Evolution & Human Behavior
Volume 25, Issue 6 , Pages 406-415 , November 2004

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

  • Stephanie L. Brown

      Affiliations

    • Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, 426 Thompson Street, PO Box 1248, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248, United States
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 734 936 0447; fax: +1 734 764 3576
    • ,
  • Brian P. Lewis

      Affiliations

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

Received 18 December 2003 ,Revised 6 August 2004

References 

  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
  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
  3. Buss DM. Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1989;12:1–49
  4. Cant MA. Social control of reproduction in banded mongooses. Animal Behavior. 2000;59:147–158
  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
  6. Daly M, Wilson MI, Weghorst SJ. Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology. 1982;3:11–27
  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
  8. Hawley PH. The ontogenesis of social dominance: a strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review. 1999;19:97–132
  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
  10. Keating CF. Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness. Social Psychology Quarterly. 1985;48:61–70
  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
  12. Kenrick DT, Keefe RC. Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1992;15:75–133
  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
  14. Maier RA, Maier BM. Comparative animal behavior. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1970;
  15. Rainville RE, Gallagher JG. Vulnerability and heterosexual attraction. Sex Roles. 1990;23:25–31
  16. Sadalla EK, Kenrick DT, Vershure B. Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987;52:730–738
  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
  18. Townsend JM. Sex differences in sexuality among medical students: effects of increasing socioeconomic status. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 1987;16:427–446
  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
  20. Wilson MI, Daly M. Male sexual proprietariness and violence against wives. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 1996;5:2–7

PII: S1090-5138(04)00057-1

doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.003

Evolution & Human Behavior
Volume 25, Issue 6 , Pages 406-415 , November 2004

Article Tools