Search

Buss (1988a), using an evolutionary perspective, tested hypotheses about intrasexual competition within the context of behavior to attract mates. He found sex differences in intrasexual competition predicted by the goal of mate attraction. We used Buss's methodology while asking subjects about the acts they performed to compete with members of the same sex, rather than about acts for attracting potential mates. Competitive acts were nominated and placed into 26 tactics in Study 1. Study 2 obtained self-reports of male and female act performance frequency. Study 3 replicated Study 2 using observer-reports. Study 4 obtained act effectiveness judgments for men and women. We largely replicated Buss's results despite the focus on intrasexual competition instead of mate attraction. Thus, we provide strong evidence for the importance of mate attraction in intrasexual competition.

It is proposed here that mate-attraction strategies among females and among males vary facultatively with expectations about paternal investment. The following four hypotheses are argued and tested: 1. Females who expect to find investing mates will be more likely than other females to emphasize their need for investment by suppressing their resources and appearance of competence. 2. Females who expect to find investing mates will try to attract them by acting chaste and emphasizing their fidelity, while females who expect non-investing mates will flaunt their sexuality in order to get pre-reproductive investment from as many males as possible. 3. Males who think it is appropriate to invest heavily in offspring will be more likely than other males to attract mates by emphasizing their ability and willingness to invest. 4. Investing males will be more likely than non-investing males to emphasize chastity and fidelity, whereas non-investing males will flaunt their sexuality and sexual attractiveness to females. These hypotheses were evaluated among undergraduates by administering questionnaires measuring (a) attitudes toward paternal investment and (b) reported tactics used to attract mates. Hypotheses 2–4 were supported by the data, while hypothesis 1 received only partial support. The mixed results for hypothesis 1 indicate that self-deprecating acts and deferential acts may be signaling different things.

The act frequency approach (Buss 1988) was used to develop a taxonomy of deceptive mating acts and tactics and to investigate hypothesized sex differences in the use of these acts and tactics. The results indicate that males show differences in the types of deceptive acts and tactics used in intersexual versus intrasexual contexts. Intrasexually, males more frequently engage in deceptive acts and tactics related to the exaggeration of superiority and exaggeration of sexual promiscuity, intensity, and popularity. More frequent deceptive intersexual acts and tactics for males include feigned commitment, feigned sincerity, and feigned resource acquisition ability. Females more frequently engage in deceptive acts and tactics related to appearance alteration in both intersexual and intrasexual contexts. It was also found that males use deceptive intrasexual acts and tactics more frequently than females. These findings suggest that the dimensions of deception characteristic of male reproductive strategies are congruent with female mate selection criteria and the dimensions of deception characteristic of female reproductive strategies are congruent with male mate selection criteria. Results are interpreted in terms of current evolutionary psychological approaches to the understanding of sex differences in human mating strategies and the role of deception in intepersonal interaction.

Behavioral observation, economic, and genealogical data collected in a rural Trinidadian village indicate: (1) males courting the same females have higher rates of agonistic interactions (e.g., arguing, fighting) with each other than they do with other males; (2) females courting the same males do not have higher rates of agonistic interactions with each other than they do with other females; (3) exclusive (monogamous) mating relationships have lower rates of agonistic interactions than nonexclusive (polygamous) mating relationships; (4) coresident mates interact more frequently when the female is fecund; (5) coresident mates have higher rates of agonistic interactions when the female is fecund; (6) males with fecund mates have higher rates of agonistic interactions with other unrelated males than do males with infecund mates; (7) fecund females do not have higher rates of agonistic interactions with other females than do infecund females; and (8) females do not guard prosperous males (those from households with 6 or more acres of land) more intensely than poorer males. These results suggest that mate guarding is an important aspect of reproductive competition, and that there are significant male/female differences in mate guarding strategies in this human population.

Open-ended questions were used to investigate mate selection criteria among male and female medical students ( n = 40). Striking sex differences emerged in this sample's preferences concerning spouses' relative earning power and occupational status, partners' physical attractiveness, and the marital division of labor. The results supported the hypotheses: Increasing socioeconomic status (SES) of women does not eliminate and may not even reduce traditional sex differences in mate selection criteria and marital goals. Increasing the SES of women tends to increase their socioeconomic standards for mates, thereby reducing their pool of acceptable partners; increasing men's SES tends to enlarge their pool of available acceptable partners. Based on these interviews and pertinent literature, closed-ended questions were developed and administered to female ( n = 212) and male ( n = 170) undergraduates. Highly significant sex differences emerged in this sample; these sex differences mirrored those found among the medical students. The methodological implications of these results are discussed.