User:OluGW/sandbox

A space to test out possible ideas/drafts of our article before submission This project requires us to create/develop or edit an article on an underdeveloped topic in Human Sexuality. There are several guidelines we are encouraged to follow and abide by, but above all, having respect for other Wikipedians and their contributions and work is a core ethos held by the Wikipedia community.

There has been much research into human sexuality which aims to provide evolutionary explanations for the evoluntion of traits amongst male and females today. As darwinian theories of evoluntion describe, sexual selection is notably said to be a core force that is responsible for the evolution of adapted traits that enhance the mating success of a species.

Several books provide details on the process of sexual selection OluGW (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Today, I am just getting more familiar with Wikipedia. I read some interesting articles today about persuasive techniques used by retailers. OluGW (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My final piece VVV

Competitor derogation[edit]
A female being gossiped about and socially excluded by female peers

There are a number of competitive strategies that females may use in a bid to appear more attractive to mates in comparison to other females. Whilst males may use direct forms of aggression during intrasexual competition[3][4] females typically compete for access to desired mates through the use of indirect aggression. Unlike direct aggression which involves delivering harm face to face[5], indirect aggression describes acts that are done circuitously, where an individual aims to cause harm but attempts to appear as if they have no harmful intentions [6]. In the context of intrasexual competition, indirect aggression works to reduce the opportunities the rival may have in securing access to the desired mate to, therefore, increase one's chances of reproductive success[7]. These include behaviours such as shunning, social exclusion, getting others to dislike the individual, spreading rumors and criticizing the rival’s appearance.

Female derogation[edit]
Female derogation is a form of indirect aggression where females attempt to reduce the perceived value of another female 'rival'. Fisher (2004)[8] studied female derogation and the effects of estrogen levels on this form of competition. Females disclosed their ovulation status and rated the attractiveness of male and female faces. Competitor derogation (giving low ratings) towards same-sex rivals occurred frequently when women were at their most fertile stages. In contrast, women gave same-sex rivals higher ratings during the least fertile stages of their ovulation. This indirect form of competition appears exclusive toward females as findings also showed that women, irrespective of ovulation status (high or low), showed no difference in the rating of male faces. Supporting research has also found that younger women who are considered as having high fertility, gossip about other women more than older women, who are no longer at their most fertile stage.[9]

Indeed, indirect aggression appears more prevalent amongst (or exclusive to) females than males who are said to engage in more direct forms of competition.[10] Research studying the relationship between indicators of attractiveness, such as physical attractiveness and indirect victimisation, showed that the likelihood of experiencing indirect victimization increased by 35% for females who perceived themselves as physically attractive.[11] In contrast, being a male who is physically attractive decreased the chances of experiencing such indirect victimization. This also highlights how the physical attractiveness a female isa trigger for indirect aggression and forms a core part of intersexual selection between the sexes.

Slut-shaming[edit]
Another form of competitor derogation that is instrumental in making rivals appear less desirable is Slut-shaming. In slut-shaming, females criticize and derogate same-sex rivals for engaging in sexual behaviors that are deemed "unacceptable" by society's standards, as it violates social expectations and norms with regards to their Gender role. For example, an act of Sexual promiscuity demonstrated by a female is often considered non-conventional and inappropriate as such behaviours are not viewed as acts that constitute femininity. Females may choose to personally confront or spread rumors and gossip about the promiscuous activity of another female. Buss and Dedden explored sex differences in competitor derogation to investigate the tactics that are commonly adopted by both sexes for intrasexual competition[12]. Researchers presented both sexes with a list of tactics that are often employed by individuals to derogate members of their own sex in an attempt to make them undesirable to the opposite sex. On a scale from 1(likely) to 7(unlikely), participants rated the likelihood that members of their own sex would perform each act. Results revealed that tactics that pointed out a competitor's promiscuity were used by females more frequently than males. These involved "calling her a tramp", "telling everyone that she sleeps around a lot" and that "she cheats on men". Indeed, accusations of promiscuity are a frequent cause of female-female violence, where females may physically retaliate in a bid to defend their sexual reputation[13] . British schoolgirls were surveyed and asked questions about their involvement in fights. In addition to 89% stating that they had actually been involved in a fight, 46% of reported fights were attacks on personal integrity related to promiscuity or gossiping[14]

With an ultimate goal of enhancing reproductive success at the expense of others, slut-shaming effectively works to arouse suspicion and cause suitors to question the fidelity of these females. In the long term, men may have doubts regarding the paternity of any offspring produced and since humans strive for reproductive success, (which, for a man is to reproduce and to continually invest in his own children), the decision to mate with such an individual drastically reduces the chances of reproductive success. Considering this and the high-value that men attach to chastity in women, men are less likely to mate with a female after being informed that she is promiscuous due to the fear of becoming aCuckold.

The effectiveness of strategies: Competitor derogation versus Self-promotion tactics[edit]
Generally speaking, competitor derogation is often rated as less effective than self-promotion tactics. Men and women tend to judge self-promotion tactics that show resource potential and sexual availability as highly effective for short and long-term mating, respectively[15] .Women, relative to men, appear more likely to engage in self-promotion than competitor derogation tactics[16]. With females having a tendency to engage in more indirect forms of aggression/derogation such as spreading rumors and shunning(social manipulation) [17] [6],studies investigate the extent to which such strategies enable success by increasing mating opportunities. Common indicators of reproductive success are sexual activity and dating behaviors. Research has found that the use of indirect aggression is positively correlated with increased dating behavior and early engagement in sexual activity, both concurrently and longitudinally. Arnocky and Pavillion[18] investigated whether the use of victimization or personally experiencing victimization could predict the dating behavior of adolescents over a year. In a follow-up assessment, indirect aggression (peer-nominated) was found to predict dating behavior one year after the initial assessment. Moreover, indirect aggression appeared to be a more powerful predictor of dating behavior than other factors such as initial dating status, peer-rated attractiveness, peer-perceived popularity, and age. Overall, females who used indirect aggression were more likely to be dating in comparison to victimized individuals, who were less likely to have a dating partner. The notion that peer aggression is associated with adaptive dating outcomes is further supported by studies that note that females who frequently engaged in indirect aggression began dating much earlier in life than individuals who experienced female-female peer victimization, for whom dating behavior had a much later onset[19]. Dating popularity is also found to have a strong association with the use of indirect aggression [20] .With regards to sexual activity, White et al [21] investigated the influence of peer victimization and perpetuated aggression on reproductive opportunities amongst young adults. Measures of sexual activity such as the number of previous sexual intercourse partners and the age of their first sexual intercourse were obtained alongside measures of their social experiences in middle and high school. Results found that females who experienced more peer aggression during adolescence had their first sexual intercourse at a later age. In contrast, whilst females who perpetuated high levels of indirect peer aggression tended to have their first sexual encounter at the earlier stages of adolescence. Overall, indirect aggression (peer aggression) appears functional in maximizing one's own reproductive opportunities at the expense of same-sex rivals. A quote by Tracy Vaillancourt neatly concludes the literature on female-female aggression by stating: "Not only does such cattiness make the targeted women too sad and anxious to compete in the sexual market, some studies suggest it can make men find rivals less attractive".

There are a number of competitive strategies that females may use in a bid to appear more attractive to mates in comparison to other females. Whilst males may use direct forms of aggression during intrasexual competition females typically compete for access to desired mates through the use of indirect aggression. Unlike direct aggression which involves delivering harm face to face, indirect aggression describes acts that are done circuitously, where an individual aims to cause harm but attempts to appear as if they have no harmful intentions (BJÖRKQVIST, LAGERSPETZ and KAUKIAINEN 1992). In the context of intrasexual competition, indirect aggression works to reduce the opportunities the rival may have in securing access to the desired mate, to therefore increase one's chances of reproductive success These include behaviours such as shunning, social exclusion, getting others to dislike the individual, spreading rumours and criticizing the rival’s appearance.

Female derogation is a form of indirect aggression where females attempt to reduce the perceived mate value of another female 'rival'. Fisher 2004* studied female derogation and the effects of estrogen levels on this form of competition. Females disclosed their ovulation status and rated the attractiveness of male and female faces. Competitor derogation (giving low ratings) towards same-sex rivals occurred frequently when women were at their most fertile stages. in contrast, when would give same-sex rivals higher ratings during their less fertile stages of their ovulation. This indirect form of competition appears exclusive to females as findings also showed that women, irrespective of ovulation status (high or low), showed no difference in the rating of male faces. Moreover, supporting research has found that younger women who are considered as having high fertility gossip about other women more than older women, who are no longer at their most fertile stage

Indeed, indirect aggression appears more prevalent amongst (or exclusive to) females than males who are said to engage in more direct forms of competition(citation needed). Research studying the relationship between indicators of attractiveness such as physical attractiveness and indirect victimization showed that the likelihood of experiencing indirect victimization increased by 35% for females who perceived themselves as physically attractive. In contrast, being a male who is physically attractive decreased the chance of experiencing such indirect victimization by 25%. This also highlights the role of physical attractiveness of female rivals as being a trigger for indirect aggression.

Another form of competitor derogation that appears instrumental in making rivals appear less appealing is Slut-shaming. In Slut-shaming females criticize and derogate same-sex rivals for engaging in sexual behaviors that are deemed and "unacceptable" by society's standards, as it violates social expectations and norms with regards to their Gender role. For example, an act of Sexual promiscuity demonstrated by a female is often considered non-conventional and inappropriate such behaviours are not viewed as acts that constitute femininity  In slut-shaming, females may spread rumors and gossip about the promiscuous activity of another female. Buss and Dedden explored the sex differences in competitor derogation to investigate the tactics are commonly adopted by both sexes during intrasexual competition. Researchers presented both sexes with a list of tactics that are often employed by individuals to derogate members of their own sex in an attempt to make them undesirable to the opposite sex. On a scale from 1(likely) to 7(unlikely), participants rated the likelihood that members of their own sex would perform each act. Results revealed that tactics that pointed out a competitor's promiscuity were used by females more frequently than males. These involved "calling her a tramp", "telling everyone that she sleeps around a lot" and that "she cheats on men". Indeed, accusations of promiscuity are a frequent cause of female-female violence, where females may physically retaliate in a bid to defend their sexual reputation. British schoolgirls were surveyed and asked questions about their involvement in fights. In addition to 89% stating they had actually been involved in a fight, 46% of fights reported were attacks on personal integrity related to promiscuity or gossiping

With an ultimate goal of enhancing reproductive success at the expense of others, slut-shaming effectively works to arouse suspicion and cause suitors to question the fidelity of these females. In the long term, men may have doubts regarding the paternity of any offspring produced and since humans strive for reproductive success, (which, for a man is to reproduce and to continually invest in his own children's survival), the decision to mate with such an individual drastically reduces the chances of reproductive success. Considering this and the high-value that men attach to chastity in women, men are less likely to mate with a female after being informed that she is promiscuous due to the fear of becoming a Cuckold.

how effective are these strategies (trann) = reproductive success?

Generally speaking, competitor derogation is often rated as less effective than self-promotion tactics. Men and women tend to judge self-promotion tactics that show resource potential and sexual availability as highly effective for short and long-term mating, respectively. Women, relative to men, appear more likely to engage in self-promotion than competitor derogation tactics. With females having a tendency to engage in more indirect forms of aggression/derogation such as spreading rumors and shunning(social manipulation) (bjorkquist el al 1994),studies investigate the extent to which such strategies enable success by increasing mating opportunities. Common indicators of reproductive success are sexual activity and dating behaviors. Research has found that the use of indirect aggression is positively correlated with increased dating behavior and early engagement in sexual activity, both concurrently and longitudinally. Arnocky and Pavillion investigated whether the use of victimization or personally experiencing victimization could predict d the dating behavior of adolescents over a year. In a follow-up assessment, indirect aggression (peer-nominated was found to predict dating behavior one year after the initial assessment. Moreover, indirect aggression appeared to be a more powerful predictor of dating behavior than other factors such as initial dating status, peer-rated attractiveness, peer-perceived popularity, and age. Overall, females who used indirect aggression were more likely to be dating in comparison to victimized individuals, who were less likely to have a dating partner. The notion that peer aggression is associated with adaptive dating outcomes is further supported by studies that note that females who engaged in high levels of indirect aggression began dating much earlier in life than individuals who experienced female-female peer victimization, for whom dating behavior had a much later onset . Dating popularity is also found to have a strong association with the use of indirect aggression. With regards to sexual activity, White et al investigated the influence of peer victimization and perpetuated aggression on reproductive opportunities amongst young adults. Measures of sexual activity such as the number of previous sexual intercourse partners and the age of their first sexual intercourse were obtained alongside measures of their social experiences in middle and high school. Results found that females who experienced more peer aggression during adolescence had their first sexual intercourse at a later age. In contrast, whilst females who perpetuated high levels of indirect peer aggression tended to have their first sexual encounter at the earlier stages of adolescence. Overall, indirect aggression (peer aggression) appears functional in maximizing one's own reproductive opportunities at the expense of same-sex rivals. A quote by Tracy Vaillancourt neatly concludes the literature by stating: "Not only does such cattiness make the targeted women too sad and anxious to compete in the sexual market, some studies suggest it can make men find rivals less attractive".

The adverse effects of intrasexual competition on health The act of altering one's morphology or appearance describes one component in intrasexual mate competition(Thornhill, R., & Alcock, J. (1983). The evolution of insect mating systems.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.) and can be identified as a self-promotion tactic used in female-female competition. Dieting bla........ health ....... OluGW (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

OluGW (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC) OluGW (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC) OluGW (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(buss, 1989 evolutionary hypothesis tested in 37 countries citation)

Shackelford, T. K., & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (2012). The Oxford handbook of evolutionary perspectives on violence, homicide, and war. Oxford University Press.

White, D. D., Gallup, A. C., & Gallup, G. G. (2010). Indirect peer aggression in adolescence and reproductive behavior. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(1), 147470491000800106.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2003). A sexual selection theory longitudinal analysis of sexual segregation and integration in early adolescence.Journal of experimental child psychology, 85(3), 257-278.

Gallup, A. C., O'Brien, D. T., & Wilson, D. S. (2011). Intrasexual peer aggression and dating behavior during adolescence: An evolutionary perspective. Aggressive behavior, 37(3), 258-267.

Arnocky, S., & Vaillancourt, T. (2012). A multi-informant longitudinal study on the relationship between aggression, peer victimization, and dating status in adolescence. Evolutionary Psychology,10(2), 147470491201000207.

Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. (1994). Sex differences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive behavior, 20(1), 27-33.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and brain sciences,12(01), 1-14.

Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 395-422.

Campbell, A. (1995). A few good men: Evolutionary psychology and female adolescent aggression. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(2), 99-123.

Campbell, A. (1986). SELF-REPORT OF FIGHTING BY FEMALES A Preliminary Study.British Journal of Criminology, 26(1), 28-46.

Marsh, P., & Paton, R. (1986). Gender, social class and conceptual schemas of aggression.Violent transactions: The limits of personality, 59-85.

Fisher, M., Cox, A., & Gordon, F. (2009). Self-promotion versus competitor derogation: The influence of sex and romantic relationship status on intrasexual competition strategy selection.Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(4), 287-308.

SCHMITT, D. & BUSS, D. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: Sex and content effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1185–1204.

Vaillancourt, T. (2013). Do human females use indirect aggression as an intrasexual competition strategy?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences,368(1631), 20130080.

Cashdan, E. (1993) Attracting mates: Effects of paternal investment on mate attraction strategies. Ethology and Sociobiology 14:1–24. [MA

Leenaars LS, Dane AV, Marini ZA. 2008 Evolutionary perspective on indirect victimization in adolescence: the role of attractiveness, dating and sexual behavior. Aggr. Behav. 34, 404– 415. (doi:10.1002/ ab.20252)

Massar K, Buunk AP, Rempt S. 2012 Age differences in women’s tendency to gossip are mediated by their mate value. Pers. Individ. Dif. 52, 106– 109. (doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.09.013)

Buss DM. 1988 The evolution of human intrasexual competition: tactics of mate attraction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 616 – 628. (doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54. 4.616)

Richardson, D. R., & Green, L. R. (1999). Social sanction and threat explanations of gender effects on direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25(6), 425-434.

Benenson, J. F. (2009). Dominating versus eliminating the competition: Sex differences in human intrasexual aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(3-4), 268-269.

The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Violence, Homicide, and War

By Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Fisher, M. L. (2004). Female intrasexual competition decreases female facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 271(Suppl 5), S283-S285.

Leenaars LS, Dane AV, Marini ZA. 2008 Evolutionary perspective on indirect victimization in adolescence: the role of attractiveness, dating and sexual behavior. Aggr. Behav. 34, 404– 415. (doi:10.1002/ ab.20252)

Massar K, Buunk AP, Rempt S. 2012 Age differences in women’s tendency to gossip are mediated by their mate value. Pers. Individ. Dif. 52, 106– 109. (doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.09.013)

OluGW (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)