Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:44:21.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dominating versus eliminating the competition: Sex differences in human intrasexual aggression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2009

Joyce F. Benenson
Joyce F. Benenson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Emmanuel College, Boston, MA 02115; Department of Biological Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Archer presents a traditional view of intrasexual competition. Knowledge of a species' social structure provides a more complete picture. Human males compete against individuals with whom they may cooperate later in inter-group aggression. By contrast, females compete against individuals for a mate's continued support. Females' aggression may aim at eliminating the competition, whereas males simply may attempt to dominate others.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 3-4 , August 2009 , pp. 268 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bales, R. F. & Borgatta, E. F. (1955) Size of group as a factor in the interaction profile. In: Small groups: Studies in social interaction, ed. Hare, A. P., Borgatta, E. F. & Bales, R. F., pp. 495–512. Random House.Google Scholar
Benenson, J. F., Antonellis, T. J., Cotton, B. J., Noddin, K. E. & Campbell, K. A. (2008a) Sex differences in children's use of coalitions to obtain scarce resources. Animal Behaviour 76:497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benenson, J. F., Apostoleris, N. H. & Parnass, J. (1997) Age and sex differences in dyadic and group interaction. Developmental Psychology 33:538–43.Google Scholar
Benenson, J. F. & Christakos, A. (2003) The greater fragility of females' versus males' closest same-sex friendships. Child Development 74:1123–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benenson, J. F., Maiese, R., Dolenszky, E., Dolensky, N., Sinclair, N. & Simpson, A. (2002) Group size regulates self-assertive versus self-deprecating responses to interpersonal competition. Child Development 73:1818–29.Google Scholar
Benenson, J. F., Markovits, H., Fitzgerald, C., Geoffroy, D., Fleming, J., Kahlenberg, S. & Wrangham, R. W. (2009) Males' greater tolerance of same-sex peers. Psychological Science 20:184–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benenson, J. F., Morganstein, T. & Roy, R. (1998) Sex differences in children's investment in peers. Human Nature 9:369–90.Google Scholar
Benenson, J. F., Nicholson, C., Waite, A., Roy, R. & Simpson, A. (2001) The influence of group size on children's competitive behavior. Child Development 72:921–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benenson, J. F., Saelen, C., Markovits, H. & McCabe, S. (2008b) Males derive greater benefits than females do from same-sex peers relative to parents. Evolutionary Psychology 6:13–28.Google Scholar
Cairns, R., Xie, H. & Leung, M. (1998) The popularity of friendship and the neglect of social networks: Toward a new balance. In: Sociometry then and now: Building on six decades of measuring children's experiences with the peer group, ed. Bukowski, W. M. & Cillessen, A. H., pp. 25–54. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (1999) Staying alive: Evolution, culture and women's intra-sexual aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22:203–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2007) Sexual selection in males and females. Science 318:1882–85.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2009) Sexual selection in females. Animal Behaviour 77:3–11.Google Scholar
Feshbach, N. D. (1969) Sex differences in children's modes of aggressive responses toward outsiders. Merrill Palmer Quarterly 15:249–58.Google Scholar
Feshbach, N. D. & Sones, G. (1971) Sex differences in adolescent reactions toward newcomers. Developmental Psychology 4:381–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, J. B. & Lancaster, C. S. (1983) Parental investment: The hominid adaptation. In: How humans adapt: A biocultural odyssey, ed. Ortner, D., pp. 33–66. Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
LeBlanc, S. & Register, K. E. (2003) Constant battles: The myth of the peaceful, noble savage. St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Maccoby, E. E. (1988) Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology 24:755–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markovits, H., Benenson, J. F. & Dolenszky, E. (2001) Evidence that children and adolescents have internal models of peer interactions that are gender differentiated. Child Development 72:879–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markovits, H., Benenson, J. F. & White, S. (2006) Gender and gender priming: Differences in speed of processing of information relating to dyadic and group contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42:662–67.Google Scholar
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1980) Social interactions of adolescent females in natural groups. In: Friendship and social relations in children, ed. Foot, H. C., Chapman, A. J. & Smith, J. R., pp. 343–64. Wiley.Google Scholar
Smuts, B. B. (1987a) Gender, aggression, and influence. In: Primate societies, ed. Smuts, B. B., Cheney, D. L., Seyfarth, R. M., Wrangham, R. W. & Struhsaker, T. T., pp. 400–12. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wrangham, R. W. (1987) Evolution of social structure. In: Primate societies, ed. Smuts, B. B., Cheney, D. L., Seyfarth, R. M., Wrangham, R. W. & Struhsaker, T. T., pp. 286–98. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wrangham, R. W. (1999) Evolution of coalitionary killing. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 42:1–30.Google Scholar