as specific when describing the sexual behaviors and leaves room for misunderstanding and uncertainty. Some definitions state that hooking up may include kissing, others only indicate that it includes sexual intercourse. Researchers have just recently begun studying the effects and statistics of hooking up, which may help to explain the lack of consistency with a particular definition. The ambiguity of this term may lead women to acquire false expectations of what this type of behavior would include.        

         Research has shown that women tend to prefer dating more than men. This may be the result of receiving more benefits from dating than engaging in uncommitted sexual relationships. For example, women prefer to date for the feelings of intimacy, companionship, and the assurance of the possibility of a long-term relationship. They also have fewer costs when it comes to dating. One researcher states that, “Women tend to play a more reactive role in order to complement the man’s behavior” (Bradshaw et al., 2010). Women have the opportunity to accept or reject a date, they do not risk rejection themselves, and they are not responsible for the decision-making or the financial costs that come with planning the date. All of these factors make dating much less stressful for the woman.        

          Women also prefer dating to hooking up because of the negative or uncomfortable feelings that may come as a result of engaging in hooking up behavior. For example, researchers have found that, “College women expressed less comfort than men with petting above the waist, petting below the waist, oral sex, and sexual intercourse” (Bradshaw et al., 2010). This research shows that although women are engaging in hooking up behavior, they are not as comfortable as men. Other research has also supported these feelings of discomfort after engaging in uncommitted sexual behavior. Owen, Rhoades, Stanley, & Fincham (2010) state that for those who had hooked up in the past year, 26.4% of women reported a positive reaction while 48.7% reported a negative reaction. On the other hand, 50.4% of men reported a positive reaction and 26.0% reported a negative reaction. According to this research, more women have negative reactions than positive reactions to hooking up, while we find just the opposite results for men.        

          Women may also be more inclined to prefer dating because of the possibility for a long-term relationship. In regards to the evolutionary perspective, women want their partner to be there for the long haul, not just for a one-night stand. This is because women have higher reproductive costs than men and they should be more selective in engaging in sexual activity. Women truly do enjoy the companionship and the progression of a relationship; however, despite evolutionary theories, many women continue to engage in sexual behaviors outside of a committed relationship. This startling tendency remains a mystery and is therefore still being debated by researchers today. With this in mind, even though most women would rather have the commitment and security of a long-term relationship, clearly women can still desire the physical intimacy and attention that comes from a one-time hook-up.        

          In regards to men, men are more apt to engage in hook-up behavior. This may be because of the added costs men experience from dating. For example, in our society the man is more responsible for the planning and effort that goes into a date. He is also responsible for pursuing the woman as well as paying for the date. This makes dating much more stressful for the man due to the more exhaustive role of decision-making, the possibility for rejection, and the added anxiety. Bradshaw, Kahn, and Saville (2010) state, “these decision-making responsibilities can lead to stress and anxiety in college students who may be shy and lack confidence in their ability to successfully carry out all the dating functions” (Bradshaw et al., 2010). However, things may be looking up for men, if the rates of hooking up continue to rise.        

          Men also prefer to hook-up because of the sexual opportunities this type of behavior allows. When it comes to dating, men are more likely to have sexual goals as their primary motivation, more so than women. Because men want to spread their genes, they also have more positive attitudes toward casual sex. With this ideal in mind, men can more easily obtain their sexual goals with much less of a cost through hooking up rather than dating. Also, in terms of the anxiety men face while dating, the flirtatious interaction of a hook-up makes rejection less likely. The added stress of planning and following through with a date is also diminished.        

          Researchers have found that hooking up is somewhat gendered, with males being more favorable and females being more unfavorable. Evolutionary speaking, this makes a lot of sense. Men want to have as many reproductive opportunities as possible, while women want to attain the best long-term mate. For men, a hook-up does not require the added effort, pursuit, or possible commitment that comes with dating. Women on the other hand, would rather engage in dating behavior because of the possibility for a long-term partner as well as the romance and fun that is involved more so in dating than hooking up. This sex difference and new field of study leaves us all wondering, where is this new type of uncommitted sexual behavior leading us?

References

Bradshaw, C., Kahn, A., & Saville, B. (2010). To hook up or date: which gender benefits? Sex Roles, 62(9-10), 661-669.

Fielder, R. L., & Carey, M. P. (2010). Predictors and consequences of sexual “hookups” among college students: a short-term prospective study. Archives of                 Sexual Behavior, 39, 1105-1119.

Holman, A., & Sillars, A. (2012). Talk about “hooking up”: the influence of college student social networks on nonrelationship sex. Health Communication, 27(2),             205-216.

Owen, J. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). “Hooking up” among college students: demographic and psychosocial correlates. Archives           of Sexual Behavior, 39, 653-663.

Additional Information

Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2006). Hooking Up: The Relationship Contexts of 'Nonrelationship' Sex.Journal Of Adolescent Research,               21(5), 459-483.

Reiber, C., & Garcia, J. R. (2010). Hooking up: Gender differences, evolution, and pluralistic ignorance. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 390-404.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Joesph Demeter and John Liggins

Evolutionary Psychology Spring 2012

(To be Moved to "How the sexes might learn get along better" when the page works)

Male Preference Towards Sexually Assertive Females

In the inter-sexual courtship paradigm males of most species take an active and aggressive role in sex relations whereas females adopt a more passive one. The evolutionary reason behind these dynamics can be attributed to the fact that males have a faster reproductive rate than females. From the male perspective, any and all reproductive opportunities are good opportunities, because they do not have to invest as heavily in potential offspring as their female counterparts. The minimum investment from a male in procreation is to impregnate a female. After copulation a male can leave with no detriment to future reproductive value. In theory, males can father as many children as there are fertile females. Females have a much slower reproductive rate because they must carry the fetus for 9 months and then give birth. At this point they have already invested heavily in this child and want to see it survive and reproduce. This means they must raise the child until it can fend for itself (approximately 15 years). From this understanding, even male copulation with low quality mates is of benefit because the male's advantage of having his genes represented in the next generation vastly outweighs the cost of copulation. Unfortunately, the male strategy for having strong genetic representation in the next generation is in direct conflict with the female strategy. Females must invest heavily in the rearing of their young. If they can get paternal investment in raising their progeny then it will have a greater chance of survival. In essence, males are motivated to impregnate as many females (with good genes preferably) as possible while investing as little as possible whereas females want to be impregnated by a male with good genes and will provide paternal investment. A common compromise between the sexes is the male will agree to invest in his offspring in exchange for sexual fidelity from the female for paternity assurance (the male does not want to invest resources in offspring that is not theirs).
When considering evolutionary motivations between the sexes it may seem odd that there are human females who are sexually assertive, and perhaps even more odd that men prefer them as one would expect males to assume a sexually assertive female is also a more promiscuous one (meaning less likely to be able to offer paternity assurance). However, research suggests that sexually assertive females may be tapping in to the heart of male motivation and by doing so find a better inter-sexual compromise than their more passive counterparts. Indeed, Sirkin & Mosher (1985) showed that males were more sexually aroused by guided imagery of sexual encounters in which females played an assertive role as compared to females playing a passive role.
If this is the case, what is the evolutionary explanation for it? One reason could be that sexually assertive women tend to orgasm more frequently (Hurlbert, 1985). Orgasm in females is theorized to be an adaptation for them selecting which mate’s semen fertilizes her ova. The muscles activated in female orgasm suck semen further inside the woman and increase likelihood of pregnancy. This is advantageous for females because it allows them to get resources from multiple males in exchange for sex while allowing them to select the male with the best genes to impregnate them via orgasm. Because sexually assertive women tend to orgasm more frequently, males would be more aroused by their assertive sexual behavior because it increases their chances to impregnate the female. Also, from the male's perspective it means that the female is not copulating with them just in exchange for resources but also for reproduction.
Not only do sexually assertive females orgasm more frequently, but they also tend to have a higher sex drive than non-sexually assertive females (Hurlbert, 1985). Because both men and women prefer high sex drive more in a short-term mating partner as compared to a long-term partner, (Regan et. al., 2000) assertive females can benefit from short term mating more than their passive counterparts. The sexually assertive female feeds into the fulfillment of the primary male fantasy (reproducing with numerous females with little commitment to the offspring) thus making these females in the male's eyes particularly attractive. Sexually assertive females offer a higher chance of pregnancy via orgasm and they are less likely to want commitment from the male because they are more likely to be looking for a short-term relationship.
While it is the case that many females prefer seeking long term relationships, and a sexually assertive strategy does not work as well for keeping a mate in that case (assuming that being sexually assertive means that sex is less likely to be used as leverage), contemporary western society is undergoing a shift towards more short-term relationships. It is common knowledge that divorce rates are increasing and that many individuals re-marry. Moreover with the plethora of economic issues, many people do not have the time or money that a long term relationship requires. Perhaps we are mismatched with our society today, and should not look down on sexually assertive females, as it is not only attractive and beneficial but may be an adaptation that can better handle the advent of post-modern society. This however does not mean that long term relationships should be avoided, just that their costs should be recognized and that perhaps short-term relationships will become more viable in the near future.
References
Hurlbert, D. F., (1991). The role of assertiveness in female sexuality: a comparative study between sexually assertive and sexually nonassertive women. Journal of Sex and Martial Therapy, 17(3). doi:10.1080/00926239108404342
Sirkin, M. I., Mosher, D. L. (1985). Guided imagery of female sexual assertiveness: turn on or turn off? Journal of Sex and Martial Therapy, 11(1). doi:10.1080/00926238508405957
Regan, P. C., Levin, L., Sprecher, S., Chistopher, F. S., Cate, R. (2000). Partner preference: what characteristics do men and women desire in their short-term sexual and long term romantic partners? Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 12(3).

Male Direct and Female Indirect Mating Efforts 

Chris Kelleher

added 4/24/2012

Figure 1. A male's direct courting effort.

Figure 2. A female's flirtatious glance, indirect mating effort.

        Deciding whom to mate with is one of the most important decisions a person can endure throughout their lifetime. In today’s modern era of densely populated cities and technological dating platforms, it is becoming increasingly easier to find a mate. However, the ancient issues of mating decisions are still as prevalent as they were in the ancestral environment. Long term mating issues from the perspective of a male concern his assessment of female health, fertility and fidelity. Long term mating issues from the perspective of the female concern her assessment of his health and his ability to provide resources for her children (La Cerra, 1994). The female will be especially careful to select the right mate, as reproduction is extremely costly for the childbearing mother. In order to reproduce, a person must first engage, or attract a target mate through the act of courtship, where common attraction and sexual intentions are established.
        Research has found that males and females employ different types of courtship behaviors in attracting a potential mate. Like a male peacock strutting his feathers to females in his near proximity, human males engage in direct courting efforts when attracting a female, such as walking right up to a woman and asking her for her phone number (Farrell, 1986). Conversely, females are less obvious, and utilize indirect acts of courtship when attracting a mate, such as caressing her hair or shoulder (Moore, 1995).
Males typically utilize direct proposals when courting a female (such as asking her, “may I buy you a drink?”), while females will occasionally utilize indirect or non-verbal flirtatious behavior (such as a flirtatious glance) to facilitate a male’s approach to her. The direct proposal by males has been termed a “risky initiative” (Farrell, 1986), due to the possibility of rejection associated with approaching someone of mating interest. Despite its riskiness, a direct proposal conveys confidence, sociability, and boldness. In ancestral times when amiability and self-assurance was (and still is) a major component of living amongst others, females should value males who are sociable and assertive with others (Buss, 1989).
        Females have traditionally been depicted as the receivers of direct male mating efforts. However, researchers have investigated the indirect, non-verbal flirtatious behavior females engage in to facilitate and encourage male mating efforts, referred to as “proceptive signaling” (Moore, 1995). Females engage males by utilizing a proceptive signal: stroking their hair, giving a seductive glance, tossing their hair or some other indirect strategy, but refrain by all means approaching the male target directly. Indirect mating behavior communicates a level of docility and coyness (or at least an inability to meet many mates!) (Berger, 1989). In ancestral times when faithfulness was (and still is) highly valued by males, males should value females who appear high in fidelity in order to raise confidence in paternal investments (Buss, 1989).
        Do females always use indirect mating efforts while males stick to direct acts of courtship? For the most part yes, however, females have been observed to approach a male target directly if he is of exceptional mating value (he is very attractive or has an abundance of resources, etc.) (de Lope & Moller, 1993). An example of a male of this status could be compared to the actor Brad Pitt: has an abundance of resources due to his lucrative job, and is conventionally attractive (at least for another fifteen years willing he does not age too rapidly). However, just as it is wise not to sleep with a male on the first date, females should more than often withhold from making the first direct act of courtship due to males questioning how many other males she is capable of approaching. As for males, the best opportunity to approach a potential mate coincides with when a target mate elicits some type of proceptive behavior. Otherwise, directly approaching a target is usually an all or nothing strategy.
        The exceptions to these mating strategies are minimal as they are evolutionary stable strategies used by millions of couples each year! The different mating strategies work for the separate sexes because they are a reflection of the person, males as bold initiators and females as loyal subjects of brave mating efforts. Will these strategies prolong through the years to come with males and females exchanging gender roles more so than in the past? Despite women demanding equal treatment in the United States during the women’s rights movement, males are still predominately the “risky initiators” of courtship and women are the recipients of such acts.

References

Berger, J. (1989). Female reproductive potential and its apparent evaluation by male
        mammals. Journal of Mammalogy. 70, 347-358.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary
        hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 12, 1-49.
de Lope, F. & Moller, P. (1993). Effort depends on the degree of ornamentation of
        their female mates. Evolution. 47, 1152-1160.
Farrell, W. T. (1986). Why men are the way they are. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Moore, M.M. (1995). Courtship signaling and adolescents: “Girls just wanna have
        fun”? The Journal of Sex Research. 32, 319-328.
La Cerra, M.M. (1994). Evolved mate preferences in women: Psychological adaptations
        for assessing a man’s willingness to invest in offspring. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 75-84.

Gender Differences on the Effects of Hooking Up

With the popularity of hooking up on college campuses becoming almost more popular than traditional dating, much research has been done focusing in on its effects. The importance is rather obvious with around 50-75% of college students reportedly hooking up within the last year (Glenn & Marquardt, 2001). To clarify hooking up is a very vague concept, researchers operationalize its definition as anywhere from passionate kissing and touching, all the way to oral sex or sexual intercourse in an uncommited relationship. This ambiguity seems to encourage the concept of hooking up as a whole in college students as there is very few future expectations.

In terms of demographics it appears as though Caucasians are significantly more likely to hook up than students of color (Owen, Rhoades, Stanley & Fincham, 2010). It is also evident that those college students with higher income parents, higher alcohol use, and more positive attitudes about hooking up are substantially more likely to participate in hooking up (Owen et al., 2010). In terms of gender, it appears as though contrary to popular belief hooking up seems to be a rather egalitarian practice with the genders, or at least the gap is narrower than expected . Ultimately while some studies have found a gender difference in the number of hook ups and the chance of choosing to hook up at all, there have been an equal amount finding insignificance (Bradshaw, Kahn, & Saville, 2010; Grello et al., 2003; Paul et al., 2000).

Although both genders may end up both having an equal chance, or even number of hook ups they are not equally as comfortable, and do not end up having the same emotional response. Studying the benefits and downsides to hooking up for both genders has been an area of great interest within the last decade. It appears as though when given the choice men and women would prefer dating to hooking up. However, women do tend to want a relational outcome more than their male counter-parts(Grello et al., 2006; Mongeau et al., 2007). Also, one of women's most common feeling in regards to their hook up is awkward(Glenn & Marquardt, 2001). This lack of comfort seems to lead to a great abundance of psychological distress which may be due to confusion about their future with those they hooked up with, a simple mismatch of expectations. Interestingly Grello's 2006 study found level of distress and hooking up have opposite interactions for each gender, as distress goes up the likelihood of hooking up goes up in women, where as in men this likelihood increases when level of distress goes down. Unfortunately this discrepancy is shown with levels of depression as it is much more prevalent in women after frequent casual sex, or hook ups, than men (Grello et al., 2006).

With all of this being said there are clear indications of the negative side effects of hooking up for women, and even potentially in men. However, how does it possibly benefit men? One of the most obvious factors is a less impactful emotional response to rejection if your attempts fail. Alcohol is frequently involved (Leck 2006), and this allows for the reduction of overall anxiety often caused by shy or unconfident males. Another glaring benefit is the overall reduction of cost associated with obtaining your goal. Males typically have mostly sexual goals serving as their motivation(Mongeau et al., 2007). If you are able to hook up with women without spending money on dates you are ultimately going to be more monetarily efficient. All and all, these studies demonstrate some possible gender differences within the realm of hook ups. While it appears a large majority of college students are actively participating in the act of hooking up, it is evident that males and females have slightly different goals for outcomes and substantially different emotional responses.

College. Your goal is to make the yellow region as large as possible. Lowering your standards is frowned upon, but not prohibited.

References
Bradshaw, C., Kahn, A. S., & Saville, B. K. (2010). To hook up or date: Which gender benefits?. Sex Roles, 62(9-10), 661-669. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9765-7
Glenn, N., & Marquardt, E. (2001). Hooking up, hanging out, and hoping for Mr. Right: College women on dating and mating today. New York: Institute for American Values.
Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P.,& Harper, M. S. (2006).No strings attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 255–267.
Grello, C. M., Welsh, D. P., Harper, M. S., & Dickson, J. W. (2003).Dating and sexual relationship trajectories and adolescent functioning. Adolescent and Family Health, 3, 103–112.
Leck, K. (2006). Correlates of minimal dating. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 549–567.
Mongeau, P. A., Jacobsen, J., & Donnerstein, C. (2007). Defining dates and first date goals: Generalizing from undergraduates to single adults. Communication Research, 34, 526–547.
Owen, J. J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Fincham, F. D. (2010). “Hooking up” among college students: Demographic and psychosocial correlates. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 39(3), 653-663. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9414-1
Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). ‘‘Hookups’’: Characteristics and correlates of college students’ spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 76–88.

4/17/12
Nonverbal Courtship Behaviors in Men and Women

Both men and women exhibit nonverbal courtship techniques in the hopes of attracting a sexual partner. Women, being the choosier sex, tend to engage in more nonverbal behaviors inviting men to approach and initiating the courtship process (Renninger et al, 2004). Men are significantly more likely to approach a woman who has given nonverbal signs she is interested (smiling, eye contact, ect). Men also engage in courtship behaviors to boost their chances of getting the green light from the woman in order to initiate contact.
Men engage in a variety of nonverbal behaviors to show off to the female in order to receive a positive nonverbal response, giving him permission to approach. Once a male has received the go ahead he is more likely to communicate his intentions and interest verbally while the female is more likely to continue using nonverbal cues giving nothing away in her verbal responses (Grammer et al, 2000). Nonverbal tactics used by men to facilitate female contact include: intrasexual touching, Space-maximization movements, open body positioning, glancing behavior, gesticulation patterns and automanipulations (Renninger et al, 2004).
Intrasexual touching refers to the touching between two people of the same sex, in this case a man touching another man. The man doing such touching tends to be the more dominant male while the males being touched are typically the most submissive unless the touch is reciprocated (Renninger et al, 2004). Men may engage in intrasexual touching to advertize their higher social status and dominance in relation to other men, a trait universally desired by women.
When competing for females men also engage in a behavior known as Space-maximization movements. Space-maximization movements are movements, or positions, that enlarge the space a man occupies, for example stretching or putting feet up on a chair. Space-maximization movements indicate the male dominance and control of the space, another trait evolutionarily beneficial to women.
In addition to indicating control and dominance over space, a man may use open body positioning, typically used by men to signal receptivity and social power. Men who engage in open body positioning signals are typically seen as, “ more potent, active, persuasive, interpersonally oriented and attractive” by women (Renninger et al, 2004).
Glancing behaviors, unlike the first three nonverbal methods, do not indicate dominance or control. Males typically engage in glancing behaviors in order to see if they have caught the attention of a woman they consider a suitable mate. Glancing behaviors involve a man actively looking around hoping to catch eye contact with an attractive female, allowing him to be given permission to approach. Both men and women consider eye contact one of the most important nonverbal signs of interest and rarely will a man approach a woman he has not made eye contact with (Renninger et al, 2004).
Gesticulation patterns (also known as hand gestures) can also be a way of getting a woman’s attention; social ranking as well as openness can be indicated by gesticulation patterning (Renninger et al, 2004). The larger the motions and gestures made by the man, the more dominance and self-assurance he exudes.
Finally, automanipulations are another method men often use to catch a woman’s attention. Automanupulation refers to the touching of oneself bringing attention to various physical attributes and can be seen in both male and female nonverbal courting. Examples of automanipulations could be playing with ones hair, touching of the neck (women) or chin (men) bringing attention to ones more notable physical features (Renninger et al, 2004). Automanupulations can also be seen as a sign of nerves (excessive hair play, lint removal, fiddling with jewelry ect) and therefore are not always a successful tactic.
Female courtship behaviors differ significantly from the males for a variety of reasons. Females have more to lose in the evolutionary game and therefore, tend to be more ambiguous about their feelings and intentions. Women tend to initiate contact less, but initiate in nonverbal courtship behaviors more, influencing the male’s courtship behavior and exerting a sense of control (Grammer et al, 2000). Females may partake in a variety of nonverbal courtship behaviors including: head akimbo (hands folded, elbows flexed, hands behind head), primping, head tossing, hair flipping, breast presentation, palm positioning, head down (indicating submission), shrugging, coy smile, legs open, the look through (looking at but no eye contact), short glancing, illustrating (hand gesturing), arm flexion (one or both arms bent), smiling and laughing (see figure 1). Some of these courtship behaviors proved to be positively correlated with female sexual interest including: primping, coy smile, the look through and the short glance (Grammer et al, 2000). Other behaviors were negatively correlated with female interest, indicating a lack of interest in the male suitor, such as head akimbo. In comparison to the positively correlated behaviors, the negatively correlated behaviors were few and rarely used; in fact women were likely to engage in verbal dialogue along with nonverbal (positive) courtship behaviors even if they had little interest in the man (Grammer et al, 2000).
One of the most powerful and frequently used courtship behaviors by women is the smile. Men rate women who smile as more attractive, friendly and open (Gueguen, 2008). Women who smile are given significantly more help, tips (waitressing) and directions, by men, than women with neutral faces. Women who smile are much more likely to receive male courtship behaviors and attention. Males are also likely to read a woman’s smile as sign of interest in him, although this is often not the case (Grammer et al, 2000).
Between male and female nonverbal courtship behaviors, the dating game becomes varied and complex. Females are more likely to initiate courtship inviting the male courtship behaviors and physical approaches. Females are more likely to ‘control’ the situation by hiding agendas and feelings while sizing up the male; they often communicate nonverbally and may even give contradictory signals. Males, on the other hand, are more likely to engage in verbal contact and are not as good as women at deciphering nonverbal cues. Men may attempt to attract a woman by exuding his dominance, showing off his social status or bringing attention to his physic, but without some sort of attention or approval from the female will not usually follow through.

CLICK ON LINK THEN CLICK TABLE ONE TO VIEW:

LINK:http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.linus.lmu.edu/science/article/pii/S1090513800000532

Table 1: Female courtship behaviors observed in phase one (first three minutes of encounter) and phase two (minutes four through ten). Source: (Grammer et al., 2000)

REFERENCES:
Lee Ann Renninger, T. Joel Wade, Karl Grammer, Getting that female glance: Patterns and consequences of male nonverbal behavior in courtship contexts, Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 25, Issue 6, November 2004, Pages 416-431, ISSN 1090-5138
Guéguen, N. (2008). THE EFFECT OF A WOMAN'S SMILE ON MEN'S COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 36(9), 1233-1236. doi:10.2224/sbp.2008.36.9.1233
Karl Grammer, Kirsten Kruck, Astrid Juette, Bernhard Fink, Non-verbal behavior as courtship signals: the role of control and choice in selecting partners, Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 21, Issue 6, November 2000, Pages 371-390, ISSN 1090-5138, 10.1016/S1090-5138(00)00053-2.

Nonverbal Behavior in Courtshipship

Contributed by: Tiffany Hunter

Humans and animals alike have been engaging in different acts of relational courtship since the beginning. In the most basic sense, human communication itself relies on more than just the words being said, but also on the nonverbal cues and body movements that either accompany the words, or that are used instead. Relational courtship rituals have an interesting dynamic in themselves, considering the patterns of two people beginning communication towards formulating an intimate companionship. When considering the nonverbal actions within those courting rituals, researchers have found that there are distinct patterns observed about what roles each sex play in nonverbal communication and how those nonverbal behaviors are then interpreted by males and females.

It is difficult to consider rituals of courtship and flirting, without any recognition to the nonverbal behaviors of the people involved in the relationship initiation. The most commonly recognized nonverbal cues that researchers have found are such, but not limited to: smiling, eye contact and gaze, subtle touching, and bodily position/posture in relation to the person of interest (Moore, 2010). Depending on the level of intent and commitment within this courtship, the intensity of those cues may be adjusted (Moore, 2010). The more frequent and intense that these cues are exhibited by someone, the higher the interest. Furthermore, there seems to be an interpreted pattern of steps that depict how fast or slow a relationship is progressing, based on the nonverbal behaviors that are being engaged.

In reviewing recent studies that have tested the significance of nonverbal communication in courtship, there was a strong emphasis on female instigation of male approach within a first encounter. While both males and females engage in nonverbal behaviors to identify their interest in another person, it is the initial gaze and/or smile from the female that assures the male he can approach her for an introduction (Gueguen, 2008). It seems as though, males reacted much more positively and confidently in their endeavors if the female provided a flirtatious smile or gaze first. Not only were men more apt to approach a woman if she provided one of those nonverbal cues, but they were also more likely to rate the attractiveness of that female higher; even higher than an already highly rated attractive female who did not project a smile in their direction(Moore, 2010).

While women may be considered the prime motivator for getting the ball rolling, there is still a factor of differentiation for decoding different nonverbal cues that both men and women need to be aware of. There is still some level of ambiguity, friendliness versus romantic, that comes with interpreting nonverbal behaviors in a potential mate. Therefore, the best way to ensure interest via nonverbal cues is for both parties to synchronize. “Synchronization then would be as a sign of mutual understanding in interactions...The amount of synchronization achieved in an interaction would thus be the indicator of compatibility between the interactants” (Grammer, Kruck & Magnusson, 1998). So, in order to assure that the nonverbal cues are a positive indicator for courtship, it would be best for parties to not only reciprocate, but possibly even mimic the nonverbal behaviors of the person of interest. Overall, it has been observed that not only are women the main initiators of nonverbal courtship, but that women have been found to be better at determining the intent of nonverbal behavior overall (Grammer, Kruck & Magnusson, 1998). Thus reiterating their ability to manipulate, and control the courtship initiation by a man.

References

Grammer, K., Kruck, K. B., & Magnusson, M. S. (1998). The courtship dance: Patterns of nonverbal synchronization in opposite-sex encounters. Journal Of Nonverbal Behavior, 22(1), 3-29.
Guéguen, N. (2008). The effect of a woman's smile on men's courtship behavior. Social Behavior And Personality, 36(9), 1233-1236
Moore, M. M. (2010). Human nonverbal courtship behavior—a brief historical review. Journal Of Sex Research, 47(2-3), 171-180.

Selectivity, Elusiveness and Playing Hard to Get: Why are they so popular in the dating world? 'Cause they work!

             Since the dawn of the courtship’s existence the advice “You’re giving it away too easy! You gotta play hard to get if you want them to stay interested,” has met the ears of eager people looking to find love. This approach to enticing the opposite sex known as playing hard to get has become a very popular phenomenon because of its significant success rate. The question is why is it so successful? Researchers have theorized that elusiveness manipulates a combination of biological, psychological and social factors in order to successfully entice a desired mate.           

              Research on playing hard to get within the animal domain is offered by Shine, Wall, Langklide and Mason (2005) who recorded the behavior of female garter snakes after hibernation, more specifically they wanted to understand why, after months of abstinence, were females of the species in such a hurry to escape their male counterparts? After considering all the biological benefits such as eating well before taking on gestation and avoiding harassment from an onslaught of suitors, the theory that the snakes were leading males on a chase in order to test their persistence and ability to survive was offered as a plausible reason. The study provided no data to answer the question of what reproductive value elusiveness attains, if any. However, the primary concern of this chapter is not of animal tendencies but with exploring the patterns of human male and female interaction. Yet, the research laid out by Shine et al. (2005) relates in its yearning to unearth the emergence of the "hard to get" phenomenon as a popular technique for acquiring a mate.          

           Eastwick, Finkel, Mochon and Ariely (2007) and Hackendale (2008) offer the most valid research regarding the use of elusiveness among the human dating population. The conclusions of each study agree that a certain level of selectivity, appearing friendly to many but romantic to few, will most likely result in achieving a desired partner, yet they differ in their reasoning as to why. In their study, Eastwick et al. (2007) observed multiple speed-dating sessions with 156 undergraduate college students and collected data through a scaled questionnaire that assessed romantic interest and perceived selectivity in the other participants. Researchers theorized that the relationship between interest and perceived selectivity would reveal that signs of selectivity are attractive in a potential romantic partner. Results confirmed their hypothesis, the most attractive daters as rated by other participants were those whose received the most second date requests yet gave out very few requests themselves. Hackendale (2008) dubs this type of person as “selectively hard-to-get” and likewise states that they are the most desirable person in the realm of courtship.          

             Hackendale reaches this conclusion through careful analysis of widely accepted biological, psychological and social trends through the lens of playing hard to get; concluding that a game of chase between the sexes during human interaction is an effective mean for sparking romance. Make note, however, that throughout her paper Hackendale sees this phenomenon in a linear fashion with females existing only as the object of pursuit and males always doing the chasing. Eastwick et al. (2007) acknowledged that playing hard to get goes both ways, future research should explore the true nature of this relationship. However, Hackendale’s literary search provides a multitude of evidence for why women play hard to get and why men comply.         

            Hackendale (2008) provides psychological and social concepts that reasonably explain the effectiveness of playing hard to get. Looking through the lens of Darwin’s theory of evolution, she explains that having valuable resources heightens your reproductive value that allows for choosiness in picking a partner. So if you appear selective, then you must have desirable resources that will favor your offspring’s survival. Another theory, the theory of social desirability, provides that the feeling of confidence gained after acquiring a popular mate is worth the chase and that popularity indicates that the mate has a certain quality worth possessing. Hackendale provides two examples from previous studies. A particular study tested participant’s perceived interest in cookies that were quickly disappearing for one of two reasons. The cookies were rated as most appealing when they were diminishing due to popularity as compared when they vanished for no reason at all. A different study involved a staged job interview; it found that potential employers reported significant interest in applicants who told them they had received generous job offers from some of the employers’ competitors. Other than this fact, there were no differences between what applicants in each group said during their interview highlighting a relationship between social desirability and elusiveness.          

             Have you ever had the need to acquire something because you feel your freedom is compromised when you are told you can’t have it? Well that is the reasoning Hackendale (2008) provides for psychological reactance playing a role in elusiveness. When a suitor feels that their lady of pursuit has denied him a chance to mate with her, he feels his free will to attempt to mate with whomever has been compromised and is therefore motivated ever more highly to achieve that goal. According to Hackendale, if a male expends a lot of energy towards enticing a female, he may determine in retrospect that all this expired effort must be a result of the female possessing a lot value; regardless of whether or not she actually has any. This retrospective assertion that energy equals value is known as Brehm’s motivation. Also discussed is the balance theory, it asserts that liking someone and not having this feeling reciprocated causes bodily stress. Subsequently any attention, especially any type of sexual reward, offered by the desired person will relieve the pursuer of their stress leading them to want more. The person will mistakenly see any of these encounters as intimate due to its biological satisfaction, therefore giving significant power to the desired partner.          

            Furthermore, Hackendale (2008) explains that in general pursuers don’t give up and decide that the object of pursuit just isn’t interested because it would do too much damage to their ego. Instead a pursuer will convince themselves that the object is worthy for one of the afformentioned reasons (balance theory, Brehm’s motivation etc.). This process is called cognitive dissonance and can be looked at as self-trickery or determination depending on whether or not the object is acquired (please disregard the word “object” as a descriptor for humans to convey a certain belief of mine, it is instead the simplest way to describe them in game of courtship).  Research by Hackendale (2008) and Eastwick et al. (2007) took different approaches to studying the elusiveness phenomenon but reached similar conclusions. In the human dating game those who appear selectively hard to get become the most desirable. As Eastwick et al. explain this type of person comes across to possible suitors as being platonically generalized (friends with many) but romantically dyadic (intimate with few).                          Animals and humans alike use a game of chase during their search for a mate. Unique to humans is the component of love and free will that seems to strengthen the argument for the success of elusiveness when performed correctly. Research finds that playing hard to get, but not too an extreme, is a beneficial strategy because it helps the object of pursuit determine survival fitness and illicit love from its pursuer. Hence if you look in popular men’s and women’s magazines such as Maxim and Cosmopolitan, you’ll see dating advice telling each sex respectively to play hard to get, does this occasionally lead to a stalemate in the game of dating? Only future research will find out. These results also suggest that there is a fine line between stalking and playing hard to get when distinguishing between hard to get and uninterested is unclear. This could lead to grave consequences for humans while for animals it is just unappreciated (and usually goes without punishment). How humans should determine which is which and who is accountable for stopping the game when it goes too far are questions that researchers have yet to observe.

References

1.          Eastwick, P.W., Finkel, E.J., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2007). Selective versus unselective romantic desire: not all reciprocity is created equal. Psychological Science, '18(4), Retrieved from http://pss.sagepub.com/content/18/4/317. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01897.x
2.         Hackendale, Haley. (2008). Playing hard-to-get. USC Annenberg School for Communication, Retrieved from http://www.haleyhackendale.com/pdf/COMM_304_PAPER_2.pdf
3.         Shine, R., Wall, M., Langklide, T., & Mason, R. (2005). Do female garter snakes evade males to avoid harassment or to enhance mate quality? The American Naturalist, 165(6), Retrieved from http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/354.pdf

Graphics

1.  T1.medium.gif

(See reference No. 1)

2.  Salami.jpg

3.  rman2510l.jpg

4.  rde4220l.jpg

5. SinceIphone2-300x146.jpg

Additional Resources

1.  Does playing hard to get work? -Psyblog

(http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/03/does-playing-hard-to-get-work.php)

2.  How to Play Hard to Get -wikiHow

(http://www.wikihow.com/Play-Hard-to-Get)

3.  Playing Hard to Get Can Help You Get the Girl -Thriving101

(http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/thriving101/201102/playing-hard-get-can-help-you-get-the-girl)

4.  Dating & Relationships Advice : Playing Hard to Get -YouTube

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRQMAXO-h6Y&feature=)

Humor as a Male Technique in Sexual Selection

Humor serves as a useful tool in both initiating and maintaining romantic relationships (McGee & Shevlin, 2009). As a result, researchers suggest that humor is a trait of sexual selection because it helps individuals find mates in order to pass genes onto following generations. Similar to how the peacock’s extravagant tail has evolved over time to signify good genes to potential mates, the human brain has evolved traits, such as humor, to signify good genes to potential mates as well. Across cultures, general intelligence is one of the most desired traits that individuals seek in mates. Humor is an honest sign of intelligence because it requires wit and quick thinking to be effective and it is hard to fake. Thus, humor seems to be a by-product of general intelligence that has developed over time for the purpose of making one’s self more desirable in the process of sexual selection (Greengross & Miller, 2011).

Humor only seems to be useful for attracting mates when displayed by men. In fact, research shows that humor increases the desirability of men but not the desirability of women (Li et al. 2009). Cross-cultural surveys show that women tend to rate humor as a top priority in their potential male mates, while men do not rate this trait high in importance. Men actually rate physical traits much higher in importance than personality and intelligence traits like humor. Due to the fact that women prefer men who are humorous, such men have been successful in gaining mates and consequently, the male brain has evolved over time to display humor more often as a strategy. As the theory of sexual selection predicts, men use humor as a sexual selection strategy because it has proved over evolutionary time to yield good outcomes for men. This explains why men often display humor in initiating relationships but women do not; this is not an advantageous strategy for women in courtship simply because men are not looking it (Li et al. 2009).

Recent findings also explain that men use “other-deprecating” humor much more often than women do. That is, men are more likely to make humorous comments about other men and point to other men’s flaws for a good joke. This finding is significant because it falls in line with the theory of sexual selection, specifically, intrasexual competition. In species like ours, in which women are choosy and men display their good qualities for the purpose of being chosen, competition among males undoubtedly arises. Humor has proven to be an effective strategy for men in this intrasexual competition. Furthermore, other-deprecating humor seems to be more advantageous in gaining a woman’s attention with the possibility of initiating courtship. Self-deprecating humor, on the other hand, only seems to be advantageous for men of high status who can afford to point out their own shortcomings (Greengross & Miller, 2008). Just as men have evolved this strategy of using humor, women have evolved a strategy to carefully evaluate humor and therefore, to infer more from even subtle humorous displays. As the greater investing sex, women are at greater risk in mate selection, which is why they are more sensitive to desirable traits. Women are also more likely to notice and appreciate humorous displays by men and men are more likely to notice women who appreciate their humor (Wilbur & Campbell, 2011).

Wilbur and Campbell (2011) studied online dating websites and reported that women’s evaluations of humor in men, whether positive or negative, are predictive of their interest in men as romantic partners. In addition, when not attracted to a member of the opposite sex, both men and women are less likely to initiate humor and instead are more likely to simply converse with that individual. Initial attraction is also important in courtship to the extent that it leads an individual to rate a member of the opposite sex more positively and perceive them as more humorous from the beginning (Li et al., 2009). This supports the notion that while humor is certainly a desirable trait, it is desirable because the female brain has evolved to assume that it correlates with other positive traits. Women in the study who explicitly indicated on their dating profiles that they were looking for an intelligent man were also likely to view humor as a very important quality in a man as a potential mate (Wilbur & Campbell, 2011).

Another relevant study investigated how women respond to men’s sense of humor in casual social settings, like a bar. Findings suggest that in response to listening to or overhearing a man’s sense of humor, women are more open and willing to subsequent invitations and courtship advances from that man. Humorous men tend to be more favorable to women in social settings (Gueguen, 2010). Furthermore, Li et al. (2009) suggests that a man who is rated as physically unattractive by a woman will actually increase to a degree in desirability rating, by the same woman, if he displays humor. Thus, for unattractive men, humor can serve as a strategy to highlight their good genes and downplay their less fortunate ones, especially because signs of intelligence and status are important to women in a potential mates (Li et al., 2009).

Interestingly, humor is advantageous in different ways when it comes to initiating and maintaining romantic relationships. Despite the fact that physical attractiveness is extremely important for men in the short-term, this male priority shifts over time. When a relationship is established and maintained for greater periods of time, looks become less important and suitability in disposition, for example, as displayed by a woman’s sense of humor, become increasingly important to a man. Thus, in the long-term, humor is a desirable trait to both women and men (McGee & Shevlin, 2009). Finally, while humor is exclusively a successful male technique in courtship, once relationships are established, there actually exists no difference in displays of humor between men and women, indicating that in the long-term, humor is an evolved technique for both sexes (Wilbur & Campbell, 2011).            

References:

Greengross, G., & Miller, G. F. (2008). Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects of status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long-term attractiveness of self-deprecating and other-deprecating humor. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(3), 393-408.

Greengross, G., & Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males. Intelligence, 39(4), 188-192. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2011.03.006

Guéguen, N. (2010). Men's sense of humor and women's responses to courtship solicitations: An experimental field study. Psychological Reports, 107(1), 145-156. doi:10.2466/07.17.PR0.107.4.145-156

Li, N. P., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K. M., Jonason, P. K., Pasisz, D. J., & Aumer, K. (2009). An evolutionary perspective on humor: Sexual selection or interest indication?. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(7), 923-936. doi:10.1177/0146167209334786

McGee, E., & Shevlin, M. (2009). Effect of humor on interpersonal attraction and mate selection. Journal Of Psychology: Interdisciplinary And Applied, 143(1), 67-77. doi:10.3200/JRLP.143.1.67-77

Wilbur, C. J., & Campbell, L. (2011). Humor in romantic contexts: Do men participate and women evaluate?. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 918-929. doi:10.1177/0146167211405343

External Web Links:

  Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects of status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long-term attractiveness of self-deprecating and other-deprecating humor.

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=23&sid=b59a2b9d-3f56-4836-8dbe-41dd85235061%40sessionmgr115&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=psyh&AN=2008-13605-003

Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males

http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.linus.lmu.edu/science/article/pii/S0160289611000523

Men's sense of humor and women's responses to courtship solicitations: An experimental field study

http://0-www.amsciepub.com.linus.lmu.edu/doi/abs/10.2466/07.17.PR0.107.4.145-156

An evolutionary perspective on humor: Sexual selection or interest indication?

http://0-psp.sagepub.com.linus.lmu.edu/content/35/7/923.full.pdf+html

Effect of humor on interpersonal attraction and mate selection

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=13&hid=20&sid=b59a2b9d-3f56-4836-8dbe-41dd85235061%40sessionmgr115&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=psyh&AN=2008-18823-004

Humor in romantic contexts: Do men participate and women evaluate?

http://0-psp.sagepub.com.linus.lmu.edu/content/37/7/918.full.pdf+html

The Opposite of Courtship Techniques: Hooking-up and How We Lower Our Standards

<span style="color: rgb(128, 0, 128); "- Eleni Rodriguez 4/24/12 </span>

Why do women hook up with men? It does not make sense from an evolutionary perspective for women to engage in short term sexual encounters because the costs are higher than the benefits. Furthermore, when women hook up with men, they lower their standards of an ideal partner. The following studies explore the ways in which women lower their standards for a short term sexual partner.

To begin with, what is hooking up exactly? As defined by Duke University, hooking up is “the practice of engaging in a physical connection, from kissing to sex, between two willing participants.” It has also been defined as “when two people agree to engage in sexual behavior for which there is no future commitment.” Lambert et al. (2003).

In 2003, Lambert et al., completed a study examining hooking up and pluralistic ignorance among college students. Research shows that hooking up has become normative. Typically, hooking up in college involves meeting at a bar or party, alcohol consumption and agreement to engage in sexual behavior. Pluralistic ignorance is a situation in which most people privately reject a norm, but assume that everyone else accepts it. The results of this study found that nearly 80% of the participants engage in hooking up, and that both men and women were actually less comfortable with hooking up than they thought their peers were. Men and women believed other students were more comfortable with hooking up primarily because they enjoyed it, while they do it because of peer pressure. In relation to our topic, hooking up involves women lowering their standards because they settle for a commitment of just one night due to peer pressure.

In 2003, Lisker conducted a focus group on social culture in undergraduates. In studying hookup culture, Lisker found that undergraduate men and women had very different opinions about hooking up. She found that the women ideally sought out an older more “interpersonally responsive sex partner.” But when it came to the reality of the situation, women ended up hooking up with guys around campus partially because they felt they had to since they were not being asked out on dates. The women believed they were not being asked on dates because the men were lazy and because other women made it “easy” for them not to have to. The women in the study explained to the researcher, that the men had no incentive to ask them out on dates because other women would show up to parties scantily dressed, with low standards. As a result since the men set low standards, the women of the study lowered their standards to meet the men’s low standards.

When it comes to women’s ideals for romantic partners, their desires do not often fluctuate, but when it comes to hooking up, women’s standards lower. Doctor Pamela C. Regan examined women’s willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value and relationship context. She studied to what extent, people settle for certain traits and characteristics, in a short-term partner. Regan predicted that sex moderates ideal partner preferences and ideal standards. Based on evolutionary theory, men and women seek the most desirable qualities in a mate to maximize their chances of reproductive success, but what happens when it comes to hooking up?

The results of this study show, when considering a hook up partner, or a short term sexual encounter, women were unwilling to compromise on physical attractiveness, but they are willing to compromise on humor and social status. Women typically sought out an older more “interpersonally responsive sex partner.” In addition women lowered their standards for a hook up partner in terms of interpersonal skill, responsiveness and family orientation. Overall women were less compromising than men on all dimensions.

In conclusion, current research on hooking up and lowered standards shows that women lower their standards for a hook up based on different situations. For example. The women studied from Duke University lowered their standards and settled for hook up partners because they felt they were not being asked out on dates, they also felt that other women made it too easy for the men to lower their standards and as a result the women in the study lowered their standards to meet the demands of the men’s low standards. Other studies show women lower their standards for a short term sexual partner by compromising the traits they would normally look for in an ideal partner; such as interpersonal power, social status, intellect and family orientation. Rather, they settle for men who do not meet their standards.

REFERENCES: Blanton, H., & Gerrard, M. (1997). Effect of sexual motivation on the perceived riskiness of a sexual encounter: There must be fifty ways to justify a lover. Health Psychology, 16, 374-379.

Gerrard, M. (1980). Sex guilt and attitudes toward sex in sexually active and sexually inactive college co-eds. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 258-261.

Regan, P. C. (1998). What if you can't get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, (24) 1294-1303.

Tracy A. Lambert, Arnold S. Kahn and Kevin J. Apple. (2003). Pluralistic ignorance and hooking up. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 129-133

Clothing Choice and Mate Selection

Contributers: Joey Demeter and Andrew Satnick

Semester: Fall 2011

Sex As a Commodity: Female Sellers and Male Buyers
In society, females offer their sexuality as a contribution to a relationship in exchange for other resources. Insofar as this is true, female sexuality is more valued than male sexuality (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). This is seen in many aspects of society and in gender roles. The sex industry is geared mostly towards heterosexual male consumers and features female sexuality as the product. This holds true in pornography, strip clubs, and prostitution. In return, the men offer their resources to support their female counterparts. In this framework, men are seen as the buyers and women are seen as the sellers of sex. This extends beyond the sex industry to relationships in general. Females will dress to impress in an attempt to “sell” themselves to prospective males. In essence, the females are making themselves look good as a means to up the value of their sexuality in order to attract more suitors and suitors with more and/or better resources.

Research by Baumeister & Vohs, (2004) supports the idea that female sexuality is a commodity in a sexual economy. They found that this sexual “marketplace” behaved in ways similar to other marketplaces. As such, each sexual relationship is affected by the overall state of the sexual economy (the supply and demand for both female sexuality and male resources affects how these commodities are exchanged). Furthermore, each sexual relationship contributes to the overall state of the sexual economy. The value of female sexuality is subject to change based on market conditions such as the amount of competition between males to “buy” sex and competition between females to “sell” their sexuality. The value of female sexuality contributes to shaping societal values (for example, female chastity and fidelity being of high value (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). What is deemed valuable to any particular female is dependent on her condition in the marketplace (essentially her current situation in life). To some females, material goods and financial wealth could be the most valuable aspects, while others may hold social status or connections to be important. Other females may look for the men to be available and have time for parental investment or the ability to make her emotionally happy and healthy. Furthermore, females could find high quality genes valuable or some combination of all the previously listed.
In a study by Grammer, Renniger, and Fischer (2004) the researchers found that when a female was single and going to a nightclub, she dressed in tighter clothing that showed more skin. Their research suggests that, at some level, females looking for males understand how to make their sexuality appealing and raise its price. The better looking outfit, the more potential suitors the female will attract, leading to a greater opportunity to choose the best mate who has the most to offer. On the other hand, males show their resources through cars, expensive clothing, social connections, good genes etc. to offer to the female in return.
This phenomenon is not surprising when looking at it from the evolutionary perspective. Females are typically more selective about their mates than males. This is because females are risking more by having sex (9 months of pregnancy and raising offspring once they are born). Essentially, if the female gets pregnant, she is forced into contributing a high amount of parental investment. In most species females have a higher parental investment than males as a result of their slower reproductive rate. The sex that exhibits higher levels of parental investment is a commodity that the other sex competes over (Campbell, 2004). This means that in humans and most other species, males are typically in competition over females because the females must contribute high levels of parental investment once they become pregnant. This manifests itself in males vying for female sexuality. The males must have sex with and impregnate a female in order to benefit from her parental investment. The way in which males compete for female sexuality is through offering resources. As described above, resources that are considered valuable by females vary based on market conditions and the female’s individual needs and wants. A female selling her sex as a commodity will potentially have the ability to choose the best-fit mate with the best genes. By dressing in skimpier clothing, wearing make-up, and flaunting their assets, females attract more potential mates, which gives them the option to “sell” to the best genes possible or males that can offer the most/best resources.

[1]]

References
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 8(4), 339-363.
Cambell, Anne (2004). Female Competition: Causes, Constraints, Content, and Contexts. The Journal of Sex Research, 41(1),16-26.
Grammer, Karl, Renninger, LeeAnn & Fischer, Bettina (2004): Disco clothing, female sexual motivation, and relationship status: Is she dressed to impress?, Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 66-74.

Contributor: Alana Stotts

Semester: Summer 2011

Women’s choice in clothing can often indicate how they plan to attract mates. Various studies have found that the clothes a woman wears can convey her reproductive incentive, her ovulation cycle, and her economic standing. Clothes women choose to wear ultimately suggest sexuality and fertility. Women portray their reproductive status through clothing so they can find a mate that is both well off and genetically valuable.

One study by Grammer, Renninger, and Fischer (2004), argues that their results show that females are completely aware of the social significance that their clothing expresses to potential mates. Females sometimes even change their clothing styles to complement their pursuit of the right mate. Specifically, researchers found that women who wear sheer clothing are the most provocative and that sheer clothing positively correlates with having sex.

Another reason that females are determined to pick the right outfit to help attract a mate is because around the time a women ovulates, a woman’s sexual incentive increases. According to Haselton, Mortezaie, Pillsworth, Bleske-Rechek, and Frederick (2007), near the time of a woman’s ovulation, women try to appear more attractive to men. Not only do women change their style of clothing, but also changes in everyday behavior have been recorded. The closer a woman is towards ovulation, the more fertile she is, which explains why there is an increase in sexual motivation and the competitive spirit to find the perfect mate.

In a study by Harris et al. (2006), Harris and his colleagues concluded that their findings suggest female clothing does communicate a person’s status and influences how females are viewed. In accordance with these findings, Hill, Donovan, and Koyama (2004), also concluded that female clothing communicates female sexual display during times of a hurting economy. When economic conditions are less than fortunate, female clothing is much more sexual. This negative correlation during harder economic times suggests that females look for mates who are wealthy enough to provide for them and their future children. Females increase their tightness in clothing, flaunt their breasts, and even show off their waist to hip ratios to show signs of health and fertility. According to Hill and his colleagues, they believe that during harsh economic times, females dress to impress, ultimately looking for high-quality mates to reproduce with. Wealthy males are scarce during difficult economic times, so women use their sexuality and fertility to capture a man’s interest.

Studies have shown that women use their sexual assets to attract mates that are well off and have good genetics. A woman’s sexual incentive can often be portrayed through her outfit choices. These outfit selections are fueled by a woman’s ovulation cycle and her economic situation. Women look for men that can live up to their high economic standards and their genetic checklist. Once they have found that man, they competitively use their sexuality and fertility through clothing to display a desirable and healthy woman that is ready to mate.

References

Grammer, K., Renninger, L. A., & Fischer, B. (2004). Disco clothing, female sexual motivation, and relationship status: Is she dressed to impress?, Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 66-74.

Harris, M. B., James, J., Chavez, J., Fuller, M. L., Kent, S., Massanari, C., … Walsh, F. (2006). Clothing: Communication, compliance, and choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 88-97. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1983.tb00889.x

Haselton, M. G., Mortezaie, M., Pillsworth, E. G., Bleske-Rechek, A., & Frederick, D. A. (2007). Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: Near ovulation, women dress to impress. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 40-45. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2006.07.007

Hill, R. A., Donovan, S., & Koyama, N. F. (2004). Female sexual advertisement reflects resource availability in twentieth-century UK society. Human Nature, 16, 266-277. doi: 10456767/98/$6.00=.15

After reflecting on the various evolutionary psychology principles that we have learned about, I chose to focus my paper on the various types of clothing that both men and women chose to wear. Mainly what they wear during the different times throughout their life when they wish to be noticed or chosen by the opposite sex. As I was doing some research I found that there was not simply a difference between the sexes, but rather multiple variables in play. Some of these variables are what the sex ratio is at the time, i.e. more women than men or more men than women. Another variable that affected what types of clothing women wore was whether or not they we menstruating or not. Focusing on the main topic of when men and women chose to wear there “mate attracting” clothing I found three articles that talk about the variables I just mentioned.
 As I stated above, one of the main variables in what type of clothing that we choose to wear is the sex ratio at the time. I found this to be very interesting, due to the fact that I would have initially assumed that how “flashy” your clothing was would only be determined by your sex. Thinking that women would always be wearing the brighter and more extravagant clothing. However, I found this to be wrong. In the first study entitled Evolutionary mating strategies and the consumption of clothing, by Diclemente (2002), she analyzed archival data from the United States and the United Kingdom in order to determine the sex ratio at different points in time. The sex ratio is whether or not there are more females than males or vise versa. Diclemente (2002) found that in the times when there were more females than males the females tended to dress up more than the males, “During time periods of low sex ratio (more women than men) women dressed in a more distinctive manner than men. Conversely, during time periods of high sex ratio (more men than women) the men dressed distinctively on only a few components, such as color of clothing and ornamentation of clothing” (Diclemente, 2002). She was able to discern this by looking at clothing adds/advertizements during the time period in question and comparing them to past advertisements as well as to the opposite sexes’ clothing adds. I found this to be very interesting as well as being very appropriate for the situation. In the times when it was harder to stand out due to the fact that there was more of your sex walking around, it was important to distinguish yourself from the rest of the crowd. This would give you a better chance of finding a suitable and desirable mate. 
The second study I found talks about the change in women’s perspectives about mating and clothing choice at certain times throughout their menstrual cycle. As most people would predict, women tend to buy more cosmetic and appearance related products as they draw closer to the day of ovulation. A study by Roder et al. (2009) provides evidence towards this fact, saying “Women reported feeling more attractive and desirable, increased sexual interest and appearance related styling at the days near ovulation (i.e., when conception likelihood was high) than on the other days of the menstrual cycle” (Roder et al. 2009). From an evolutionary perspective, this makes perfect sense. The two main goals of life in general are to survive and to reproduce, so it would make sense that when the chances of conception are the highest, women would want to have the highest opinion of themselves as well as desire to look the best then can in order to attract the best possible mate.

References
Brewer, G., Fink, B., Roder, S. (2009). Menstrual cycle shifts in women’s self-perception and motivation: A daily report method. Personality and Individual Differences, vol 47(6), 616-619.
Diclemente, D. F. (2002). Evolutionary mating strategies and the consumption of clothing. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The sciences and engineering, Vol 63(6-B), 2991.
Kachigan, S. K. (1990). The sexual matrix: Boy meets girl on the evolutionary scale. New York, NY, US: Radius Press. 171.

Physical Attractiveness

Contributor: Alex Cowling

Semester: Spring

Popular belief may suggest that the opinions we have about physical attractiveness are based solely on individual taste. But what is it that shapes what we like to think are our own personal sexual preferences? Science may hold the key to the root of our preferences. It would seem that sexual preference, and the traits we like about others have come to be in the same way other human traits have come to exist. Genes favorable for continued existence and procreation are passed on while traits that less strongly promote continued generations die off. The story was first told by Charles Darwin as an explanation to the variety of beak sizes found in the Gallapagos Islands. The reason for the latter remains the same: evolution.
Now an argument can be made that unlike the birds of the Gallapagos, human beings are not just biologically, instinct-driven individuals. Because of free-will and intelligent thought humans can reject biology and instead embrace a cultural-produced reversion of reality. This is the argument that nurture can shape are likes and dislikes, notions of right and wrong and feelings of what is attractive and repugnant.
In the same way biology cannot entirely control who we will be, it is also unlikely any trait is completely based on nurture. The young twin boys spotlighted in a 60 Minutes special prove this. Both boys were raised in the same home and with the same parents, acted completely different from one another. One behaved as a typical, rough and tumble young male while the other exhibited "childhood gender nonconformity," or behaved in ways generally characteristic of the opposite sex. Too young to consciously act against their nature, each boy, presumable nurtured to act freely as he so chose to, perhaps as he "naturally" is, was behaving as his biology told him to.
Revisiting the issue of notions of physical attractiveness, the question isn't the classic case of "nature versus nurture." Rather our preferences aren't based on entirely on biological desires or on what society tells us we should like. Ultimately, it's a little of both. Our feelings of physical attractiveness are results of the process of evolution, both personally and culturally. In "Cross-cultural Differences in the Perception of Female Body Shapes" researchers explain how different standards of beauty exist in different cultures of the world ultimately based on social status. That is to say in poorer countries an "attractive" woman, who seems to have a lifestyle that would support her ability to eat more than the average, was valued as more desirable. In such a culture then, a more heavy-set woman would be deemed most attractive. On the other hand, in a society like mainstream America, it is a thinner woman, not larger, who gains the title of most attractive. While opposing cultures may seem to be sending different signals, the notion of evolution still applies in each case. In a poorer country, where resources may be scarce it makes sense for a heavier woman to be more desirable because, due to her ability to stay full even in harsh living conditions, she probably has the money and means to care for children and pass on genes. Skinnier women, in this case, may be less nourished, and not particularly healthy enough to bear children and pass on any genes. In a more wealthy country, where citizens may be able to live healthier, it would make sense for a "fitter," no-so-hefty, woman to be the most attractive because in that culture she would be the most fitting to have healthy children for genes to pass on to. In both of these cases, the culture determines which sized woman is the more attractive, but again in both it is the woman who has the biology that has best evolved to bear children and pass on genes that is the most desirable.
What this means is that we really aren't the ones spear-heading our feelings of what makes a person attractive to us. Rather many perceptions of physical attractiveness are the result of adaptations and are both biologically ingrained, due to natural selection, as well as the product of early age socialization that imposes traits others unknowingly find to be the most suitable for passing on genes. While cultural cues may be the source of some standards of beauty, many standards of attractiveness are unconsciously rooted in evolution.

References:
Alibhai, Naznin & Furnham, A. (1983) Cross-cultural differences in the perception of female body shapes, Psychological Medicine , 13: 829-837
Darwin, Charles. Origin of the Species. Chapter 4-Natural Selection
Dion, Karen K. & Berscheid, Ellen. (1974). Physical Attractiveness and Peer Perception Among Children.
Sociometry, 37(1 ), 1-12 Published by: American Sociological Association
Rhodes, Gillian. (2006). The Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Beauty, Annual Review of Psychology, 57: 199-226.
The Science of Sexual Orientation-60 Minutes CBS News

       We have studied what traits mates look for in a monogamous mating system. In times when fraternal care is needed, the female can look for a good provider in a mate, just as in times the male wants complete fraternal assurance in their female companion. Facial symmetry can be a sign of attractiveness, perhaps as an evolved sign of good internal functioning. But what specifically does symmetry portray? The articles I have selected show that symmetry is a predictor of good looks. What is it about symmetry that is good looking?        Facial symmetry refers to the extent to which one half of an organisms face is the same as the other half (Little & Perrett, 2002). Much research has been done, all supporting a similar theme; symmetry is equal to good health. But in what ways? It can be a representation of an organism’s ability to cope with exogenous stress, as well as the strength of ones genes to cope and develop in changing or stressful environments (Little & Perrett, 2002). If the organisms face has stayed symmetrical through all of it’s environmental fluctuations, its genes seem to have made it through without deviating from its original plan. For example, symmetry can be an indicator of a good immune system; if the body can continue to display its traits while fluctuating and adapting to environments, it is seen as strong, and perhaps better to defend its offspring as well as pass on good genes.        According to Jones, Little, Penton-Voak, Tiddeman, Burt, and Perrett (2001), symmetry of facial feature can be a sign of good overall health. In their research they explore the ‘good gene’ explanation for the perceived attractiveness of facial symmetry. Choosing a mate with a symmetrical face could lead to direct health benefits, so our judgment of attraction has evolved to help us benefit from this correlation. Symmetry is a physical sign of good health and developmental stability (Jones, et al., 2001) that a mate can easily judge, so when choosing a mate it seems for the benefit of their offspring to chose someone with a symmetrical face. In another study done looking at physical attractiveness the relationship between attraction and symmetry were studied. It was again found that humans have evolved to continually view symmetry at attractive due to its indicator of health (Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002). Symmetry can indicate a strong ability to adapt and change to environments during development as well as a sign of genetic diversity which leads to better parasite defense (Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002), and in choosing a mate to care for ones offspring, this would seem like a benefit. It seems that adaptive health values of a symmetrical face can be what is keeping humans locked into the perception that facial symmetry is more attractive than asymmetrical traits.

References:

Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness.Current
       Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 154-158. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00190
Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2001). Facial symmetry and judgments of apparent health: Support for a 'good genes'             explanation of the attractiveness-symmetry relationship. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(6), 417-429. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(01
Little, A. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2002). Putting beauty back in the eye of the beholder. The
       Psychologist, 15(1), 28-32. Retrieved from EBSCOhos

<

Attractiveness and Cooperation

Contributor: Jenna Tioseco

Semester: Spring 2012

Trust issues. We all have them, don’t we? Willingness to cooperate with someone, and in this case with someone of the opposite sex requires trust no matter how big or small of an investment. According to several studies, cooperation amongst males and females takes into consideration the attractiveness of both oneself and the other person. In addition, self- esteem also coincides with the way in which one interacts with others.

One’s own physical attractiveness was correlated with the extent to which they trusted others. Furthermore, an attractive individual is more likely to trust others that they interact with face to face, opposed to anonymously. Smith, Debruine, Jones, Krupp, Welling, & Conway (2009) conducted a study in which trust games were utilized, in addition to variations of being able to see one’s partner. If the participant was more visible to their game partners, the more likely they would show trust to their game partners. This was positively related to their attractiveness, which was judged by a third party. This finding suggests the “halo” effect: that people assume attractive individuals are both trusting and trustworthy. People also have a tendency to treat attractive individuals better than unattractive individuals, which includes likelihood for more cooperation. This study concluded that attractive individuals are more likely to trust others when they believe that they can be seen, more so than relatively unattractive individuals. In addition, there is dependency on context in trusting behavior that reflects how others react to one's physical appearance (Smith, Debruine, Jones, Krupp, Welling, & Conway, 2009). Additional studies show that one’s own attractiveness not only effects trustworthy behavior, but also cooperative behavior.

Less attractive men were more likely to cooperate than attractive men, while women tend to cooperate regardless of appearance. In a study conducted by Takahashi, Yamagishi, Tanida, Kyonari, & Kanazawa (2006), experimental games (Prisoner’s Dilemma, Allocator Choice, Faith, and Trust Games) were tested in three laboratory experiments. All three studies showed that attractive men consistently contributed fewer resources to the pot than less attractive men. In addition, the effect of attractiveness on contribution level was weaker among women compared to men. This suggests that men are more precautious and perceive themselves to have more of an investment when it comes to resources and sharing with the opposite sex. Furthermore, less attractive men find a greater need to cooperate as a means to compensate for their lack of physical attractiveness. One’s physical appearance and attractiveness finds its basis in comparing oneself with society at large, which is also known as social comparison.
Social comparison can be described using the concept of resource-holding potential (RHP), which is a primitive self-concept that is derived from social competition (Gilbert, Price, Allan, 1995). RHP allows an estimate of fighting capacity and the probability of successfully completing a challenge or winning over competitors. Often, one will judge one’s own RHP with others’ RHP. This resource-holding potential enables us to understand certain aspects of self-esteem: the single dimension of self-esteem, in addition to the variations of self-esteem seen in society. Therefore, loss of resources, loss of mate, loss of allies, etc. are all measures of self-esteem through RHP, which conceptually dates back to primitive times (Gilbert, Price, Allan, 1995).
One’s attractiveness effects one’s self-esteem and in turn will determine whether or not one chooses to cooperate and or trust another individual, in particular, someone of the opposite sex. It has been found that attractiveness has little effect on women’s decision to cooperate; however, this is not necessarily true for men. All in all, attractiveness, cooperation, and trust are all heavily reliant on social comparison, which can be measured by RHP and essentially self-esteem.

Gilbert, P., Price, J., & Allan, S. (1995). Social comparison, social attractiveness and evolution: How might they be related?, New Ideas in Psychology, 13(2). 149-165. doi: 10.1016/0732-118X(95)00002-X

Smith, F.G., Debruine, L.M., Jones, B.C., Krupp, D., Welling, L.M., & Conway, C.A. (2009). Attractiveness qualifies the effect of observation on trusting behavior in an economic game. Evolution And Human Behavior, 30(6), 393-397. doi.10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.06.003

Stirrat, M., Gumert, M., Perrett, D., (2008). The Effect of Attractiveness on Food Sharing Preferences in Human Mating.www.epjournal.net – 2011. 9(1): 79-91

Takahashi, C., Yamagishi, T., Tanida, S., Kyonari, T., & Kanazawa, S. (2006). Attractiveness and cooperation in social exchange. www.epjournal.net – 2011. 9(1): 79-91

Male Attractiveness to Female Faces and Skin Health

Contributor:Neda Naimi

Spring 2012

When noticing the opposite sex we tend to focus our attention to their face and the health of their skin. What exactly does the skin on a face tell you about a person’s internal health? 
Hui Jing Lu and Lei Chang (2012) found that when men are looking for a short term fling they analyze the women’s body and curves, but when males are looking for a long-term relationship they focus more of their attention to their potential mates face. Lu and Chang’s article, “Automatic Attention towards Face or Body as a Function of Mating Motivation”, brought up a study by Duncan et al. whose findings showed that men noticed a change made to an attractive women’s face faster than the changes made to unattractive women’s faces. In this study, the men were presented with pictures of women whose features changed in each of the pictures. They based men’s receptive time on how attractive he found the female. It was inferred that the longer the participant of the study glanced at the picture the more attractive they found the female in the picture. With that said, “male participants took a longer time to disengage their attention from attractive female faces than they did from unattractive ones” (Lu&Chang, 2012, p. 121). We can conclude that men’s attraction is based on a women’s fertility and males can be attracted to a female just by the attractiveness in her face. With that said we can construe that her face gives signs of fertility. Hui Jing Lu and Chang (2012) make note that “The female face and body provide both overlapping and distinct assessment information for the male evaluator. The face is the best indicator of age, which represents perhaps the most important aspect of a female’s mate value…whereas the overall facial impression of femininity implies fertility maternal nurturing and warmth” (Lu & Chang, 2012 p. 122). The face is a very important body part for analysis because as women age the amount of collagen and corneocytes (Lu & Chang, 2012) excreted to the face giving the appearance of smoothness diminishes after a woman foregoes menopause and has passed the stage of fertility.


 Along with assessing health and fertility on the face, men use faces to detect personalities. This is important for men who are paternally insecure because they read their mates face to see if she is honest. If she were to be dishonest and overly friendly she may be taking part in inappropriate actions with others. Her facial structure may also determine her femininity. We know that men have large jaw bones but men analyze women’s facial structure for femininity “women have smaller jaws, lighter brow-ridges, higher cheekbones and larger foreheads than men” (Gray & Boothroyd, 2012, p. 67). The more masculine a women’s face is, the less attractive she is to the opposite sex. In “Female Facial Appearance and Health,” Alan Gray and Lynda Goothroyd also state “female facial femininity as a direct signal of health, with estrogen partially augmenting immune function. Indeed facial femininity in women has been shown to be positively correlated with other putative cues to health, such as facial symmetry and skin condition” (Gray & Boothroyd, 2012, p. 67). Estrogen is a hormone found more concentrated in females; Benedict C. Jones found that “women’s voice pitch and perceived facial femininity are both positively correlated with their average estrogen level (Fraccaro, Feinberg, DeBruine, Little, Watkins, & Jones, 2010, p. 449). This adds up; men like feminine women meaning their facial appearance is more feminine and they have higher levels of the female hormone, estrogen.


 A study done by D. I. Perrett, K.J. Lee, I. Penton-Voak, D. Rowland, S. Yoshikawa, D. M. Burt. S.P. Henzill, D. L. Castles & S. Akamatsu in “Effects of Sexual Dimorphism on Facial Attractiveness” found that feminine faces were found more attractive in both men’s and women’s faces. Males are attracted to healthy feminine female faces because they differ from masculine male faces. While women still prefer some femininity in male faces because it illustrates sensitivity in the man’s character. “For both males and females, enhancing sexual dimorphism in face shape develops cues to characteristics which, from a biological perspective, appear beneficial (that is, youth and fertility in females and dominance in males)” (Perrett et al., p. 886). Men’s masculine faces have negative attributes such as “dominance..coldness or dishonesty” which helps us understand why females are attracted to feminine faces in men as well, because the more feminine a face is, the more honest and sincere the person is. With this data we may conclude that men prefer healthy feminine faces. When it comes to long-term mating men pay more attention to their potential mate’s face than to her body. A women’s face can be an open book to her health and immunology. The more feminine and healthy the face looks, the higher the females estrogen levels are and the stronger her immune system is, making her a great candidate for the mother of your children.

This image portrays what is considered healthy skin and a healthy feminine face. Beautiful arched eyebrows, high cheekbone, narrow but defined jaw line. This is a dream long-term mate for many men.

References:

Fraccaro, P. J., Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Watkins, C. D., & Jones, B. C. (2010). Correlated        Male Preferences for Femininity in Female Faces and Voices. Retrieved from http://www.epjournal.net/wp-        content/uploads/EP08447461.pdf



Gray, A. W. & Boothroyd, L. G. (2012). Female Facial Appearance and Health. 
 Retrieved from                                http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP106677.pdf

Lu, H. J. & Chang, Lei. (2012). Automatic Attention towards Face or Body as a Function of Mating Motivation.         Retrieved from http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP10120135.pdf



Perrett, D. I., Lee, K.J., Penton-Voak, I., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., Burt, D. M., Henzill, S.P., Castles, D. L.,       & Akamatsu, S. Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness. Retrieved from                                      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6696/pdf/394884a0.pdf


Additional Articles on this topic:

http://www.everydayhealth.com/womens-health/stopping-signs-of-aging-skin.aspx
(This article discusses how skin condition and health is a sign of age)

http://www.webmd.com/healthy-beauty/ss/slideshow-skin-and-health

http://www.caring.com/articles/what-your-skin-says-about-your-health-now

http://www.self.com/health/blogs/healthyself/2012/01/breaking-out-what-your-skin-sa.html?mbid=synd_luckymag

http://www.oprah.com/health/Skin-Symptoms-that-Are-Warning-Signs-for-Health-Problems_1

Male and Female Preferences for Sport Participation

Contributor: Stephanie Lavin

Although sports have received little attention from evolutionary biologists, it is argued that the benefits of participating in sports relate to mate choice and evolutionary fitness, such as reproductive success. A sport is defined as an activity requiring direct physical competition with an opponent(s), has established procedures and rules, and defined criteria for determining victory, where outcomes are determined by physical prowess (Poliakoff, 1987). Sport is a human universal, exhibiting sex differences in participation, performance, observation, and commands the attention and resources of many people. Research shows that male sports require the skills needed for success in male-male physical competition, success in primitive hunting and warfare, champion male athletes obtaining high status and reproductive opportunities, and implications of survival importance of hunting and warfare. For instance, the relationship between hunting and sports includes chasing, hitting targets, and stalking whereas the relationship between warfare and sports is that training for war is the source of all sport. Sports are an honest indicator of male quality. In addition, females are regarded as more dependable and more ambitious if they participate in sports as opposed to non-participants (Lombardo, 2012).

According to Darwinian evolution, sports can be viewed as courtship rituals, portraying both competitive and ornamental activities, where competitiveness is due to winning being the central goal to sports, as every sport is a contest that tests the skills and abilities of the players (De Block & Dewitte, 2009). Sports also signal fitness to potential sexual rivals and to potential partners, amplifying minor differences in physical fitness into perceivable status differences, making sexual choice easier and more accurate. Just as in the costly ornamentation of the peacock’s tail in animal behavior, sports in human behavior are good indicators of physical fitness, where athletes expend effort in order to facilitate the signal receiver’s assessment of their quality (De Block & Dewitte, 2009). Therefore, the developed physical skills of sports include agility, endurance, eye-hand coordination, speed, and strength. The developed behaviors include context appropriate aggressiveness, competitiveness, and cooperativeness. The purpose of evaluating the physical abilities and behavioral tendencies of potential allies and rivals was to adapt for interaction with them in future encounters (Lombardo, 2012).

Furthermore, individuals who are successful in a sporting context are more desirable as mates. A recent study by Schulte-Hostedde, Eys, Edmond, and Buzdon (2010) examined whether perceived characteristics of others are attributed differentially based on sport participation. For instance, why females may have more favorable impressions of team sport athletes than of individual sport athletes and non-participants. Also, this study examined male perceptions of females based on sport involvement. Results show that both team and individual sport athletes were perceived as less lazy, healthier, and more competitive than non-participants. Females viewed male athletes as healthier, more confident, and more competitive relative to non-athletes. Males perceived female team sport athletes as more dependable, having better social skills, and being of a more positive disposition. Also, female athletes tend to have a lower waist to hip ratio and body mass index, which are considered attractive to males. Therefore, team sport athletes must not only compete against members of another team, but also against members of the same team to gain a relative ranking, for example, starters versus benchwarmers (Schulte-Hostedde, Eys, Edmond, & Buzdon, 2010).

Specifically, as the sexual selection theory argues, males tend to compete amongst themselves for access to mates whereas females tend to be more selective of their mates. A recent study by Schulte-Hostedde, Eys, and Johnson (2008) examined females’ preference of sport participation to assess male quality. They examined whether females will prefer team sport athletes over both individual sport athletes and non-athletes, whether males of high status will be preferred over males of low status, and whether attractive males will be preferred over less attractive males. Results show a main effect of sport involvement on female’s willingness to engage in four types of relationships (one date, short term, sexual intercourse, and long term) such that team sports are preferred over individual sports and non-sports. Results also show a main effect of status on female’s willingness to engage in these four types of relationships such that high status is preferred. Lastly, results show a main effect of physical attractiveness on female’s willingness to engage in the four types of relationships such that high attractiveness was preferred. This study indicates that overall, sport participation may be an important cue for female mate choice because males can display qualities such as physical prowess and agility, providing insight into male body condition and other phenotypic qualities. Also, team sports are preferred because these athletes exhibit behavioral traits associated with good parenting skills, cooperation, role acceptance, likeability, long-term relationships, etc. These individuals would likely be better parents and long-term mates, which attract females (Schulte-Hostedde, Eys, & Johnson, 2008).

Overall, recent studies and the evolution of sports suggest that there are male and female preferences for sport participation, where both sexes prefer those who are athletes as opposed to those who are non-participants. Sport participation indicates reproductive fitness, an honest signal of quality, status, and other such qualities relative for the decision of what kind of partner to choose. Males prefer females who are attractive, dependable, have qualities of the motherly nature, and a good waist to hip ratio for child bearing. Females prefer males who are dominant, high in status, physically fit, and have qualities of good parental investment. Therefore, sport participation provides insight into these qualities and the preference of potential mates.

References

De Block, A., & Dewitte, S. (2009). Darwinism and the cultural evolution of sports. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 52, 1-16.

Lombardo, M.P. (2012). On the evolution of sport. Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 1-28.

Poliakoff, M.B. (1987). Combat sports in the ancient world: Competition, violence, and culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Schulte-Hostedde, A.I., Eys, M.A., & Johnson, K. (2008). Female mate choice is influenced by male sport participation. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 113-124.

Schulte-Hostedde, A.I., Eys, M.A., Emond, M., & Buzdon, M. (2010). Sport participation influences perceptions of mate characteristics. Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 78-94.

Voice Pitch and Attraction

Contributor: Melissa Eldridge

Class: Spring 2011

When asked to list what one is attracted to in a mate, many mention that they desire a mate who has a solid personality, which may include being witty, respectful, motivated, and intelligent. Many also may mention that they desire a mate with good looks and a high social status. Rarely does an individual mention a desired voice pitch in his or her ideal mate. Does voice pitch really matter in attraction? Are individuals unconsciously more attracted to a certain voice pitch? The answer is yes. Research presents that due to the sexual dimorphism in human voice pitch and the evolutionary benefits of differing voice pitches for both males and females, males perceive females with more feminine voices as more attractive, and females perceive males with more masculine voices as more attractive (Collins & Missing, 2003; Feinberg et al., 2005; Jones et al., 2010; O’Connor, Re & Feinberg, 2011; Puts, Gaulin & Verdolini, 2006).

Sexual dimorphism can be defined as the differences between the male sex and the female sex—size, appearance, or phenotype—that are due to inherited genetic differences (“Sexual dimorphism”, 2011). In order to test how the sexually dimorphic difference in voice pitch affects attraction, researchers have completed many studies involving voice recordings and participant evaluation. For example, Jones et al. (2010) recorded voices of randomly selected males and females, in order to assess the sexually dimorphic pitch and tone fluctuations in males and females. The researchers of this study then had participants listen to a set of the voice recordings, for example, a single female participant listened to a set of six male voice recordings, and asked her to choose which voice they found more attractive. Results revealed that the women preferred men with lower pitched voices and viewed them as more attractive, while the men preferred women with higher pitched voices and believed that they were more attractive (Jones et al., 2010). In another study, Puts, Gaulin, and Verdolini (2006) took voice recordings of both males and females, manipulated them to create a high pitch, or highly feminized voice, and a low pitch, or highly masculinized voice. Participants were then asked which voice they thought was more attractive, and which voice was more likely to cheat on his or her partner. The results agreed with and contributed to prior studies in that women rated voices that sounded more masculine, or lower pitched, as both more attractive and more likely to cheat on their partner. Likewise, men rated voices that sounded more feminine, or higher pitched, as both more attractive and more likely to cheat on their partner (Collins & Missing, 2003; Feinberg et al., 2005; Jones et al., 2010; O’Connor, Re & Feinberg, 2011; Puts, Gaulin & Verdolini, 2006).

The male preference for higher voice pitch and the female preference for lower voice pitch is based on the unconscious and evolutionary desire to reproduce and pass on one’s genes. Men report that they associate a higher voice with higher femininity, and women report that they associate a lower voice with higher masculinity. Science reveals that higher femininity is due to higher levels of estrogen. Higher levels of estrogen are related to a female having better reproductive health and fertility. Therefore, men are attracted to women with high pitched voices because their animalistic desires and unconscious mind believe that the more feminine women will be more fit for having their baby and passing on their genes, and the same goes for women’s attraction to men with lower pitched voices (Collins & Missing, 2003; Feinberg et al., 2005; Jones et al., 2010; O’Connor, Re & Feinberg, 2011; Puts, Gaulin & Verdolini, 2006). 

Therefore, it is understood that the sexual dimorphism in human voice pitch, that is, the difference in female and male voice pitch, reflect adaptations for seeking out high quality mates (Collins, 2004; Jones et al., 2010). So next time an individual is asked what he or she is attracted to in a mate, perhaps he or she should add voice pitch and reproductive health to the list!

References

Collins, S. A., & Missing, C. (2003). Vocal and visual attractiveness are related in women. Animal Behaviour, 65(5), 997-1004. doi:  10.1006/anbe.2003.2123

Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L.M., Moore, F. R., Law Smith, M. J., Cornwell, R. E., …Perrett, D. I. (2005). The voice and face of woman:  One ornament that signals quality? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(5), 398-408. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.04.001

Jones, B. C., Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., & Vukovic, J. (2010). A domain-specific opposite-sex bias in human preferences for  manipulated voice pitch. Animal Behaviour, 79(1), 57-62. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.10.003

O’Connor, J. JM, Re, D. E., & Feinberg, D. R. (2011). Voice pitch influences perceptions of sexual infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(1), 64-78.  Retrieved from http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP09064078.pdf

Puts, D. A., Gaulin, S. J. C., & Verdolini, K. (2006). Dominance and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in human voice pitch. Evolution and Human  Behavior, 27(4), 283-296. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.11.003

Sexual dimorphism. (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/537133/sexual-dimorphism  [1]

---

Voice Pitch: A Potential Indication of Sexual Infidelity

Contributor: Caitlin Bardos

Class: Spring 2012

Among the factors of body shape, physical attractiveness, scent, and personality traits contributing to one’s desirability (or lack there of) to the opposite sex, voice pitch is yet another factor that both men and women consider when choosing a partner.

When seeking a male partner, women have demonstrated strong preferences for men with voices that are masculinized, of a lower pitch, than those voices that are feminized, of a raised pitch (Vukovic, Jones, Feinberg, DeBruine, Smith, Welling, Little, 2011). Research studies have shown that these strong preferences for masculinized over feminized voices correlate with the duration of time of the relationship the woman seeks. Since women generally ascribe physical dominance and low trustworthiness to masculine voices, masculinized voices are not always sought. According to Vukovic’s study, women demonstrated a greater desire for men with masculine voices as short-term partners rather than as long-term partners, since the history of masculinized voices has indicated low trustworthiness. Resultantly, the lowered or raised pitch of a potential male partner’s voice allows women another criterion in which to maximize their choices in mates (Vukovic et al., 2010).

Similar to women, men also subconsciously consider women’s voice pitch when determining a partner. Along with other feminine characteristics, a woman’s voice pitch correlates with her estrogen level (Fraccaro, Feinberg, DeBruine, Little, Watkins, Jones, 2010). According to the article, “Correlated Male Preferences for Femininity in Female Faces and Voices”, men have a greater preference for women with feminized voices and find this most attractive for long term rather than short term partners (Fraccaro et al., 2010).<br> However, voice pitch may tell more about someone than merely one’s desirability. According to recent research performed by Jillian O’Connor, Daniel Re, and David Feinberg (2011), voice pitch is also capable of influencing perceptions of sexual infidelity, as it may be “used as an indicator of sexual strategy in addition to underlying mate value”. Just as earlier stated within the Vukovic’s article, O’Connor, Re, and Feinberg have found that testosterone levels of masculinized voices may be positively associated with dominant qualities and high social status, ultimately determining a greater mate quality. Their research has shown that lower-pitched, masculine voices are not only found as more attractive, they are also “associated with a greater number of reported sexual partners and greater reproductive success than higher-pitched men’s voices” (O’Connor et al., 2011). Their study has further demonstrated that men with lower-pitched voices who report more sex partners are more likely to commit sexual infidelity than those with higher-pitched voices, since men with attractive voices report a higher number of extra-pair sex partners (O’Connor et al., 2011). O’Connor, Re, and Feinburg’s study has demonstrated that men with lower, masculinized voices, although deemed more attractive by women, have a greater chance of sexual infidelity. 

Deep voiced men are in no means the only group potentially guilty of sexual infidelity. O’Connor, Re, and Feinburg’s study has also found evidence to suggest that high pitched feminine voices in women may be associated with greater infidelity risks. Vocal femininity, or relatively high-pitched voice, is related to high estrogen levels and may indicate high fertility status and reproductive capability. (O’Connor et al., 2011) Naturally, a woman whose traits indicate high fertility status and reproductive capability is desirable, just as men with masculine voices are desirable as higher levels of testosterone demonstrate dominance and high status. Due to their desirability, women with feminine, higher pitched voices demonstrate a greater likelihood of adulterous behaviors, as they report more sex partners, more extra-pair sex partners, and even being chosen more often by paired men as extra-pair partners (O’Connor et al., 2011).

This is not to say that men with more masculine voices and women with more feminine voices are doomed to lifestyles of sexual infidelity. But one should most certainly take heed- your voice may reveal more about you than you think!

Paper Graphics:

1. http://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoonview.asp?catref=kmhn84

2. http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&amp;hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;sa=N&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;biw=1280&amp;bih=570&amp;tbm=isch&amp;tbnid=Uu8hs_aLFuOSNM:&amp;imgrefurl=http://www.offthemark.com/cartoons/pop%2Bstar/&amp;docid=xCvudDC-7x_0_M&amp;imgurl=http://www.offthemarkcartoons.com/cartoons/1996-03-06.gif&amp;w=240&amp;h=320&amp;ei=1aeRT7aJH6zKiAKd9P3MAw&amp;zoom=1&amp;iact=hc&amp;vpx=1049&amp;vpy=115&amp;dur=350&amp;hovh=256&amp;hovw=192&amp;tx=119&amp;ty=103&amp;sig=104210662950222367333&amp;page=1&amp;tbnh=127&amp;tbnw=95&amp;start=0&amp;ndsp=23&amp;ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0,i:83

Paper References:

Fraccaro, P. J., Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Watkins, C. D., &amp; Jones, B. C. (2010). Correlated male preferences for femininity in female faces and voices . Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 447-461.

O'Connor, J., Re, D. E., &amp; Feinberg, D. R. (2011). Voice pitch influences perceptions of sexual infidelity . Evolutionary Psychology, 9(1), 64-78.

Vukovic, J., Jones, B. C., Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., Smith, F. G., Welling, L. L., &amp; Little, A. C. (2011). Variation in perceptions of physical dominance and trustworthiness predicts individual differences in the effect of relationship context on women. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 37-48.

The Effects of Voice Pitch on Dominance and Attraction in Humans

Contributor: Alex Zolad

Semester: Spring 2011

While it is evident that there are significant differences in vocal pitch in human males and females, the exact causes remain unclear. As noted in Puts et al (2007), “pitch, the most perceptually salient feature of human voice, is about half as high in men as it is in women.” Although there is also a sexual dimorphism in terms of body size, this is not enough to explain the difference in voice pitch.

Deeper, or more “masculine,” male voices are rated by females as being more attractive, a result which is also found when voices are artificially deepened (Feinberg et al., 2006). During ovulation, this preference for masculine voices is even greater in women than normal (Feinberg et al., 2006). This perception is not only found in females, however. Males rate females who have higher pitched, and thus more feminine sounding, voices to be more attractive (Fraccaro et al., 2010). From these findings, it is hypothesized that a more masculine or feminine sounding voice (where appropriate) is a sign of good health and reproductive potential (Feinberg et al., 2006). In men, vocal pitch has been shown to be closely tied to androgen levels within the body (Puts et al., 2007). Also, women with higher estrogen levels do not shift as much in vocal preference during ovulation as do women with lower estrogen levels, suggesting that more feminine women have more success reproducing with masculine men (Feinberg et al., 2006). From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that our ancestors who mated with healthy individuals were more successful and produced more offspring. Thus, vocal pitch has evolved as a cue to determining a healthy potential mate. <br> <br>If both males and females assess potential partners based on their vocal pitch, however, why is it that male vocal characteristics differ on a far greater scale than do female vocal characteristics? During puberty, male voices drop significantly with the presence of increased testosterone, while females experience no such drastic change (Puts et al., 2007). When adaptations in a species occur in one sex but not the other, it is most likely as a result of intra-sexual competition. Lower, more masculine voices not only increase perceived attractiveness in males, but also perceived dominance by both males and females (Feinberg et al., 2006). Unlike attractiveness, however, perceived dominance does not change for females at different times during their menstrual cycle (Feinberg et al., 2006). In fact, men seem to perceive dominance in voice pitch nearly 15 times more than menstruating women perceive attractiveness from voice pitch (Puts et al., 2006). This phenomenon is often demonstrated in male to male interactions. In a study by Puts et all., “Participants who rated themselves as more physically dominant than their competitor tended to lower their pitch when speaking to him, whereas participants who rated themselves as less physically dominant on average raised their pitch when speaking to their competitor” (2006).

Among many animal species, males fight over control of females. In these situations, the males often size each other up first, whether by visually inspecting their opponent or letting out a vocalization (growl, roar etc.). If one seems to have a much higher chance at victory, often the fight will not happen and the effort need not be wasted. In humans, the vocal dominance perception between males probably evolved for this reason. Ultimately, it would seem that the sexual dimorphism in humans evolved both because of inter-sexual selection based on attraction and intra-sexual competition amongst males, since the dominant males could exert control and gain both resources and mates (Puts et al., 2006).
<br>

<br>

References

Feinberg, D.R., Jones, B.C., Smith, M.J. Law., Moore, F.R., DeBruine, L.M., Cornwell, R.E., Hillier, S.G., &amp; Perrett, D.I. (2006). Menstrual cycle, trait estrogen level, and masculinity preferences in the human voice. Hormones and Behavior, 49(2), 215-222. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2005.07.004

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B6WGC-4GSBFN3-1&amp;_user=945462&amp;_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2006&amp;_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_orig=gateway&amp;_origin=gateway&amp;_sort=d&amp;_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;_acct=C000048964&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=945462&amp;md5=878977f4082a4e58de384dd1e0777692&amp;searchtype=a

Fraccaro, Paul J., Feinberg, David R., DeBruine, Lisa M., Little, Anthony C., Watkins, Christopher D., Jones, Benedict C. (2010). Correlated male preferences for femininity in female faces and voices. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 447-461.

http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP09064078.pdf

Puts, David Andrew., Gaulin, Steven J.C., &amp; Verdolini, Katherine. (2006). Dominance and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in human voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(4), 283-296. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.11.003

http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.linus.lmu.edu/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B6T6H-4J4HKFR-3&amp;_user=945462&amp;_coverDate=07%2F31%2F2006&amp;_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_orig=gateway&amp;_origin=gateway&amp;_sort=d&amp;_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;_acct=C000048964&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=945462&amp;md5=cb77c65b8fef11758496910fba254e87&amp;searchtype=a

Puts, David Andrew., Hodges, Carolyn R., Cardenas, Rodrigo A., &amp; Gaulin Steven J.C. (2007). Men’s voices as dominance signals: vocal fundamental and formant frequencies influence dominance attributions among men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(5), 340-344. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.05.002

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B6T6H-4P3M2CW-2&amp;_user=945462&amp;_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2007&amp;_rdoc=1&amp;_fmt=high&amp;_orig=gateway&amp;_origin=gateway&amp;_sort=d&amp;_docanchor=&amp;view=c&amp;_acct=C000048964&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=945462&amp;md5=9349aa257310604bb98c8bce9835f61a&amp;searchtype=a

---

Voice Pitch
<br>

<span style="color: rgb(0,102,51)">Based on the evolutionary theory, feminized or masculinized voice pitch has been seen to be an attractive trait when seeking a mate. Voice pitch is positively associated to men and women’s testosterone and estrogen level respectively. Masculine voice pitch can have a positive and negative value for a female. As we have learned females seek partners with good genes, and masculine voice pitch indicates high testosterone level, high status, and long-term health. Masculine characteristics such as these are important for mating strategies and reproductive success. Men with low-pitch voices are perceived by women as more attractive than men with high-pitch voices. As a result, men with low-pitch voices are more interested in short-term relationships than long-term relationships, which lead to potential problems of marital infidelity (Behavioral Ecology, 2010). In a study of the Hadza hunter gatherers of Tanzania, on average, men with lower-pitch voices fathered an average of two more children than those with higher voice pitch (Apicella, Feinberg &amp; Marlowe, 2007). Given that high testosterone level is related to high sexual libido, as anthropologist David Puts explains, the Hadza men with low pitch voices had higher sperm quality which enabled them to father more children (Apicella, Feinberg &amp; Marlowe, 2007). </span>

<span style="color: rgb(0,102,51)"></span>

<br>

<span style="color: rgb(0,102,51)">Similarly, high-pitch voices in women indicate higher levels of estrogen. Estrogen has been attributed to signs of fertility status and reproductive capability (O’Connor, Re, &amp; Feinberg, 2011). As a result, women with high-pitch voices are more attractive to males compared to women with low-pitched voices and lower levels of estrogen. Women who are perceived as more attractive seek counterparts with a similar level of attractiveness. Women’s voice pitch is positively associated with the perceived femininity of their voice and face (Vukovic et al., 2010). Consequently, a woman’s self-rated attractiveness is positively correlated with her preference for a more masculine male voice compared to a more feminine male voice. In particular, researchers found that women’s average voice pitch was only positively correlated with their preference for masculinized voices in positively valenced speech such as “I really like you.” In addition, it has been found that women show higher preferences for masculine men during the most fertile period of their menstrual cycle compared to other times. Women’s voice pitch may be higher at this time (Vukovic et al., 2010). </span>

<span style="color: rgb(0,102,51)">In a recent study by O’Connor et al. (2011), the researchers examined sexual dimorphism of male and female voice pitch in relation to infidelity. Results showed men associated higher infidelity risk with feminine female voices; however, when women were asked to rate female voices, they did not associate high pitch female voices with infidelity risk. When females rated male voices, they associated low-pitch male voices to a higher infidelity risk, but males did not rate other males similarly.</span><span style="color: rgb(51,153,102)"> </span>

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>Apicella CL, Feinberg DR, Marlowe FW. (2007). Voice pitch predicts reproductive success in male hunter-gatherers. Biol Lett. 3:682–684.<br>

Khamsi, R. (2007, September 2). Deep-voiced men father more children.&nbsp;New Scientist, 16(50).&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; Retrieved from&nbsp;http://www.newscientist.com/<br>

O’Connor, J, Re, D, Feinberg, D (2011). Voice pitch influences perceptions of sexual infidelity.&nbsp;Evolutionary Psychology, (9)1, 64-78.<br>

Rochman, B. (2011, March 7). Can you mate's voice be a clue to potential cheating?&nbsp;Time. Retrieved from&nbsp;http://healthland.time.com<br>

Vukovic, J., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L., Feinberg, D. R., Smith, F. G., Little, A. C., &amp; ... Main, J. (2010). Women's own voice pitch predicts their preferences &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;for masculinity in men's voices.&nbsp;Behavioral Ecology, 21(4), 767-772. doi:10.1093/beheco/arq051<br><br>

==== Physical Attractiveness ====

Topic: Leg to Body Ratio as a Factor of Attractiveness
Contributor: Brittany Myers
Class: Psych 452, Fall 2010
There are many factors that contribute to an individual’s physical attractiveness. Most of the research conducted in this area has been in regards to facial attractiveness rather than the perceived attractiveness of the body. However, research shows that the length of an individual’s legs also plays an important part in how attractive and individual is perceived to be. There are multiple references in society to long legs being attractive in females. Bertamini and Bennett (2009) conducted a study in which they had participants judge the attractiveness of stick figures with varying leg lengths in an effort to determine if this popular belief is indeed true. Unlike this study, conducted with stick figures, most studies conducted on leg to body ratios use either pictures of real men and women with varying leg lengths, or silhouettes of male or female bodies with varying leg lengths. Bertamini and Bennett's (2009) use of stick figures eliminated other possible variables that might contribute to attractiveness. The size of the head, the length of the legs, and the smile on the face of the stick figure were the only factors that varied throughout the study. Findings showed that smiley stimuli were seen as more attractive than non-smiley stimuli, stick figures with smaller heads were seen as more attractive than stick figures with larger heads, and stick figures with longer legs were more preferred by men. “For both men and women the effect of leg to torso ratio was stronger when the stick figures were described as females” (Bertamini & Bennett, 2009). This supports the popularly held belief that females with longer legs are more attractive. In the second part of the study, participants were asked to draw stick figures that they considered to be the most attractive. “Higher values of leg to torso ratio were drawn for the female stick figures (1.67) compared to the male stick figures (1.37)” (Bertamini & Bennett, 2009). Once again, these findings confirm the popular belief that females are more attractive if they have longer legs. The study also found no evidence that shorter leg length was preferred in the male stick figures that the participants drew. Although there is not much support for the hypothesis that longer leg length would be preferred in males, it is clear that longer leg length is preferred for women.
Sorokoswki and Pawlowski (2007) conducted another study regarding adaptive preferences for leg length while looking for a potential partner. Participants were shown seven different pictures of a man and seven different pictures of a female. Leg length was varied by elongating or shortening the legs of the individuals in the photographs. Findings showed that men and women were perceived as less attractive with shorter legs. Longer legs were found as more attractive only for the slight (5%) leg increase (Sorokowski & Pawlowski, 2007). These findings support the popular belief that women with longer legs are seen as more attractive than women with shorter legs. However, because the study used photographs of actual men and women, other variables could have affected the participants' judgments. http://leisureguy.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/long-legs.jpg?w=470
When judging women, both males and females preferred a higher leg to body ratio, and when judging men, both preferred a lower leg to body ratio (Swami, Einon, and Furnham, 2006). Looking at this from an evolutionary perspective, Swami et al. (2006) suggest that “there may have been an association between having higher leg to body ratio in women and reproductive success because of a potential correlation between leg to body ratio and wider pelvises.” It is possible that small leg to body ratios could be associated with bad genes, poor reproductive ability, and bad health. “Short and/or excessively long legs might indicate maladaptive biological conditions such as genetic diseases, health problems, or weak immune responses to adverse environmental factors acting during childhood and adolescence” (Sorokowski & Pawlowski, 2007). Short legs in women could be a sign of lower reproductive capabilities, seeing as how having a higher leg to body ratio is positively associated with offspring birthweight (Sorokowski & Pawlowski, 2007). Higher leg to body ratio is also a sign of stable childhood development and current well being. “Longer leg length relative to the torso is associated with various life outcomes including reduced risk of coronary heart disease, diabetes resistance, low blood pressure, better cardiovascular profiles, lower adult mortality, and reduced risk of cancer” (Swami, Einon, & Furnham, 2006). If these theories hold true, when looking for a life long partner, it might be in the person's best interest to look for individuals with longer legs. By looking for a partner with longer legs, an individual might be able to produce healthier children that are more likely to pass on their genes successfully. Something else to take into consideration is that over time a higher leg to body ratio could come to be associated more with femininity, and a lower leg to body ratio could come to be associated more with masculinity. Further research must be done on the issue.
References: Bertamini, M. & Bennet, K. M. (2009). The effect of leg length on perceived attractiveness of simplified stimuli. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 3(3), 233-250. Sorokowski, P. & Pawlowski, B. (2008). Adaptive preferences for leg length in a potential partner. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 86-91. Swami, V., Einon, D., & Furnham, A. (2006). The leg to body ratio as a human aesthetic criterion. Body Image, 3, 317-323.
Relevant Websites:
Leg Length to Height Ratio and Attractiveness: http://www.femininebeauty.info/leg-body-ratio
Why Men and Women Find Longer Legs More Attractive: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jan/17/humanbehaviour.psychology
People Find Longer Legs More Attractive: http://www.body-philosophy.net/People_Find_Longer_Legs_More_Attractive?newsletter=true
Study: Men, Women Love Longer Legs: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=4147924



----

Topic: Female Waist to Hip Ratio and Breast Size as Determinants of Male Attraction
Contributor: Samantha Godfrey Class: PSYC 310, Spring 2011 [[Image:|Image:Sam-jessica rabbit.jpg]]

         The hourglass shape: large breasts, a slim waist, and full hips. Why is it that many males seem to prefer larger breasts and a noticeable waist to hip ratio in women? A significant amount of research has been done on this topic, indicating a variety of reasons for male attraction to this particular body shape.                      According to evolutionary psychology, it is obvious that males will be attracted to females who appear to have high reproductive value. Furhnam, Swami, & Shah (2006) conducted a study in which participants were shown 36 drawings of females with varying waist to hip ratios, breast sizes, and body weights. After viewing the drawings, participants were asked to rate them. The results indicated that participants preferred the drawings with significant waist to hip ratios and large breasts. These attributes are linked to high reproductive value and therefore, it seems males would be more attracted to females in which these features are more pronounced. 

mage:|Image:Sam-waist to hip ratio.jpg            

Furnham, Swami, Shah (2006).            Lynn(2008) recognizes that studies which attempt to measure the physical attractiveness of females using line drawings may not be as entirely accurate as those which involve 3 dimensional figures or self report measures. He conducted a study in which female waitresses completed an online survey asking them to rate their attractiveness. The results of this study indicated that females found themselves to be more attractive if they had larger breasts and a generally small waist to hip ratio. Also, he found that the older the women were, the less attractive they rated themselves. This research suggests that women feel more attractive when they possess attributes that signal health and fertility to those around them, especially males. Lynn also states, “The results of this study also indicated that waitresses in their 30’s and those with large breasts, blond hair, and/or slender bodies received larger average tips than their counterparts without these characteristics. (2008).                    Dixon, Dixon, Grimshaw, & Linklater (2009) conducted a study in which males were shown a photograph of nude woman whose waist to hip ratio and breast size were altered using Photoshop. There were 6 images in total. Each participants’ eye movements were tracked as the images were presented to them. After they viewed the images, they were asked to rate the attractiveness of each image using a 6 point Likert scale. The results indicated that, “Men spent consistently more time looking at the breasts of front-posed female images and also made significantly more fixations uponthe breasts than other regions of the body or head”(Dixon et al 2009). This research suggests that males prefer female characteristics that indicate fertility and health. Guegen (2007) conducted an experiment in which a young female confederate stood on the side of the road in France as a hitchhiker. After every few motorists drove by, her cup size was increased or decreased using latex inserts. The results of this study indicated that male motorists were more likely to stop for the confederate when she appeared to have larger breasts. Therefore, it appears that some males seem to favor moderately large breasts as a determinant of their attraction to females.             According to this research, it appears that significant waist to hip ratios and moderately large breasts do serve as a determinants of male attraction to females. Further research should be conducted on this subject. Further research might focus on other factors that could possibly be determinants of male attraction, such as facial features, leg length, and even hair length.

Reference Dixson, Barnaby; Dixson, Alan; Grimshaw, Gina, M., & Linklater, Wayne L. (2009). Eye-Tracking of Men’s Preferences for Waist-to-Hip Ratio and Breast Size of Women, Arch Sex Behav (2011) 40:43–50 DOI 10.1007/s10508-009-9523-5 Furnham, Adrian; Swami, Viren; Shah, Krupa. Body Weight, Waist to Hip Ratio and Breast Size Correlates of Ratings of Attractiveness and Health.Personality and Individual Differences, Vol 41(3), Aug, 2006. pp. 443-454. Lynn, Michael; Determinants and consequences of physical attractiveness and sexiness: Realistic Tests with Restaurant Waitresses.Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol 38(5), Oct, 2009. pp. 737-745. Guéguen, Nicolas.  Bust size and hitchhiking: a field study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol 105(3, Pt 2), Dec, 2007. pp. 1294-1298.

----
Topic: Olfactory Cues in Courtship and the Possibility of Human Sex Pheromones

Contributor: Rebecca Wheatman

Class: Psyc 310, Spring 2011

The importance of the human sense of smell has been overlooked in the past. This is because, like other primates, humans have been regarded as largely visual animals with a fairly weak sense of smell (Grammer, Fink, Neave 2005). However, an accessory olfactory system in humans has recently been discovered. This discovery has spawned considerable scientific interest on the effect of olfactory cues in human communication. Several studies have shown that humans do indeed use subtle olfactory communication and may even be able to produce and perceive some pheromones (Grammer et al. 2005). Pheromones are “chemical signals that pass between organisms of the same species that have an inherent communicatory function” (Pheromones 2004). These chemical signals most likely evolved from the earliest life forms on earth and persist as a primary means of communication for many species (Pheromones 2004).

Despite studies providing evidence to the presence of olfactory cues in humans, little is known about the biochemistry of pheromones in most vertebrates. This means that the existence of pheromones in humans is still under debate in the scientific community. The inability to distinguish the chemical nature of pheromones is due to the fact that they often consist of mixtures of many common compounds with many different, sometimes unrelated functions. The definitive characteristic of such pheromones is not their chemical identity or specific purpose, but the ability of other members of the same species to recognize and respond to them (Pheromones 2004).

Olfactory cues play a large role in finding a suitable mate for many mammals, including humans. For example, a male dog can detect a bitch (female dog) in heat from nearly a kilometer away because of her scent (Pheromones 2004). In humans, non-pheromone olfactory cues like perfumes are sometimes used to mask negative body odor or provide a positive, alluring scent. In a study by Capparuccini, Berrie, and Mazzatenta, male and female perfumes were studied as unconscious stimulation during visual assessments of a potential mate’s facial qualities. Women who were menstruating were chosen to ensure consistency and avoid changes in perception across the menstrual cycle. This study determined that non-pheromone olfactory cues like perfume are involved in mate choice, often interacting with or even dominating visual signs (Capparuccini et. al 2004).

Odors are secreted in humans through sweat glands, often in areas of the body that are covered by hair where the odor is more readily retained. These substances are called axillary secretions. (Wysocki Preti, 2004). A study by Thornhill and Gangestad in 1999 demonstrated that the body odor of men whose features are bilaterally symmetrical are rated as more attractive by normally ovulating women (not on the pill) during their period of highest fertility. Symmetry is a key sign of health in a potential mate across species, so by favoring a symmetrical mate one can assume they will produce healthy offspring. The study indicated that women who were in a phase of low fertility or who were taking the birth control pill did not show the same pattern (Thornhill & Gangestad 1999). This may mean that normal ovulation is key in a female detecting the health of a potential mate. Additionally, there is no evidence that men prefer the scent of symmetrical women, which may point to the fact that men show less discrimination when it comes to sex partners in general (Thornhill & Gangestad 1999).

References
Capparuccini, Ottavia, Berrie, Christopher P., Mazzatenta, Andrea (2004) The potential hedonic role of olfaction in sexual selection and its dominance in visual cross-modal interactions.Perception, Volume 39, Issue 10, Pages 1322-1329.
Facts, fallacies, fears, and frustrations with human pheromones. Charles J. Wysocki, George Preti (2004) The Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology. Volume 281A, Issue 1, Pages 1201–1211.
Karl Grammer, Bernhard Fink, Nick Neave (2004) Pheromones and sexual
 attraction.European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Volume 118, 
Issue 2, Pages 135-142.
McClintock MK. 1971. Menstrual synchrony and suppression. Nature. Issue 229, Pages 244–245.
Pheromones. (2004). The Concise Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science. Retrieved from http://www.credoreference.com/entry/wileypsych/pheromones
Porter RH, Moore JD. 1981. Human kin recognition by olfactory cues. Physical Behavior. Issue 27, Pages 493–495.
Randy Thornhill, Steven W Gangestad (1999). The Scent of Symmetry: A Human Sex Pheromone that Signals Fitness?Evolution and Human Behavior. Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 175-201



----

Personality and mate selection preferences

Contributor: Leslie Zabala
Class: Spring 2011
Topic: Gender Role Preference

In today’s society we are constantly faced with gender norms—in the workplace, at home, at school—and they affect the way we perform and behave. As we go about our lives, frequently interacting with those around us, it is important that we have a concept of gender roles to help us navigate these social situations. More specifically, as we will examine here, romantic relationships are another place where we see the impact of gender roles and norms. This is an important component to examine because in this setting of romantic relationships, these norms do more than help navigate interactions; they affect the entire dynamic of a couple. 


Throughout the 20th century, gender roles and norms were very clearly established, with the man frequently holding the position of dominance in the relationship. Over the past few decades, however, these norms have changed substantially. Society is continuously evolving to bring more and more equality to women, giving them freedom to have careers, earn more than their husbands, or even remain single altogether. However, it still seems that despite these changes, we very frequently see strong preferences in romantic relationships for the man to be the caretaker and provider in the duo. As is noted in several studies, one highlighting the perception of risk in a relationship, “females learn to depend on others, most often on males, to protect them from perceived dangers. In short, ‘women are socialized to fear and to depend on male partners for protection’” (Conley & Peplau, 2010). A man is depended upon to not only protect his partner, but to provide for her.


Gender roles can be a result of many different influences, for example, “ego development, social learning, and cognitive processes” (Juni & Grimm, 1994). In other words, a person’s concept of gender role often comes from the mental schemas that result from both biological and social settings that have been present at various points in their lives. 
Holding a clear gender role concept in a romantic relationship is very important because it not only gives both members of the relationship a sense of clear-cut identity, but it also helps in the socialization of children for example, and many others who may be interacting with the couple on a regular basis (Impett & Peplau, 2006).

While the importance of this establishment may be easily understood, the notion of why some couples are prone to traditional standards while others break the mold is a more elusive concept. In this day and age of ever-increasing gender equality, some couples are taking on a reverse gender role dynamic, where perhaps the woman makes more than the man, or maybe the man does not work at all, to give an example. Still, it seems that there is a predominance of preference for traditional gender roles, and we still see them frequently throughout our everyday lives. 


Another possible explanation for the pattern of adopted traditional gender roles can be found when considering evolutionary psychology’s perspective on the matter. Evolution caused our ancestors to make choices that maximize reproduction from generation to generation, thereby eliminating those who did not adopt these choices through Darwin’s theory of natural selection (Confer, Easton, & Fleischman, 2010). Mate selection was certainly one of these inherited behaviors, wherein women learned to choose a partner that could protect and provide for her offspring, while men chose partners who were high in reproductive capacity and willingness. Although self-esteem was determined to be one possible predictor of individuals’ gender role preferences, it certainly could also be argued that the evolutionary theory still holds strong even though there are increasing opportunities for women in modern society. Future studies could look into this relationship, and perhaps incorporate self-esteem into the likelihood for couples to base their gender roles upon evolutionary norms versus those of more modern culture.

References

Morr Serewicz, M., & Gale, E. (2008). First-date scripts: Gender roles, context, and relationship. Sex Roles, 58(3-4), 149-164. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9283-4

Gazioglu, A. (2008). Gender, gender roles affecting mate preferences in Turkish college students. College Student Journal, 42(2,PtB), 603-616.

Cunningham, S. J., & Russell, P. A. (2004). The influence of gender roles on evolved partner preferences. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 6(2-3), 131-150.

Best, D. L. (2010). Gender. In M. H. Bornstein, M. H. Bornstein (Eds.) , Handbook of cultural developmental science (pp. 209-222). New York, NY US: Psychology Press.

Topic: Personality Traits in Sex Differences
Contributor: Jill Clark
Class: Spring 2011

Personality traits among human beings have evolved throughout time. One’s gender immediately determines personality traits. It has been studied that females were found to be higher in extraversion, anxiety, trust, neuroticism, agreeableness, and openness to feelings whereas males were found to be more assertive, jealous, and open to new ideas. According to the evolutionary perspective, sex differences in personality have evolved throughout time. For instance, jealousy has evolved and is directly linked with biology. This specific characteristic is more dominant in males. One of the reasons why jealously has manifested is because males have paternity insecurity where as females have paternity assurance. In other words, research has determined that when males copulate with another female, they are already risking paternity assurance and investment in sperm from rival males. This occurs because females do not have any risk of paternity insecurity since the offspring develops in a female’s womb. Males are more bothered and will break-up with a spouse from sexual infidelity whereas females are more affected when there is emotional infidelity. Not only is jealousy a clear personality trait difference among females and males but also three other traits. These traits include aggression, higher-stakes risk-taking, and assertiveness. These three traits have been described as adaptive and “instrumental”. This is also to say that although it is argued that certain personality traits are adaptive and evolved, it does not mean that culture and socialization are not involved with shaping personality traits. According to “Behavioral and Brain Sciences” the evolutionary personality trait in sex differences is most significant in measures of aggression. A recent study determined that men in the United States commit 85.53% of simple assaults, 87.31% of aggravated assaults, and 88.5% of murders. Recent meta-analyses have demonstrated that the sex difference is most prominent in physical aggression, higher-stakes risk-taking, and assertiveness in men. This clearly relates to evolutionary because the male species have been the hunters where the women were the gatherers. Throughout history, men have been the ones to financially support the family. For instance, thousands of years ago men were the ones to go out, hunt, and bring back the food for the family. In other words, men have evolved to possess these traits in order to survive and help their families survive. If men did not rate higher in risk-taking, then food would be less available to families because the man did not take that risk to get ahead in the food chain or even move up on a career ladder. Personality traits vary across the genders and have evolved specifically for the genders. Imagine a world that the women were the ones with higher aggression, risk taking, and assertiveness: A female hunter, instead of a gather? It all relates to our present day because although men do not use these specific personality traits to “hunt” for food, they demonstrate these qualities in the work life. Which is to say, men are still viewed as the “bread-winners” where the females are the nurtures. However, times are changing which needless to say, are female aggression levels and assertiveness increasing? Overall, from the evolutionary perspective, these personality traits have evolved out of survival.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=31410&jid=BBS&volumeId=22&issueId=02&aid=31409
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.x/abstract
References Feingold, Alan (1994). Gender Differences in Personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 429-456, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429.
Kenrick, D., Sadalla, E., Groth, G., Trost, M. (2006). Evolution, Traits, and the Stages of Human Courtship: Qualifying the Parental Investment Model. Journal of
Personality, 1, 97-116, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00909.
Lynn, Richard (1997). Gender Differences in Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism in 37 Nations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 369-373,
doi:10.1080/00224549709595447.
Paris, Joel (2004). Gender Differences in Personality Traits and Disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 1, 71-74, doi: 10.1007/s11920-004-0042-8.

Topic: Influence of Humor on Mate Selection

Contributor: Sarah Llanes

Class: Fall 2011

The ability to laugh and make others laugh has had a profound impact on the growth of all social relationships. Humor fosters closeness between the two individuals, bringing together a sense of relatedness even amongst those who may have just met. Because having a good sense of humor plays such a significant role in relationships, it has actually become essential to a personality and may even play a role in sexual attraction. However, does the ability to be humorous actually increase one’s reproductive success? Although the meaning of the term “having a good sense of humor” may differ between the sexes, the humor characteristic may have evolved because it indicates intelligence, creativity, and other “good genes” in a mate. Furthermore, humor may act as an initiator to the development and monitoring of social relationships (Greengross & Miller, 2011).

Having a good sense of humor may be more influential than one may think. For instance, having a good sense of humor can indicate other desirable traits, such as being friendly, popular and/or independent (Bressler & Balshine, 2006). Interestingly enough, although humorous individuals were seen as more “socially adept”, women especially were more prone to rate humorous men as less honest and intelligent (2006). Nevertheless, women were more interested in having a humorous individual as a relationship partner, suggesting the humor trait to actually be of more importance than intelligence. Recent research has proven this finding unstable, however, indicating that humor does in fact correlate and prove to be of utmost importance with intelligence. Greengross and Miller (2011) argue that intelligence is needed to produce humor initially. Furthermore, it is through the creativity, mental health and other desirable traits associated with humor that makes it sexually attractive. Contrast to Bressler and Balshine, their findings demonstrate that intelligence is in fact a predictor of humor ability, which thus predicts mating success, further suggesting intelligence to be sexually attractive merely through the use of humor (2011). Genes such as the humor trait may have evolved for this specific manner, indicating corresponding beneficial traits such as cognitive competence and underlying genetic fitness.

One of the biggest questions regarding humor and sexual attraction is whether or not humor is what makes a person more attractive, or whether attractive people tend to be more humorous. Research done by Li et. al. (2009) revealed that the answer is in fact, both. Their findings demonstrated that both sexes needed initial attraction in order to initiate humor and to laugh in response to humor. Further, both sexes found those they were attracted to and indicated greater romantic interest to be more humorous than those whom they had indicated less interest and attraction (2009).

Although both sexes expressed the importance of attraction and its influence on humor, there is a significant difference between the sexes on the desirability of humorous traits. It has been suggested that humor may have evolved as a signal of mate quality, but it is more common for males to compete for the attention of females who are choosy rather than the other way around (2009). Previous research has suggested that displaying humor may prove beneficial to a man’s desirability, but not a woman’s (2009). Thus, it comes as no surprise that women value humor production, while men value their partner’s ability to appreciate their sense of humor (Bressler, Martin, & Balshine, 2006). In other words, men were more interested in how funny they were to their partner, rather than how funny their partner actually was. “Sexual selection may have influenced humor production because it is specifically preferred by women in relationship partners. Furthermore, men’s reported preferences for humorous partners may be the result of sexual selection shaping a male preference for partners who signal sexual interest through humor appreciation” (2006).

Whether a “good sense of humor” consists of being able to tell clever jokes or simply being able to laugh at others jokes, humor has evolved as a most explicit indicator of attractiveness, intellect and high mate quality. The importance of personal interests and what one considers humorous is definitely something to take into account, but nevertheless, humor in itself has become what is attractive to others, and having a good sense of humor could foster attraction, comfort, and the beginning of many new social relationships.

Bressler, E. & Balshine, S. (2006). The influence of humor on desirability. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 29-39.

Bressler, E., Martin, R. A., & Balshine, S. (2006). Production and appreciation of humor as sexually selected traits. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 121-130.

Greengross, G., & Miller, G. (2011). Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males. Intelligence, 39, 188-192.

Li, N., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K. M., Jonason, D. J. P., & Aumer, K. (2009). An evolutionary perspective on humor: sexual selection or interest indication? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 923-936.

==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== Parental Influences on Mating ==== ----
Topic: Assortative Mating – Parental Influence on Mate Choice Contributor: Elizabeth Knapp Class: Spring 2010

When it comes to choosing a mate for a long term commitment, it can easily be considered the most significant decision of our lifetime. There are a myriad of factors to keep in mind when picking ‘just the one’, all of which will affect the outcome of the union. Genetics, status, personality, intelligence and wealth are all indicators of either good of bad mate potential, however, recent studies have begun to demonstrate just much of an influence our parents have in our selection of a mate. The process by which we select a mate based on the comparison of their qualities to ours is Assortative Mating. This method involves selecting those who have personality, physical or genetic traits similar to our own (Figueredo & Wolf, 2009). Though we have an innate ability to detect genetic similarities through the use of phenotypes and other sensory mechanisms, the information we gain about our kin as a child essentially becomes our template for which we acquire mates (Bereczkei, Gyuris, & Weisfeld, 2004). Our capability to select a mate who will produce the best offspring and invest parentally relies on the learning we experienced from our parents during our younger years. As humans, we have the means to carry out assortative mating through imprinting-like-mechanisms, where positive correlations between spouses is dependant upon parenting impacts (Bereczkei, Gyuris, Koves, Bernath, 2002). Sexual or parental imprinting “enables individuals to learn the characteristics of their close kin and subsequently to choose mates that appear slightly different but not too different, than their parents and siblings” (Bereczkei et al., 2004). This process normally occurs during the child’s younger years (pre-puberty), when both males and females are cataloguing their parent’s traits. Bereczkei discovered evidence to suggest that sexual imprinting in humans is not a passive process, but rather is moderated by the quality of the parent—child relationship in both males and females (Bereczkei et al., 2004, Wiszewska, Pawlowski, & Boothroyd, 2007). The degree to which a parent’s traits will impact their child’s future mate preference relies on how well they demonstrated paternal investment in said child. This may be an adaptive process because to this individual, any partner who bears resemblance to a distant or bad parent may be less likely to be a good parent themselves, therefore the individual will avoid qualities in a partner which they did not like in their parents (Wiszewska et al., 2007). By using their successfully mated parents as a template for future sexual relationships, children are affected by the many variables within said marriage. Those coming from strong families with both parents investing in the children are more likely to seek someone who came from a similar family structure. When it comes to divorced and interracial couples, Jedlicka (1980) explains that mothers are more likely to be responsible for the passing and continuation of family traditions, and thus, most impact mate choice. Correlations between mother-son and father-daughter relationships and mate preferences later in life can be linked. Studies have shown that as boys age in a positive mother-son relationship, they internalize the qualities and mental image of their mothers, match those internalizations to potential mates, estimate the degree of similarity, and ultimately prefer those who resemble their mothers most (Bereczkei et al., 2004). In a study done by Wiszewska et al. (2007), the researchers found that there was a correlation between a positive father-daughter relationship and the similarities in her future mate. There were also a small positive correlation between father’s age and husband’s age where daughters with older fathers subsequently chose older husbands (Bereczkei, Gyuris, & Weisfeld, 2004) Assortative mating and parental influence on mate selection “results in the most preferred phenotypes mating among themselves” (Burely, 1982). These factors are driven by the desire to have children with a mate with those most similar to the template that is formed in early childhood. Parental qualities observed first hand will be the most telling indicator to an individual’s choice of sexual mate preference later in life.
Sources: Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P., & Weisfeld, G. E. (2004). Sexual imprinting in human mate choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 271, 1129–1134. Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P., Koves, P., & Bernath, L. (2002). Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting; parental influence on mate choice preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 677– 690. Burley, N. (1983). The meaning of assortative mating. Ethology and Sociobiology, 4, 191 – 203 Buston, P. & Emlen, S. (2003) Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: the relationship between self-perception and mate preference in western society. National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(15), 8805-8810. doi: 10.1073 Figueredo, A. & Wolf, P. (2009) Assortative Pairing and Life History Strategy. Human Nature, 20, 317-330 Jedlicka, D. (1984) Indirect parental influence on mate choice: a test of the psychoanalytic theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 46. no 1, 66 - 70 Wiszewska, A., Pawlowski, B., Boothroyd, L. (2007). Father-daughter relationship as a moderator of sexual imprinting: a facialmetric study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 248-252


Parent-Offspring Conflict Nicholas O’Brien Chapter 11: The Sexes Together -> 1.2 Courtship -> 1.2.6 Parent-Offspring Conflict over Mate Choice       Before civilization, finding a mate was difficult due to a very small population, and focused purely on survival traits; today, finding a mate is just as difficult, but for other reasons including status, wealth, race, age, and appearance. As if finding one potential mate isn’t already hard enough, acceptance of one’s mate by the subject’s parents yields even more stress (Anderson 2006). Examples of this stress are highly prevalent in cultures around the world and have evolved into a social taboo in America.
      Common examples of the parent-offspring conflict over mate choice come from the entertainment industry. MTV’s Parental Control was a reality-contestant program where parents choose possible replacements of their son/daughter’s current mate. After interviewing a group of 10 eligible dates, each parent selects one to go on a date with their son/daughter. In the end, the child is left to choose his/her date: the current beau or one of the parent’s choices. Despite the odds, the child usually chose to stick with the current mate, often reigniting the parental conflict. This common behavior demonstrates subconscious mating practices: outside forces of one’s environment (parents, friends, society, etc) play a limited, if not entirely inverse role compared to the more biological side consisting of desirable genes.
      Social psychologists and sociologists have simplified similar observations when it comes to human mate-choice: “Children tend to prefer traits that suggest genetic quality, whereas parents prefer characteristics that suggest high parental investment and cooperation within the group,” (Dubbs 2008). These trends evolve from a fear of what each of the targets lack: every potential mother wants to pass on only the best genes to her baby, while fearing of giving birth to a disadvantaged or genetically mutated offspring, while the grandparents-to-be wants to be remembered as good parents, and fear that they could have invested more into their own children. Additionally, genetics and good looks are intertwining in assertive mating, so a preference for beauty is justifiable by the child and not by the parents.
      From the parent’s perspective, the person you choose to date is a direct representation of the life style you desire. If this person is a disappointment in any way, the parents address the situation and leave the decision to be made by the child. Usually the relationships improve over time; however, in some cases, the tense relationship between the spouse and “in-laws” will last through a marriage. In California, over 80% of recent divorcees listed “mother in law/father in law” as a possible reason for the failed relationship (Bosna 2004).
      Why do these conflicts keep happening? While parents will always have differing opinions due to contrasting generational biases and experiences, the presence of conflict over a mate is the choice of the parents and the responsibility of the child: parents are expected to act more mature and communicate clearly to avoid actual conflict, while it is the child’s responsibility to mediate the relationship between spouse and parents to ensure everyone involved is happy (Apostolou 2010).

Anderson, Malte and Simmons, Leigh W. Sexual selection and mate choice. Department of Zoology University of Gothenburg, Sweden. 2006
Apostolou, Menealous. Parent-Offspring Conflict over Mating: The Case of Beauty Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Bosna, Shivo. A look into California’s record divorce rates. Univeristy of South Florida Tampa, Florida 2004
Dubbs , Shelli L and Buunk, Abrahman P. Parents Just Don’t Understand: Parent-Offspring Conflict over Mate Choice School of Psychology. 2008.University of
      Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia. (Buunk) Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, Department of Psychology,University of Groningen, Groningen, NED

----






----

Mate Poaching: Differences Between the Sexes

Topic: Mate Poaching

Contributor: Heather Thomas

Class: Psych 310, Spring 2011

             Mate poaching is a type of mate selection that occurs when one individual knowingly attempts to attract a mate who is already invested in a relationship (Schmitt & Shackelford, 2003). Mate poaching is an activity among both men and women and has been deemed a universal mating practice (Parker & Burkley, 2009). Mate poaching has one of two intentions: the first is to engage in a temporary sexual relationship, termed “short-term poaching,” and the second is to engage in a more permanent relationship, which ends in the formation of a new relationship, termed “long-term poaching” (Schmitt & Shackelford, 2003). Regardless if the intention is short-term or long-term, mate poaching always involves at least three individuals connected by “emotional tension, interpersonal conflict, and often secretive sexual behavior” (Schmitt & Shackelford, 2003). Individuals who engage in mate poaching do so based on certain conditions. Individuals who mate poach may do so because he or she cannot find a mate of sufficient attractiveness who is unattached, so he or she may then resort to mate poaching an individual who appears to be of sufficient attractiveness. A mate who possesses “sufficient attractiveness” is one with seemingly better genes then all other individuals. This means the already attached individual is possibly more physically attractive, has more resources, and may have a higher reproductive value then any unattached individuals. This makes poaching a conditional mate selection strategy, meaning individuals engage in mate poaching only if all unattached mates appear to be unqualified (Davies, Shackelford, & Hass, 2010). 

         Males tend to engage in mate poaching behavior more often than females both in human and animal species (Parker & Burkley, 2009). This relates to evolutionary theory whereby males put forth more effort into mating then do females. Males are evolutionarily wired to copulate with every acceptable mate possible. Females on the other hand, engage in mate poaching behavior less frequently compared to males (Davies et al., 2010). This is due to the fact that females invest more in parental effort rather than mating effort. As a result, females are less involved in mate poaching.

        Mate poaching behavior of course has different benefits and costs for males and females. Psychologically for males, poaching has the benefit of raising self-esteem or creating an ego-boost (Davies et al., 2010). This is due to the fact that for men, motivation for mate poaching in terms of the “challenge of trying to attract someone away from their partner,” is ranked higher for men than for women (Davies et al., 2010). Another benefit of mate poaching for men is the possibility to spread their genes. The more sexual encounters a man has, whether with an attached or unattached individual, the more likely he is to impregnate a woman, and spread his genes. Males have virtually no costs when engaging in mate poaching unless one takes into account the emotional costs that may occur from rejection. Other then this short term cost, men who engage in mate poaching do so essentially cost free. Females engage in mate poaching behavior less often than do males because females focus more on the costs rather than the benefits. The most immediate cost to the woman is pregnancy. If a woman becomes pregnant by an attached individual, she has not secured a mate or resources to help raise the child. Therefore, the cost of her mate poaching behavior is high. She will have to raise the child by herself. Additionally, women, if publically deemed as “poachers” tend to suffer shame and guilt as a consequence, while simultaneously gaining a bad reputation. In the future these women may find it more difficult to find a mate, attached or unattached, due to this negative reputation. In terms of females, mate poaching is also associated with certain risks, such as being physically harmed by the partner of the poached male (Davies et al., 2010). Men and women view mate poaching differently. Men see positive effects, while women see the negative outcomes. Therefore, women engage in mate poaching only when all other options have been exhausted. Aside from the benefits and costs of mate poaching, studies have found that only three percent of people engage in mate poaching behavior on a regular basis (Schmitt & Shackelford, 2003).

        Both men and women engage in mate poaching, but do so in different ways. The tactics that are successful for women are not as successful for men. Women who are most successful in mate poaching are those who enhance their physical attractiveness and offer sexual access (Schmitt & Shackelford, 2003). Enhancing physical attractiveness is a successful strategy in mate poaching for women because men have evolved a preference for women who appear more fertile and therefore have a higher reproductive value (Schmitt & Shackelford, 2003). For a woman, applying makeup or receiving plastic surgery may take years off her physical appearance, and in the eyes of outsiders, falsely places her within the fertile stage of life.          Female fertility and reproductive value can be visually assessed almost immediately; therefore, enhancing physical attractiveness is a highly successful tactic for female poachers. Another successful tactic for female poachers, is offering themselves as sexually available. Men are easily enticed by the promise of a sexual encounter (Schmitt & Shackelford, 2003), therefore, women who use this tactic are successful essentially one hundred percent of the time. Although enhancing physical attractiveness and offering sexual availability are the most successful tactics used by female poachers, they are not so profitable for male poachers.

          Men are most successful at mate poaching when they display their ability and willingness to invest resources. For example, men may drive luxury vehicles, wear name-brand clothing, or purchase expensive gifts as a way of demonstrating availability of resources. Displaying this financial stability greatly enhances the success of male poachers. If a woman believes one male can better provide for her, she may leave her present mate for another. Just as men have evolved a preference for fertile females, women have evolved a preference for males not only with resources, but for males who are willing to invest those resources in the female and any possible offspring (Schmitt & Shackelford, 2003). If a man can provide resources such as money and food, he is seen as an acceptable mate. Another successful tactic male poachers use is to appear willing to emotionally commit to a woman (Schmitt & Shackelford, 2003). In addition to resource availability, emotional commitment is another trait women look for when choosing a mate. Men who engage in conversation and appear to be interested in the everyday happenings of the woman appear emotionally committed, whether the “commitment” is valid or not. Women view this as an important trait in a mate because it signifies a man’s willingness to devote resources.

References:

Davies, A. C., Shackelford, T. K., & Hass, R. (2010). Sex differences in perceptions of benefits and costs of mate poaching. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 441-445. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.04.014

Parker, J., & Burkley, M. (2009). Who’s chasing whom? The impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 1016-1019. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.022

Schmitt, D. P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2003). Nifty ways to leave you lover: the tactics people use to entice and disguise the process of human mate poaching. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(8), 1018-1035. doi:10.1177/0146167203253471

mate_poacher.jpg

Mate Poaching

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.

Topic: The effects of scent, natural and artificial, and facial attractiveness.
Contributor: Blake Mellgren
Class: Psyc 310, Spring 2010

There has been much research done about the relationship the smell of a mate and one's attraction to them. In a majority of the studies it has looked at the attractiveness of a male to females based upon their scent. The primary article I read took women and a placed them in a room and showed them photographs of men’s faces and then pumped artificial scents into the room, two good, two bad, and one neutral. Then the women would rate the man scene on the computer screen based upon the smells, custom designed for each person’s preferences. “It should come as little surprise then that studies of mate selection behavior have reported that body odor represents a very important sensory cue, especially for women” (Dematte, Osterbauer, & Spence 2007).

From the results of this study they found that women found men to be more attractive based upon facial recognition when there were pleasant aromas versus the absence of a smell or unpleasant smells. “Participants evaluated the faces as being significantly less attractive when presented with an unpleasant odor than when presented with either a pleasant odor or neutral clean air. There was, however, no significant difference in participants’ mean facial attractiveness responses under conditions of pleasant versus neutral olfactory stimulation” (Dematte, Osterbauer, & Spence, 2007). From this research there was a relation between facial attractiveness and scent but not connection between body relevance and scent.

[[Image:|FIG2.gif]]

Mean facial attractiveness ratings as a function of the pleasantness

of the odor. Error bars represent the standard errors of the means.
 [[Image:|FIG3.gif]]                                                                                           

Mean LMS ratings of odor intensity, pleasantness, and familiarity 

as a function of odor pleasantness (pleasant, white bars; unpleasant,
black bars; neutral, gray bar). Error bars represent the standard errors of the means

In a study by Grammer, Fink, and Neave done in 2005, as well as others, “have found that pheromones may play an important role in the behavioral and reproduction biology of humans” (Grammer, Fink, and Neave, 2005). Another study done by Thornhill and Gangestad showed the importance on scent in mate selection when their study revealed that “the body scent of men who have greater body bilateral symmetry is rated as more attractive by normally ovulating (non-pill-using) women during the period of highest fertility based on day within the menstrual cycle. Women in low-fertility phases of the cycle and women using hormone-based contraceptives do not show this pattern” (Thornhill and Gangestad, 1999).  Scent plays a key, subconscious role in deciding the attractiveness of a mate and also can provide foreshadowing of the relationship to ensue.

References:
1. Dematte, M., Osterbauer, R., & Spence, C. (2007). Olfactory Cues Modulate Facial Attractiveness. Chemical Senses, 32(6), 603-610.
2. Grammer, K., Fink, B., Neave, N. (2005). Human pheromones and sexual attraction. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 118(2). 135-142.
3. Thornhill, R. and Gangestad, S. (1999). The Scent of Symmetry: A Human Sex Pheromone that Signals Fitness? Evolution & Human Behavior, 20(3). 175-201.

Topic: Scent Identification and Mate Selection

Contributor: Aris A. Ford

Class: Psychology 310 Spring 2010

There is definite scientific evidence that the reality of sexual chemistry between males and females occurs. Certain areas of the brain dedicated to the olfactory senses are stimulated when the scent of a potential mate is inhaled through the nose. These arousal stimuli can affect the occurrence of possible mating.

Once the scent of a possible mate enters the body, the olfactory bulb generates electrochemical signals that are transmitted to certain parts of the brain that stimulate the arousal and production of dopamine and endorphins (Wedekind, 2006).

[[Image:|Macintosh HD:Users:aford10:Desktop:brain3.jpg]]The intensity, proximity, and length of time which an individual is exposed to an odor or scent also plays a role in inducing certain reactions from the male or female inhaling the scent. The perception of the odor, whether intense or non-affective, depends on not only the kind and the amount of volatile molecules that are emitted; this means the strength of the signal, but also on factors that influence the perception of the odor. This factor depends on the sensitivity of the receiver (Wedekind, 2006). 

            The major influence intensity of smell is in direct correlation to pleasantness. That is, even a smell that might would other wise be interpreted for a positive reaction can lose its appeal if the scent seems overwhelming to the individual inhaling the scent. There are also differences in the reactions of males and females to scents (Miner & Shackelford, 2008)

It seems that females are usually more sensitive to body odors than man. The perceptions of these body odors females experience differ greatly within the menstrual cycle and changes with pregnancy. Recent studies have also found that the contraceptive pill appears to also have an influence of the perception of scents in regards to attraction and pleasantness (Wedekind, 2006).

Experiments by Claus Wedekind, a biologist at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland created an experiment that discovered astonishing results. He gave 44 men T-shirts and instructed them to wear the shirts for two straight nights. The men were then provided with scent-free soap and aftershave to remain odor-neutral. The shirts were then given to 49 women to smell. Women chose men who were immunologically dissimilar to them (Svobada, 2008). References:

1. Wedekind, Claus. (2006). The Intensity of Human Body Odors and the MHC: Should

  We Expect A Link? Evolutionary Psychology, 85-94.

2. Svaboda, Elizabeth. (2008, January). Scents and Sensibility. Psychology Today, 49-51.

3. Miner, J. Emily, Shackelford, K. Todd. (2008). All Thorns, No Rose: A Well-Intentioned but Misguided Book About Smell. Evolutionary Psychology, 283-288.

 Topic: Role of scent in human attraction

Contributor: Jenna Dato-on

Class: Fall 2011 Evolutionary Psychology

When thinking about selecting a mate, scent isn’t usually something that comes up on people’s list for what they want and don’t want. This is because it isn’t something that we can describe. Rather, it is merely something we experience and have trouble describing to others. This experience of scent can lead to that feeling of sexual attraction to someone that we cannot always describe. It may describe that “spark” or “electricity” we feel when we meet someone we are attracted to. Scent may be the reason why we feel attracted to the person we just met at a coffee shop or it can be the reason why we are not attracted to someone even though they are perfect on paper. Although we may not always be aware of it, scent signals we send and receive are signals sent to our brain that communicate which individuals will make good partners—the ones that will stay faithful and create healthy children with us.

Studies show that scent was a cue for compatibility for our ancestors when choosing a mate. According to Suma Jacob and colleagues' study (2002), women have evolved to prefer men that are immunologically dissimilar to them. This means that our ancestors were more likely to pick a mate whose immunity genes were different from theirs because they would be more likely to produce offspring who inherit a wider range of immunity genes, thus, being more disease-resistant. The difference lay in the sequence of more than 100 immune system genes known as the MHC, or major histocompatibility complex. Jacob’s study tested his theory by giving women T-shirts worn by men. After smelling the T-shirts, the women rated being more attracted to the smell of the men with no MHC genes in common. In addition, it showed that women consistently outperform men at smell sensitivity tests. This resulted from an evolutionary adaptation because women have to invest more time in caring for their children. Overall, women use scents of men as cues for their genetic compatibility with men to ensure that their offspring have the best chance in surviving.

There are numerous examples of studies that show the importance of scent for women when looking for a male mate. John Havlicek and colleagues (2005) examined what it is about a male’s scent that women are attracted to. Specifically, this study looked at cues of a females’ preference for males with more dominance. It concluded that women who were in their most fertile stages preferred the body odor men who self-reported being more dominant. This study revealed that odor attractiveness is associated with psychological dominance. It is speculated that women prefer more dominant men during their times of highest fertility because in hunter-gatherer societies women wanted to mate with the hunters and warriors. The women were more ensured that these men would provide better resources and pass on healthier genes to their offspring.

Studies continue to show the importance of scent for females when choosing a male mate (Herz & Inzlicht, 2002). Women rank a man’s smell to be more important than other physical factors such as, good looks, voice or how his skin feels. This study also showed that women think that the smell of a man is more important than it is to men. Men rated good looks as more important than scent when selecting a mate. This study suggests that for men visual physical characteristics are more important than scent. Although scent seems to be more important for females than males when picking a mate, R. Elisabeth and collegeues (2004) demonstrate that women as well as men are good at detecting person of the opposite sex’s physical attractiveness based on their scent. For women there was a significant relationship for a women’s preference for a masculine face shape and the ratings of a certain male pheromone (MP2) when judging for a long term partner. Similarly, a male’s preference for a feminine face shape correlated significantly with the ratings of the female pheromone. Thus, men and women use scent as cues when choosing a potential long term mate.

Scent may seem like an unexpected factor in mate selection, but from the evolutionary perspective human scent influences sexual attraction more than one might think. Natural human scent acts as an indicator for best mate potential. Therefore, think twice before you dab on your favorite fragrance because it might mask the natural scent that attracts potential mates.

References

Cornwell, R. E. Boothroyd, L. Burt, D. M.. Feinburg, D. R.. Jones, B. C.. Little, A. C. . Pitman, R.. Whiten , S. Perrett, D. I.. (2004). Concordant preferences for opposite sex signals?
Human pheromones and facial characteristic. Biological Science, 271(1539), 635-640.

Havelicek, J. Roberts, S.C. Flegr, J. (2005). Women's preference for dominant male odour: effects of menstrual cycle and relationship status. Biology Letters, 1(3), 256-259.

Herz, R. 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.

Jacob, S. McClintock, M. Zelano, B. Ober, C. (2002). Paternally inherited HLA alleles are associated with women's choice of male odor.Nature Genetics, 30, 175-179.

Non-Verbal Courtship Topic: Non-Verbal Human Courtship Contributed by Michael Rebong
Michael Rebong Evolutionary Psychology paper 11/19/10 Human Non-Verbal Courtship It is no doubt that human beings are primarily visual creatures. Human beings use their eyes for everything that they do from finding their belongings, traveling, and even basic functions such as eating. That being said, human courtship is largely based on non-verbal behaviors. Both males and females display a vast array of non-verbal behavior in order to show their interest in potential mating partners. According to evolutionary psychological principles, women are the primary signalers in courtship. When attempting to select a mate, males constantly seek out cues (primarily nonverbal ones) from women that tell them to proceed with the process of courtship. Moore (2002) conducted a study which attempted to show that males were more likely than females to regard nonverbal cues as positive signals of courtship. The study showed both positive nonverbal cues and negative nonverbal cues to both males and females. The results concluded that males assessed positive nonverbal cues as more positively than females. Additionally, males assessed negative nonverbal cues as less negatively than females. This is theorized to be so because evolutionarily men needed to be able to properly assess opportunities for mating in order to successfully reproduce. One significant non-verbal action of courtship that females express to males is smiling. An experiment conducted by Gueguen (2008) had a woman either smile or not smile at men in a bar and see whether the men were more inclined to approach the woman if she smiled. As was hypothesized, males who had received a smile were more likely to approach the woman. This single non-verbal cue was enough to signal males that an opportunity for mating was present. Males exhibit non-verbal cues of their own once female non-verbal cues have been identified as an invitation to proceed with courtship. Through evolutionary adaptations males have been able to express non-verbal behavior which is favored by women. This non-verbal behavior by males is used in the hopes that females regard them as even more positive mate choices. Renninger, Wade, and Grammer (2004) conducted a study which observed male non-verbal behavior in a bar. Males were separated between those that received contact from females within the observation time from those that did not receive contact within the observation time. Those that did receive contact from a female were reported to have responded with favorable non-verbal cues. Those that did not receive contact from a female were reported to not have acted out favorable non-verbal actions in regard to courtship.


References: 1. Moore, Monica M. Courtship Communication and Perception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol 94(1), Feb, 2002. pp. 97-105. 2. Guéguen, Nicolas. The Effect of a Woman's Smile on Men's Courtship Behavior. Social Behavior and Personality, Vol 36(9), 2008. pp. 1233-1236. 3. Renninger, Lee Ann; Wade, T. Joel; Grammer,Karl. Getting that Female Glance: Patterns and Consequences of Male Nonverbal Behavior in Courtship Contexts. Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol 25(6), Nov, 2004. pp. 416-431.

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.
Self-Perceived Mate Value Influences Our Reproductive Investment Decisions  By: Matt Nuguid With the rising divorce rates that our culture is currently producing, it calls one to ask, “Why can’t a guy and a girl stay together?” It is beginning to seem like the typical family with a mom and a dad living happily ever after under one roof is becoming harder and harder to find. One undeniable factor is the extremely complex hardwiring of our evolutionary nature; men and women have different innate preferences in terms of reproductive investment. For example, a man’s intrinsic goal for reproduction is to spread his seed as far and wide as possible (short-term mating) while women search meticulously to find good genes and a loyal life partner that will help raise her offspring (long-term mating). This creates a huge dilemma in terms of trust in the partner and how much value each places on fidelity, or staying committed to the partnership. However, what this research analysis discovers is that our reproductive investment decisions and perceptions are strongly correlated with self-perceived mate value (how attractive one views them self to the opposite sex).
In the game of reproduction there has to be an equal balance of power between a man and woman for there to be harmony among the sexes; if there isn’t, one sex would practically abuse and attain anything they want from the other with zero complications. In Mathes and Kozak’s (2008) application of the social exchange theory to the reproductive desires of man and woman, they asserted that each sex has something to offer in exchange for something equally as powerful and valuable from the other. Evolutionary theory posits that men obtain status, resources, and the potential to commit, which are the objects of the woman’s desire in terms of reproduction. On the other hand, women possess mere beauty and fertility which simultaneously make a man weak in his knees for. The study found that women with high levels of physical beauty and attractiveness shared a romance with men who had the greatest resource potential and willingness to commit. In support of the social exchange theory, the findings suggest that there is a balance of power system well at work in the game of courtship. However, self-perceptions play a huge role in this exchange of reproductive desires.
The first position to analyze here is from the man’s point of view. As aforementioned, men naturally prefer short-term mating to obtain the most success in the perpetuation of his genes to the next generation. For this reason, monogamy (woman’ preferred union) is not in his best interest from an evolutionary standpoint. According to Apicella and Marlowe (2007), a man’s reproductive investment decisions are highly influenced by his perception of his own mate value. In their study, results showed that as levels of self-perceived mate value in men increased, so did mating effort; in turn, parenting effort decreased. In other words, men who viewed themselves as highly attractive to the opposite sex were more likely to be promiscuous, put forth more of an effort to mate with the opposite sex, and were less likely to invest in parenting than those men who did not view themselves as highly attractive. Their decisions were more geared toward short-term mating because they believed that they had the potential to mate with a lot of women and perpetuate their genes broadly. From this, we can conclude that men who view themselves as highly attractive have a fairly obvious goal in terms of reproducing. They see a lot potential in themselves to mate with a plethora of women and really spread their seed; staying committed to and mating with only one partner would not be getting the most bang for their buck.
On the other hand, man’s self-assurance does not go unnoticed, for women have calibrated their reproductive investment perceptions to protect themselves from the promiscuous mindset of men. One study by Chu et al (2011) found that women tend to show a bias away from highly attractive men depending on their level of self-perceived attractiveness. What the study found in particular was that women who viewed themselves as not very attractive showed this bias more so than women who saw themselves as highly attractive. This research shows that unattractive women are quite cautious of the promiscuity of highly attractive men and their primary goals of short-term mating and prefer not to choose them as loyal partners; they don’t feel confident that their level of beauty is sufficient to earn them a high degree commitment from such attractive men. On the other hand, women who viewed themselves as highly attractive tended not to show this bias, possibly because of the fact that they saw themselves as valuable partners and worthy of a high degree of commitment. This lends further support to the social exchange theory mentioned above because it shows that attractive women know that they possess a fair share of value to men and can obtain the greatest commitment from even the most attractive gene-possessing men; unattractive women don’t believe that they could attain the same level of commitment from them in fear of them leaving them for other more attractive women.
From the research analyzed here, we can conclude that men and women have opposing interests in the game of reproduction that are highly influenced by their own perceptions of themselves. Both sexes obviously want the best for themselves, but what holds them back is their level of self-perceived attractiveness. Those who have the most confidence feel entitled to the most attractive partners. Women want long-term commitment, resources, and good genes, whereas men want a plethora of fertile women with whom to copulate with and pass on their genes. It seems that the more attractive one is, the more privileged they are in achieving their ideal reproductive goals. This may answer the question of why so many relationships in our society just don’t work out. Each partner has an intrinsic goal in mind, but if those goals aren’t communicated or shared, the relationship can be a danger zone in terms of trust. According to the social exchange theory, there must be a balance of power in terms of what each partner has to offer for the partnership to last. If one partner feels like they are bring too little or too much to the table, they will alter their reproductive investment strategy and bail from the union. It is interesting to see that feeling like you have a lot to offer can make you feel like you have a lot to gain. This is simply why the popular phrase “she is out of your league” exists. We all want the ‘hottest’ partner, but sometimes that person is not the wisest choice for our reproductive investment.
Tiger Woods is promiscuous: www.bangkokpost.com/media/content/20091213/93743.jpg
Men prefer different things in different strategies: psycnet.apa.org/journals/rev/100/2/images/rev_100_2_204_tbl2a.gif
References:
Apicella & Marlowe (2007), Men’s reproductive investment decisions: Mating, Parenting, and Self-perceived Mate Value, Human Nature Vol 18, pp. 22-34  Buss & Shackleford (2008), Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment., Evolutionary Psychology Vol 6, pp. 134-146 Chu et al. (2011), Interpersonal trust and market value moderates the bias in women’s preferences away from attractive high-status men, Personality and Individual Differences Vol 5, pp.143-147
Kozak & Mathes (2008), The exchange of physical attractiveness for resource potential and committment. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology Vol 6(1), pp. 43-56

Exploring Friends with Benefits Relationships  By Johnathan Lou 

In the upcoming film No Strings Attached (http://www.nostringsattachedmovie.com/), Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman are childhood friends who begin a sexual relationship after a night of unexpected intimacy. Ground rules are established (no lying, no jealousy, “don’t put me down as your emergency contact, I won’t come”), and a friends with benefits relationship is born. However the good times only last so long. As the new direction of the relationship progresses, maintaining the balance of friendship and emotionless sexuality becomes a greater challenge than either anticipated. This film seems to capture many of the elements present in the growing trend of “friends with benefit” relationships (FWBR) in the modern day interaction between the sexes. An FWBR attempts to combine all the attributes of a stable and healthy friendship (e.g. social support and companionship) with all the perks and excitement of casual sexuality. Yet this new frontier in gender interaction has created a divide in opinion. Those of tradition and conservatism say that FWBRs spit in the face of commitment, marriage and sexual morality, not to mention the aftermath of emotional and psychological trauma. On the other hand, supporters of the FWBR might claim that this hybrid relationship blends the best of both the casual and committed. The debate is becoming more and more fierce, as evidence of FWBRs becomes more and more prevalent, especially amongst young adults. Corresponding with the rise in FWBRs is the rise in empircal research on the subject. There is a growing interest within the Psychology community in the social, cognitive, and emotional dynamics and impacts behind FWBRs. A number of empirical studies have attempted to dig a bit deeper into these types of relationships, in order to assess their value and consequences. In 2008, David Knox et al. discovered a number of characteristics of college students who engage in friends-with-benefits relationships. Surveying 1013 undergraduate students at a large southeastern university, the researchers sought to paint a picture of FWBR participants across a variety of measures: relationship status, top personal value, sexual values, jealousy levels, and religious affiliation. Relationship status was denoted by five separate statuses (not dating, dating, emotionally involved with someone, engaged, or married). Participants’ top values were rated across three choices (financial security, a healthy marriage, or career satisfaction). Sexual values were measured by one of three choices: absolutist (no sex before marriage), relativist (sex within a committed relationship is acceptable), or hedonist (sex for pleasurable feeling). Analyzed along with demographic information, these metrics found that 51% of all participants had experienced an FWBR in their respective pasts. In terms of gender, males are much more likely to engage in FWBRs than females (63.7% vs. 50.2%). Casual daters had the highest rate of past FWBR experience (76.3%). However about half of those not dating or currently emotionally involved with someone had also experienced FWBRs. Also, regardless of current relationship status, most participants viewed a FWBR to be separate from their dating life and relationships (Knox et al., 2008). Sexual hedonists were also most likely to engage in such relationships (82.2%). The researchers took this to imply that those with a pragmatic view on relationships and romance—as opposed to romantics—were more likely to engage in FWBRs (Knox et al, 2008). Interestingly, participants in FWBRs were rated as more jealous than non-participants and were most concerned with financial security (Knox et al., 2008). Common sense might say that FWBR participants are the least jealous of all, given the extremely casual and uncommitted nature of the relationship. Perhaps from an evolutionary perspective, this is indicative of psychological mechanisms that cannot handle such ambiguity in a sexual relationship. As Knox et al’s study indicates, FWBRs may be attractive relationships for certain personalities, but the potential for psychological and emotional threats is present for all. A 2009 study performed by Mara Eisenberg et al. sought to specifically explore the psychological well-being of participants, along with demographical/personal information similar to that of Knox et al.’s study. Those surveyed were analyzed for body satisfaction, self-esteem, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation (“have you ever thought of killing yourself?”). Using general linear modeling, Eisenberg et al. found that across latest relationship variables (stranger, casual acquaintance, close but not exclusive, exclusive dating partner, fiancée/spouse) results for all psychological well-being measures were average when adjusted for demographic and personal information. Only 16% had contemplated suicide. However when viewed strictly by gender, men with casual sexual encounters were least likely to express depressive symptoms, while women in committed relationships had the least indications of such symptoms. Furthermore, post-hoc analysis revealed that men in close but uncommitted relationships had more thoughts of suicide than those in casual or committed relationships (15% vs. 4-7%). This result indicates females to be more satisfied in long-term, committed relationships, while men may prefer casual and varied sexual encounters. Studies in evolutionary psychology support these findings, with evidence found in gender behavior across a variety of species. Moreover, it indicates that while men are more likely to engage in FWBR and are known for being the more promiscuous sex, there is significant danger of psychological detriment possibly associated with such behavior. Despite such detriment, the fact is that FWBRs are increasingly prevalent. Therefore, it is also noteworthy to study the dynamics involved in the maintenance and social outcomes of such relationships. In 2005, Hughes et al. performed a study that examined the social dynamics involved in active FWBRs. 143 college students at a Midwestern university were surveyed, with only sexual orientation and ethnicity information gathered for demographic analysis. Participants were given the Love Attitude Scale as developed by Hendrick and Dicke in 1998, as well as open-ended questions concerning their motivations, maintenance techniques, and interactions with their social networks concerning FWBRs. This included listing three personal rules in regard to a FWBR. For maintenance rules, the researchers ultimately coded seven distinct categories: negotiate, sex, communication, secrecy, permanence, emotional, and friendship rules. Five separate types of motivations were revealed as well: relationship avoidance, sex, relationship simplicity, emotional connection, or simply wanting to engage in a FWBR for its own sake (Hughes et al., 2005). The resulting data found emotional rules to be the top priority for maintaining a FWBR (56%). Such rules establish the necessity of avoiding emotional attachment to one another in the relationship. However communication rules were the second choice (40.6%), indicating a need for honesty and openness within the relationship. They also found that peer support and approval greatly improved the FWBR, while disapproval or even disinterest had an inverse correlation with FWBR satisfaction. As studies show, there is a fierce interaction between social and cognitive factors in a FWBR. Despite the growing amount of research, it is difficult to determine whether this phenomena is one that naturally began to develop within our society, or if the media and other such environmental influences have sparked an interest in combining the excitement of casual sexuality with the non-commitment of a friendship. Research in peer network approval seems to support this. From an evolutionary perspective, it appears that the friends-with-benefits situation may be a result of the “meeting of the minds” between the natural desires of males and females. Males seek promiscuity and suffer from paternity insecurity. Women seek protection and insurance that their offspring will be cared for. The FWBR certainly has some (if minimal) aspects of both. However it is clear from the emprical evidence that FWBRs might not be optimal for psychological well-being. Perhaps over time, the deteriments of such relationships will become even more overt. In turn, FWBR behavior may decrease, becoming only a passing fad in the scheme of history for the interaction between the sexes. Eisenberg, M., Ackard, D., Resnick, M., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2009).Casual sex and psychological health among young adults: Is having 'friends with benefits' emotionally damaging?.'Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41(4), 231-237. doi:10.1363/4123109. Hughes, M., Morrison, K., & Asada, K. (2005).What's Love Got To Do with It? Exploring the Impact of Maintenance Rules, Love Attitudes, and Network Support on Friends with Benefits Relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 69(1), 49-66. doi:10.1080/10570310500034154. Puentes, J., Knox, D., & Zusman, M. (2008). Participants in 'friends with benefits' relationships. College Student Journal, 42(1), 176-180. Retrieved from PsycINFO database. Topic: The Emotional Side to Friends with Benefits  Contributor: Jenna Tioseco Class: Psyc 310, Fall 2011 (Comfort levels for self and attributed to others of each gender, for various hook-up behaviors) Friends with benefits, no strings attached relationships, and casual relationships are different names for the same intended act of having sexual relations with a partner with no intent of pursuing them in the long term. Often, this type of relationship is seen as a game- the first one to fall in love or develop feelings for the other person- loses, and the ‘relationship’ is over. Casual relationships have been on the rise, especially in the present generation amongst teenagers and young adults. Though it has become a trend, the emotional side of the relationship is often ignored primarily due of the nature of the relationship- emotions are not supposed to exist. Studies report the evolutionary manifestation of this no strings attached relationship on the rise. Furthermore, gender differences in terms of emotional investment and well-being were also examined. In a study conducted by Garcia & Reiber (2010), hooking up was examined against the framework of gender differences, evolution, and pluralistic ignorance. Hooking up has been defined as engaging in sexual behavior without the traditional romantic relationship attaching two individuals together. Though hooking up is a relatively more recent discovery in the world of relationships, evolutionary theories have influenced this current trend. Humans have a polygynous evolutionary history. Males especially are expected to be more sexually eager than females. High potential male reproductive rates and lower costs of reproduction lead males to seek out multiple mates. Females, in contrast, are expected to be choosier. This is a reflection of pluralistic ignorance. Pluralistic ignorance is characterized by behavior acted upon according to false beliefs associated with a group, regardless of the individual’s own opinion or thinking. Pluralistic ignorance has been confirmed to play a significant role in hook-up behavior (Garcia & Reiber, 2010). According to evolutionary theory there is an importance placed on recognizing and responding to in-group norms, which lies at the center of pluralistic ignorance. In addition, evolutionary error management theory suggests that natural selection can lead to adaptively biased systems of judgment. Essentially, evolutionary theories confirm why both females and males alike misjudge levels of comfort both for the opposite sex and within sex (Garcia & Reiber, 2010). In regards to emotional well-being, women often suffer the consequences of casual relationships more so than men. Women are often acting on their false beliefs despite their own discomfort with sexual behaviors. These women are also facing negative psychological and emotional damage as a consequence (Garcia & Reiber, 2010). In addition, Lehmiller, VanderDrift, & Kelly (2011), identified a sexual double standard. Women are looked down upon or judged more harshly for engaging in casual sex in comparison to men. Showing emotional interest or investment in a partner can alleviate the negative stigma of casual sex for women, which can be the reason why women are often the ones “accused” of breaking the rules of the relationship by “falling in love.” Another study also indicated that females desire interpersonal warmth and maintaining relationships due to female gender role norms (Hill, 2002). This confirms why women may display emotional attachment more likely than men- it is simply in their nature. As these findings suggest, women’s emotional response to casual sex are heavily influenced by societal norms and opinions, as well as her human nature. On the other hand, males tend to differ emotionally. Emotional investment in casual relationships for males is intended to remain emotionless, while the same cannot be said of their counter parts. Women hope for the relationship to become a full-fledged romance (Lehmiller, VanderDrift, & Kelly, 2011). It was also found that men’s view on sex shows little to no change when comparing early stages of a relationship, to later stages (Hill, 2002). This further confirms the evolutionary finding that men desire multiple mates due to high reproductive rates and low costs of reproduction. In regards to both sexes, it was found that both men and women value the friendship significantly more than the sexual relationship in casual relationships. Although majority of participants reported having no expectation that hook-ups would develop into romantic relationships, over half indicated that hopes of a traditional romantic relationships was a motivating factor in their deciding to engage in such behavior in the first place (Garcia & Reiber, 2010). Both males and females may reap the benefits of these casual sexual relationships in the short term; however, the emotional complications appear to arise more often for females making this arrangement less alluring for them.  Garcia, J.R., Reiber, C.,(2010) Hooking up: gender differences, evolution, and pluralistic ignorance. Evolutionary Psychology. 8(3): 390-404 Hill, C.A. (2002). Gender, relationships stage, and sexual behavior: The importance of partner emotional investment within specific situation. Journal Of Sex Research, 39 (3), 228-240. doi:10.1080/00224490209552145 Lehmiller, J.J., VanderDrift, L.E, &amp; Kelly, J.R. (2011). Sex differences in approaching friends with benefits relationship. Journal of Sex Research, 48 (2-3), 275-284. doi:10.1080/00224491003721694

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. &amp; 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
    Nareg Momdjian                                                                   Strategic Interference Theory: Social-Cognitive Challenges to an Evolutionary Perspective on Sex Differences        Interactions between the sexes are fraught with a range of different emotions, both positive and negative. In particular, relationships (between members of the two sexes), are at times tension-filled, turbulent, uneasy, and emotionally draining. Consequently, members of both sexes experience negative emotions such as jealousy, anger, and envy, throughout the duration of the relationship. Interestingly, psychologists have been debating the meaning and significance of the aforementioned negative emotions. Evolutionary psychologists have posited that negative emotions, such as envy and jealousy, have evolved by selection to protect and defend against deception and lies and reduce subsequent negative consequences. Perhaps the most prominent scholar in this field, psychologist David M. Buss, argues in favor of this Strategic Interference Theory. This theory suggests that men and women have faced different adaptive problems over the course of evolutionary history and, as a result, have evolved and employed different sexual strategies. Strategic interference stems from the competing sexual interests of men and women. In the case of females, who have genetic and parental security, it is said that women have evolved to be more attracted to men of wealth and status, as they would be able to support and raise the children. On the other hand, males, who have limited sexual repercussions than their counterparts, are not as interested or attracted to such characteristics. Rather, males are more interested in gaining a variety of women, for short-term mating. Therefore, the theory posits that negative emotions are a result of events that interfere with a person’s desired sexual strategy. Buss and other psychologists, through their research, have attempted to reveal sex differences based on sexual and emotional levels. Buss’ team focused largely on mating deception when conducting their experiments. The results from their study overwhelmingly supported their theory. For example, their prediction that women would become more upset if they found out their partner had lied and exaggerated about economic status, proved to be true. Further, women expressed greater anger and were more upset than men about romantic involvements. Conversely, rather than emotional issues, men were much more upset over being deceived or lied to about the possibility to copulate (Buss, 2005).        The evolutionary theory of Strategic Interference, for years was the most widely accepted theory and the model for future studies. Nonetheless, various social-cognitive psychologists have critiqued the research design and models of their studies, challenging this evolutionary perspective. They argue that Buss’ studies were flawed as they asked the participants of their studies hypothetical questions, as opposed to actual questions regarding infidelity. In addition, they argue that their research focused too much on infidelity and not on other variables. As such Harris notes, “ social-cognitive theorists have argued that such findings may reflect men and women making different appraisals and drawing different conclusions about the meaning of infidelity” (Harris, 2003). Other critiques of Buss’s research by social psychologists include the fact that they are limited as it only address jealousy in a narrow context (focusing mostly on infidelity) and that it does not focus enough on jealousy that comes from other contexts. A study conducted by social- cognitive psychologists found that jealousy is likely to happen in response to competitors who outdo us in domains we find particularly important to ‘self definition’, such as jealousy over popularity, wealth, and physical attractiveness. While the study did not examine jealousy in the context of infidelity, their research might provide another alternative theory to the apparent sex differences. For example, Harris notes, “men may place greater personal importance on sexual activity than women and thereby feel more threatened by rivals in the domain” (Harris, 2003).         Through a series of experiments and research, social psychologists agreed that when participants of a study were given a ‘forced choice’ or hypothetical situation, i.e emotional vs. sexual infidelity, more men chose sexual infidelity (supporting the evolutionary theory). Fortunately, however, other questions regarding imagined infidelity did not provide support for the perspective that the sexes have different tendencies and ideas for jealousy. Lastly, and most importantly, their findings suggest, “there was no support for the claim that women and men are innately wired up to be bothered by different forms of infidelity” (Harris, 2003). As evinced by both evolutionary psychologists and social-cognitive psychologists, there is uncertainty with the results of the data. Both camps agreed only that males, when posed with a hypothetical question, were more upset with sexual infidelity. It is clear that different research methods might help yield more substantial results. Both sides’ research and research methods are limited by a variety of factors. Evolutionary and social-cognitive psychologists alike interviewed samples of predominately young people, who lack experience with long-term relationships. Perhaps using a more diverse sample, consisting of young and older people, would benefit future research.






_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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

Topic: Males and Long Distance Relationships: Sperm Competition and Relational Stability Contributor: Jennifer Fagundes From an evolutionary standpoint, long distance monogamous relationships do not seem to make much sense, since the time that the couple spends apart is greater than the time the couple spends together. Less time spent together means less physical contact—specifically less copulation. For males, physical separation may create problems regarding sperm competition and overall relational stability. Males may be threatened by paternity insecurity when they are separated from their partner for a period of time. Sperm competition may have an effect on males in long distance relationships. Sperm competition occurs when the sperm of at least two males are present in the female’s vaginal tract, in which the sperm are battling to fertilize the female’s egg. An empirical study by Shackelford et al. (2002) discovered the following concerning evidence of human male psychological adaptation to sperm completion: “with a greater proportion of time spent apart from their partner since the couple's last copulation (and, therefore, greater risk of sperm competition), men reported (a) their partner to be more attractive, (b) greater interest in copulating with their partner, (c) that other men found their partner more attractive, and (d) that their partner was more sexually interested in them.” Therefore, a male in a long distance relationship may feel threatened that in the time the couple spends apart, the female may be potentially copulating with another male. Shackelford et al. (2007) found that a male who spends a greater amount of time apart from his partner and last copulation will show a greater interest in copulating again with his partner, regardless of his satisfaction within the relationship. These results indicate how physical separation impacts males in long distance relationships during copulation. Perhaps the old saying, “absence makes the heart grow fonder” is true to an extent because the male has a deeper desire to copulate with his separated partner. Studies on long distance relationships have also investigated how likely the relationships are to last. Some studies even examine whether or not one can predict if a long distance relationship is likely to last based on the type of male that is invested in the relationship. Research conducted by Cameron et al. (2007) looked at personality differences for males and females in long distance relationships. Specifically, the authors argue that negative affectivity (NA) can be a conclusive factor in the stability of long distance relationships. Negative affectivity is characterized by negativity about the future, low self esteem, and experiencing negative emotions such as anxiety or depression. Those with high NA tend to have characteristics that make relationships less likely to succeed and have lower overall relationship satisfaction. The authors also defined the notion of relational security as having a general feeling of trust in one’s partner in a relationship. Having relational security is essential for a healthy and well maintained relationship. Thus, partners who experience relational security work hard to keep their relationship working and provide stability within the relationship, so they are less likely to break up. Furthermore, those with lower relational security are associated with lower relational stability, making them more inclined to break up. Researchers surprisingly found that “men’s NA was significantly associated with relational stability in long-distance but not same-city relationships, and men’s NA in long-distance relationships significantly predicted stability, whereas women’s NA did not” (Cameron et al. 2007). In essence, men with high NA seem to contribute to the ending of long-distance but not same-city relationships to a greater degree than do high-NA women. The authors speculated that this gender difference may be due to the fact that males, compared to females, tend to have less emotional support from others. Women are often able to discuss their feelings and emotions with friends or family, which is not always available for men. Consequently, when a male with high NA is faced with the problems within a long distance relationship, he may not be able to find the support he needs to get through his problems, thus having an overall negative effect on the relationship. Findings from these studies collectively demonstrate how gender differences exist within long distance relationships. In long distance relationship, men are faced with threats of paternity insecurity. Furthermore, men with certain types of personalities may not be able to have successful long distance relationships due to the fact that it is often harder for men to reach out emotionally with others. Further research should be done to discuss other sex differences found in long distance relationships. References: Cameron, J. J., & Ross, M. (2007). In times of uncertainty: Predicting the survival of long-distance relationships. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(6), 581-606. doi:10.3200/SOCP.147.6.581-606 Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., McKibbin, W. F., & Starratt, V. G. (2007). Absence makes the adaptations grow fonder: Proportion of time apart from partner, male sexual psychology, and sperm competition in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(2), 214-220. Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., Bleske-Rechek, A. L., Euler, H. A., & Hoier, S. (2002). Psychological adaptation to human sperm competition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(2), 123-138. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00090-3

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.

Topic: Sex Differences in Jealousy
Contributor: Jane Kim
Class: Evolutionary Psych Fall 2011
Jealousy is a feeling or a showing suspicion of someone’s unfaithfulness in a relationship. This feeling of jealous emotion might be an evolved mechanism has that solved adaptive problems. For example, displaying this emotion to his partner might have cut the partner’s contact with other men and fend off rivals. There have been past researches that demonstrated sex differences in jealousy. Some tested the degrees to which genders show more jealousy, under what kinds of circumstances either genders display upset emotions, and the duration of the jealous emotions. Not all researches have unified opinions in this issue of sex differences on jealousy. Some suggest that here are no sex differences in jealousy and the opponent side claims that there is an evolutionary base to this sex differences.
When approaching this issue from an evolutionary perspective, it is interesting how past studies suggest that women display overall greater jealousy than men. A study conducted by Pines and Friedman (1998) asked the participants to recall a situation when they were jealous. The result demonstrated a greater physiological response from women compared to men; the women reported being more nervous and shaky, and their temperatures rose. Perhaps these differences have an evolutionary base in that during our ancestor time period, women and her offspring were dependent on men for their genetic survival (resources such as food or protection from men). So women portray greater emotional responses when the relationship is threatened.
There have been researches that demonstrated different circumstances that each genders display jealousy. Men show more jealousy at cues to partner’s sexual infidelity, while women are more upset when the partner perform emotional infidelity (Buss, Larsen, Westen and Semmelroth, 1992). A study by Kuhle (2011) demonstrated an in vivo test to explore this idea of sex difference in jealousy. Rather than using hypothetical situations like many previous studies, Kuhle used the reality program Cheaters. Six coders were trained to analyze content of fifty-one episodes of Cheaters. Coders were trained to regard victim’s sexually-themed comments to the cheater (“How many times did you have sex with him?”) as indicative of sexual jealousy and emotionally-based comments (“Do you love her?”) as emotional jealousy. The finding suggested men were more likely to inquire about the sexual infidelity when women were more focused on partner’s emotional infidelity.
Going back to the evolutionary base, men’s sensitivity to sexual infidelity might have evolved to ensure paternity certainty. Since males do not carry the baby in the uterus, men’s jealousy on the partner’s sexual infidelity would have compromised their assurance that they are passing their own genes. Women on the other hand, is predicted to focus more on the emotional infidelity that will prolong the long lasting relationship; like mentioned earlier, this is because of the partner’s investment and commitment.
Even though previous researches have supported sex differences in jealousy, there are still rooms for more research. One can perhaps assert additional variables and investigate the interaction on jealousy (Murphy, Vallacher, Shackelford, Bjorklund, & Yunger, 2005). References: Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4), 251-255.
Kuhle, B. X. (2011). Did you have sex with him? Do you love her? An in vivo test of sex differences in jealous interrogations. Personality And Individual Differences, 51(8), 1044-1047.
Murphy, S. M., Vallacher, R. R., Shackelford, T. K., Bjorklund, D. F., & Yunger, J. L. (2006). Relationship experience as a predictor of romantic jealousy. Personality And Individual Differences, 40(4), 761-769.
Pines, A., & Friedman, A. (1998). Gender Differences in Romantic Jealousy. The Journal Of Social Psychology, 138(1), 54-71.


Topic: Jealousy conflict between the two sexesContributor: Leslie ReyesClass: PSYC 310, Fall 2010
The question, "Whos is the most jealous sex?" has often arisen throughout the past several years.  Are women more likely to show a higher inclination of jealousy towards their spouses than men are? In previous research, hypothesis' have shown women have higher levels of jealousy towards their partner in regards to their emotional and sexual infidelity. Meaning a woman would be more likely to express jealousy if she felt her relationship with her partner was emotionally or sexually threatened by another woman.  Research has shown that men and women do not differ on being jealous, however, according to Brad Sagarin and Rosanna Guadagno's (2004) study "Sex differences in the contexts of extreme jealousy," there is still a difference between the two sexes.  "The equivalence of women and men's overall experience of jealousy, but the sexes would differ in the types of infidelity that would elicit greater jealousy."
Men and women experience different types of jealousy and in regards to reason and motive.  When thinking about jealousy and how each sex is triggered to become jealous; it will be important to look at the actions that his/her partner is taking part in and with whom it is.  For example, women's jealousy levels increase if there is a possibility of their partnercommitting sexual or emotional infidelity.  Whereas, with men, jealousy levels increase if there is a potential sexual threat to their relationship that would result in his partner committing sexual infidelity.  Lastly, researchers Pieternel Kijkstra and Bram P. Buunk (2001), hypothesized that there would be higher jealousy levels for both men and women based on waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and shoulder-to-hip ratio (SHR).
Seeing that jealousy may arise because of a person's body build, WHR and SHR, it is important to understand why the waist and shoulders are vital indicators of jealousy.  Kijkstra and Buunk (2001) discussed women who have a WHR of 0.7 are seen as ideal women who are fertile and healthy.  Women who have a WHR either extremely lower or extremelyhigher than 0.7 are seen as unfertile and unhealthy.  It is women with a WHR 0.7 that most men are attracted to.  Researchers Kijkstra and Buunk (2001) futher stated, "Because WHR is more relevant to female mate value, we found more women to evoke jealousy towards women who have a WHR of 0.7."  When looking at men, researchers found that women are more attracted to men who have a high SHR.  Women are attracted to men with broad shoulders because it is a sign of physical dominance and protection.  In contrast, researchers Kijkstra and Buunk (2001) found "rivals with higher SHR's to evoke more jealousy in males than in females."
Similarly, researchers Kijkstra and Buunk (2004) found in their study, "Gender differences in rival characteristics that evoke jealousy in response to emotional versus sexual infidelity," men's jealousy is particularly aroused by a rival's social dominance.  In women, jealousy is particularly aroused by a rival's physical attractiveness.  Furthermore, researchers also found that afer a woman had discovered her partner committed emotinal infidelity, not only was there an increase in jealousy but there was also an increase in "anxiety, worry, distrust, suspicion, threat and jealousy" (Kijkstra and Buunk, 2004).  Whereas sexual infidelity brought feelings of "hurt, sadness, rejection, anger, and betrayal" (Kijkstra and Buunk, 2004). From the research of Kijkstra and Buunk (2004), they found jealousy arises for two different reasons between the two sexes.  One, the person is threatened by their rival's social dominance and two, the person is threatened by their rival's physical attractiveness.
Dijkstra, Pieternel & Buunk, Bram P. (2001).  Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking nature of a rival's body build.  Evolution and Human Behavior, 22 (5), 335-341.
Dijkstra, Pieternel & Buunk, Bram P. (2004).  Gender differences in rival characteristics that evoke jealousy in response to emotional versus sexual infidelity.  Personal Relationships,           11, 395-408.
Sagarin, Brad J., & Guadagno, Rosanna E. (2004).  Sex differences in the contexts of extreme jealousy.  Personal Relationships, 11, 319-328.
|}


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(1),http://www.akademiai.com/content/lq4253462m6x2pm/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.

Assesssing Differences in Male and Female Attachment
Melissa Marie Gomez, Spring PSYCH 310

Men and women have innately different perspectives in how the development of romantic relationships should ensue. Common among most individuals is the ability to relate to this apparent divergence through personal experiences of arguments or misunderstandings; transparencies of this disparity can be seen in how the fluidity and structure of relationships can and should develop and function. This article attempts to assess the particular differences in male and female romantic attachment and how those dimensions of attachment interact with gradients of avoidance and anxiety.
In the article Sex Differences in Romantic Attachment: A meta-analysis, researcher Marco Del Giudice describes the natural tendency for males in a romantic monogamous relationship to exhibit higher avoidance behavior and lower levels of anxiety than women (Giudice, 2011). However, Giudice includes in these findings that the male tendency for higher avoidance was moderated by the three variants; the size of the community, the geographic region of inhabitation, and the average age of individuals (Giudice, 2011). Divergence in anxiety and avoidance was greatest in the community samples than in the collected data from college and web-based samples (Giudice, 2011). Interestingly, Giudice found that anxiety sex differences were qualified to peak during young adulthood whereas the dissimilarity in avoidance was a gradual increase throughout later life development (Giudice, 2011). Also, Giudice found that there was a larger gap between sexes at the extremes of anxiety and avoidance; therefore, suggesting that high anxiety was more common among women and less common among males (Giudice, 2011). Drawing from these statistics, researcher Giudice was able to conclude differences in romantic attachment through the differences in anxiety and avoidance tendencies (Giudice, 2011).
Recognizing the sex differences in romantic attachment, researchers Colle and Giudice studied the initial beginnings of this divergence by looking at developmental patterns of attachment and emotional competence during middle childhood (Colle, 2011). Tasks were developed to assess emotional competence, emotional recognition, and knowledge of regulation strategies (Colle, 2011). Attachment was operationalized to the choice of emotional regulation strategies used (Colle, 2011). Interestingly, Colle et al. findings suggest that more secure children showed a higher frequency for cognitive engagement strategies such as reappraisal whereas disorganized children exhibited a lower tendency for cognitive engagement strategies (Colle, 2011). Congruent with previous research by Giudice, Colle et al. also found that girls exhibited higher frequency scores for emotional competence (Colle, 2011). Thus, exhibiting that even at an early age there are sex differences in the level of attachment and emotional competence of males and females.
Drawing these two findings together is previous research conducted by Giudice in Sex, attachment, and the development of reproductive strategies, that built upon these natural tendencies for males to exhibit higher avoidant strategies and females anxious and ambivilant strategies (Giudice, 2009). Giudice and Colle et al. both concluded differences in levels of attachment and emotional competence by addressing natural tendencies while the article by Giudice in 2009 showed that these differences in romantic attachment are due to the evolutionary differences in mating (Giudice, 2009). Cyclical in nature, the research presented in this article all tie back to the basic sexual motivator behind each sex and thus, highlighting the influential role that it plays upon romantic engagement, attachment, emotional competencies, and tendencies.
References
Colle, L. & Del Giudice, M. (2011). Patterns of attachment and emotional competence in middle childhood. Social Development. (20)1, 51-72.
Del Giudice, M. (2009). Sex, attachment, and the development of reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 32(1), 1-21.
Del Giudice, Marco. (2011) Sex Differences in Romantic Attachment: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(2), 193-214.
Evangeline. Gender Differences in Shopping. (2010). [Graphic of Opposite Sex Differences in August 3, 2010] Offtopic. Retrieved from http://blog.dhgate.com/gender-differences-in-online-shopping.html.

Topic: Sex Differences in Response to Infidelity
Contributor: Natalie Pebbles
Class: PSYC 452, Fall 2011

Romantic relationships usually involve a certain degree of exclusivity. In spite of this, around 30% of romantic relationships are marked by at least one incident of sexual infidelity (Guerrero, Anderson & Afifi, 2007). There are many differences that exist between the sexes in regards to infidelity. One evolutionary-based sex difference in behavior is jealousy in response to infidelity. Specifically, women tend to be more jealous of their mate’s emotional infidelity, while men tend to be more jealous of sexual infidelity. Researchers suggest that these sex differences in relationship behaviors result from different obstacles to reproductive success that men and women faced in primeval times (Fisher, Voracek, Rekkas & Cox, 2008).

Evolutionary psychologists explain sex differences as based on differing parental investment. For example, men are more jealous of sexual infidelity because they cannot be assured of paternity in the same way women are assured of maternity. Contrastingly, women are more jealous of emotional infidelity due to the fear that their man’s resources and attention could be redirected toward the other woman and her children. Researchers Daly, Wilson, and Weghorst (1982) theorized that male sexual jealousy evolved as a cuckoldry avoidance mechanism because men are at risk for providing for offspring that are not theirs, while female jealousy should stem from emotional infidelity because emotional infidelity increases the probability that a man’s time, attention and resources will be redirected toward the other woman. Jealous emotional responses are not the only emotion that results as a consequence of infidelity; guilt and forgiveness are also important emotional responses to infidelity.

Like jealousy, women tend to feel guiltier when committing acts of emotional infidelity, whereas men tend to feel guiltier when committing sexual infidelity. Research has confirmed this evolutionary based theory of sex differences. Fisher et al., (2008) conducted a study in which women chose emotional infidelity as a cause of guilt significantly more than men did. Conversely, men chose sexual infidelity as a cause of guilt significantly more than women did. Forgiveness is also a key behavioral characteristic when assessing the sexes responses to infidelity. According to Fisher et al., (2008), both men and women believe they would be less forgiving of sexual infidelity despite feeling more guilty over emotional infidelity, women reported they believed their partner would have greater difficulty forgiving sexual infidelity.



Research has shown that not all infidelity is weighed the same. There are two types of infidelity, emotional and sexual, with which responses differ between men and women. Women tend to commit and feel guiltier over emotional infidelity, while men more often engage in and feel guiltier over sexual infidelity. These differences are explained by the evolutionary hypothesis, which suggests that these two kinds of infidelity are weighted differently between men and women because of the different reproductive strategies that exist between the sexes.


References Daly, M., Wilson, M., and Weghorst, S.J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 11-27 Fisher, Voracek, Rekkas & Cox, (2008). Sex differences in feelings of guilt arising from infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology 6(3) 436-446 Guerrero, L.K., Anderson, P.A., & Afifi, W.A., (2007) Close encounters: communication in relationships. Sage Publications.

Topic: Jealousy in College Students Contributor: Laksmis Cornejo Class: Psychology of Sex Differences Results from different studies on jealousy have shown the sex differences between the reasoning behind college males and female romantic jealousy, the coping with partner jealousy, and the effects of jealousy on the college dater. From an evolutionary perspective, jealousy takes on a sex-specified evolved jealousy mechanism (EJM). The sex difference in jealousy arises from the different types of infidelity that threaten a man's and a woman’s individual reproductive success (Schutzwohl 2005). More specifically, if a woman is sexually unfaithful, she is not only depriving her husband of a reproductive opportunity, but she may also be burdening him with years of investment on a child who is not his biological offspring. On the other hand, a man’s emotional infidelity may signal a diversion of resources to another mate to whom he has a higher level of emotional attachment.  Apart from these sex differences, a study conducted on college men by Breed, Knox, and Zusman showed differences not only in why males and females experience jealousy, but in how men and women cope with jealousy. Men are considerably more likely to turn to alcohol when dealing with jealousy than women. Women, on the other hand, confide more with friends when they feel jealous. Social learning theory emphasizes that women are socialized to respond to crisis events in nondestructive and nonviolent ways (Breed, Knox, Zusman 2007). This would explain why there is a gap in men leaning to alcohol and women to companions when dealing with jealousy. Men are also more accepting of the belief that jealousy shows love. In the study, 57.4% of men agreed to that, in their view, the more jealous they are, the more they express their love. In comparison, only 36.8% of women agreed to this same statement (Breed, Knox, Zusman). Men were found to be more abusive when they felt that they could no longer control their partner (Breed, Knox, Zusman 2007). The combination of being out of control with the perception that one’s partner is being sexually unfaithful may lead to violence in men. After experiencing jealousy in a relationship, the effects of the emotion will also show variance between males and females. When looking at the influence of jealousy on college male and female daters, males associated jealousy with increased feelings of rejection and loss of affection. The effect of jealousy on women, however, was associated with feelings of anxiety, insincerity, inadequacy, low self-esteem, and rivalry (Peretti and Pudowski 1997). In males, jealousy brought about feelings of no longer being loved or ideas that their partner had “fallen out of love” them. They believed in an exclusiveness of love that was diminished or eliminated if their partner appeared to love another (Peretti and Pudowski 1997). Females experienced much more anxiety in anticipating changes in their partner’s feelings and changes in the relationship. Many more females than males also felt inadequate as a dating partner. All of these studies have supported the notion of sex differences between males and females. However, it is important to note that the subjects of the majority of experiments geared toward jealousy are males and females in college. When looking at the results from these studies and comparing them to a study whose participants includes both college students and adults, we can see a much smaller gap in sex differences as the participants become more experienced. A present study, conducted by Michael Tagler, compares the influence of previous infidelity among college students and adults. The study presented evidence that infidelity experience impacts how relationship-experienced adults respond to infidelity dilemmas. Adult men and women who experienced partner infidelity shared similar responses, with the majority of both sexes selecting emotional infidelity as more distressing (Tagler 2010). In contrast, adults without real infidelity experience showed similar results to that of traditionally aged college students. Like many previous studies, these men were more likely to choose sexual infidelity as more distressing while women chose emotional infidelity as more distressing (Tagler 2010). This study provides evidence that sex differences in infidelity distress are moderated by factors such as culture and more specifically, relationship experience. References: Michael J. Tagler Sex Differences in Jealousy: Comparing the Influence of Previous Infidelity Among College Students and Adults. Social Psychological and Personality Science 2010 1: 353 originally published online 8 July 2010
Knox D, Breed R, Zusman M. College men and jealousy. College Student Journal [serial online]. June 2007;41(2):494-498. Available from: PsycINFO, Ipswich, MA. Accessed November 17, 2011.
Peretti, P. O., & Pudowski, B. C. (1997). Influence of jealousy on male and female college daters. Social Behavior And Personality, 25(2), 155-160. doi:10.2224/sbp.1997.25.2.155

Conflict over access to resources

Long Term Mating / Marriage

Topic: Gender Differences and Marital Satisfaction

Contributor: Laura Flachmann

Psyc 310, Fall 2011

Men and women differ in their approach to sexuality for many reasons, but principally because of societal conditioning concerning gender roles. Men are socialized to speak openly about sexual desire, though if women are too candid about such matters, they may be criticized for being overly preoccupied with sex. Society has also perpetuated such lingering archaic gender roles in married couples as "housewife" and "male breadwinner." Many households these days have two working individuals in a marriage, yet the wife often still does the majority of the housework and is therefore basically working two full-time jobs (Twiggs, McQuillan, &amp; Ferree, 1999). <br> The main source of sexual appetite in both sexes comes from the hormone testosterone. Each gender has testosterone-based biological differences, which fuel the seeking-appetitive-lust system (Graziottin, 2004). While married men and women both see sex as a vital part of relationship intimacy and longevity, diverse cultural standards have led individuals to experience sex differently (Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, &amp; Kolata, 1994; Rubin, 1990; Crawford &amp; Popp; Shwartz &amp; Rutter, 1998). This can prompt variations in what each individual in a marriage sees as a "satisfying" sexual relationship. <br> Hochschild (1983) came up with a concept called “emotion work,” which measures how people deal with their personal emotions in a way that keeps the peace for the sake of their partner. This concept is strongest within the bonds of marriage. Culturally, sex symbolizes love and intimacy and is a sacred act in marriage. Consequently, our cultural standards of gender have shaped how men and women deal with their emotions regarding their sex lives (Elliot &amp; Umbersom, 2008). For example, wives often feel resentment toward the amount of sexually related emotion work they must do to keep their partners happy and satisfied. (Elliot &amp; Umbersom, 2008).<br> “Performing desire” refers to emotion work done between a man and a woman within their marriage to manage the emotions surrounding what each expects in their sexual relationship. (Elliot &amp; Umbersom, 2008). These formed expectations have a lot to do with an individual’s sexual satisfaction. According to McNulty and Fisher (2008), wives’ expectations regarding sex, if they are positive expectations, predict changes in recorded sexual satisfaction. These positive expectancies can come from “behavioral confirmation,” an earlier positive expectancy that can contribute to positive expectancies during an event, or “perceptual confirmation,” a past positive expectancy that will shape an interpretation of a future event so that it leads to positive expectancy of that event (Merton, 1948; Fiske &amp; Taylor, 1991). <br> Married males’ expectations, on the other hand, were seldom correlated with satisfaction. The satisfaction of most husbands is determined by the frequency at which sex with their wives is occurring. Since testosterone levels are approximately ten times higher in men than in women, the male's sexual appetite is much stronger (Graziottin, 2004). Women are always conflicted, therefore, because they know sex is an important factor in a healthy, lasting relationship, but physiologically they desire sex less frequently than their male partners. Performing desire shows itself in the realm of frequency, with husbands working to reduce their interest in sex, while wives work on increasing their desire (Elliot &amp; Umberson, 2008).<br> Interestingly enough, housework may be an important key to the frequency or infrequency of sex and therefore to the rate of sexual satisfaction. Since sex is usually more important to husbands, wives often barter the delegating of housework to allow men to earn sex (Elliot &amp; Umbersom, 2008). This can leave the rate of frequency in the male’s hands; if they participate equally in household chores, husbands will receive sex at the rate they desire, thereby increasing their own satisfaction. But housework can also decrease the frequency of sexual activity because it leaves many women too tired to engage in intimacy, which can derail sexual satisfaction for both parties. As a result, societal gender roles over the years may be dictating sexual satisfaction more than we think.<br>

<br>

References:

Crawford, M., &amp; Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. The Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13-26.<br>Elliot, S., Umberson, D. (2008). The performance of desire: Gender and Sexual Negotiation in long-term marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 391-406. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00489.x<br>Fisher, T. D., McNulty, J. K. (2008). Gender differences in response to sexual expectancies and changes in sexual frequency: A short-term longitudinal study of sexual satisfaction in newly married couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 229-240. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9176-1<br>Fiske, S. T., &amp; Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.<br>Graziottin, A. (2204). Similarities and differences between female and male sexual functions and dysfunctions. Journal of Men's Health and Gender, 1, 71-76.<br>Graziottin, A. (2004). Sexual arousal: Similarities and differences between men and women. Journal of Men's Health and Gender, 1, 215-233. <br>Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Comercialization of human feeling. Berkely: University of California Press.<br>Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling porphecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.<br>Michael, R. T., Gangnon, J. H., Laumann, E. O., &amp; Kolata, G. (1994). Sex in America: A definitive survey. Boston: Little, Brown.<br>Rubin, L. B. (1990). Erotic wars: What happened to the sexual revolution? New York: Farrar, Straus &amp; Giroux.<br>Shwartz, P., &amp; Ruter, V. E. (1998). The gender of sexuality. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Pine Forge Press.<br>Twiggs, J. E., McQuillan, J., &amp; Feree, M. M. (1999). Meaning and measurement: Reconceptualizing measures of the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 712-724<br>

<br><br>

Topic: The Influence of Network Members on Mate Selection

Contributor: Lauren Frazier

Psyc 452, Spring 2012

     A romantic relationship does not exist in isolation; it is undoubtedly embedded in a social network. A social network is a group of people that a person knows and associates himself or herself with. These are people who the individual places trust in, and typically includes: parents, family, and close friends (Loving, 2006). This network has the ability to alter the way an individual views a situation by communicating their thoughts and ideas about the individual’s actions to him or her. Consequently, these thoughts and ideas have the ability to influence a romantic relationship.      

     There are two models that have been proposed to explain the influence that a network can exert on a romantic relationship- the support model and the interference model. The support model states that network members have the ability to help a couple add satisfaction and validation to their relationship (Loving, 2006). The network can add feelings of validation in many ways. Some examples include, commenting on what a nice couple they make, being very welcoming and inviting the couple to social events. In contrast, the interference model states that network members breakdown relationships by creating feelings of dissatisfaction between the partners (Loving, 2006). Network members can influence romantic relationships by sharing knowledge between partners, acting as points of comparison for the couple and sending social cues of approval or disapproval. Research has shown that greater network approval is associated with satisfaction and stability (Zhang & Kline, 2009).      

     Sex differences affect the influence of network members on a relationship. Findings have shown that network members are better at predicting relationship outcomes than the individuals that are actually involved in the relationship (Zhang & Kline, 2009). It is important to examine the sex differences in the behavior used to influence a relationship. Female friends have exhibited the ability to forecast the outcome of a relationship better than male friends. In addition, “research suggests that perceptions of support from the female’s social network (likely to consist of primarily females) are especially predicative of the future stability of romantic relationships” (Parks, 2007). A possible explanation for this is that females actively influence the relationships in their social network more than men do and could therefore create a self-fulfilling prophecy.      

     Cultural factors also play a role when determining the influence of network members on a relationship. What is preferred in one culture may not be preferred or emphasized in another. The cultural identities of either individualism or collectivism can determine how big of an influence network members can have on a couple’s happiness and also influences the criteria as to what is a good potential mate. “Research found that in individualistic cultures romantic love was considered a necessary component for marriage, whereas in collectivist cultures family-related or group-related characteristics of the potential mate were more important that romantic love” (Zhang & Kline, 2009). Collectivist cultures tend to be more immersed in interpersonal relationships than individualistic cultures, yet this does not mean that network members have no influence in individualistic cultures. According to Zhang and Kline (2009), parents and close friends have a greater influence on marriage in a collectivist group than in an individualistic group. The Chinese students in the study believed that their partners would meet the expectations of their parents and also comply with other network members.      

     Although the degree to which the influence of network members may vary due to sex and cultural differences, research has shown that network influence is still very prevalent. According to evolutionary psychology, as humans we strive to build social networks in order to aid survival, happiness, and prosperity. When a person tries to build a relationship with someone who is disliked by the people in his or her social network it may create discord and problems within the network. This explains why individuals are more likely to avoid relationships that are disliked by network members and strengthen the relationships that receive network member support.

<br>

References

Loving, T. J. (2006). Predicting dating relationship fate with insiders’ and outsiders’
perspectives: Who and what is asked matters. Personal Relationships, 13, 349-362.
Parks, M. R. (2007). Personal relationships and personal networks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Zhang, S., & Kline, S. L. (2009). Can I make my own decision? A cross-cultural study of
perceived network influence inmate selection. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
40, 3–23.

Topic: Sex Differences In Conflict Resolution

Contributor: Michael Cano

Interpersonal conflict is an unfortunate but inevitable part of human relationships. No place is conflict more apparent than between the sexes. With the many sex differences that exist between males and females, conflict is often a daily obstacle, which both sexes need to overcome. Since there is so much potential for conflict between men and women, the two sexes have had to develop ways of compromising and resolving their issues. The conflict resolution strategies that men and women employ are important to maintaining the delicate relationship between the sexes. However, just as there are many differences between males and females that give rise to conflict, there are also many differences in how males and females resolve conflict. Conflict between males and females can arise early in life so it is only natural that conflict resolution strategies develop just as early. In fact differences in male and female conflict resolution styles can be seen as early as childhood and adolescence. In one study, adolescent girls were found to employ the conflict resolution strategies of problem solving, withdrawal, and compliance significantly more often than adolescent boys (de Wied, Branje, and Meeus, 2007). This means that girls were either more likely to make compromises and discuss the problem calmly, avoid the problem and become distant, or yield to their friend’s opinion without defending their own opinion, respectively. In the same study it was also found that girls were more emphatic when resolving conflict than were boys. In a similar study, it was found that adolescent boys were significantly more likely to attempt to resolve conflict through use of violence or threat of violence (Black, 2000). It is important that children begin learning the skills that are required to initiate and maintain friendships early on in life. These skills are necessary to foster good communication and conflict management, which are not only important in maintaining childhood friendships but also set the foundation for future adult relationships. As men and women grow and mature, conflict between the sexes still does not cease. Conflict between males and females can especially be seen in intimate relationships of adults. As intimacy increases between two people, more opportunities for disagreements and arguments arise. L. Shi (2003) conducted a study where the attachment styles and conflict resolution strategies of various couples were measured. It was determined that males were typically more avoidant of conflict than females, and that females were more likely to be compromising and integrative or receptive of their partner’s concerns during conflict resolution. Also attachment characteristics of avoidance and anxiety were found to be good predictors of negative and passive conflict resolution strategies among the different relationships. In a study done by Makgosa and Kang on conflict resolution strategies employed by husbands and wives concerning the purchasing of consumer goods, it was found that husbands were more likely to use disengagement, a strategy of becoming disinterested and distant, than their wives. Conversely, wives were more likely to use supplication, a strategy of making requests, than their husbands. As these differences illustrate, in order for a relationship to survive and prosper, both partners must use conflict resolution strategies to work out their differences. There is no denying that sex differences in conflict resolution strategies exist between males and females. Males are typically more likely to use strategies involving avoidance, disengagement, and physical force or threat of physical force. However, females are more likely to use strategies involving compromise and empathy. Though these differences exist, the conflict resolution strategies that males and females can use are not written in stone. Both males and females can make use of constructive conflict resolution strategies that involve good communication and which help to bolster growth and stability in relationships. The interdependence of the sexes requires that both males and females work together to overcome their differences. 

References

Black, K. (2000). Gender differences in adolescents' behavior during conflict resolution tasks with best friends. Adolescence, 35(139), 499-512. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

Brahnam, S., Margavio, T., Hignite, M., Barrier, T., & Chin, J. (2005). A gender-based categorization for conflict resolution. Journal of Management Development, 24(3), 197-208. doi:10.1108/02621710510584026.

de Wied, M., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2007). Empathy and conflict resolution in friendship relations among adolescents. Aggressive Behavior, 33(1), 48-55. doi:10.1002/ab.20166.

Makgosa, R., & Kang, J. (2009). Conflict resolution strategies in joint purchase decisions for major household consumer durables: A cross-cultural investigation. International Journal of Consumer Studies,33(3), 338-348. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00747.x.

Shi, L. (2003). The association between adult attachment styles and conflict resolution in romantic relationships. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31(3), 143-157. doi:10.1080/01926180301120.

Topic: The Importance of Resources and Age in Mate Selection

Contributor: Kathrina Consing

Psyc 310, Spring 2012

<br> 

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.

Sex Differences in Guilt and Infidelity

There has been extensive research on the differences between the sexes in their responses to infidelity.  Many studies have provided evidence that men are more jealous of a partner’s sexual infidelity over emotional infidelity, while women are more jealous of a partner’s emotional infidelity over sexual infidelity (Cramer, Lipinski, Meteer, & Houska, 2008).  This tendency can be explained as an evolutionary adaptation that has resulted from men and women’s different mating strategies.  Men and women face different reproductive challenges and evolution has selected the strategies that are most effective in passing on genes.  Men are faced with paternity insecurity due to internal female fertilization.  In other words, there is no definite way for a man to know if his partner is carrying his offspring or another man’s offspring.  Men can be placed at a severe disadvantage if they invest their resources in an offspring that is not their own because this uses valuable energy that could better be used in passing on their own genes.  Therefore, they guard against being cuckolded by being cautious and jealous of sexual infidelity.  Women, on the other hand, must secure a mate’s parental resources in order for their offspring to survive and thrive.  If a woman’s partner is emotionally attached to another woman, he is most likely to invest in that woman’s offspring.  Therefore, women must be wary of a mate’s emotional infidelity with another woman in order to secure the mate’s resources for their own offspring.  Ultimately, men are jealous of sexual infidelity and women are jealous of emotional infidelity because these types of infidelity are most harmful to the reproduction of their genes, respectively. 

            Further research has supported this evidence by exploring how men and women react to sexual and emotional infidelity. Schützwohl (2005) found that men need fewer processing cues to recognize the occurrence of sexual infidelity and women need fewer processing cues to recognize the occurrence of emotional infidelity.  Men and women are systematically different in the processing of types of infidelity and they are more prepared to identify the most threatening infidelity to themselves.  

            In another study, Schützwohl (2007) investigated the relief that men and women felt after the disconfirmation of emotional infidelity versus sexual infidelity.  The results showed that women were more relieved than men about the disconfirmation of a partner’s emotional infidelity.  Similarly, men were more relieved than women about the disconfirmation of a partner’s sexual infidelity.  It is assumed in the study that the amount of relief one experiences depends on the degree to which the event is undesirable as well as the likelihood of the event occurring.  These findings further support that men find sexual infidelity more undesirable and women find emotional infidelity more undesirable. 

            Considering the extensive amount of research on jealousy and infidelity, there is a relatively small amount of literature on the emotions that men and women experience after committing (or imagining) emotional versus sexual infidelity.   It is important to consider these emotions because emotions function as motivators - in this case, to either promote or inhibit further action. Fisher, Voracek, Rekkas, & Cox (2008) investigated feelings of guilt after imagined emotional and sexual infidelity.  Guilt is an emotion that prevents more of the same action.  It also acts to show others that one is sorry for his actions and does not intend to repeat them.  Considering the types of infidelity that most upset men and women, the researchers assumed that it would be evolutionarily advantageous for humans to have the strongest feelings of guilt after committing the type of infidelity that is most harmful to their partner’s reproductive success.  Men should feel most guilty after emotional infidelity and women should feel most guilty after sexual infidelity.  This guilt would prevent them from committing this specific infidelity again and also show their partner that they regret their actions, diminishing the likelihood of inducing volatile actions from them. 

            However, the results of the study found the opposite to be true.  Men felt guiltier following imagined sexual infidelity, while women felt guiltier following emotional infidelity.  These feelings of guilt seem to be evolutionarily disadvantageous because they guard men and women from committing the type of infidelity that is less harmful to their partner.  This suggests that men and women feel less guilty when committing the more harmful infidelity to their partner and are less likely to avoid repeating the same type of infidelity. 

            These findings suggest a predominantly egocentric point of view in humans in regards to infidelity.  Since men are more jealous of sexual infidelity, they tend to assume that this form of infidelity is also a major concern to their partner.  Similarly, women have the same assumption about their partner’s concern over emotional infidelity.  Both men and women cannot see past the importance of the infidelity that puts themselves at reproductive risk to recognize the type of infidelity that puts their partner most at risk.  Men and women’s egocentric viewpoints cause them to consider their own worst infidelity as the most important in relationships overall.  

            Another possible explanation for this seemingly disadvantageous adaptation is that the guilt experienced guards against intra-sexual competition. Men know that other men are most jealous of a partner’s sexual infidelity. Therefore, in mating with a woman that is committing infidelity, a man might incur jealousy and violence from her partner.  However, the guilt that he feels for engaging in the infidelity might signal regret to her partner, showing him that he does not intend to repeat it and diminishing the chances of her partner’s retaliation. The same might be true of women and emotional infidelity.

Although there has been extensive research on sex differences in jealousy and infidelity, it is also important to study the consequences of infidelity. While certain conclusions may seem obvious from previous research, evolutionary adaptations do not always have easy or simple explanations.

References:

Cramer, R., Lipinski, R. E., Meteer, J. D., &amp; Houska, J. (2008). Sex differences in subjective distress to unfaithfulness: Testing competing evolutionary and violation of infidelity expectations hypotheses. The Journal Of Social Psychology, 148(4), 389-405. doi:10.3200/SOCP.148.4.389-406

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=8ad54cac-3d75-4a7c-b70d-3e526656e514%40sessionmgr4&amp;vid=5&amp;hid=4

Fisher, M., Voracek, M., Rekkas, P., &amp; Cox, A. (2008). Sex differences in feelings of guilt arising from infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(3), 436-446.

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=9a85b426-0f74-4a02-9cbe-60aa89cd1804%40sessionmgr13&amp;vid=2&amp;hid=4

Schützwohl, A. (2008). Relief over the disconfirmation of the prospect of sexual and emotional infidelity.Personality And Individual Differences, 44(3), 668-678. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.026 

http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.linus.lmu.edu/science/article/pii/S0191886907003480 

Schützwohl, A. (2005). Sex differences in jealousy: The processing of cues to infidelity. Evolution And Human Behavior, 26(3), 288-299. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.09.003

http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.linus.lmu.edu/science/article/pii/S1090513804000790

Within-sex Differences in Infidelity

Hormonal Changes in Men

Topic:  Hormonal Changes in Men in Fatherhood and Committed Relationships

Contributer: Julia Singleton

Semester: Summer 2011

As men reach the time in their life where they are looking to find a long term commitment and are becoming a father, they start to experiences changes in their hormones that change their focus from the need to find a mate to a parental and marital nature. Hormones, as seen in previous chapters, have a significant effect on both how the brain in structured in the womb, and behavior. One of the most critical of these hormones is testosterone. Testosterone appears to aid in male-to-male competition and male seeking in regards to mating, dominance interactions, aggression, and libido.

Burnham et al. (2003) examined the levels of testosterone in married men with children, married men without children, paired (in a relationship) and not married, and unpaired (single) men. The study found that men who were in relationships (married or paired) had 21% lower testosterone than men who were unpaired. Men who were married with children had 42% less testosterone than unpaired men, and 28% less testosterone than men in relationships (married or paired) who did not have children. Married men without children and paired men did not have significant differences. Since there was no significant difference of men who were married without children versus paired, Burnham et al. suggested that the testosterone is correlated with the commitment of the relationship, and not the marital status. The results of this study support the idea that high testosterone levels are more likely to be associated with men that are in shorter term, less stable relationships, and therefore have higher mating effort. Men who do have these higher levels of testosterone who engage in committed relationships were more likely to be unfaithful and have extramarital sex (Gray et al., 2002; Booth & Dabbs, 1993).

Kuzawa et al. (2009) measured testosterone and luteinizing hormones (which stimulate production of testosterone) in males in the Philippines. Fathers were found having lower testosterone and LH levels. Fathers were also found to have lower testosterone in the evening, which was suspected to be correlated with the fact that fathers spent more time with their children at night. This also suggests that testosterone levels change based on social experiences and behavior (such as interacting with children). Men who were involved in childcare, fathers, and men in committed relationships had lower levels of luteinizing hormone and testosterone. A similar study by Gray et al. (2002) of men in Boston showed the same discrepancies; testosterone in married men was lower than unmarried men, and fathers had lower testosterone than unmarried men. These results were also much stronger when testing testosterone levels in the evening versus in the morning.

Berg et al. (2001) looked at changes in cortisol and estradiol in males becoming fathers, in addition to testosterone. Cortisol and estradiol are both steroid hormones. Cortisol is released when responding to stress, and estrodial is a sex hormone. Estradiol was found more in men becoming fathers than in the control group. Berg et al. believed that since estradiol is a hormone that contributes to maternal behavior in women, it can also be what is contributing to paternal behavior in men. Cortisol was also lower in fathers. The week before the child was born, however, there was an increase in cortisol in the expecting fathers. Testosterone, as expected, was lower in dads than in the control group of men.

In North America, when males begin to have committed relationships they engage in less seeking behavior and increase their effort put into the relationship and parenting (Burnham et al., 2003). The lessoning of testosterone during fatherhood could be because the effects of testosterone that are needed to show dominance and aggression during mate seeking conflict with the needs to support a child during parenting (Kuzawa et al., 2009; Wingfield et al., 1990; Gray, 2003). This change of testosterone and mating behavior has also been shown through various studies in other animals. For example, birds that testosterone levels increase when the birds to need protect their territory and compete with other males for mates, and decrease when they do have a mate and need to care for and feed their offspring (Kuzawa et al., 2009; Goymann et al., 2007; Hirschenhauser et al., 2003; Wingfield et al., 1990). When aggression and dominance is no longer an issue to seek a mate, they testosterone decreases. In humans, men’s testosterone begins to decrease when their partner is in the last few weeks of pregnancy (Kuzawa et al., 2009; Berg & Wynne-Edwards, 2002; Storey et al., 2000) and men who held children’s toys such as a doll (parenting stimuli) also had a decrease in testosterone (Gray, et al., 2002; Storey et al., 2000). This demonstrates the need to switch from mate seeking behavior to parental behavior, and how hormones change dependent on external stimuli. This process can also be reversed if a male loses a mate and needs to return to mate seeking behavior. When males go through divorce (losing their mate), their testosterone levels rise (Gray et al., 2002; Mazur & Michalek. 1998); instead of needing to put efforts towards parenting, the male must once again put effort into finding a mate and guard his territory.

(Burnham et al., 2003)

References:
Berg, S. J. & Wynne-Edwards, K. E. (2001). Changes in testosterone, cortisol, and estradiol levels in men becoming fathers. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 76(6), 582-592. Retrieved from http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/76/6/582.short

Burnham, T. C., Chapman, J. F., Gray, P.B., McIntyre, M. H., Lipson, S. F., & Ellison, P. T. (2003). Men in committed, romantic relationships have lower testosterone. Hormones and Behavior, 44(2), 119 – 122. Retrieved from http://0-www.sciencedirect.com.linus.lmu.edu/science/article/pii/S0018506X03001259

Gray, P. B., Kahlenberg, S. M., Barrett, E. S., Lipson, S. F., & Ellison, P. T. (2002). Marriage and fatherhood are associated with lower testosterone in males. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(3), 193-201. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513801001015

Kuzawa, C. W., Gettler, L. T., Muller, M. N., McDade, T. W., & Feranil, A. B. (2009). Fatherhood, pair bonding and testosterone in the Philippines. Hormones and Behavior, 56(4), 429-435. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X09001664

Infidelity

characteristics of those who cheat

Contrary to the fact that human beings are primarily a monogamous species, infidelity has been found to be pretty prevalent in society today. Men and women alike have strayed away from their intimate relationships in pursuit of another partner, and there are a myriad of reasons as to why men and women do this. Various studies have shown that there are certain characteristics that generally cause infidelity in relationships.
A characteristic that has shown to cause men and women to cheat is insecurity. Prima facie it may seem logical that partners that become cheated on are the insecure ones. One may think this because when a partner becomes insecure it would make sense that their insecurity and fear of separation would drive their partner to cheat on a less insecure partner. But there are findings that point to the cheater as being insecure. The primary argument is that affairs can act as almost a back up or net for the cheating partner in the situation that the marriage would fall through. Partners can feel so insecure worried about their relationship falling through that they pursue another partner to ensure that there is no way of them to ever be alone. Another finding said the feeling of inadequacy can stem from a partner’s insecurity. They may pursue another partner in order to make up for their feeling of inferiority in their primary relationship (Manigoult, 2002). This reason for cheating can also coincide with the common reason where men with power cheat. They simply believe their partner just isn’t adequate and they strive for the forbidden (Mroch, 2009).
Men and women with power never believe they have enough and always feel the right to exert their power over whomever they feel. There is always a feeling of power whenever a man or woman can get whatever they want. There is nother situation in which power can cause a person to stray from their relationship. Sometimes a partner doesn’t feel they have complete power or control over their intimate partner, so they look for an external source. Yet sometimes they feel too much control and look to let out their frustrations on an extramarital affair (Manigoult, 2002). A final point is that people cheat because they have the option to choose and select, almost like in the case of alpha males in certain species (e.g. Elephant seals). Sometimes though when a partner exerts too much power, the partner at the receiving end can feel neglected. Neglect is yet another reason as to why people cheat.
Another characteristic that has a connection to infidelity is neglect. Manigoult expressed neglected partners as wounds with a need for a bandage or parter. (Manigoult 2002). Neglected human beings are always in search of a person caring enough to take them in and to give them the emotional connection they need in a relationship. Gary Neuman’s studies showed that this attribute has shown to be the number one reason for why people cheat: emotional disconnection. Emotional disconnection can be traced directly to neglect in a relationship. He found, interestingly, that men, equally as much as women, need to feel emotionally connected to their partner. They need to know they are making their woman genuinely happy, and the woman has to show it. The reason this was interesting is because men, from an evolutionary standpoint, have never been the ones to turn to emotional connection in a relationship. Men get into relationships and cheat because it is part of their primal survival instinct (Mroch, 2009). Creating the healthiest offspring in order to carry on their genes has always been the primary reason why men reproduce. So it made sense for them to have as many children as humanly possible. Today we can see that this has changed due to the monogamous species humans have evolved into. Yet with the changing world we live in, there have been studies that show an increase in female infidelity.
An interesting study of Stefan Anitei is that he found that there is a rising number of women, in our modern society, who are beginning to cheat more often mainly due to the convenience of traveling, increased economic sustainability, and the ability to remain anonymous (Anitei 2008). Women are more capable of taking care of themselves these days with there being more job opportunities for them as compared to what was available 20 or so years ago. And the ability to get around from place to place has become more convenient mainly due to the advancement in technology with cars, planes, etc. It was harder for women to be able to sustain a life by themselves thus causing them to rely on men for resources and to take care of them financially.
It seems inefficient seeing men and women cheat when looking at it from an evolutionary standpoint. If the whole point was to ensure that genes are passed on how is it beneficial for a man or woman to cheat? When men and women can be present for their child to fully take on parenting that child, and help support their partner the chances are substantially higher that their child will survive. This is a pretty extreme point to be made but the fact is that a woman is better off with a man who is there 100% of the time rather than never there to support her. But can we stop infidelity? Highly doubtful, seeing that it is and has been in our genes for centuries.

Manigoult, Antoinette. “The Psychology of infidelity.”
eSSORTMENT. 2002. Web. 17 Nov. 2010
<http://www.essortment.com/lifestyle/psychologyinfid_tvty.htm>

Anitei, Stefan. “The Biology and Psychology of Cheating.”
Softpedia. May 15th, 2008. Web. 17 Nov. 2010
<http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Biology-and-Psychology-of-Cheating-85610.shtml>

Mroch, Courtney. “The Psychology of Why Married Men Cheat, Part 1.”
Family. March 11, 2009. Web. 17 Nov. 2010
<http://marriage.families.com/blog/the-psychology-of-why-married-men-cheat-part-1>

Why Men Cheat. By M. Gary Neuman. Retrieved November 17, 2010 from
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpicNmVnaYA&feature=player_embedded#!>

Gender Differences in Perception of Infidelity

By Spenser Mitchell

A significant portion of the literature has firmly established the gender differences between the risks presented to both males and females regarding the prospect of their partners engaging in extra-pair copulation. The parent security of males is adversely threatened when their partner engages in extra-pair copulation while the female faces the risk of losing their partners parental investment. In light of these risks, how do the genders differ in their perceptions of infidelity. To answer this question it is first vitally important to define infidelity in evolutionary terms as well as distinguish between the different types of infidelity. Infidelity is defined as a severe relational transgression in which one or both partners engages in “extradydadic behaviors that violate relational rules of monogamy and exclusivity without their partner’s prior consent” (Roscoe, 1988). The research that has been done on infidelity has identified two types of betrayal that occur in committed relationships; sexual infidelity and emotional infidelity. Sexual infidelity refers to the act of engaging in sexual activity with someone other than one’s partner. This can be anything from kissing to full-on intercourse. Emotional infidelity refers to the act of becoming emotionally involved with someone other than one’s partner. This can range anywhere from flirting and spending time together to falling in love (Roscoe, 1988).

In the search to identify the gender differences between perceptions of infidelity and the subsequent effects they have on committed relationships, Shackelford (2002) examined the gender differences between willingness to forgive a partners infidelity. Participants were given a number of hypothetical questions to answer aiming to gauge how they would react to a partners infidelity. The results indicated that men, relative to women, found it significantly harder to forgive an act of sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity committed their partners. Women, on the other hand, found it significantly harder to forgive an emotional act of infidelity committed by their partners in comparison to men (Shackelford, 2002). In similar fashion, Becker (2004) conducted a study that examined this very same question by also administering hypothetical questions to participants regarding their partners infidelity. In this study however, researchers attempted to measure the emotional reactions to each of these hypothetical scenarios in terms of anger, disgust, hurt and jealousy. Each participant answered each question by identifying the levels of each of these emotions felt following each of the presented scenarios. Results found that women reported significantly higher scores of jealousy in response to emotional infidelity than did men (Becker). Considering the results of the studies mentioned, it appears that men respond much more negatively to sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity while women respond more negatively to emotional infidelity than sexual infidelity. From an evolutionary perspective this makes perfect sense when considering the gender differences between the risk factors infidelity provides. As was established earlier, the evolutionary fitness of a male is significantly more threatened by the prospect of sexual infidelity than that of a females. If a males partner engages in extra-pair copulations, his parental security is immediately jeopardized. In accordance to this, it follows that males would be much more concerned as well as negatively affected by a partner’s sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity. On the other hand, as was also established earlier, a partners infidelity presents females with the risk of losing the males resources, parental support as well as overall investment in them to another female. The needs just mentioned are much more logically associated with the emotional rather than sexual aspect of a relationship. If a male engages in sexual infidelity, no deeper investment is assumed nor required with the other female while emotional infidelity appears much more logically attached to these. It follows that emotional infidelity, which would assume investment of attention and care in another women, would be much more of a concern to women than sexual infidelity in comparison to men.

References:
Becker, D. V., Sagarin, B. J. (2004). When the sexes need not differ: Emotional responses to sexual and emotional aspects of infidelity. Personal Relationships, 11, 529-538.
Roscoe, B., Cavanaugh, L. E., & Kennedy, D. R. (1988). Dating infidelity: Behaviors, reasons, and consequences. Adolescence, 23, 35-43.
Shackelford, T. K., Buss, D. M., (2002). Forgivenes or breakup: Sex differences in responses to a partner's infidelity. Cognition And Emotion, 16(2), 299-307.

Between Sex-Differences in Romantic Jealousy by Brea Talsness 

Jealousy is an emotional state caused by perceived threat to an esteemed position or relationship, and can trigger behavior that looks to stop the threat. From an evolutionary perspective, jealousy is an evolved mechanism due to the unique reproductive challenges that ancestral men and women faced (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992). This is known as the sex-specific evolved mechanism. The greatest reproductive challenge for men is paternal uncertainty. As a result of a woman’s concealed fertilization, men are not certain whether or not their mate is carrying their offspring or of another male’s. Women do not risk maternal uncertainty, but risk losing resources and commitment if their mate forms an emotional attachment with another female. Consequently, this emotional attachment would channel their support to another female. 
 Previous research in this area has suggested that sex-differences in jealousy are in the direction predicted by the sex-specific evolved mechanism hypothesis. Many of the methods used have consisted of a forced-choice design in which participants are instructed to choose which scenario (sexual or emotional infidelity) they find most distressing. However there have been many criticisms about this methodology. For example, a force-choice methodology does not allow participants to elaborate their reasons for their decision and the format does not accurately elicit the emotions that characterize romantic jealousy. 
 A study by Fussell (2012) employed a qualitative methodology to examine how individuals experience and respond to actual relationship threats. The research design consisted of 16 in-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews, which was designed to elicit descriptions of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors related to romantic jealousy. For example, participants were instructed to respond to the following prompt: “Why/how suspicions aroused?” The results showed that both sexes experienced anxious insecurity in response to suspicious jealousy, behavioral response of surveillance, and information gathering. Males experienced greater psychological distress than females in response to sexual infidelity. Females elicited the same emotional intensity for accounts of emotional infidelity and sexual infidelity. In the Fait Accompli Jealousy phase, both sexes described initial feelings of nausea and shock turning to anger/distress on discovering that sexual infidelity had taken place. Fussell (2012) found two particular between-sex differences that were consistent with the sex-specific evolved mechanism view. Men and women were both distressed by sexual infidelity, but women were uniquely distressed by emotional infidelity. Women remained committed to the relationship. They found reasons for their mate’s infidelity and even thought about how their own behavior might have contributed to the infidelity. In contrast, men were more likely to terminate the relationship having lost all trust in their mate. This could be related to the sex-specific evolved jealousy mechanism in which men are designed to remain cautious given the greater potential costs compared to women. 
Another study presented by Schützwohl (2004) examined the strategies underlying men and women’s choices for the type of infidelity (emotional or sexual) that makes them more jealous. In the procedure, the participants were instructed to respond to an infidelity scenario such as “Imagine you discover that your partner formed a deep emotional and a passionate sexual relationship with another person.” The results from the study showed that both sexes reported more jealousy about the partner’s emotional involvement, however more men than women selected their partner’s sexual involvement with another person as making them more jealous. Additionally, women reached their decision selecting emotional or sexual infidelity as eliciting more intense jealousy more rapidly than men (16.4 s vs. 20.8 s). In relation to the evolutionary analysis of jealousy, women selecting emotional infidelity reached their decision reliably faster than men selecting emotional infidelity. These differences in decision times suggest that both sexes selected their adaptive infidelity type with respect to their evolved jealousy mechanism. Last, two studies by Buss et al. (1992) tested the hypothesis that sex difference in jealousy emerged in individuals as a result of adaptive mechanisms evolved for each sex. The first study examined how men and women differ in their response to sexual versus emotional infidelity. The results showed that 60% of the male sample reported greater distress over their partner’s sexual infidelity compared to 17% of the female sample. 83% of the female sample reported that they would experience greater distress over their partner’s emotional attachment to another person. Additionally, 32% more men than women reported greater distress over a partner’s sexual involvement with someone else, whereas the majority of women reported greater distress over a partner falling in love with someone else. The second study examined the physiological responses to a partner’s involvement with someone other than their partner. Results showed that men experienced significant increases in electrodermal activity (EDA) when shown sexual imagery compared to emotional imagery. In contrast, women showed significantly greater EDA activity to the emotional infidelity image than to the sexual infidelity image. 
 The studies that I have presented suggest that there are sex-differences in jealousy in which men experience greater distress in response to physical infidelity than women. These evolved responses are due to the risks of reproduction for both men and women and function to protect the sexes against loss of energy, time, and resources. I think it would be interesting for future research to examine the different threats both sexes experience in response to infidelity and whether there are sex-differences in the way they cope with infidelity.

References:

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

Fussell, J., Nicola (2012). Between Sex-Differences in Romantic Jealousy: Substance or
Spin? A Qualitative Analysis. Evolutionary Psychology,136-172.

Schützwohl, A. (2004). Which Infidelity Type Makes You More Jealous? Decision
Strategies in a Forced-choice Between Sexual and Emotional Infidelity.
Evolutionary Psychology, 2121-128.

Sex Addiction

Infidelity has occurred since the dawn of civilization. The slightly polygamous nature of human beings has led researchers to believe that our ancestors were actively engaged in polygynous (having multiple wives) or polyandrous (having multiple husbands) relationships. Although extra-pair copulations for humans have some reproductive advantages (i.e. allowing variety in offspring gene pool, acquiring resources from multiple mates, etc) it is ideally more advantageous for pairs to provide mutual effort in raising offspring. However, in recent years infidelity has been in the media spotlight. Headlines are littered with sex scandals and celebrities cheating on their spouses. From Tiger Woods to Jesse James, infidelity has been on the rise, but has taken a new name—sex addiction.

When causes of infidelity are broken down and analyzed, they tend to encompass issues of insecurity, power, and control. Partners that feel insecure about their relationship may seek outside relationships as a “back-up plan” in case their current relationship fails. Individuals that feel powerless or neglected in their relationships may seek outside relationships to fulfill their needs that are being unfulfilled. With cheating seemingly on the rise in America, more attention has also been placed on sex addiction. While on the surface it may seem that sex addiction stems from the same causes as infidelity, this is in fact not the case.

In the mid 1970’s, an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) member saw the parallels between alcoholism and sex addiction, leading to the first sex addiction support group. Sex addiction, similar to other types of addictions, becomes a unconsciously and uncontrollably compulsive ritual as well as a psychological and biological attachment to sexual behaviors (Schaeffer, 2009). Addicts typically utilize denial to rationalize and justify their distorted sense of reality. It has been estimated that 3-6% of people in the United States are suffering from sex addiction (Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health, 2008). True sex addicts typically exhibit three characteristic signs: loss of control, continuation of behaviors despite consequences, and obsession with sex and sexual behaviors. Addicts can become involved in a variety of sexual behaviors that characterize their addiction, ranging from compulsive masturbation to anonymous sex to rape. Sex addicts in relationships may find themselves living a double life, seeking to fulfill their compulsions outside of their primary relationships. Infidelity is a major issue for sex addicts and can cause irreparable damage to relationships. When sex addicts are caught it is characteristic of their partners to leave or separate from them for a period of time.

Examining sex addiction from an evolutionary perspective is a particularly challenging task. There is currently no known research examining sex addiction via an evolutionary lens. However, due to the similarities between sex addiction and other addictions (i.e. drugs, alcohol, etc) it seems reasonable to explore the evolutionary theories surrounding other addictions. Lende and Smith (2002) describe the incentive salience theory, explaining how “…rather than a hard-wired system, dopamine works within an integrated system and mediates only a part of behavioral decision-making.” Consequently, because dopamine is associated with pleasure seeking behaviors, the loss-of-control found in addicts occurs because dopamine mediates the characteristic compulsive wanting of addiction without signaling satiation or stopping. Current evolutionary theories concerning addiction typically revolve around drug or alcohol addictions. These theories explain how addictions have surfaced in contemporary society, but fail to adequately explain the existence of sex addiction. Sex is necessary for the survival and continuation of our species, so intuitively it would seem that an addiction to sex would be irrelevant to our ancestors. It is clear that further research needs to be done to fully understand the evolutionary principles associated with sex addiction.

      Many psychologists say that you can become addicted to anything that brings you pleasure. Sexual addiction is a heavily debated topic where there is little evidence to truly support that excessive sex is truly an addiction. First, one has to classify what an addiction really is. The Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders defines an addiction as having: tolerance, withdrawal, and multiple negative effects on an individual’s lifestyle. Also, from an evolutionary psychology approach, it is thought that a high sexual libido is a beneficial trait because it provides a higher chance of successfully reproducing. 
In research done by Levine et al., 1988 researchers examined the concepts that symbolize sexual addiction in society. More specifically, researchers looked in depth at the sexuality concepts that were found in the 70’s and 80’s and concluded that sexual compulsivity is not pathological. The researchers instead concluded that the sexual addiction definitions were conceptually flawed and that the behavior was an acquired one that is stigmatized by society and dominant institutions.
 In this particular example, the research done was more sociological and dealt with more the stigma of society. People’s sexual libido varies greatly and psychologists, as well as society, have had trouble with agreeing on what is considered too much sex.
     In a separate study done by Eisenman et al. on 9,313 college students, researchers asked students to self assess themselves for compulsive behaviors and possible addictions that they might have(2004). Results showed that males had significantly more addictions than females and that many addictions where paired with one another. Results also showed that females were more likely to admit addiction where as males would not. The study looked at how the sexes differed and how poly drug use like alcohol correlated with an addiction or compulsivity towards sex. Males were more likely to be involved with compulsive sexual behavior where as females were more likely to be compulsive sexually if using other drugs.

     In another study done on college students by Dodge et al, researchers were interested in the sexual compulsivity rate and participation in high risk HIV/STD sex(2004). For this study 899 students were given a questionnaire that asked questions about their sexual appetites, relationships, and risk taking sexual behavior. The results showed that there was more sexual compulsivity found in college students compared to other groups that have had similar studies done on them. However, the study was not able to measure other factors of sexual compulsivity like sexual desire and sexual exploration.
     In the end, there has been little research that could be done to test the evolutionary significance of sexual addiction, nonetheless there are a few theories. Just like any other dominant trait in a population, a trait for a high libido would be beneficial to a species or individual because they would probably be having the most sex. Having the most sex would then result in the most offspring and thus further evolution and pass down more genes. This would in fact not support the idea that sexual addiction is an addiction but rather a positive adaptation for evolution.


References:
Bancroft, J., & Vukadinovic, Z. (2004). Sexual addiction, sexual compulsivity, sexual impulsivity, or what? Toward a theoretical model. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 225–234

Roller, C. (2004). Sex Addiction and Women: A Nursing Issue. Journal of Addictions Nursing, 15(2), 53-61. doi:10.1080/10884600490450263

Schaeffer, B. (2009). Sexual addiction. Transactional Analysis Journal, 39
(2), 153-162.

Turner, M. (2009). Uncovering and treating sex addiction in couples therapy. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 20 (2-3), 283-302. doi:10.1080/08975350902970279

Ferree, M. C. (2001). Females and sex addiction: Myths and diagnostic implications. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 8(3-4), 287-300. doi:10.1080/107201601753459973

Brian Dodge, Michael Reece, Sara L. Cole and Theo G. M. Sandfort
, Sexual Compulsivity among Heterosexual College Students The Journal of Sex Research , Vol. 41, No. 4 (Nov., 2004), pp. 343-350

RUSSELL EISENMAN, M. L. DANTZKER & LEE ELLIS (2004): Self Ratings of Dependency/Addiction Regarding Drugs, Sex, Love, and Food: Male and Female College Students, Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity: The Journal of Treatment &amp; Prevention, 11:3, 115-127

Martin P. Levine and Richard R. Troiden
 The Myth of Sexual Compulsivity
 The Journal of Sex Research , Vol. 25, No. 3 (Aug., 1988), pp. 347-363

The workplace

Chapter 11/The Sexes Together/The Workplace/Sexual Harassment

From an evolutionary perspective, sexual harassment in the workplace has developed and increased as the combined result of relative parental investment, sex differences in mate preferences, differences in the sexual worlds between sexes, and sex differences in perceptions about harassment. There are multiple actions that can be regarded as sexual harassment in an organizational or workplace setting: “forcible rape, extorting sex for job benefits…sexual propositions and vulgar language, romantic overtures, “well-intended compliments…and harassing actions of a non-sexual form.” (Evolutionary Perspective on Sexual Harassment, Browne 1997). The extreme variety and nature of these actions have led to the rise of sexual harassment complaints in recent years. Ultimately, it is the differences in how the sexes perceive harassment from the opposite sex that lead to sexual harassment in the workplace.
In the workplace, two classes of sexual harassment are acknowledged by the EEOC: quid pro quo harassment and hostile-environment harassment. Both are considered violators of Title VII’s sex discrimination distinction. “Quid pro quo harassment usually involves a claim that an employee was required to submit to sexual advances as a condition of receiving tangible job benefits or that failure to submit to such advances resulted in a tangible job detriment” (Browne 1997). On the other hand, hostile-environment harassment involves “a claim that the work environment is permeated with sexuality or ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult” (Browne 1997).
The first three of four contributing elements to sexual harassment in the workplace are complements of each other. According to Robert Trivers’ theory of relative parental investment, there are sex differences in regards to sexual psychologies, according to the degree of parental investment they experienced. Women are choosier in mate selection than men – and therefore, are much less interested in pursuing casual sex without commitment. Men are the exact opposite, and focus their efforts on pursuing casual sex without commitment as a means of achieving status. The impact of this sex difference on sexual harassment in the workplace is seen through the male’s sexualized world. “Because a man’s status and resources are correlated with his reproductive fitness, men have substantial reproductive incentives to achieve status, which, to a large extent, entails attainment of dominance over other males” (Browne 1997). Men tend to pursue short-term sexual strategies, where they are “attracted by signs of sexual accessibility.” It is easy to see how the combination of these evolutionary and biological factors can lead to problems of sexual harassment in the workplace. The most important of the four contributors to sexual harassment’s evolution in the workplace is the multitude of sex differences in perceptions about harassment.
The sex differences in sexual harassment perceptions explain why significantly more women than men report sexual harassment in the workplace. “Men tend to interpret friendly behavior as reflecting sexual interest, and women tend to interpret sexually interested behavior as mere friendliness. [So] there is much room for misunderstanding. A woman who has no sexual interest in a heterosexual relationship may first act in a friendly fashion, which the man may interpret as a sign of sexual interest and respond with what he believes are mild indications of sexual interest. If the woman takes the man’s sexual interest to be mere friendliness, she may respond with more friendliness, which the man may view as a positive response to his display of sexual interest, thereby promoting him to respond with sexual advances” (Sex, Power, and Dominance, Browne 2006). In 1998, “five women employed by Safeway, Inc. announced the filing of a charge of discrimination against Safeway with the EEOC…the charge alleges that Safeway’s “Superior Customer Service” and related programs are forcing employees to smile at, make eye contact with and otherwise engage in overtly solicitous interactions with customers under the threat of disciplinary action. This program…has led to a higher incidence of sexual harassment. The charge alleges that by creating conditions which expose employees to sexual harassment…the Company has tolerated if not fostered, a ‘hostile work environment,’ a recognized basis for sexual harassment under federal and state anti-discrimination laws.” (Safeway Employees Announce the Filing of a Charge with the EEOC, 1998). This is an exemplary situation of “differences in perception that lead to communication, [which] are easily understood from an evolutionary perspective’ (Browne 2006). From this example, along with many others, we can see how sexual harassment in the workplace can be perceived and implied differently between and among the sexes.

References

Brown, Kingsley R. "An Evolutionary Perspective on Sexual Harassment: Seeking Roots in Biology Rather Than Ideology." (1997): 5-77. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. < http://faculty.law.wayne.edu/browne/Documents/Articles/Evolutionary%20Perspective%20on%20Sexual%20Harassment_Browne.pdf>.

Browne, Kingsley R. "Sex, Power, and Dominance: The Evolutionary Psychology of Sexual Harassment." 2006. Web. 18 Nov. 2010. <http://faculty.law.wayne.edu/browne/Documents/Articles/Sex%20Power%20&%20Dominance_Browne.pdf>.

“Safeway Employees Announce the Filing of a Charge Withthe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission." AllBusiness. Business Wire, 16 Nov. 1998. Web. 19 Nov. 2010. <http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/legal-services-litigation/6912813-1.html>.

Chapter 11/The Sexes Together/The Workplace/The Income Gap between Men & Women

Sex differences are almost always due to both nature and nurture, but here’s one that’s not-income. The income gap between men and women is still very present in our world and is not due to any real sex difference but rather, a socially and politically constructed one. A Gallup poll conducted in 2005 revealed that fifty-three percent of Americans think that equality in the workplace has been achieved, but the research that has been done on this topic proves otherwise (Jones, 2005). Studies indicate that employers are often unconsciously primed to believe which jobs are more suitable for men and which are more suitable for women based on what the job entails and if the characteristics are viewed as male or female. A study conducted in 2008 revealed that when participants were assigned salaries to what they perceived as “male” or “female” jobs, the jobs they perceived as female-type were assigned less pay than the jobs they perceived as male-type (Alksnis & Curtis, 2008). Jobs that are dominated by one sex are assumed to require traits from the appropriate sex, therefore, women will not be hired for a job that is dominated by men because they will not be able to fulfill the masculine traits or characteristics assumed to be required for the job. Since men dominate most of the higher end jobs, women’s chances of obtaining those jobs when competing with men are very slim, and the attempt to go against the norm is not possible at a professional level because these norms start as early as picking a major. Majors too are also usually dominated by one sex or the other and so in choosing a major, men and women tend to pick majors that are assumed to be better fit for their sex and majors that are usually dominated by women correlate with lower paying jobs.

According to the World Bank Economic Review, the current wage gap for developed countries is 27 percent and only one-fifth of this gap can be contributed to worker and job characteristics. However, the increase in globalization should help decrease the wage gap significantly (Jones, 2005). One reason is because with the increase in globalization comes the increase of competition which would make it more expensive for individuals and firms to discriminate. They would more likely pick who is best for the job instead of defaulting to the stereotypical characteristics of the position and which gender fits. Secondly, expanding trade and transactions with other countries will increase job opportunities for women through export-oriented industries and thus creating a demand for female labor which would increase women’s average wages, decreasing the gender wage gap. This research and prediction may serve as hope for the decrease in the wage gap but perhaps breaking the norms at an earlier age would be a more reliable way to help get rid of the stereotypical characteristics of men and women in regards to the different areas of study as well as career opportunities. This way people can choose what they want to do and are not limited by their sex and the molds that have been made about which tasks are appropriate for each sex.

References
Alksnis, Christine & Curtis, James, (2008). Workforce segregation and the gender wage gap: Is 'women's' work valued as highly as 'men's'?. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6), 1416-1441.

Jones, J. (2005). Gender differences in views of job opportunity: The Gallup Poll. The Gallup Organization.

Oostendrop, Remco, H. (2009) Globalization and The Gender Wage Gap. The World Bank Economic Review, 23, 141-161

Zeher-Bobbitt, Donna, (2007). The Gender Income Gap and the Role of Education. Sociology of Education, 80, 1-22.

Topic: Chapter 11/ The Sexes Together/ The Workplace/ The effects of Height on Income

Many sex differences among various species can be attributed to adaptations and the human species is no different. The fact that men are on average taller and bigger than women tells us that they once had to fight for access to women. But some studies suggest that men are continuing to get taller and taller with each new generation despite the fact that in most countries men do not necessarily need to physically fight for access to women anymore. (Edem et al, 2005) If this adaptation is continuing there must still be a need for men to be taller and bigger. Researchers who have inquired about this question have found that men’s height plays a key factor in women’s mating preferences as well as income and financial success which may be why a Gallop poll was able to determine that on average, taller men rate their lives as more satisfying and happier than shorter men. Men who are above average height (5 foot 10inches) are also more likely to report a wide range of positive emotions such as enjoyment and happiness and are less-likely to report negative emotions such as anger, stress, sadness and physical pain.
A study done in 2005 revealed that men in the highest income categories were significantly taller, heavier, had more body fat, higher education and were often married compared to men in lower income categories. (Edem et al, 2005) Taller men are usually more confident and respected. One can try to figure out whether employers pick up on how confident a man is and therefore respects them more, or if the respect make them more confident. Ether one thing we know for sure is that taller men are more financially successful and are likely to attract more women. In addition to the being strongly correlated with income, physical height is also significantly related to social esteem and leadership. When comparing men and women, men’s height is also strongly correlated with success more than it is for women. Many studies suggest that the stereotypical view of a CEO or well-educated and wealthy man is one who is taller, bigger and confident. However, we don’t know which caused which but it looks like in our career and money driven society, taller and bigger men are still very advantageous so we shouldn’t expect men to stop getting taller anytime soon.

References
Deaton, Angus, (2009) Height, health, and inequality: the distribution of adult heights in India
Am Economic Review, 98(2), 468–474.
Deaton, Angus and Arora, Raksha, (2009). Life at the top: the benefits of height. Economics and Human Biology, 7(2), 133-136.
Ekwo, Edem, Gosselink, Carol, Roizen, Nancy & Brazdziunas, Dana (2005). The effect of Height in Family Income. American Journal of Human Biology, 3(2), 181-188
Cable, Daniel M. & Judge, Timothy A., (2004). The Effect of Physical Height on Workplace Success and Income: Preliminary Test of a Theoretical Model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 428-441.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110167/taller-people-happier.aspx

Religion and the state

In monogamous species, males and females are essentially the same size. In polygamous species, males are much larger than females. Human males are roughly ten percent taller than human females while weighing about twenty percent more than females (Miller and Kanazawa, 2007). What then does this say about the historical nature of human mating systems? The answer is that our ancestors were mildly polygamist

Polygamy is the practice of having more than one spouse at the same time. When a male has multiple wives, it is known as polygyny. When a female has multiple husbands, it is known as polyandry (Ryan, 2010). Although polyandry existed historically, as well as today, it is much less common than polygyny.

Evolutionarily speaking, the goal of life is to reproduce and pass on one’s genes. For a male to be successful at this, one could assume that multiple sexual partners are more desirable than only one reproductive partner. If this is true, then why do the majority of societies forbid polygamy?

Miller and Kanazawa note that “humans are naturally polygamist” (2007). Christopher Ryan writes that a study by anthropologist George Murdock concluded that 982 out of 1157 societies studied practiced polygamy (2010). Another piece of evidence that points to polygamy is the aforementioned dimorphism in size between the human male and human female. Human males differ in size as well. In the ancestral world, the biggest, strongest male dominated the other males. The victorious male would then get the majority of the females. This polygynous system created a spectrum of winners and losers. The biggest, strongest males were the extreme winners who got to mate with multiple females, thus ensuring their genes would be passed on to multiple offspring. On the opposite end, the biggest losers were the males who were able to mate with no females (Miller and Kanazawa, 2007). These males became reproductively disenfranchised, thus their genes passed on to no offspring ending their evolutionary history.

This is how the ancestral world operated. In the modern world, resources, not size, is the key in determining winners and losers. A male with great resources (i.e. wealth and food) is much more likely to be reproductively successful than a male with no resources is. This is how polygyny would operate in modern times – ecologically based (Kanazawa and Still, 1999). 

In the above picture, Hugh Hefner poses with his "playmates."&nbsp; Even at the age of eighty-five, Hugh Hefner is attractive due to his vast amount of resources.

However, as Alexander writes humans now socially impose monogamy and outlaw polyyamy (Kanazawa and Still, 1999).  Alexander writes:

These laws are designed to regulate the reproductive striving of individuals and subgroups within societies, in the interest of preserving unity in the larger group. Because of the importance of mate competition, socially imposed monogamy exemplifies the essence of societal laws – the restricting of the ability of societal members to exercise fully their different capacities for reproductive competition and success and enhancing the security and potential reproductive success of the individuals who collaborate to conceive and enforce the laws (Kanazawa and Still, 1999).

The common belief is that males should opt for polygyny over monogamy. However, this is a misconception. Only the alpha males (the biggest, strongest in the ancestral world; the wealthiest in the modern world) should desire polygyny. The rest of the males should be in favor of monogamy (Miller and Kanazawa, 2007). Although monogamy limits males to only one reproductive partner, for undesirable men who would otherwise be reproductively disenfranchised, monogamy gives them a chance to reproduce.

Another reason that societies have implemented laws in favor of monogamy is due to the competition that polygyny brings. In societies where polygamy is present, men are more violent than in societies where polygamy is prohibited (Miller and Kanazawa, 2007). From a low status male perspective, little is at risk. The reward, which is multiple wives, is great. These men are willing to become violent in the hopes that they may gain a higher status. Thus, the rate of murder and rape is higher in polygamous societies than in monogamous societies (Miller and Kanazawa, 2007).

References

Kanazawa, S & Still, M. (1999). Why Monogamy? Social Forces, 78(1), 25-51.
Miller, A & Kanazawa, S. (2007). 10 Politically Incorrect Truths about Human Nature. Psychology Today, 40(4), 88-95.
Ryan, C. (2010). Sex, Evolution, and the Case of the Missing Polygamist. Psychology Today. 2010 October 18. www.psychologytoday.com.

Sexual politics in culture

Topic: Homosexual Parenting 

Contributor: Andrea Hollingshead

Class: Sex Differences; Spring 2012

     Parenting outcomes of homosexual couples is topic that has been only minimally researched. It is estimated that the number of children in the USA who have a lesbian or gay parent range from 1 to 13 million (Fairtlough 2008). The dynamics of these households are not only misunderstood but also unaccepted by a large portion of society. Through the analysis of prior studies regarding the perspectives of children who have homosexual parents and evaluations of gay/lesbian adoptions we can see that these families function no differently than those with heterosexual parents. Further, I will present numerous adaptationist perspectives regarding the evolution of homosexual behavior and that there are positive implications to same sex alliances and relationships.

      An analysis of the children’s experiences and perspectives, whom have homosexual parents, provide the support that the negative problems they faced were more due to societies perception of homosexuals rather than the actual methods of parenting. In Fairtlough’s (2008) study, 67 published accounts of young people and adults reflecting on their experiences growing up with one or more gay or lesbian parent(s) were examined. It has been commonly argued that children raised by homosexual parents would have a distorted gender identity, would be socially isolated and would suffer from psychological problems. But the claim that such families are inherently harmful to children has not been validated (Fairtlough 2008; Patterson &amp; Chan 1997, 2005, Tasker &amp; Golombok 1997, Tasker 1999, Golombok 2000). The stories provided by the participants were assigned to one of four categories: predominantly positive (31), neutral (6), ambivalent (27), and somewhat negative (3). In the predominantly positive group, young people expressed positive responses to their gay or lesbian parent, their upbringing, their parent’s sexuality, and respect for their parent. On the other hand they stated that other peoples reactions to their families were sometimes a problem but not unbearably difficult. Some significant positive qualities were reported such as being more open and honest due to their mothers open lesbian life style as well as an enhanced ability to empathize with others. Many stated that their parents were easy to talk with compared to straight families, which embodied repressed family dynamics. Another interesting finding was that many of these young people expressed positive feelings toward the lesbian and gay communities they were brought up in. The fact that they had an extended group of caring individuals was very much valued (Fairtlough 2008).

      In the negative group participants reported no positive benefits from having a gay or lesbian parent and they suffered from extreme difficulties due to their parents decisions. The most prominent accounts of negative experiences were due to other peoples negative views about gay and lesbian people. Fifty-nine people reported instances in three domains, the general or institutional, the family and the peers or friends. These domains refer to the young’s people’s experiences of living in an area where insulting attitudes or discrimination towards homosexuals was a routine occurrence. Some these instances included, threatening phone calls, being thrown out of public places, being removed against their will from their homosexual parents, or their parent loosing their job. These findings support the conclusion that children do not feel effected by having a gay or lesbian parents and that their parent’s sexuality was independent of parenting abilities (Fairtlough 20008).

     In Averett, Nalavany, and Ryan’s (2009) study, behavioral and emotional problems are compared of adopted children who have homosexual and heterosexual parents. Results indicated that child internalizing and externalizing behavior was not dependent upon the adoptive parents' sexual orientation. Problems in behavior arose due to the actual personality and parenting styles rather than the sexual orientation of them. Another interesting finding was that gay and lesbians couples reporter higher levels of support from their partner than heterosexual parents. In that the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents in this study had no significant impact on internalizing or externalizing behaviors of children (Averett, Nalavany, &amp; Ryan, 2009), it can be concluded that children of homosexual couples have the same opportunity to develop normally.

      Multiple adaptationist hypotheses regarding the evolution of homosexual behavior, reported in Kirkpatrick’s (2000) work, also help to support the positive implications of these family dynamics. The most prominent theories relate to kin selection and alliance formation. Table 3 summarizes some of the proposed theories introduced in this paper. The kin selection hypothesis proposes that homosexuals altruistically waive reproduction to assist in childcare of the offspring of their relatives (Kirkpatrick 2000). This theory relates to similar aspects of the reported perspectives in Fairtlough’s (2008) study, which found positive attitudes toward the gay and lesbian communities. Although it differs in the sense that these relationships are not formed with relatives, they are similar in the fact that the children formed beneficial connections with members of their parent’s friends. In regards to alliance formation, Trivers (1985) found that:

            Contests for the resources at stake in intrasexual competition-such as material goods or social support-allow direct selection to act upon the propensity for homosexual                      behavior.

This hypothesis leads to two relevant predictions. (1) that same sex-alliances assist survival and successive sexual reproduction and (2) that homosexual behavior aids in alliance formation. These alliances allow individuals to establish and preserve households and ultimately help offspring reach reproductive age (Kirkpatrick 2000; Trivers 1985).

      These theories and studies present numerous positive qualities of homosexual behavior and parenting styles that support the developmental success of these couples’ children. The adaptationist perspectives provide insight on the various benefits homosexual relationships bring to the household. It is clear that the majority of problems that arise in raising a child of gay or lesbian parents is not due to their sexual orientation but to societies perspective of these relationships and the misconception of their parenting styles.

Table 3 Link

References

   Averett, P., Nalavany, B., & Ryan, S. (2009). An evaluation of gay/lesbian and heterosexual adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 12(3-4), 129-151. doi:10.1080/10926750903313278
   Fairtlough, A. (2008). Growing up with a lesbian or gay parent: Young people's perspectives.Health & Social Care In The Community, 16(5), 521-528. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2008.00774.x
   Kirkpatrick, R. C. (2000). The evolution of human homosexual behavior. Current Anthropology, 41(3), 385-413. doi:10.1086/300145

Late developmental sex differences

Topic: Gender Differences in Sexual Arousal

Contributor: Jesse Brownstein

Class: Psych 310, Spring 2010

Many studies indicate that there are gender based differences in sexual desire and sexual arousal. Research has proven that on average, men have greater sexual desire than women. Although differences in the intensity of desire between the sexes remains unknown, many researchers agree that men are more motivated by sex, more interested in sex, and are more easily aroused than women. Biological factors such as the circulation of hormones are known to influence sexual desire; however, other environmental and social/cultural considerations may have more significant affects on sexual desire, which lead to an explanation of sexual differences between the sexes.

Sexual drive is defined as a subjective state, characterized by a predisposition to seek out sexual stimuli (Leilblum, 2001). Similarly, sex drive also refers to sexual motivation that is usually focused on craving for sexual activity and pleasure. In accord with these definitions, a person with a high sex drive will have more frequent desires for sex and/or with more intensity than a person with a low sex drive (Baumeister, 2001). Since men tend to have a greater sex drive, they are able to become aroused simply by direct genital stimulation. This type of stimulation is more powerful and causes arousal quicker in men than in women (Graziottin, 2004). Hiller (2005) argues that women differ in arousal in that “…women’s subjective experiences of arousal are not automatically linked with genital changes” (p. 341). Visual stimuli are more powerfully arousing for men while tactile (kissing, caressing, and fondling) and verbal stimuli are more arousing for women. (Graziottin, 2004).

It is apparent that the genders show sexual interest in different ways as well. According to National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS): “…women report less sexual interest (and more sexual problems) than do men… one out of every three women said they were uninterested in sex (compared with one out of six men) and one out of every five women reported that sex provided little pleasure (compared with one out of every 10 men)” (Leilblum, 2001, p. 57-58). Further more, the NHSLS reveals that: “…half the men in the national sample indicated thinking about sex every day compared with only 20% of the women. Women reported fewer uncontrolled and unwanted sex thoughts than did men… the modal young man experiences spontaneous sexual arousal several times daily, whereas the modal young woman experiences it only a couple of times a week” (Leilblum, 2001, p. 58). Men typically show more sexual interest than women.

The main difference of sex drive between the sexes is not the strength of sex drive, but the frequency of sex drive. Women simply do not experience intense sexual drive as continuously as men. Women have cycles of sexual desire that peak at mid-cycle when their testosterone levels are highest. Men’s sexual desire is almost continuous across the spread of a month (Leilblum, 2002). Researchers agree that high levels of free testosterone are necessary for inducing sexual drive and because men have more testosterone in their bodies, they have higher sex drives. However, hormones alone are not the sole cause of sexual behavior. Leilblum (2002) states that: “Habitat, circumstance, expectation and conditioning can have a more profound effect on behavior than hormones” (p. 65). From an evolutionary perspective, it is beneficial that women have reduced amounts of testosterone and therefore have a weaker sex drive. Having less sexual interest increases the chances that women will more carefully scrutinize their sexual behaviors and choose to copulate with those who have adequate resources to care for their infants and to handle motherly responsibilities.

References

Baumeister, R., Catanese, K., & Vohs, K. (2001). Is there a gender difference in the strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 242-273.

Graziottin, A. (2004). Sexual arousal: similarities and differences between men and women. Journal of Men’s Health & Gender, 1(2-3), 215-223.

Hiller, J. (2005). Gender differences in sexual motivation. Journal of Men’s Health & Gender, 2(3), 339-345.

Leiblum, S. (2002). Reconsidering gender differences in sexual desire: an update. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 17(1).

How the sexes might learn get along better

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'.

REFERENCE LIST FOR CHAPTER 11

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.