Advertisement

Theory-Driven Assessment of Intrasexual Rivalry

  • Farzan Karimi-MalekabadiEmail author
  • Elahe Ghanbarian
  • Reza AfhamiEmail author
  • Razieh Chegeni
Research Article

Abstract

Assessment of intrasexual competition has largely relied on Intrasexual Competition Scale (ICS; Buunk & Fisher Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7:37–48, 2009). Based on recent developments in mating psychology and the notion that humans use multiple tactics to compete with same-sex individuals, we propose a new theory-driven assessment strategy for intrasexual rivalry in men and women. Here, we develop and initially validate the 16-item Intrasexual Rivalry Scale (IRS). Eight items represented self-promoting tactics in four mating areas and eight items represented rival-derogatory tactics in the same mating areas. We pre-registered our study design and statistical strategy and recruited a community sample in a non-Western culture, Iran. Consistent with our theoretical expectation, exploratory factor analysis (N = 211) clearly suggested extraction of two distinct factors (self-promotion and rival-derogation). Results suggested that scores on the ICS are strongly correlated with rival-derogation, but only weakly associated with self-promotion. Findings are explained in the light of evolutionary psychological perspective and future directions with the newly developed scale are outlined.

Keywords

Intrasexual competition Evolutionary psychology Scale development Factor analysis Sex differences 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Mohammad Atari for valuable feedback on earlier versions of this paper.

References

  1. Arnocky, S., & Carré, J. M. (in press). Intrasexual rivalry among men. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_874-1.
  2. Arnocky, S., & Piché, T. (2014). Cosmetic surgery as intrasexual competition: the mediating role of social comparison. Psychology, 5, 1197–1205.  https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.510132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnocky, S., & Vaillancourt, T. (2014). Sex differences in response to victimization by an intimate partner: More stigmatization and less help-seeking among males. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 23, 705–724.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2014.933465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnocky, S., Ribout, A., Mirza, R. S., & Knack, J. M. (2014). Perceived mate availability influences intrasexual competition, jealousy and mate-guarding behavior. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 45–64.  https://doi.org/10.1556/jep.12.2014.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnocky, S., Albert, G., Carré, J. M., & Ortiz, T. L. (2018). Intrasexual competition mediates the relationship between men’s testosterone and mate retention behavior. Physiology & Behavior, 186, 73–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atari, M. (2017). Assessment of long-term mate preferences in Iran. Evolutionary Psychology, 15, 1474704917702459.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704917702459.Google Scholar
  7. Atari, M., & Jamali, R. (2016). Dimensions of women’s mate preferences: validation of a mate preference scale in Iran. Evolutionary Psychology, 14, 1474704916651443.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704916651443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atari, M., Barbaro, N., Shackelford, T. K., & Chegeni, R. (2017a). Psychometric evaluation and cultural correlates of the mate retention inventory–short form (MRI-SF) in Iran. Evolutionary Psychology, 15, 1474704917695267.Google Scholar
  9. Atari, M., Barbaro, N., Sela, Y., Shackelford, T. K., & Chegeni, R. (2017b). Consideration of cosmetic surgery as part of women’s benefit-provisioning mate retention strategy. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1389.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704917695267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Atari, M., Chegeni, R., & Fathi, L. (2017c). Women who are interested in cosmetic surgery want it all: The association between considering cosmetic surgery and women’s mate preferences. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 3, 61–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-016-0053-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barbaro, N., & Shackelford, T. K. (in press). Environmental unpredictability in childhood is associated with anxious romantic attachment and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 240–269.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516640548.
  12. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. Lonner & J. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616-628.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.4.616.
  14. Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 395–422.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590073006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.100.2.204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (in press). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology, 70.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103408.
  17. Buunk, A. P., & Fisher, M. (2009). Individual differences in intrasexual competition. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 37–48.  https://doi.org/10.1556/jep.7.2009.1.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Buunk, B. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. Psychological Science, 7, 359–363.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00389.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Campbell, A. (2004). Female competition: Causes, constraints, content, and contexts. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 16–26.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Campbell, A. (2013). The evolutionary psychology of women’s aggression. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368, 20130078.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chaudhary, N., Al-Shawaf, L., & Buss, D. M. (2018). Mate competition in Pakistan: mate value, mate retention, and competitor derogation. Personality and Individual Differences, 130, 141–146.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2004). What is sexual selection? In P. M. Kappeler & C. P. van Schaik (Eds.), Sexual selection in primates: new and comparative perspectives (pp. 24–36). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2016). Do mate preferences influence actual mating decisions? Evidence from computer simulations and three studies of mated couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 53–66.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Csajbók, Z., & Berkics, M. (2017). Factor, factor, on the whole, who's the best fitting of all? Factors of mate preferences in a large sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 114, 92–102.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Evolutionary social psychology and family homicide. Science, 242, 519–524.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3175672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London, England: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Davis, A. C., Dufort, C., Desrochers, J., Vaillancourt, T., & Arnocky, S. (2018). Gossip as an intrasexual competition strategy: sex differences in gossip frequency, content, and attitudes. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4, 141–153.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0121-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309–330.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fisher, M. L. (2015). Women’s competition for mates: experimental findings leading to ethological studies. Human Ethology Bulletin, 30, 53–70.Google Scholar
  30. Goetz, C. D., & Meyer, K. B. (2018). Mate value discrepancies, the dark triad and relationship satisfaction: a Euclidean distances approach. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4, 34–140.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-017-0122-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Gangestad, S. W., Perea, E. F., Shapiro, J. R., & Kenrick, D. T. (2009). Aggress to impress: Hostility as an evolved context-dependent strategy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 980–994.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second-generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401–416.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pazhoohi, F., Jahromi, A. S., & Doyle, J. F. (2016). Mate retention tactics decline with age of Iranian men. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2, 165–170.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-016-0046-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 1 Nov 2018.
  35. Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J., & Ginges, J. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 11401–11405.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721165115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Revelle, W. (2017). An introduction to the psych package: part II scale construction and psychometrics. Retrieved from https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/psych/vignettes/overview.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2018.
  37. Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the GLB: comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74, 145–154.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reynolds, T., Baumeister, R. F., & Maner, J. K. (2018). Competitive reputation manipulation: Women strategically transmit social information about romantic rivals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 195–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosvall, K. A. (2011). Intrasexual competition in females: Evidence for sexual selection? Behavioral Ecology, 22, 1131–1140.  https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arr106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sear, R., Mace, R., & McGregor, I. A. (2000). Maternal grandmothers improve nutritional status and survival of children in rural Gambia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 267, 1641–1647.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., Guta, F. E., & Schmitt, D. P. (2006). Mate guarding and frequent in-pair copulation in humans. Human Nature, 17, 239–252.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-006-1007-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  43. Thornhill, R., & Alcock, J. (1983). Evolution of insect mating systems. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Torrance, J. S., Hahn, A. C., Kandrik, M., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2018). No evidence for associations between men’s salivary testosterone and responses on the Intrasexual Competitiveness Scale. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 4, 321–327.  https://doi.org/10.1101/198424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  46. Turke, P. W., & Betzig, L. L. (1985). Those who can do: wealth, status, and reproductive success on Ifaluk. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 79–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(85)90001-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vaillancourt, T. (2013). Do human females use indirect aggression as an intrasexual competition strategy? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 368, 20130080.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vaillancourt, T., & Sharma, A. (2011). Intolerance of sexy peers: intrasexual competition among women. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 569–577.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TehranTehranIran
  3. 3.Department of Art StudiesTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran
  4. 4.Department of Psychosocial ScienceUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations