Human Nature

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 93–104 | Cite as

Mobile phones as lekking devices among human males

Article

Abstract

This study investigated the use of mobile telephones by males and females in a public bar frequented by professional people. We found that, unlike women, men who possess mobile telephones more often publicly display them, and that these displays were related to the number of men in a social group, but not the number of women. This result was not due simply to a greater number of males who have telephones: we found an increase with male social group size in the proportion of available telephones that were on display. Similarly, there was a positive relationship between the number of visible telephones and the ratio of males to females. Our results further show that the increased display of telephones in groups with more males is not due to the ostensive function of these devices (i.e., the making and receiving of calls), although single males tended to use their phones more. We interpret these results within the framework of male-male competition, with males in larger group sizes functioning in an increasingly competitive environment. This competitive environment is suggested to be akin to a lek mating system in which males aggregate and actively display their qualities to females who assess males on a number of dimensions. We suggest that mobile telephones might be used by males as an indicator of their status and wealth (sensu “cultural ornaments”).

Key words

Cultural ornaments Male display Mobile telephones Sex ratio 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altmann, J. 1974 Observational Study of Behaviour: Sampling Methods. Behaviour 49:227–265.Google Scholar
  2. Buss, D. M. 1989 Sex Differences in Human Mate Preference: Evolutionary Hypothesis Tested in 37 Cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buss, D. M., M. Abbott, M. Argleitner, et al. 1990 International Preferences in Selecting Mates: A Study of 37 Cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 21(1):5–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daly, M., and M. Wilson 1983 Sex, Evolution, and Behavior. Belmont, California: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  5. Davies, N. B. 1991 Mating Systems. In Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, third ed., J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, eds. Pp. 263–294. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
  6. Dunbar, R. I. M., N. D. C. Duncan, and A. Marriott 1997 Human Conversational Behavior. Human Nature 8:231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1970 Ethology: The Biology of Behaviour. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  8. Ellis, B. J. 1992 The Evolution of Sexual Attraction: Evaluative Mechanisms in Women. In The Adapted Mind, J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby, eds. Pp. 267–288. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Grammar, K. 1989 Human Courtship Behaviour: Biological Basis and Cognitive Processing. In The Sociobiology of Sexual and Reproductive Strategies, A. E. Rasa, C. Vogel, and E. Voland, eds. Pp. 147–169. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Low, B. S. 1979 Sexual Selection and Human Ornamentation. In Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective, N. A. Chagnon and W. Irons, eds. Pp. 462–487. North Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ludvico, L. R., and J. A. Kurland 1995 Symbolic or Not-so-symbolic Wounds: The Behavioral Ecology of Human Scarification. Ethology and Sociobiology 16:155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rowanchilde, R. 1996 Male Genital Modification: A Sexual Selection Interpretation. Human Nature 7:189–215.Google Scholar
  13. Singh, D., and P. M. Bronstad 1997 Sex Differences in the Anatomical Locations of Human Body Scarification and Tattooing as a Function of Pathogen Prevalence. Evolution and Human Behavior 18:403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wright, R. 1994 The Moral Animal. London: Little, Brown.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Walter de Gruyter, Inc 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Economic Learning & Social Evolution, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpool

Personalised recommendations