تاثیر صورت مردسالاری و صدای زمین در حسادت و برداشت از رقابتهای درون جنسی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38050||2012||5 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 52, Issue 3, February 2012, Pages 369–373
Abstract The assessment of same-sex individuals as intrasexual competitors may depend in part on the perceived mate value of potential rivals. Men’s and women’s preferences for vocal and facial masculinity suggest that feminine women and masculine men may be perceived as more threatening intrasexual competitors. We tested the influence of men’s and women’s vocal and facial masculinity on preferences for who should accompany romantic partners on a weekend trip and on jealousy in response to imagined flirting. We found that men and women preferred their partners to be accompanied by people who had less masculine/feminine voices, and were more jealous in response to people who had relatively more masculine/feminine voices. Women, but not men, rated faces with exaggerated sex-typical characteristics as undesirable travel companions for their romantic partners and reported more jealousy in response to imagined flirting from such faces. We also found that participants who rated masculine male and feminine female stimuli as more attractive also perceived such stimuli as greater intrasexual threats, demonstrating individual differences in competition-related social perceptions. Our findings indicate that perceptions related to intrasexual competition are related to cues to underlying mate quality, which may aid in effective mate guarding.
. Introduction Jealousy may be an adaptive response to perceived pair-bond threats, though not all potential competitors will elicit equivalent jealous responses (Buss, Shackelford, Choe, Buunk, & Dijkstra, 2000). Individuals possessing traits indicating relatively high mate value may be perceived as greater threats to relationships than those without such traits (Dijkstra and Buunk, 1998 and Dijkstra and Buunk, 2001). Female characteristics such as a higher-pitched voice, feminine facial structure, and a feminine waist-to-hip ratio are traits preferred by men (for review see Feinberg, 2008 and Little et al., 2011). Women also report more intense jealousy when rating attractive female faces (Massar & Buunk, 2010) and bodies (Dijkstra and Buunk, 2001 and Massar and Buunk, 2009). Vocal (Abitbol, Abitbol, & Abitbol, 1999), facial (Law Smith et al., 2006), and body (Jasienska, Ziomkiewicz, Ellison, Lipson, & Thune, 2004) femininity communicate relatively higher estrogen levels, which are positively related to reproductive potential (Venners et al., 2006). Therefore, estrogen-dependent traits may cue underlying mate quality (for review see Feinberg, 2008 and Little et al., 2011), and may elicit jealousy among other women. Among men, lower-pitched, masculine voices (Dabbs and Mallinger, 1999 and Hollien, 1960), masculine facial structure (Verdonck, Gaethofs, Carels, & De Zegher, 1999) and body configuration are testosterone-dependent traits (Kasperk et al., 1997). Testosterone levels are positively associated with indices of health (Feely, Saad, Guay, & Traish, 2009), dominant behavior, and social status (Mazur & Booth, 1998). Also, facial masculinity is positively correlated with measures of perceived and actual health (Rhodes et al., 2003 and Thornhill and Gangestad, 2006). Furthermore, masculine men’s faces and voices are perceived as relatively more dominant (Feinberg et al., 2006, Jones, Feinberg, et al., 2010 and Perrett et al., 1998). Indeed, men and women are more likely to follow the gaze of masculine faces, demonstrating that images of faces can influence dominance-related behaviors (Jones et al., 2010). Therefore, testosterone-dependent traits may communicate health and/or dominance. Women generally prefer relatively masculine men’s voices and bodies (Collins, 2000, Feinberg et al., 2005, Hodges-Simeon et al., 2010 and Jones, Feinberg, et al., 2010). Both vocal and facial masculinity preferences increase with conception risk (Feinberg et al., 2006, Penton-Voak et al., 1999 and Puts, 2005) and for short-term relationships (Little et al., 2002 and Puts, 2005). Women who are open to casual sex, as indicated by the sociosexual orientation inventory (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991), prefer relatively masculine men’s faces (Waynforth, Delwadia, & Camm, 2005) and bodies (Provost, Kormos, Kosakoski, & Quinsey, 2006). As masculinity preferences are greater among women in seek of short-term and potentially extra-pair relationships, men possessing relatively more masculine traits may be perceived by other men as particularly threatening to pair-bond fidelity (Dijkstra and Buunk, 2001, Kruger, 2006 and Massar and Buunk, 2009). Men’s jealous responses to imagined scenarios are elicited by traits such as body masculinity (Dijkstra and Buunk, 2001 and Massar and Buunk, 2009). Similarly, Kruger (2006) found that men chose feminized male faces more often than masculinized men’s faces when asked to choose the man they would prefer accompany their girlfriend on a short trip to another city, suggesting that men perceive males with masculine faces as a greater threat to pair-bond fidelity than males with feminine faces. It is unknown if these perceptions of potential rivalry are tied to attractiveness, or alternatively, some knowledge of underlying mating strategies. Furthermore, it is unknown whether these attributions generalize to other testosterone-dependent traits, and whether prior findings extend to women’s perceptions. Here, we tested the influence of vocal and facial masculinity on perceptions of how jealous people would be if the person were flirting with their partner, or who they would prefer accompany their partner on a weekend trip, as well as the degree to which these perceptions are related to perceptions of attractiveness. If jealousy responses and/or preferences for partner accompaniment are influenced by cues to underlying mate quality, then jealousy responses and preferences for partner accompaniment may correlate with the degree to which they find masculinity/femininity attractive.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
3. Results We calculated the proportion of trials in which women selected feminized female stimuli and men selected masculinized male stimuli, per rating context. We reverse coded the weekend accompaniment variable (1-proportion of trials participant selected sex-typical voice/face) to reflect the proportion of trials in which participants chose sex-typical stimuli as undesirable travel companions for their romantic partner. All analyses were done using two-tailed probability estimates. One-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank tests against chance (0.5) were used to determine if pitch manipulations influenced participant’s selection of voices and faces, for each sex separately (see Fig. 1). In the weekend context, women selected feminized female voices (Z = 4.34, P < .001) and faces (Z = 3.42, P = .001) as undesirable travel companions for their romantic partner on significantly greater proportion of trials than would be predicted by chance. In the jealousy and attractiveness contexts, women selected feminized female voices (jealousy: Z = 4.91, P < .001, attractiveness: Z = 4.52, P < .001) and faces (jealousy: Z = 5.44, P < .001, attractiveness Z = 5.09, P < .001) significantly more often than chance. Mean and SEM of the proportion of trials female (top) and male (bottom) ... Fig. 1. Mean and SEM of the proportion of trials female (top) and male (bottom) participants selected the feminized/masculinized version of a face □ or voice Full-size image (<1 K) pair, per rating context. Chance (0.5) is indicated by the dashed line, * indicates significant difference from chance (p ⩽ .001). Figure options In the weekend context, men selected feminized men’s voices (Z = 4.09, P < .001) as preferred travel companions for their romantic partner on a significantly greater proportion of trials than would be predicted by chance. Men reported jealousy in response to masculinized men’s voices that was significantly greater than chance (Z = 5.13, P < .001). There was no significant effect of face manipulations on the proportion of trials in which men selected masculinized male faces for either the weekend (Z = −0.17, P = .862) or jealousy (Z = −1.13, P = .257) contexts. Men selected feminized male faces as more attractive (Z = −3.80, P < .001) significantly more often than chance. There was no significant effect of pitch manipulations on the proportion of trials in which men chose masculine male voices as more attractive (Z = 1.26, P = .207). To test for individual differences in attributions we used two separate repeated measures ANOVAs [within-subject factors: rating context (weekend companionship, jealousy over flirting), between-subject factors: participant relationship status (partnered, unpartnered); sex of participant (male, female), covariate: preferences for sex typical faces (Section 3.1) or voices (Section 3.2)]. We conducted analyses for facial and vocal stimuli separately because manipulations were not perceptually equivalent across modalities. Thus, comparisons between the strength of preferences for masculinity in voices and faces would not be distinguishable from differences in the relative strengths of the manipulations across modalities. Separate analyses using the mean preference for vocal and facial masculinity as within-subject factors did not change the significance of any effects. 3.1. Facial stimuli We found a significant between-subjects effect of face preferences on how often participants selected masculine male/feminine female faces for weekend accompaniment and jealousy (see Table 1). To investigate the direction of this effect, we averaged the proportion of trials in which participants selected masculine male/feminine female faces across both the weekend companionship and the jealousy over flirting rating contexts. A Pearson correlation indicated that participants who preferred more masculine male/feminine female faces also selected more masculine male/feminine female faces across both rating contexts (r = 0.648, N = 79, P < 0.001). There were no other significant main effects or interactions. Furthermore, a partial correlation indicated that when controlling for face preferences, participants who selected masculine male/feminine female faces in the weekend companionship context also selected masculine male/feminine female faces in the jealousy over flirting context (pr = 0.323, N = 76, P = 0.004). Table 1. Analysis of variance for face stimuli. Analysis of variance for face stimuli Source df F η P Within subjects Context 1 0.01 .000 .941 Context × face preference 1 0.57 .008 .425 Context × sex 1 2.00 .026 .161 Context × relationship status 1 1.60 .021 .210 Context × sex × relationship status 1 0.43 .006 .517 Error 74 Between subjects Face preference 1 13.54 .155 <.001 Sex 1 2.19 .029 .144 Relationship status 1 2.93 .038 .091 Sex × relationship status 1 0.32 .004 .574 Error 74 Table options 3.2. Vocal stimuli The ANOVA indicated a significant between-subjects effect of voice preferences on participant selection of masculine male/feminine female voices for weekend accompaniment and jealousy (see Table 2). A Pearson correlation showed that participants who preferred more masculine male/feminine female voices also chose more masculine male/feminine female voices on average across both rating contexts (r = 0.335, N = 79, P = 0.003). There were no other significant main effects or interactions. Additionally, a partial correlation indicated that when controlling for voice preferences, participants who selected masculine male/feminine female voices in the weekend companionship context also selected masculine male/feminine female voices in the jealousy over flirting context (pr = 0.348, N = 76, P = 0.002). Table 2. Analysis of variance for voice stimuli. Analysis of variance for voice stimuli Source df F η P Within subjects Context 1 0.14 .002 .711 Context × voice preference 1 1.31 .017 .257 Context × sex 1 0.00 .000 .987 Context × relationship status 1 0.85 .011 .360 Context × sex × relationship status 1 0.64 .009 .428 Error 74 Between subjects Voice preference 1 10.07 .120 .002 Sex 1 0.62 .008 .435 Relationship status 1 0.19 .003 .662 Sex × relationship status 1 0.02 .000 .901 Error 74