Gender Differences in Cooperation and Competition The Male-Warrior Hypothesis Written by Mark Van Vugt, David De Cremer & Dirk P. Janssen University of.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Schulte-Hostedde, A.I., Eys, M.A., & Johnson,K. (2008). Femalemate choice is influenced by male sport participation. Evolutionary Psychology, 6,
Advertisements

The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans Carsten K. W. De Dreu, et al. (2010) Thanh-Thao Truong and Erika.
Nonverbal Behavior Elicited by Swearing During a Cold Pressor Task Ann Englert, Dai Xi Cui, Erica L. Decker, Hannah Krebs, Kassandra Palmas, Marissa Pinon,
By Ellina Bokov and Yasmine Tahsili. Introduction: For a long time it has been thought that men’s jealousy over women’s infidelity was the cause of the.
Social benefits of luxury brands as costly signals of wealth and status Garrett Stein and Briana Todhunter.
Altruistic Punishment in Humans Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter Clemente Jones & Nguyen Lam Psychology /08/2014.
The Dating Game: The Importance of Female Laughter as a Receptivity Signal ANTHONY R. GAROVE & SALLY D. FARLEY.
Introduction to Psychology Suzy Scherf Lecture 14: How Do We Interact? Human Mating Strategies.
Sex Differences in In-group Bias using a PD Game with Minimal Groups Nobuhiro Mifune Toshio Yamagishi (Hokkaido University) The 13 th International Conference.
 Humans have a long history of intergroup conflict › Identify easily with groups › Will work hard to defend their group  A lot of research has been.
Social Acceptability of Sport Fan Aggression Based on Gender and Age Jeannie Curry Amy Manning Noelle Smith Martha Young.
Kelsey Grossman Laura Jimenez
War and Peace Aggression in an Evolutionary Context.
Contrast two theories explaining altruism in humans.
Risk-taking as a Situationally Sensitive Male Mating Strategy Article by: Michael D. Baker Jr, Jon K. Maner (2008) Made intelligible by: Spencer and Taylor.
Kurzban, Tooby & Cosmides: “Can race be erased?” PNAS 2001  Question: does the simple act of categorizing individuals into two social groups predispose.
Chapter 14: Usability testing and field studies. Usability Testing Emphasizes the property of being usable Key Components –User Pre-Test –User Test –User.
Genetic Factors Predisposing to Homosexuality May Increase Mating Success in Heterosexuals Written by Zietsch et. al By Michael Berman and Lindsay Tooley.
Punishing Unacceptable Behavior Janhavi Nilekani and Sarah Ong.
The Person in the Situation: Self-Concept, Gender, and Dispositions
Chapter 3 Constructs, Variables, and Definitions.
Sex on the Brain? An Examination of Frequency of Sexual Cognitions as a Function of Gender, Erotophilia, and Social Desirability From Journal of Sex Research.
Statistical Analyses & Threats to Validity
Different Pathways To Offending and Violence: An Examination Of The Differences Among Youths With Varying Histories Of Contact With The Juvenile Justice.
The Scientific Method.  Theory  Hypothesis  Research  Support the theory OR Refute/Fail.
Chapter 14: Usability testing and field studies
Implication of Gender and Perception of Self- Competence on Educational Aspiration among Graduates in Taiwan Wan-Chen Hsu and Chia- Hsun Chiang Presenter.
Building Effective Interpersonal Relationships
Cultural Difference: Investment Attitudes and Behaviors of High Income Americans Tahira K. Hira – Iowa State University
1 University of Auckland Winter Week Lectures Third Lecture 4 July 2007 Associate Professor Ananish Chaudhuri Department of Economics University of Auckland.
Prosocial Behaviour: Why Do People Help?. What is Altruism? Rooted in the Latin word alter – meaning other Altruism – means “living for others” Key component.
1 of 46 MGMT 6970 PSYCHOMETRICS © 2014, Michael Kalsher Michael J. Kalsher Department of Cognitive Science Inferential Statistics IV: Factorial ANOVA.
Testosterone, Attachment and the green-eyed monster Nicola J. Fussell & Angela C. Rowe School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, UK. Are.
Public Charity as a Proximate Factor of Evolved Reputation- Building Strategy Brittany and Bo.
Self-esteem: Definition The individual’s overall attitude toward the self The degree to which the self is perceived positively or negatively Self-concept.
By: Isaiah Magpali-Isaac, Tatianna Smith, Viris Colmenero Farrelly, Daniel, Lazarus, John, & Roberts, Gilbert (2007). Altruists Attract. Evolutionary Psychology.
Friends as Rivals: Perceptions of Attractiveness Predict Mating Rivalry in Female Friendships Stephanie R. A. Maves, Sarah L. Hubert, and April Bleske-Rechek.
The Evolution of Fairness PSC 120 Jeff Schank. Fairness People engage in fair exchanges of resources even when it would benefit them more to act unfairly.
Intergroup Relations Theory and Research: An overview.
Kinship Cues as a Basis for Cooperation in Groups: The Familiarity Hypothesis Mark Van Vugt University of Southampton With Mark Schaller & Justin Park,
The Differences in Tailgating Between Men and Women Carla Kuhl & Rebekah Whited, Psychology Mentor: Dwight A. Hennessy, Ph.D. This study investigated the.
Competitive Swimmers’ Interpretation of Motivational Climate Rebecca C. Trenz, M.A. Fordham University Psychology of Motivation.
Learning objectives By the end of the session all learners will have: Identified at least 2 motives specific to them Considered key evidence to support.
The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology Chapter 2.
1 of 29 Department of Cognitive Science Adv. Experimental Methods & Statistics PSYC 4310 / COGS 6310 Mixed Model ANOVA Michael J. Kalsher PSYC 4310/6310.
Introduction Disordered eating continues to be a significant health concern for college women. Recent research shows it is on the rise among men. Media.
Evolutionary Psychology. Evolved Mechanisms ALL psychological theories imply evolved psychological mechanisms –Where did these mechanisms come from? –Why.
Acknowledgments We thank Dr. Yu, Dr. Bateman, and Professor Szabo for allowing us to conduct this study during their class time. We especially thank the.
De Dreu et al (2010) By Alexander Sanoja The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans.
A.C. Little, D.M. Burt, I.S. Penton-Voak and D.I. Perrett (2001). Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism.
Chapter 7 Measuring of data Reliability of measuring instruments The reliability* of instrument is the consistency with which it measures the target attribute.
Essay ‘Discuss one or more biological explanations of aggression’. D2- Thursday 1 st October F1- Friday 2 nd October.
Page 1 Evolution and human aggression. Evolutionary explanations of human aggression Aggression is adaptive Discuss reasons for this statement Survival.
CHAPTER 51 BEHAVIORAL BIOLOGY Copyright © 2002 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Benjamin Cummings Section D1: Social Behavior and Sociobiology 1.Sociobiology.
Chapter 9 Prosocial Behavior: Doing What’s Best for Others © 2014 Wadsworth Cengage Learning Oskar Schindler’s grave. The Hebrew inscription reads: “A.
Chapter 9 Relationship Development. Interpersonal Relationships: Relationships between two individuals that can range from mere acquaintance to meaningful.
Theoretical Perspectives.  Sociobiology : Application of evolutionary biology to understanding the social behavior of animals, including humans.
Who makes the pie bigger? An experimental cross country study into coopetition Simposio de Análisis Económico, Zaragoza December 11, 2008 Juan Antonio.
CHAPTER 10: SEXUALITY AND GENDER Section 2: The Psychological Side of Human Sexuality: Gender.
Sex vs. Reproduction Reproduction is essential –Brain is genetically hardwired to motivate us to reproduce Reproduce via sex Sex is pleasurable – motivated.
Scenario Your have been in a long-term relationship for 3 years. You have decided to move in together. Your best friend has just told you that when they.
Method Participants  145 undergraduates: 38 men (26.2%) and 107 women (73.8%) earning research participation credit for Psychology courses  Recruited.
LO#8: EXPLAIN THE FORMATION OF STEREOTYPES AND THEIR EFFECT ON BEHAVIOR (SAQ) Stereotyping.
Evolution and Human Agression
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY
Evolution and Human Agression
Developing Group Stereotypes Over Time
Conflict Between Groups
Intergroup Conflict Intergroup conflict in the EEA:
Evolution & Sexual Selection
Presentation transcript:

Gender Differences in Cooperation and Competition The Male-Warrior Hypothesis Written by Mark Van Vugt, David De Cremer & Dirk P. Janssen University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom, and University of Tilburg, Tilburg, The Netherlands Presentation by Matt Kearns & Megan Dodge

“A tribe including many members who, from possessing in high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes, and this would be natural selection.” (Darwin, 1871)

Abstract Evolutionary scientists argue that human cooperation is the product of a long history of competition among rival groups. This logic applies particularly to men 3 Experiments - using a step-level public goods task Findings – men contributed more to their group if their group was competing with other groups than if there was no intergroup competition Female cooperation was relatively unaffected by intergroup competition Findings suggest that men respond more strongly than women to intergroup threats.

Introduction Evolutionary minded social scientists assert that human altruism and cooperation are the result of the species’ unique history of intergroup conflict and warfare. Humans spontaneously make “us versus them” categorizations and quickly develop deep emotional attachments to groups. Humans also readily discriminate against members of out- groups and engage in costly altruistic actions to defend their group.

Introduction Men are more likely than women to engage in intergroup rivalry because for them the benefits (access to mates/prestige) sometimes outweigh the costs. In traditional societies tribal warfare is almost exclusively the domain of men and male warriors have more sexual partners and greater status within their community than other men. U.S. male street gang members have above average mating opportunities. Women are more interpersonally oriented, men are more group oriented. Men recall group events better than women and men engage more frequently in competitive between-group interactions.

The Male Warrior Hypothesis: An ancestral history of frequent and violent intergroup conflict has shaped the social psychology and behavior of men in particular and men’s behaviors and cognitions are more intergroup oriented than women’s. Researchers used a social dilemma task in 3 experiments to test their hypothesis. Prediction: Men increase their altruistic group contributions during intergroup competition more than women.

Experiment I Participants 120 undergraduate students at the University of Southampton, England, participated in this experiment. 33% Men 67% Women

Experiment I Design & Procedure Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions A individual or group (competitive) condition Each participant was placed in front of a computer in a separate cubicle, and all instructions were administered via the computer. Each member of the group received an endowment of $4, which could be kept for him-or-herself or invested in the group, but not divided between the two options. If the group as a whole contributed $16 or more to the group fund (i.e., if at least 4 of 6 members contributed their $4), then each group member would receive $4, regardless of whether he or she made a contribution. But if the group failed to contribute $16, no bonuses were given out, and only the contributors would lose their investment.

Experiment I Design & Procedure Participants were told that the study was running simultaneously at 10 different universities in England. In the “group condition”, the instructions said that the study was investigating how well student groups at these different universities performed the task relative to one another. In the individual condition, the participants also were told about these other participating universities, but the study was described as investigating how well students individually performed in such tasks. After receiving this information, participants decided whether or not to invest their $4 in the group. They were then debriefed, paid, and thanked for their efforts.

Experiment I Results As predicted by the hypothesis, the men contributed more often in the group condition than in the individual condition. The overall percentage of female contributors was lower in the group condition

Experiment II Participants 93 undergraduate students at the University of Southampton participated in this experiment. 46% Men 54% Women

Experiment II Design & Procedure The procedures and instructions were essentially the same as in the previous experiment, with the following exceptions; Each group member was given an endowment of $6, any amount of which could be invested in the group. The public good (a bonus of $10 for each member, regardless of his or her contribution) was provided if the group investments exceeded $24.

Experiment II Results As predicted, men contributed more in the group (competitive) condition than in the individual condition. For women, there was no difference between the group condition and the individual condition.

Experiment III Participants 93 undergraduate students at the University of Southampton 53% Men 47% Women

Experiment III Design & Procedure Competition manipulation was the same as in the previous experiments. The only real difference with this 3rd experiment is Participants also answered a post experiment questionnaire with five questions about their group identification (e.g., ‘‘I identify with the group I am in’’) responding to each on a scale from 1, not at all, to 9, very strongly

Experiment III Results Women overall contributing more than men with no real difference between conditions. But men stayed consistent with contributing more in the group condition. As predicted Me also Identify much more with the group than women. Men Women

Summary of Results Results show that men identify and cooperate more with their group under conditions of intergroup threat compared to no threat. Women’s cooperation is largely unaffected by intergroup threat. The researcher believes this supports the male- warrior hypothesis.

Discussion Further research should address various implications of the male- warrior hypothesis. People should assign more weight to “intergroup” personality traits such as physical ability, fighting prowess, bravery, courage, and heroism when evaluating men than when evaluating women. Status in a group and, perhaps, attractiveness as a mate should be more strongly associated with contributions to intergroup activities for men than for women. Men should also generally be more interested than women in what might be considered intergroup hobbies and professions like playing team sports, watching war movies, and joining the military.

Discussion Women, on average, contributed more to the group across 3 experiments Women are not completely insensitive to intergroup conflict Male intergroup adaptations and traits are likely to be reinforced through cultural processes (ex. childhood socialization) Women’s social psychology is likely to be shaped more strongly by different kinds of needs (ex. defending offspring, creating supportive social networks)

Discussion Limitations intrinsic to experimental public-goods research: Payoffs in experiments were not substantial – don’t know if men in reality would be willing to take huge risks to defend their group Intergroup competition in the experiments was merely symbolic and groups were not competing with each other for a tangible reward All participants were college students