Поиск по сайту




Пишите нам: info@ethology.ru

Follow etholog on Twitter

Система Orphus

Новости
Библиотека
Видео
Разное
Кросс-культурный метод
Старые форумы
Рекомендуем
Не в тему

список статей


Relational dominance and mate-selection criteria: Evidence that males attend to female dominance

Stephanie L. Browna, Brian P. Lewisb

1. Introduction

1.1. Defining social dominance

1.2. Paternal uncertainty and female social dominance

1.3. Overview of the present investigation

2. Method

2.1. Participants

2.2. Design overview

2.3. Independent variables

2.4. Dependent variables

2.4.1. Affiliation

2.4.2. Investment type

2.4.3. Manipulation check

2.5. Procedure

3. Results

3.1. Ratings of opposite-sex targets

3.2. Comparing same- versus opposite-sex ratings of affiliation

4. Discussion

4.1. Alternative explanations, caveats, and directions for future research

4.2. Concluding remarks

Acknowledgment

References

Copyright

1. Introduction

Research examining sex differences in mate preferences has demonstrated that males are relatively indifferent to cues associated with social dominance in women when choosing a mate (e.g., Li et al., 2002, Sadalla et al., 1987). These results have led some researchers to conclude that female social dominance (as measured by the possession of valued resources or by personality traits reflecting dominance) is irrelevant to males' mate selection criteria (e.g., Sadalla et al., 1987). Other studies have documented that human and nonhuman males are attracted to subordination cues displayed by females (e.g., Keating, 1985, Maier & Maier, 1970, Townsend & Levy, 1990). Moreover, widely held stereotypes include the belief that powerful males will be considerably more attracted to a subordinate woman than to a supervisor (e.g., Costrich, Feinstein, Kidder, Marecek, & Pascale, 1975). Contradictory findings such as these may be explained, in part, by different conceptions of “social dominance.” The present study was designed to examine people's reactions to persons in a hypothetical scenario depicting social dominance, defined as a difference in rank, status, or power, and whether this would reflect their mate preferences. In particular, we hypothesized that males would reveal a mate preference for relatively subordinate partners because of past selection pressures associated with the threat of paternal uncertainty and intrasexual competition. Using a workplace setting, we tested the prediction that males would be more attracted to a target if she were described as his assistant than if she were described as his coworker or supervisor.

1.1. Defining social dominance

Previous research that failed to demonstrate a male preference for subordinate partners either defined social dominance as a personality trait, such as assertiveness (e.g., Sadalla et al., 1987), or examined the possession of valued resources, such as social status, fame, or fortune (e.g., Buss, 1989), which is often equated with dominance (Sadalla et al., 1987). Studies that attempt to manipulate dominance as a personality trait have done so using nonverbal gestures, such as a relaxed versus formal posture, or vignettes describing an individual's assertiveness or competitiveness.

An alternative approach views dominance in dynamic rather than static terms, suggesting that asymmetries in successful competition result in social dominance (e.g., Hawley, 1999). Social dominance, in this case, is defined in terms of the relationship between two people rather than a personality trait. Personality traits may predict relative position within a group (e.g., Hawley & Little, 1999), but the trait per se is not social dominance (Hawley, 1999).

If dominance is defined as a difference in rank, status, or power—relational dominance—then dominant individuals have the option of controlling others and/or events. This is not to suggest that all individuals with dominance are controlling or domineering. In fact, Hawley (1999) suggests that dominance need not be coercive because cooperative tactics can be just as successful at achieving control of others. Whether employed with coercive or cooperative tactics, dominant individuals have the power to exercise their own will at the expense of a less dominant other. Because this power can be used to control a partner's behavior, it may have played an important role in shaping mate preferences.

1.2. Paternal uncertainty and female social dominance

Relational dominance may be an important part of male mate-selection criteria if it constitutes a cue for the risk of paternal uncertainty, one of the most serious reproductive threats to males (Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst, 1982). Males who preferred to mate with relatively subordinate partners (as opposed to higher dominance partners) may have been better able to limit the chance (or amount) of paternal uncertainty either by preventing their partner from having sex outside of the partnership or by being able to closely monitor their partner's sexual behavior for possible infidelity. Consistent with this, research conducted on nonhumans demonstrates that male dominance is associated with effective mate guarding and with increased reproductive success (e.g., Cant, 2000).

If a sensitivity to female dominance paid reproductive dividends to males in the form of a reduced risk of paternal uncertainty, then this sensitivity should be most pronounced for long-term relationships, when the threat associated with paternal uncertainty is high (Daly et al., 1982). That is, paternal uncertainty is only a threat to males when there is some chance of providing parental investment to a competitor's offspring. Thus, a male preference for relatively subordinate partners should be most pronounced when males consider a long-term, investing relationship, as opposed to a short-term encounter (e.g., one-night stand), in which there is low investment in a partner and, therefore, a low probability of investing in a competitor's offspring.

1.3. Overview of the present investigation

Relational dominance was manipulated using a description of an organizational setting so that participants could envision a target as varying in dominance by virtue of relative position in the workplace. To examine male mate-preferences directly, male and female participants read a scenario in which either a male or female target was described as either the participants' supervisor (high-dominance condition), coworker (control condition), or assistant (low-dominance condition). Participants evaluated the opposite-sex targets by responding to mate preference items varying in relationship length (e.g., “Is this person…attractive for a one time sexual encounter?” “…attractive as a marriage partner?”). Those who were exposed to a same-sex target indicated their interest in the target by responding to nonsexual dimensions of affiliation (e.g., “rate the extent to which you would enjoy exercising with this person”). The following prediction was tested: Males were expected to be most attracted to the female target when she was described as a subordinate, and we expected a male preference for the subordinate target to be most pronounced when males were considering a long-term (high investment) relationship with the target.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

One hundred twenty male and 208 female undergraduate students at a large university in the southwestern United States participated in partial fulfillment of course requirements.

2.2. Design overview

A 2 (Participant Gender)×2 (Target Gender)×3 (Relative Dominance: higher, equal, or lower) between-subjects design was used, in which the desire to affiliate with the target constituted the dependent variable. We also obtained measures of attraction to the target among participants exposed to an opposite-sex target. Thus, investment type of the attraction response (low, high, affiliation) constituted a repeated-measures factor for examining sex differences in romantic attraction.

2.3. Independent variables

Relational dominance was varied with three relative dominance descriptions of the target (higher, same, or lower). The higher dominance description read:

Please imagine that you have just taken a job and that Jennifer/John is your immediate supervisor. She/he is the person you report to on a daily basis. She/he has the responsibility for disciplining absence or poor performance on your part, for rewarding reliable or creative performance...

The equal dominance description read:

Please imagine that you have taken a job and that Jennifer/John is your peer. She/he has the exact same job as you, works in the same office, has the same supervisor as you…

The lower dominance description read:

Please imagine that you have just taken a job and that Jennifer/John is working as your assistant. She/he reports to you on a daily basis. You have the responsibility for disciplining absence or poor performance on her/his part, for rewarding reliable or creative performance...

Target gender was varied by having half of the participants read descriptions of “Jennifer” as above, accompanied by a photo of a female. The other half read identical descriptions with a male photo, in which all details were identical, except that the name was changed to “John.” The photos used in this study were preselected on the basis that eight judges considered them to be similar in age and attractiveness.

2.4. Dependent variables

After participants were exposed to the dominance description and photo of the target, they rated the extent to which they would want to affiliate with the target outside of the occupational setting.

2.4.1. Affiliation

All participants responded to the following items: “rate the extent to which you would enjoy exercising with this person;” “rate the extent to which you think this person would be someone you would enjoy going to a party with.” Using a nine-point Likert scale (1=not at all, 9=very much) the affiliation composite was created by taking the mean of these two items. (As a measure of the scale's homogeneity, the Cronbach's α=.78).

2.4.2. Investment type

Only participants who were exposed to an opposite-sex target evaluated the target on romantic dimensions that varied in the level of investment inherent in the attraction item. We operationalized this level of investment as the inherent relationship length described by the item. Thus, assessments of high investment consisted of taking the mean of two items assessing the target's desirability as a dating and as a marriage partner (Cronbach's α=.94). The target's desirability as a “one-time sexual encounter” constituted the low investment attraction response. Participants used the same nine-point Likert-type scale (1=not at all, 9=very) to indicate their responses (Cronbach's α=.91).

2.4.3. Manipulation check

After answering the previous requests for ratings, the participants were asked the following two items that assessed the likelihood of having power over the other person: “How likely is it that this person will have power over you (reversed)?” and “How likely is it that you will have power over this person?” Participants indicated their responses according to a nine-point Likert-type scale (1=not at all likely, 9=extremely likely).

2.5. Procedure

Male and female participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions. Each participant was asked to complete a questionnaire that described the experiment as a study of impression formation. First, the questionnaire instructed participants to form an impression of a target person. All participants were told that they would be asked to form an impression of John/Jennifer based on viewing a photograph of him/her. Next, the questionnaire prompted participants to imagine that they were working in an office and that John/Jennifer was either their supervisor, coworker, or assistant (the three dominance conditions). After reading the relative dominance description, participants viewed the photo of John/Jennifer. Participants were then asked to describe, what it would be like to “work for this person,” “work with this person,” or “have this person work for you.” After describing their response, participants in the opposite-sex target condition rated their romantic attraction to the target, and all participants rated their desire to affiliate with the target. Finally, all participants responded to the manipulation check items. To avoid any participant concerns about social restrictions on affiliation and the work place, participants were instructed to assume that they were working for an organization that had no rules against employee fraternization before rating the target.

3. Results

Before examining the effects of relative dominance on romantic attraction, a 2 (Participant Gender)×2 (Target Gender)×3 (Dominance) ANOVA was conducted on the manipulation check. As expected, there was a main effect of dominance level [F(2,315)=59.52, p<.001] and no interaction of dominance level with target or participant gender. These results indicated that the manipulation was successful, as participants who were exposed to the subordinate target were more likely than those exposed to either the control or the dominant target to indicate that they would have power over the target.

3.1. Ratings of opposite-sex targets

To test the prediction that males would be most attracted to the female target when she was described as subordinate to the participant, a 2 (Participant Gender)×3 (Dominance Level)×3 (Investment Type of Attraction Response) repeated-measures ANOVA was run for participants exposed to an opposite-sex target (Table 1). Results of this analysis indicated a significant multivariate three-way interaction of participant gender, dominance level, and investment type of the attraction response [multivariate F(4,386)=2.48, p=.044]. As can be seen in Table 1, males (and not females) appeared to be most strongly attracted to the subordinate (as opposed to the supervisor) for the high-investment measure. There was a significant simple Gender×Dominance Level interaction for both the high-investment and affiliation measures [Fhigh(2,194)=3.67, p=.027; Fmoderate(2,194)=3.34, p=.038], but not for the low-investment measure [F(2,194)<1].

Table 1.

Average (S.D.) males' and females' ratings of target person (nine-point Likert scale: not at allvery much)

Type of rating Investment type Target sex Participant sex Dominance
Assistant Coworker Supervisor
Opposite sex Short-term Female Male 6.8±2.3 6.3±3.2 6.2±2.6
Male Female 3.2±2.6 3.1±2.6 3.44±2.9
Long-term Female Male 6.4±2.1 4.9±2.2 4.2±2.7
Male Female 3.2±2.2 3.2±2.3 3.1±2.2
Affiliation Female Male 6.8±1.9 6.5±1.6 5.2±2.5
Male Female 4.7±2.0 4.2±1.9 4.5±1.8
Same sex Affiliation Male Male 4.2±1.5 3.7±1.6 4.5±2.4
Female Female 6.1±2.4 5.7±2.0 6.1±1.5

Among males, there was a significant simple effect of female dominance for the high-investment measure [F(2,63)=5.22, p=.008]. Consistent with predictions, males preferred the subordinate over the control target [F(1,35)=4.10, p=.051] but did not distinguish between the control and dominant targets (F<1). Furthermore, there was also a significant effect of female dominance for the affiliation measure [F(2,63)=4.39, p<.05]; however, the subordinate target was only different from the dominant [F(1,49)=6.88, p=.012] and not the control target [F(1,35)<1]. For the low-investment measure, there was no overall effect of female dominance (F<1, n.s.). This pattern of differences according to the investment type of the attraction response is also characterized by a significant interaction of dominance and investment type for males [F(2,63)=3.38, p=.04].

3.2. Comparing same- versus opposite-sex ratings of affiliation

To examine whether this male interest in less dominant partners extended to same-sex affiliates, we conducted a Participant Gender×Target Gender×Dominance ANOVA on the affiliation composite. Results indicated a significant three-way interaction of gender, target sex, and dominance [F(2,319)=3.07, p<.05; Table 1]. As Table 1 shows, the male tendency to prefer lower to higher dominance partners did not extend to include either (a) a male preference to affiliate with the less dominant male target or (b) a female preference to also prefer to affiliate with the less dominant female target. This pattern of means is characterized by a significant simple interaction of dominance level and target gender for males [F(2,116)=3.88, p=.023] and a significant simple participant gender by dominance interaction for ratings of the female target [F(2,135)=3.28, p<.05].

4. Discussion

The results of this study indicated that males' mate preferences were sensitive to the relational dominance of the female target. In particular, males exhibited a preference for the subordinate over the dominant target for both the high-investment and affiliation composites. Females, on the other hand, did not show the expected preference for the dominant male target, which extends other work that qualifies the male dominance effect (i.e., Burger & Cosby, 1999, Graziano et al., 1997).

Our results also demonstrated that the male preference for the subordinate target increased as the kind of investment of the attraction items increased. This pattern of findings is consistent with the possibility that there were reproductive advantages for males who preferred to form long-term relationships with relatively subordinate partners. Given that female infidelity is a severe reproductive threat to males only when investment is high (e.g., Daly et al., 1982), a preference for subordinate partners may provide adaptive benefits to males in the context of only a long-term, investing relationship—which is not the case for a one-night stand.

The possibility that paternal uncertainty shaped a male mate-preference for subordination cues is consistent with the work of Wilson and Daly (1996), who have suggested that control over a partner's reproductive behavior would have been reproductively advantageous for males, in part, because of the reduced risk of paternal uncertainty. This may explain why masculine power has been associated with increased attraction to females (Bargh, Raymond, Pryor, & Strack, 1995) and why behavioral expressions of vulnerability have been demonstrated to enhance female attractiveness (Rainville & Gallagher, 1990). Moreover, our results provide further explanation for why males might attend to female dominance-linked characteristics, such as the relative age (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992) or the relative income of a partner (Townsend, 1987), and why adult males typically prefer a partner who is lower in each of these domains.

Note, however, that, on the surface, our findings are inconsistent with the demonstration that adolescent males prefer older partners (Kenrick, Gabrielidis, Keefe, & Cornelius, 1996). These findings may be reconciled with our own if we consider the likely investment behavior of adolescent males. To the extent that adolescent males are unlikely to provide substantial, costly long-term investment to females, or to their offspring, then the selection pressures associated with paternal uncertainty would be minimal and sufficiently small that they would be overwhelmed by the reproductive advantages of mating with any female who is at the peak of her fertility. This possibility may help to explain why male mate-preferences change and develop over time (Kenrick et al., 1996), as the threat of paternal uncertainty that grows with increasing male investment favors males who can be more selective in their choice of a mating partner.

4.1. Alternative explanations, caveats, and directions for future research

The results of the present study are not only consistent with a paternal certainty analysis of mate preferences, but they also rule out some competing explanations for a male preference for subordinate partners. For example, if the preference for a female subordinate were merely an expression of a desire to affiliate with others over whom we hold power, or to avoid being controlled, then we would expect such a preference to include same-sex others, which it did not. Our results are also inconsistent with the possibility that social roles for females account for a male's preference to affiliate with subordinate partners. If exposure to media depictions of females in subordinate roles makes subordinate females more attractive, then both male and female judges should have preferred to affiliate with the subordinate target, which also did not occur. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that media depictions of opposite-sex interactions uniquely affect male, but not female, preferences. Future research should examine the role of dominance in real-world organizational settings to determine whether these findings generated with hypothetical scenarios extend to the workplace.

4.2. Concluding remarks

The results of this investigation are noteworthy for two reasons. First, our findings suggest that, under some circumstances, males are concerned with the dominance of a female when choosing a mate. Second, these results highlight the importance of relational dominance in mate selection. The differences between the findings of this experimental paradigm and those from previous work on mate-selection criteria indicate that it may be inaccurate to conceptualize dominant personalities and dominant power differentials as synonymous (Sheets & Braver, 1999, also underscore the importance of this distinction). Rather, there may be important distinctions between personality and those situational factors correlated with personality, which need to be taken into consideration before generalizing findings from one domain to the other. As this experimental investigation indicates, evolutionary theory may be a useful tool for making these types of distinctions.

Acknowledgments

We hereby acknowledge Dylan M. Smith and Douglas T. Kenrick for providing valuable comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Preparation of this manuscript was supported, in part, by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (K01-MH065423).

References

Bargh et al., 1995 1.Bargh JA, Raymond P, Pryor JB, Strack F. Attractiveness of the underling: an automatic power→sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1995;68:768–781. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Burger & Cosby, 1999 2.Burger JM, Cosby M. Do women prefer dominant men? The case of the missing control condition. Journal of Research in Personality. 1999;33:358–368.

Buss, 1989 3.Buss DM. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1989;12:1–49.

Cant, 2000 4.Cant MA. Social control of reproduction in banded mongooses. Animal Behavior. 2000;59:147–158.

Costrich et al., 1975 5.Costrich N, Feinstein J, Kidder L, Marecek J, Pascale L. When stereotypes hurt: three studies of personality for sex role reversals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1975;11:520–530.

Daly et al., 1982 6.Daly M, Wilson MI, Weghorst SJ. Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology. 1982;3:11–27.

Graziano et al., 1997 7.Graziano WG, Jensen-Campbell LA, Todd M, Finch JF. Interpersonal attraction from an evolutionary psychology perspective: women's reactions to dominant and prosocial men. In:  Simpson JA,  Kenrick DT editor. Evolutionary social psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1997;p. 141–167.

Hawley, 1999 8.Hawley PH. The ontogenesis of social dominance: a strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review. 1999;19:97–132.

Hawley & Little, 1999 9.Hawley PH, Little TD. On winning some and losing some: a social relations approach to social dominance in toddlers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1999;45:185–214.

Keating, 1985 10.Keating CF. Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness. Social Psychology Quarterly. 1985;48:61–70. CrossRef

Kenrick et al., 1996 11.Kenrick DT, Gabrielidis C, Keefe RC, Cornelius JS. Adolescents' age preferences for dating partners: support for an evolutionary model of life-history strategies. Child Development. 1996;67:1499–1511. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Kenrick & Keefe, 1992 12.Kenrick DT, Keefe RC. Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1992;15:75–133.

Li et al., 2002 13.Li NP, Bailey JM, Kenrick DT, Linsenmeier JA. The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: testing the trade-offs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002;82:947–955. MEDLINE | CrossRef

Maier & Maier, 1970 14.Maier RA, Maier BM. Comparative animal behavior. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1970;.

Rainville & Gallagher, 1990 15.Rainville RE, Gallagher JG. Vulnerability and heterosexual attraction. Sex Roles. 1990;23:25–31.

Sadalla et al., 1987 16.Sadalla EK, Kenrick DT, Vershure B. Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987;52:730–738. CrossRef

Sheets & Braver, 1999 17.Sheets V, Braver S. Organizational status and perceived sexual harassment: detecting the mediators of a null effect. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin. 1999;25:1159–1171. CrossRef

Townsend, 1987 18.Townsend JM. Sex differences in sexuality among medical students: effects of increasing socioeconomic status. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1987;16:427–446.

Townsend & Levy, 1990 19.Townsend JM, Levy G. Effects of potential partners' costume and physical attractiveness on sexuality and partner selection. Journal of Psychology. 1990;124:371–389.

Wilson and & Daly, 1996 20.Wilson MI, Daly M. Male sexual proprietariness and violence against wives. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 1996;5:2–7.

a Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, 426 Thompson Street, PO Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248, United States

b University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 734 936 0447; fax: +1 734 764 3576

PII: S1090-5138(04)00057-1

doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.003



2007:11:13