Chapter 8 Sex Differences in Jealousy Parental Investment Theory Robert Trivers 1972 Implications for human mating psychology Gender differences Parental Investment Theory Sex with higher biological cost of reproduction eg ID: 531163
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Evolutionary Perspectives on Personality" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Evolutionary Perspectives on Personality
Chapter 8Slide2
Sex Differences in JealousySlide3
Parental Investment Theory
Robert Trivers
(1972)
Implications for
human mating
psychology:Genderdifferences Slide4
Parental Investment Theory
Sex with higher biological cost of reproduction (e.g.,
gestation, nursing)
will be
choosier about partners
. (Trivers, 1972)Implications for gender differences in human mating psychology:Females? More sensitive to signals of
commitment and investment Slide5
Commitment has more DNA reproductive
costs
to males than to females Slide6
Females will tend to be more attentive and emotionally responsive toward indicators of pair bond commitment. Slide7
Nuptial Gifting: FruitfliesSlide8
Human female being choosy:Slide9
Paternity Certainty
“
Definitive conclusions cannot be reached, but it appears that men are cuckolded about
10%
of the time.”
(!!!)
(Bellis & Baker, 1990; Flinn, 1988; Gaulin, McBurney, & Brakeman-Wartell, 1997; McBurney, Simon, Gaulin, & Geliebter, 2002).
That study was wrong. Actual percentage may be closer to:
1%
METHOD
(just for the curious):
Measure freq of…”
Y-chromosome mismatches
between pairs of individuals that, based on genealogical evidence, share a common paternal ancestor..”Slide10Slide11
Sex differences in JealousySlide12
Men
were more upset by sexual infidelity scenario
Buss et al. (1992)
Women
were more upset by commitment infidelity scenarioSlide13
Shutzwohl & Koch (1994)
Students read dating scenarios where cues had been embedded that were relevant to two kinds of sexual jealously cues:
Commitment infidelity:
She doesn’t want to go out on dates with you as often.
She starts looking for reasons to start arguments with you.
She doesn’t respond anymore when you tell her that you love her.
She acts nervous when a certain man’s name comes up in conversations with you.
Sexual infidelity:
Her clothing style suddenly changes.
She suddenly has difficulty becoming sexually aroused when she and you want to have sex.
You notice that she seems bored when you have sex.
She suddenly refuses to have sex with you.Slide14
Schutzwohl & Koch (2004)
At a later time, participants were asked to recall the scenarios. As predicted men recalled more sexual infidelity cues, and women recalled more commitment infidelity cues, especially in the more threatening scenarios.Slide15
The “Doubleshot” hypothesis
(
DeSteno & Salovey, 1996)
Men believe a women’s sexual infidelity indicates
BOTH
sexual + romantic infidelity. Women are less likely to believe that about men.
EVIDENCE?
Under high cognitive load, effects disappear.
Not convincing evidence
…
“
like dangling a hungry person over a cliff and concluding hunger doesn’t exist.”
Criticisms:Slide16
Research Update: Jealousy
Gender Differences in Sexual Jealousy
Davis Buss recently changed his mind on evidence that there are gender diffs in elicitors of jealousy.
DeSteno and Salovey (1996) argued the gender effect is found only for “
forced choice
” rating scales, not when using continuous rating scales. Slide17
Predicts NO Gender Differences in Jealousy
Alternative evopsych theory on sexual jealousy= “
attachment-fertility
” theory
Large families and difficult conditions suggests equal selection pressure on M and W to preserve relationship bonds.
Therefore both would evolve similar mechanisms for relationship maintenance.
Jealously should be evoked by the same things for men and women.
Attachment-Fertility Theory Slide18
Paternity Certainty & Evopsych
Daly & Wilson (1982)
In delivery room,
“looks like father”
is said more often than
“looks like mother”
Christenfeld & Hill (1995)
Highest photo matching accuracy score was:
1 yr old child
fatherSlide19
Paternity Certainty & Grandparenting
Paternity certainty is
Lowest for:
Father’s Father
Highest for:
Mother’s Mother
Q: Is investment in grandchildren
calibrated
according to degree of paternity certainty?Slide20
Grandparents’ level of investment
in grandchildren
Mother’s mother
Father’s father
Father’s mother
Mother’s fatherSlide21
Mate Retention “Tactics”Slide22
Mate Retention Effort by Spouse
Age
Higher correlations for men than women
Why the sex
difference?Slide23
Mate Retention Effort by Spouse
Status
Higher correlations for women than men
Why the sex
difference?Slide24
Marital separation and wife’s murder risk
Q: Are evolved mating mechanisms (e.g.,
sexual jealousy) implicated here? Slide25
Gender differences on openness to casual Sex
Parental investment theory
(Trivers, 1972)
Sex differences in level of reproductive investment predicts sex differences in openness to casual sex (“
choosiness
”)
Q:
Are males more open to casual sex than females? Slide26
Frequency of thinking about sex Slide27
Do you ever think of some else during sex with your partner?Slide28
Probability of consenting to intercourse by how long the person has been known
W > M
(except, after 5 years of knowing someone)Slide29
Clark & Hatfield (1989)Slide30
Sex Differences in Mate PreferencesSlide31
Mate Preferences
Buss et al. (1989):
Evolutionary prediction was supported; cross-culturally universal gender difference.
Eagly & Wood (1999):
Tested
Social Role Theory
using UN data on country equality. Size of gender diffs changed with level of equality.
Zhang et al. (2019)
Eagly & Wood analysis flawed. Replicated Buss et al (1989)
(They controlled for a statistical issue called “Galton’s Problem”).
good financial prospects
good looks
ambition and industriousness
good cook and housekeeper
chastity
dependable character
education & intelligence
favorable social status or rating
mutual attraction – love
similar educational background
pleasing disposition
sociability
refinement
neatness
emotional stability and maturity
desire for home and children
similar religious background
similar political background
good healthSlide32
Sex difference in mating strategies
Importance
of physical appearanceSlide33
Wanting “good financial prospects” in a mate (Buss et al, 1989)Slide34
Minimum acceptable degree of intelligenceSlide35
Age preferencesSlide36
Ideally wanted age difference
in a mateSlide37
Leading internet porn sites:Slide38
Walking Speed and Socioeconomic StatusSlide39
Evolutionary Psychology (cont’d)
Fluctuating Asymmetry studies
Deviation from body symmetry
Negative cue for health ?
Q: Are human mating mechanisms sensitive
to that? (an evolved preference?)
A: Apparently, yes.
1) Women prefer smell of symmetrical men
2) Especially true during
fertile phase
of
menstrual cycleSlide40
Womens preference for the scent of symmetrical men as a function of their day in the menstrual cycle
Thornhill and Gangestad (1998; 1999; 2003)Slide41
Women’s probability of
fertility
correlated
r=.54
with their preferences for the scents of more symmetrical men. This effect has been replicated in a larger, separate sample (Thornhill & Gangestad, in press), where the correlation between
fertility risk and preference for the
scents of symmetrical men
was
r=.42
.
Statistically controlling for a number of factors (e.g., men’s number of showers) increased the effect size. Gangestad & Simpson (2000)Slide42
Evolutionary Psychology (cont’d)
Facial masculinity
W prefer dominant facial features in M more strongly during
fertile
phase (
Penton-Voak et al., 1999a)Only for
short-term
sexual
partners. Did
not affect preferences regarding long-term partners. (Penton-Voak et al., 1999b)Slide43Slide44
Q: Is womens’ preference for high status mates due
to a history of cultural suppression of women?
Structural Powerlessness Hypothesis (SPH)
Historically, patriarchy is (almost) universal
This makes W dependent on M’s resources
Women’s preference for status/ power/ dominance in men is culturally based
How can we test SPH? Slide45
How test?
Bakweri women
Ardener et al (1960)
High-aspiring college students
Weiderman & Allgeier (1992)
Law and med students
Townsend (1987; 1989)Slide46
Gender Equality Paradox
Greater gender equality predicts larger psychological differences between men and women. Slide47
Gender Equality ParadoxSlide48
The “No Good Men
”
effect
If stone age brains, and…
If gender differences in mate preferences
Then rising $status of women should
Raise mating
amb
/frustration
in women
?Slide49
The New Knowledge Economy & MenSlide50
Knocked Up (2007)Slide51Slide52Slide53
Age 15 – Avg Grades
Source: Statistics Canada. Youth in Transition Survey, Cohort A, 1999 Slide54
University Graduation rates by
Gender by DecadeSlide55Slide56Slide57Slide58Slide59
“…The
falling marriage-market value
of young men appears to be a quantitatively important contributor to the rising rate of out-of-wedlock childbearing and single-headed childrearing in the United States.”Slide60Slide61Slide62Slide63Slide64Slide65Slide66
The “No Good Men
”
effect
If stone age brains, and…
If gender differences in mate preferences
Then rising $status of women should
Raise mating
amb
/frustration
in women ?
Raise
sociosexuality
in women ? Slide67
Individual Differences
Self-Assessment of Heritable Differences
Tall/Muscular/Physically attractive
High power strategy
Learned
aggressiveness would in this example be “
reactively
heritable
” (body size is inherited, not aggression itself).
Process might also influence
extraversion
! Phy strength + phy attractiveness predicts higher extraversionSlide68
Environmental Triggers of Individual Differences
Sibling Strategies Theory
Compete for parental resources
Sibling rivalry is an adaptation.
Nurse sharks
Cuckoo birdSlide69
(“Being Cuckolded”)
The Cuckoo Bird
Cuckoo lays eggs in other birds’ nests.
Hatchlings
kick the other eggs out of the nest!Slide70
Human cuckolding is risky
Cuckold
derives from Cuckoo, i.e., leaving potential offspring in a nest that ain’t “yours”. Slide71
Birth Order and
Personality
Sibling rivalry ?
Resource extraction
Older get first “
niche
” pick: ally with authority
Younger must “diversify”
LB?
liberal, open
,
curious, creativeSlide72
Frank Sulloway (1996)
Reactions to scientific revolutionsSlide73
Reactions to Scientific Revolutions by Birth OrderSlide74
Reactions to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Birth OrderSlide75
Frank Sulloway, birth order theory
Meta-analysis of Ernst & Angst (1983)
Big Five hypotheses (esp. Openness)
Strong support for laterborn =
rebel
Paulhus, Trapnell, & Chen (1998)
Within family judgments show support
Between family data does not. Slide76
Sulloway Controversy
Selection of historical examples might be biased.
Between
family data does
NOT support birth order theoryWithin family data may be due to continuing sibling
age stereotype
.
If real, within family BO effect may be family specific (doesn’t transfer).Slide77
Frequency Dependent Selection
Bluegill Sunfish:
3 male morphs:
Parent
,
Mimic
,
Sneak
Think of these as 3 “
reproductive strategies
”.
Reproductive success of one morph depends on frequency of the other competing morphs. Q: Might there be
variant
reproductive
strategies
in…. humans?The Sociosexual Inventory (SOI) Slide78
Sociosexuality Scale (SOI)Slide79
Frequency Dependent Strategies
The sociosexual Inventory (SOI) has high heritability
Q: Why was that variation preserved by evolution? Does that variantion represent opposing “mating strategies”?
Long-term (LT)
vs
Short-term (ST)
Q: Does the SOI questionnaire provide a direct, simple measure of LT (restricted) versus ST (unrestricted) mating strategies in humans. Slide80
Sexual Strategies Theory:
Sociosexual Orientation
Restric
Unres
“Cad”
“Dad”
“Whore”
“Madonna”
Evolved psychological mechanisms are likely to exist that regulate enactment of
LT or ST
mating strategies depending on the comparative costs and benefits of each strategy afforded by environments. LT and ST mating strategy potentials will exist in
BOTH
women and men, although they are likely to be gender differentiated to some degree in their specifics. Slide81
SST Predictions
Should be a mean gender difference:
Short-term strategy:
M > F
Long-term strategy:
F > MSlide82
Cross-national SOI Gender DifferencesSlide83
Sexual Strategies Theory
There should exist heritable variation in SOI within both sexes. Why?
How could
short-term
mating behavior be evolutionarily adaptive for some human females?
ST strategy is easy to fathom for men:
Millions of sperm
millions of offspring
.
So, how could it be adaptive in females? Slide84
Female Short-term strategy
Sacrifice commitment for…
good genes
Symmetry
attractive
healthy
Masculine
Strong
Dominant
High status
High competence Slide85
Ratio of testicle size to body size
Associated with mating
exclusiveness versus
promiscuity
Humans are in-between
chimps and orangutans.
Chimp females are
promiscuous, but gorilla
and orangutan females
are exclusive.
This suggests hominid
females are likely to have
been in-between chimps
and orangutans in characteristic sociosexual behavior, in other words,
moderately
promiscuous
. Slide86
Sexual Strategies Theory (SST)
Sociosexuality represents a human behavior continuum of
short-term vs long-term mating strategies
.
There should be mean gender differences in sociosexuality.
There should be heritable
within-sex
variation in sociosexuality.
Each strategy should be associated with personality traits that faciliate that strategy.
Variance in SOI might have been genetically maintained by
frequency dependent selection
.
Slide87Slide88
SOI correlates:
disagreeableness
boldness / dominance
manipulativeness
arrogance
risk-taking
impulsiveness
High
Extr
Low
Agre
Low
ConsSlide89
R/ K Continuum of Reproductive Strategies
R
(growth rate),
K
(env’s carrying capacity)
R
selected
K
selected
FAST
SLOWSlide90
Frequency Dependent Selection
R
-
K
continuum
within species too?
Unstable early environment?
“
R
” strategy
Stable early environment? “
K
” strategy
Draper & Belsky (1990)
Developmental Attachment Theory (DAT)
“Type I” strategy, “Type II” strategy
Figueredo et al (2005)
Life History Strategy (subsumes DAT)
Slide91Slide92
Sexual maturation speed and other bio correlates of weak parent attachment might be due to factors related to
poverty
Cross-cultural SOI research does not support DAT (Schmitt et al, 2005)
Criticism of DATSlide93
How does
culture
influence SOI? Slide94
Gender Equality Paradox
Greater structural equality predicts
larger
M vs F psychological differences.Slide95
Strategic Pluralism Theory (SPT)
Why are SOI gender differences
larger
in countries where women have more social and economic freedom?
SPT -
Both men and women have
flexible
reproductive strategies:
In more challenging environments, SOI gender differences are
reduced
due to higher demands for cooperative parenting effort.
In less challenging environments, SOI gender diffs should get larger because gender-specific evolved differences have greater adaptive consequences.Slide96
Some other candidate traits that might be due to freq-dependent selection
Psychopathy
Impulsive, callous, exploitive, amoral
Optimized
“cheater”
reproductive strategy
Sexually promiscuous (PCL has item for this)
Modern environments might encourage psychopathic success
High mobility, high urban density
Reduced reputational costs Slide97
ADHD and evolutionary theory
Attention-deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Restless, impulsive tendencies
Linked to a dopamine receptor gene (DRD4-7R)
Gene is linked to migratory behavior
Chen et al (1999): migratory
>
settled cultures
Matthews & Butler (2011): DRD4-7R linked to longer migration distances of ancestors
DRD4-7R predicted higher physical strength and better nutrition among men in a Kenyan nomadic tribe (Ariaal; Eisenberg et al, 2008). Slide98
The Big Five from an evolutionary perspective: Why
those
5?
Buss argues Big Five dimensions of personality might be recurrent in trait judgments because we share evolved “
difference detectors
” calibrated to notice and evaluate some traits more reliably than others.
From this point of view, those five categories are the behavior differences that demanded the most careful social evaluation to optimize one’s social adaptedness, and therefore, ultimately, one’s reproductive fitness. Slide99Slide100
“…relies on facial recognition to keep the peace, study suggests.”Slide101
B5 as “Adaptive Landscape”
Extraversion
Can this one
lead / explore
?
Can this one
communicate
?
Agreeableness
Will this one
cooperate
?
Can this one be
trusted
?
Consciousness
Can this one be
relied on
?
Can this one
control themselves
? Slide102
B5 as “Adaptive Lanscape”
Emotional Stability
Will this be
brave
?
Will this one
notice danger
?
Will this one
cope
or fall apart?
Openness-Intellect
Is this a
wise
person?
Will this one learn
quickly or slowly?
Can this one
innovate
, find solutions?Slide103
Limitations of Evolutionary Psychology
Evolutionary hypotheses are sometimes accused of being untestable and hence unfalsifiable
Evopsy defenders argue that this is caused by a double standard: evopsy hypotheses or no more untestable than are hypotheses in any other science, particularly social sciences. Slide104
Summary and Evaluation
Selection is key to evolution, or change in a species over time
Variants that lead to greater genetic replication spread through the population
Evolutionary psychology has three premises: Adaptations are
domain-specific
,
numerous
, and
functionalSlide105
Summary and Evaluation(continued)
Evolutionary psychology proceeds through both
deductive
research approach and
inductive
research approach, like other sciences.
Evolutionary psychology can be applied to all three levels of personality analysis—
human nature
,
sex differences
,
individual differencesSlide106
Summary and Evaluation
(continued)
Evolutionary psychology has several limitations, but this perspective adds a useful set of
theoretical tools
to the analysis of personality at all three levels of analysis (human nature, sex differences, and individual differences).