Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:19:03.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional sex differences and signal forms have coevolved with conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

D. Vaughn Becker Open the ORCID record for D. Vaughn Becker [Opens in a new window]  and
Shelli L. Dubbs
D. Vaughn Becker
Affiliation:
Human Systems Engineering Program, Arizona State University, Mesa, AZ 85212. [email protected]/~loids/
Shelli L. Dubbs
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Benedictine University, Mesa, AZ 85201. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evolutionary theory makes further predictions about conflict. It predicts sex differences in the proclivity to attack and defend. It further suggests complementary biases in what we expect of the sexes. Finally, it suggests that the forms of human facial expressions of anger and happiness may have coevolved with the regularity of conflict as a means of signaling, bluffing, and defusing attack.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e118
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Archer, J. (2004) Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology 8:291–322.Google Scholar
Baker, M. D. Jr. & Maner, J. K. (2008) Risk-taking as a situationally sensitive male mating strategy. Evolution and Human Behavior 29:391–95.Google Scholar
Becker, D. V. (2017) Facial gender interferes with decisions about facial expressions of anger and happiness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 146(4):457–61.Google Scholar
Becker, D. V., Anderson, U.S., Neuberg, S. L., Maner, J. K., Shapiro, J. R., Ackerman, J. M., Schaller, M. & Kenrick, D. T. (2010) More memory bang for the attentional buck: Self-protection goals enhance encoding efficiency for potentially threatening males. Social Psychological and Personality Science 1:182–89.Google Scholar
Becker, D. V., Mortensen, C. R., Ackerman, J. M., Shapiro, J. R., Anderson, U. S., Sasaki, T., Maner, J. K., Neuberg, S. L. & Kenrick, D. T. (2011) Signal detection on the battlefield: Priming self-protection vs. revenge-mindedness differentially modulates the detection of enemies and allies. PLoS One 6(9):e23929. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023929.Google Scholar
Becker, D. V., Mortensen, C. R., Anderson, U. S. & Sasaki, T. (2014) Out of sight but not out of mind: Memory scanning is attuned to threatening faces. Evolutionary Psychology 12(5):878–89.Google Scholar
Becker, D. V. & Srinivasan, N. S. (2014) The vividness of the happy face. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23:189–94.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989) Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:1–49.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (1999) Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women's intrasexual aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22:203–52.Google Scholar
Geary, D.C. (2000) Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin 126:55–57.Google Scholar
Klavina, L. & Buunk, B. (2013) Intergroup intrasexual competition: Reactions towards outgroup members as romantic rivals. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 11:93–120.Google Scholar
May, D., Radar, N. E. & Goodrum, S. (2010) A gendered assessment of the “threat of victimization.” Criminal Justice Review 35(2):159–182.Google Scholar
Palmer, C. T. & Tilley, C. F. (1995) Sexual access to females as a motivation for joining gangs: An evolutionary approach. Journal of Sex Research 32:213–17.Google Scholar
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J. & Levin, S. (2006) Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology 17:271–320.Google Scholar
Ronay, R. & von Hippel, W. (2010) The presence of an attractive women elevates testosterone and risk taking in young men. Social Psychological and Personality Science 1:57–64.Google Scholar
Stockley, P. & Campbell, A. (2013) Female competition and aggression: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 368:20130073.Google Scholar
Sugiura, H., Mifune, N., Tsuboi, S. & Yokota, K. (2017) Gender differences in intergoup conflict: The effect of outgroup threat priming on social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences 104:262–65.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971, ed. Campbell, B., pp. 136–79. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Valliancourt, T. (2013) Do human females use indirect aggression as an intrasexual competitive strategy? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 368:20130080.Google Scholar
Van Vugt, M. (2009) Sex differences in intergroup competition, aggression, and warfare: The male warrior hypothesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 167:124–34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04539.x.Google Scholar
Van Vugt, M., De Cremer, D. & Janssen, D. P. (2007): Gender differences in cooperation and competition: The male warrior hypothesis. Psychological Science 18:19–23.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. & Daly, M. (1985) Competitiveness, risk taking, and the young male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology 6:59–73.Google Scholar
Yuki, M. & Yokota, K. (2009) The primal warrior: Outgroup threat priming enhances intergroup discrimination in men but not women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45:271–74.Google Scholar