Refining the sexual selection explanation within an ethological framework

Abstract

I argue that the magnitude and nature of sex differences in aggression, their development, causation, and variability, can be better explained by sexual selection than by the alternative biosocial version of social role theory. Thus, sex differences in physical aggression increase with the degree of risk, occur early in life, peak in young adulthood, and are likely to be mediated by greater male impulsiveness, and greater female fear of physical danger. Male variability in physical aggression is consistent with an alternative life history perspective, and context-dependent variability with responses to reproductive competition, although some variability follows the internal and external influences of social roles. Other sex differences, in variance in reproductive output, threat displays, size and strength, maturation rates, and mortality and conception rates, all indicate that male aggression is part of a sexually selected adaptive complex. Physical aggression between partners can be explained using different evolutionary principles, arising from the conflicts of interest between males and females entering a reproductive alliance, combined with variability following differences in societal gender roles. In this case, social roles are particularly important since they enable both the relatively equality in physical aggression between partners from Western nations, and the considerable cross-national variability, to be explained.

Intra- Versus Intersex Aggression

“…Along these lines, a more helpful framework for explaining sex differences in human aggression seems to be a dual-theory approach with evolutionary as well as normative components. This theoretical refinement corresponds with recent integrative reformulations (Archer, 2009b; Wood & Eagly, 2002) as well as interactive approaches (Eagly & Wood, 2013; Geary, 1999; van den Berghe, 2009), which take into account both sides of the nature-nurture debate that underlies this theoretical discussion. In fact, the complex interaction of biological predispositions as well as sociocultural influences will usually present a better explanation of human behavior than either perspective alone.…”

“…This theoretical refinement corresponds with recent integrative reformulations (Archer, 2009b;Wood & Eagly, 2002) as well as interactive approaches (Eagly & Wood, 2013;Geary, 1999;van den Berghe, 2009), which take into account both sides of the nature-nurture debate that underlies this theoretical discussion. This theoretical refinement corresponds with recent integrative reformulations (Archer, 2009b;Wood & Eagly, 2002) as well as interactive approaches (Eagly & Wood, 2013;Geary, 1999;van den Berghe, 2009), which take into account both sides of the nature-nurture debate that underlies this theoretical discussion.…”

Social Exclusion: More Important to Human Females Than Males

“…For human males, direct intra-community competition [2] co-exists with an abundance of intra-group cooperative activities including inter-group warfare in which larger group size promotes victory [12], [13], [26], [27]. Large groups of unrelated females do not provide a similar benefit to human females.…”