Female Competition: Causes, Constraints, Content, and Contexts Author(S): Anne Campbell Source: the Journal of Sex Research, Vol

Home , Anne Campbell (academic)

Female Competition: Causes, Constraints, Content, and Contexts Author(s): Anne Campbell Source: The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 41, No. 1, Evolutionary and Neurohormonal Perspectives on Human Sexuality (Feb., 2004), pp. 16-26 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813400 . Accessed: 29/03/2011 17:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Sex Research.

http://www.jstor.org Female Competition: Causes, Constraints, Content, and Contexts

Anne Campbell Durham University

Monogamytends to equalisemate competition between the sexes. However, women show greater restraint in theiruse of directintrasexual aggression, which, I argue,is a resultof theirhigher parental investment and the consequentlygreater reproductivecost of injuryor death.Women usually compete for matesby advertisingqualities valued by men(beauty and sexualexclusiveness) and by usingindirect means of denigratingrivals (through gossip and stigmatisation). However, where well-resourcedmen are in shortsupply, women mustfind alternative sources of supportor escalatetheir competition for malepartners to physicallevels. Data from criminology,psychology, evolutionary biology, and anthropologyare used to supportthese proposals.

In this articleI offeran interpretationof femalecompe- "ragingmisogyny." As Tanenbaum(2002, p. 47) puts it, titionfrom an evolutionary perspective. First, it is usefulto "Manywomen compete over things they think men value, brieflyreview prior social scienceresearch (not informed suchas lookingsexy .... Themost dangerous outcome of by sucha perspective)to indicatethe richnessof the qual- this is self hatred;girls andwomen disparage themselves itativeobservations and the alternativepositions taken to anddissociate from other females." theirinterpretation. Thepresent article sees competitionas an inherentpart Despitea recentsurge of popularjournalistic books (e.g., of ourbiological status and women's lesser willingness to Fillion,1997; Simmons, 2002; Tanenbaum, 2002), academ- escalatecompetition to directaggression as arisingout of ic interestin competitionamong women was almostnonex- theirparticular biology rather than from conformity to cul- istent until the 1980s. Initial research(Gilligan, 1982; turalexpectations of femininity.Because the vastmajority Goodwin,1980; Lever, 1976) foundthat girls tendedto of researchhas beendone on youngwomen in the United avoidcompetition in favourof tacticsthat diffuse conflict Statesand Europe, we lackthe datato examinethe cultur- andpreserve intelpersonal harmony. When competition is al specificity or generality of female competition. madeinevitable, girls used apologiesand excuses to miti- Certainlysex differencesin aggressionare universal (Daly gatetheir behaviour (Hughes, 1.988) or "doublevoicing" to & Wilson, 1988), but competitioncan take otherforms. promotetheir own cases while simultaneouslytaking into Some worksuggests that competition is moredirect and accountthe positions of theirrivals, thereby preserving their physicalamong poor and minoritywomen than among relationships(Sheldon, 1992). This attenuation of competi- theirmiddle-class White counterparts (Brown, 1998; Eder, tionin favourof sustainingpositive relationships is thought 1990).However, this couldbe dueto culture-specificgen- to reflectsocialisation into cultural norms against the overt der expectationsor greatercompetition resulting from expressionof conflictamong females (Miner & Longino, higher levels of resourcescarcity (as I discuss later). 1987;Tracy, 1991) and the greatercentrality of intimate Althoughthere is academicagreement on the foci of friendshipsto girlsthan to boys (Brown,1998). femalecompetition, women's concern with relative attrac- Researchthat has examinedthe focusof femalecompe- tivenessmight result from the internalisation of patriarchal tition identifiesappearance, popularity, and preservation values or from mate competition.Again, cross-cultural of a "good"sexual reputationas central(Brown, 1998; dataare needed.Problematically, men (andwomen) uni- Eder, 1985; Merten,1997; Simmons,2002; Tanenbaum, versallyseem to agreeon standardsof femalefacial beau- 2002). These are intimatelyconnected since popularity ty, makingit hardto choose betweenthe two accounts (whichconsists of "visibility"rather than liking; see Eder, (Langloiset al., 2000).Research certainly suggests that the 1985;Merten, 1997) is associatedwith physical attractive- currentfashion for slimnessis not imposedon womenby ness to the oppositesex (often reflected,in the United men becausemen preferplumper figures than do women States,in achievingcheerleader status) but highly selective (Anderson,Crawford, Nadeau, & Lindberg,1992; Cohn et sexualavailability. Girls, it is argued,come to "ventrilo- al., 1987; Fallon & Rozin, 1985; Furnham& Radley, quise"patriarchal male attitudes about appropriate female 1989).Women also caremore about other women's opin- appearanceand behaviour(Brown, 1998), resultingin ions of attractivenessthan those of men(Graziano, Jensen- Campbell,Shebilske, & Lundgren,1993), suggesting that within-sexcompetition can takeon a dynamicof its own. Address correspondence to Anne Campbell, Psychology Department, DurhamUniversity, South Road, Durham,DH1 3LE, England;e-mail: a.c.camp- Similarly,with regardto sexualconduct and reputation, a bell @durham.ac.uk. recent review concluded that women are stronger

The Journal of Sex Research Volume 41, Number 1, February 2004: pp. 16-26 16 Campbell 17 enforcersof thedouble standard than are men (Baumeister familyand where male investmentis necessaryto ensure & Twenge,2002), castingdoubt on the proposalof inter- child survival.Such conditionsare common;in societies nalisationof malevalues. where polygynyis legal more than 80% of men marry I turnnow to an evolutionaryapproach to the under- monogamously (Murdock, 1981). Socially imposed standingof female-femalecompetition. Conflict can and monogamyis characteristicof large stratifiedsocieties does occur betweenthe sexes; indeedwomen's rates of (Draper& Harpending,1988). Because it equalisesrepro- aggression(excluding homicide) toward partners equal ductiveopportunities among men, it reducesmale compe- thoseof men (Archer,2000). Becausethe theoreticalpre- tition(Betzig, 1995; Ridley, 1993; Smuts, 1995). dictionsand the foci of conflictare quite different, I do not Humancultures and individuals show markedvariabil- considerthem in the presentarticle. ity in their marriage patterns (Alexander, 1979). Monogamytends to benefit the majorityof men while CAUSESOF FEMALE COMPETITION imposing costs on the minority who through wealth Sex differencesin parentalinvestment form the backbone (Betzig, 1986) or geneticquality (Gangestad & Simpson, of evolutionaryaccounts of sexual selection(Williams, 2000) could feasiblyimprove their reproductive success 1966).Parental investment is anyinvestment by theparent by polygyny.Effective polygyny exists where male fitness in an offspringthat increases the chanceof its survivalat varianceexceeds that of femalesand it canbe achievedvia the cost of the parent'sability to investin otheroffspring serial monogamy.Serially monogamousmen produce (Trivers,1972). The higher investing sex becomes the morechildren then men who remainin a single partner- resourcefor which the other sex competes.In 95Woof ship, but the same is not true for women (Forsberg& mammals,females provide all the parentalcare (Clutton- Tullberg,1995). Men who marrytwice aremore likely to Brock, 1991). Consequently,males competevigorously havechildren by bothwives thanare women to havechil- for statusand resources attractive to females. dren by both their husbands(Alexander, 1979). At the Humansexual dimorphism suggests selection for male- marginsof monogamy,then, successfulmen leave more male competitioncongruent with a historyof mild polyg- childrenthan women. As Archer and Mehdikahni(in yny. In commonwith other polygynousprimates, men press)summarise the situation, comparedto women have broadercanines (Frayer& Wolpoff,1985) and are heavier(McHenry, 1994). Boys ...the sex differencein size in humansis relativelysmall compared reachphysical maturity later than girls and afterpuberty with thatfound in primateswith a clearlypolygynous mating strategy. Paternal investment is relatively high in humarls (Geary, have largerhearts, skeletal muscles, lung capacity,lower 2000), which would make them in some ways nearerto monoga- restingheart rate and are capable of longerbouts of phys- mous species, while still retaininga tendencytowards polygyny. ical exertion(Tanner, 1990). In consequencethey can run faster,jump further,grip more strongly,and throwfaster Monogamyand biparental care reduce fitness variabili- andfurther (Thomas & French,1985). While these sex dif- ty among males. In pure form, they constraina man's ferencesmight reflect division of labourand specialisation reproductivesuccess to thatof his partner.Given the heavy for hunting(Wood & Eagly,2002), across species they commitmentthat he will make in theirjoint progeny,it appearto be morestrongly related to the degreeof male- paysa maleto be choosy.(Such choosiness does not apply malecompetition (Placvan & van Schaik,1997a, 1997b). to short-termsexual relationships; men are willing to drop Nonetheless,the majorityof mentoday marry monoga- theirstandards quite considerably when no investmentis mously.In Westernsocieties at least,both men and women requiredof them [Kenrick,Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, value monogamyover short-termaffairs (Miller, Putcha- 1990].) Monogamymeans that sexual selectionacts on Bhagavatula,& Pedersen,2002). WhenPedersen, Miller, bothmales and females. The investment costs sustained by Putcha-Bhagavatula,& Yang (2002) askedparticipants to both partiessupport discrimination in partnerchoice and indicatethe numberof partnerspreferred over the next 30 mean that women must compete with one anotherto years, the highermean for males reportedby Buss and securethe best men,just as men vie for the best woman. Schmitt(1993) was replicatedbut, crucially, the maledis- "Intheory and in practice,the dynamicsof humanmating tributionwas very heavily skewed.When median values involve female-femalecompetition and male choice, in were examined,both sexes showeda preferencefor one additionto male-malecompetition and female choice" partnerand did not differin the numberof partnersthey (Geary,1998, p. 121). preferredprior to settlingdown. Thereis debateas to the originsof humanmonogamy. CONSTRAINTSONFEMALE COMPETITION Monogamymay have been the result of male-female Why then do womenso rarelyexhibit the kind of overt, coevolutionof reproductivestrategies, initiated by female sometimeslethal physical competitivenessamong their preferencefor investing males (Geary,2000) resulting own ranksthat men do? The classic explanation of height- from the protractedperiod of humaninfant dependency ened intramaleviolence is predicatedupon polygyny (Miller & Fishkin, 1997). Ecologically imposed incentive: Males are competing for status and resources monogamyoccurs where harsh conditions prevent many which are associated with the prize of fatheringa dispro- menfrom acquiring the resources to supportmore than one portionate number of children (Daly & Wilson, 1988). Female Competition

Low18 levels of femaleaggression are explained in termsof thatthe relevantadaptation occurs at an emotionallevel an absenceof incentivefor competition:Because males (Damasio,1994; Loewenstein,Weber, Hsee, & Welch, are willing to inseminatewomen promiscuously(where 2001). Women'savoidance of dangeris mediatedby fear little or no paternalcare is requiredof them)women have and associatedbehavioural inhibition. This may explain no needto competefor copulations. why womenshow higher rates of phobiasand anxiety dis- A complementaryview of sex differencesin aggression ordersthan men (Arrindell, Kolk, Pickersgill, & Hageman, in termsof reproductivecosts focuses upon parenting rather 1993), lower levels of sensation-seekingand risk-taking thanmating (Campbell, 1999, 2002). This proposal argues (Zuckerman,1994), and lower engagementin dangerous thatthe chief differencebetween the sexes lies in the costs sportsand occupations (Wilson & Daly,1985). Women are ratherthan the rewardsof within-sexaggression. The sex less willingto risktheir lives thanmen. differencein aggressionis found amongnonhuman pri- The emotionalrather than rational nature of this effect matesalso (Smuts, 1987), despite the fact that there are clear is confirmedby studiesof risk.When studies of risk are advantagesto dominantfemales. They reach sexual maturi- dichotomisedinto those that are cognitive and abstract ty earlier,first conceive at an earlierage, produce more off- (e.g., what would the odds of success have to be before spring,have greaterinfant survival and live longer(Ellis, you wouldagree to an operation?)and those thatemploy 1995;Pusey, Williams, & Goodall,1997). The crucialfac- immediate,emotion-based behavioural measures (e.g., tor is thatin these female-bondedspecies (which include distanceof nearestapproaching car in relationto willing- most primatesbut not humans;Rodseth, Wrangham, ness to makea turnacross oncoming traffic), the sex dif- Harrigan,& Smuts,1991), maternal rank is inheritedrather ferencesare more marked in the latter(Byrnes, Miller, & thanfought for. When direct challenge does occur, it doesso Schafer,1999). The emotionalbasis of the sex difference under"minimal risk" conditions (Chapais, 1992). appearsalso in experimentalstudies of aggression.Women Competitionbetween women, as betweenmen, is won perceivethe dangerassociated with an actof aggressionas in the currencyof inclusivefitness. In men, inclusivefit- higherthan men even in the sameobjective situation, and ness dependscrucially upon sexual access, but in women this perceiveddanger is a strongnegative predictor of the criticalfactor is the mother'sability to shepherdher aggression(Bettencourt & Miller,1996; Eagly & Steffen, offspringsafely through the dangerousselection funnel of 1986).It acts as a "brake"on aggression.In addition,psy- thejuvenile period. In nonhumanprimates, 70Wo to 90Woof chopharmacologicalstudies suggest that men's willing- youngborn die beforeadulthood. In hunter-gatherersoci- ness to engagein riskyand dangerous behaviours may be eties, approximately50Wo of offspring born survive mediatednot by the incentivesbut by an absenceof inhi- (Kaplan& Lancaster,2003). This higher survivalrate bition. The neurotransmitterserotonin is implicatedin among humansis particularimpressive because of the behaviouralinhibition, and low levels have been linked doublingof time spentin the mostperilous phase of all, as bothto impulsivekillings and to suicide(Moore, Scarpa, juveniles. Centralto the survivalof the young are the & Raine,2002). In addition,there is a sex differencefavor- choices and competenceof the mother,who deliversthe ing womenin the availabilityand uptake of this transmit- bulkof directcare (Hrdy, 1999). It is not surprisingthere- ter (Biveret al., 1996;Reisert & Pilgrim,1991). forethat even underbiparental care, the deathof a mother Oneway womencan compete without risking the* safe- compromisesa child'slife moreseverely than the deathof ty or compromisingtheir lives is throughacts that ostracise, a father(Hill & Hurtado,1996; Sear, Mace, & McGregor, stigmatise,and otherwise exclude others from social interac- 2000;Voland, 1988). A carelessattitude to one'sown safe- tionwithout risking direct physical confrontation. Such acts ty andsurvival has greaterconsequences on the reproduc- do not eliminateor physicallyinjure the target,nor do they tive successof a femalethan a male.Hence, selection has demonstratethe greatersize, strength,or belligerenceof the favoredfemales who avoid dangerbecause of the higher attacker.They do, however,inflict stress and diminish the fitnesscosts of riskingtheir lives. opponent'sreputation and social support.The targetis Parenthetically,it is worth noting that while human attackedcircuitously and the aggressor can therefore remain femalesdeliver the bulkof parentalcare, the criticalfactor unidentified.This set of behavioursis referredto as indirect in this argumentis not sex per se. Allman,Rosin, Kumar, aggression(Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen,1992) or andHasenstaub (1998) comparedten speciesof primates relationalaggression (Crick & Grotpeter,1995). Girls that variedin the amountof paternalor maternaleffort exceedboys on measuresof indirectaggression by theage of theycontributed to parentalcare. They plotted the survival 11, andthe sex differencecontinues to be presentup to the curvesfor each species and foundsignificant sex differ- age of 18.As malephysical aggression diminishes with age, ences in life expectancyfavouring whichever sex took the sex differencein indirectaggression lessens and disap- mostparental responsibility. They also ranked the primates pearsin adulthood at least amongeducated middle-class in termsof whichsex lived longerand by how much.The samples(Pellegrini & Archer,in press).These stigmatising resultsshowed that the amountof parentingwas closely andexcluding strategies can have devastatingeffects upon associatedwith female-to-male survival ratio. the victim (Ahmad& Smith, 1994; Simmons,2002). But evolutionists do not argue that reward-cost deci- An alternative interpretationof these sex differences sions are calculated rationally or oonsciously. It is likely might be that women's preferencefor indirectstrategies is Campbell ls a result of gender role prescription.Because women's tance assignedto other attributes(Buss, 2000; Buss & directaggression is seen as an aberrationfrom the female Schmitt,1993; Etcoff, 1999; Feingold, l 990). means of stereotype, women might seek alternative Youthand 13eaut expressing competition that are more acceptable. Ostermanet al. (1994) reasonedthat if a formof aggres- A universalfeature of men'spreferences is youth.After a sion was socially condemned,then childrenwould be periodof adolescentsterility, women become most fertile morelikely to attributeit to theirpeers and less likely to at the age of 25 fromwhence their fertility declines until it admitto it themselves.They askedchildren to reporton reacheszero by the age of about50. Whenadult males are their own and their friends' use of various forms of asked about age preference,they consistentlychoose aggression and then computed an Attributional someonewho is youngerthan themselves, and marriage DiscrepancyIndex by subtractingself-estimates from patternsindicate that the typicalage gap is about3 years peerestimates for variousforms of aggression.There was (Buss & Schmitt,1993). But this 3-yeargap is not a con- no sex differencefor indirectaggression This suggests stant.Teenage boys ratea woman5 yearsolder than them- that stigmatisingand rumourspreading are no more selves as the perfectpartner (Kenrick, Keefe, Gabrielidis, sociallyacceptable for one sex thanfor the other.Another & Cornelius,1996). As men age they preferever younger clue to the fact thatindirect aggression is not simplythe women,and by the age of 60 they preferwomen who are resultof humansocialisation is thatother primate females on average15 yearsyounger than themselves (Kenrick & use analogoustechniques. Females have been observed to Keefe, 1992). Buunk, Dijkstra,Kenrick, and Warntjes engage in sustained, low-level harassmentof other (2001), however,found that men's expressedpreference females; the target is consistentlyinterrupted and dis- maybe constrainedby realisticpragmatism and the type of placed as she tries to rest, feed, or mate. The resulting relationship.In line withearlier work they foundthat 60- stresssuppresses oestrus and can cause abortion (Chapais, year-oldmen fantasiseabout and wouldhave casualsex 1992; Hrdy,1981; Smuts, 1987), diminishingthe repro- with women up to their 40s, but would be preparedto ductivesuccess of the victim. marrya womanup to the age of 55. While the term indirectaggression emphasises the Menalso placea greaterpremium upon physical attrac- indirectnature of the attackand relationalaggression tivenessthan do women,and this is closelybound up with highlightsthe manipulationof social re]ationships,both age. Facialfeatures that reflect youth inc]ude shiny hair, functionscome togetherin the activityof"gossiping," or unwrinkledskin, large eyes, a small nose, and full lips. social evaluationabout a personwho is not present(Eder (Etcoff, 1999).A youthful,beautiful appearance is what & Enke, 1991). Gossipinghas been arguedvariously to womencompete with each otherto achieve.Historically, disseminateinformation, entertain, establish norms, exer- womenhave used lead, mercury, lemon juice, egg whites, cise social control,enhance in-group bonding, and act as milk, vinegar,kohl, and dye to enhancetheir facial fea- a psychodynamicprojective defence (Fine & Rosnow, tures.In the UnitedStates, 88% of womenover the age of 1978;Leaper & Holliday,1995; Nevo, Nevo, & Derech- 18 wear makeupdesigned to correctasymmetries, signal Zehavi,1993). But it is also a potentform of indirectcom- sexuality,and mimic youth (Etcoff, 1999). Eighty-nine petition.When we gossip aboutanother person we simul- percentof cosmetic surgicalprocedures in the United taneouslyachieve two goals. Most obviously,we spread Statesare performedon women,including 91% of face informationthat is damagingto the other'sreputation and lifts (Etcoff,1999). so diminishhis or hersocial standing.But the act of con- Tookeand Camire (1991) askedmen and women about demnationis also an act of self-promotion;one cannot deceptivetactics used to competewith rivals and attract crediblyaccuse a rivalof behavioursthat one engagesin the oppositesex. Whilemen competed with other men by oneself. If gossip is a form of competition,then women exaggeratingsuperiority, promiscuity, intensity, and popu- should gossip aboutthe domainsabout which they are larity,women competed with otherwomen by alterations mostcompetitive and those, in turn,should be thosequal- to theirappearance, such as makeup,nail polish, fake tans, ities that are importantto men in theirchoice of mates. andtight clothing (see also Buss, 1988a, 1988b). Walters The following discussionconsiders competition among andCrawford (1994) askedundergraduate subjects about youngwomen at a time of intensecompetition for mates. competitivetactics that they used against members of their Most publishedmaterial is gainedfrom this age group. own sex. No explicitmention was madeof competitionfor Little is known about the foci of competitionin older mates,but nonetheless women most often nominated, per- women, althoughthis would be a valuableand fruitful formed,and rated as effectivethe tacticof attractingatten- areaoz -w enqu1ry.. tion to their appearance.Using diaries to examine the everyday experience of competition,Cashdan ( 1998) THECONTENT OF FEMALE COMPETITION found that while men competedwith other men in the In seeking long-termmates, men and women similarly arenaof sports,women competedwith one anotherin award considerableimportance to personal qualities such terms of their appearance.Attractiveness appears to be the as intelligence and a sense of humour (Buss & Schmitt, currencyof female competition even when no mention is 1993). However, men differ from women in the impor- made of what the competitionis about. 20 Female Competition A verystrong factor in men'spreferences is notjust faces Arluke,1985). Female dyads have a higherrate of nega- butbodies. Before puberty and after menopause, the ratio of tive gossipthan male or mixed-sexpairs, and the conver- waistto hipsin womenis about1.0, but during women's fer- sationalpartner in femaledyads more often gives a strong- tile yearsit diminishes.The waist-hip ratio in the interven- ly encouragingresponse to gossip initiationthan in the ing yearsis associatedwith fertility (Singh, 1993; Zaadstra othertwo groups.My interest,however, is specificallyin et al., 1993). Singh (1993) found that men's preferred the topics thatwomen's groups and men's groups discuss femalebody shape was a 0.7 waist-to-hipratio (WHR) and in connectionwith others.Although Levin and Arluke suggestedthat this preference reflected selection for health, (1985) reportedno sex differencesin discussionof other youth,and fertility in a femalepartner. These findings have people'sappearance, they did not examinethe sex of the beenwell replicated(see Streeter& McBurney,2003), but targetof the gossip. Hence,participants may have been Tassinaryand Hansen (1998) foundthat body massindex evaluatingthe oppositesex's appearance,rather than criti- (BMI)is a strongercorrelate of malepreference than WHR. cising membersof theirown sex. Martin(1997) recorded Criticshave objectedthat WHR and BMI cannotbe inde- conversationsbetween male, female, and mixed-sex dyads pendentlyexperimentally manipulated and that the results and (afterremoving obvious gender cues) askedpartici- of statisticallyapportioning variance depend critically upon pants to identifythe sex compositionof the pair.They the rangeof valuesinvestigated for each variable.Streeter wereable to do thiswith greater than chance accuracy. The and McBurnley(2003) manipulatedchest, waist, and hip chief cue theyused was the topicof conversation:Women size to examinefive WHRs,with the effects of participants' moreoften than men discussedmatters relating to others' weightestimates of the bodiesremoved. Body mass esti- appearance.Of the top 10 topics, 4 of women's were matesexplained about 66(Wo of the variance in attractiveness appearance-related(31% frequencyof mention) while ratings,but, independent of this,both sexes (andespecially only 2 of men'sconcerned appearance (llSo frequencyof men)preferred a waist-hipratio of 0.7. Medium-sizedhips, mention).Nevo et al. (1993) developeda Tendencyto waists, and chests were all preferred.Women use bras, GossipQuestionnaire (which confirmed that women gos- corsets,and surgeryto "normalise"perceived size anom- sip morethan men). Onlyone of the fourfactors derived aliesand to exaggeratethe apparent narrowness of thewaist. fromprincipal components analysis showed a significant Every year in the United States approximately125,000 sex differenceand that was PhysicalAppearance. None of breastimplant operations are performed. In evaluatingtheir these studies,however, specifically examined the sex of rivals,women attend particularly to theirwaist, hips, and the gossipee.Hall (2002) foundthat physical appearance legs (Dijkstra& Buunk,2001). was more often discussedby both sexes in relationto Men'spreference for thinnesshas also been examined female targets,while possessionsand intelligencewere as a dimensionof femalecompetition. Although anorexia mostoften discussed in connectionwith men. has in the pastbeen investigatedin termsof mediainflu- Buss andDedden's (1990) work took an explicitlyevo- ences, familyinteractions, anxiety about sexual maturity, lutionaryapproach to gossip,viewing it as a tool of intra- and perfectionism(see Polivy & Herman,2002), evolu- sexual competition.They asked participantsto suggest tionarypsychologists have proposed that it mayrepresent thingsthey would do if theiraim was to makemembers of a dysfunctionalform of female competition(Mealey, theirown sex undesirableto the oppositesex. Theyidenti- 2000).Abed (1998) suggestedthat sexual selection would fied 28 tactics.One of these was "derogatecompetitor's favourwomen who preserved a nubileshape that signalled appearance."Further groups of subjectsjudged this tactic theircontinued youth and fertility. This might be mediated significantlymore likely to be usedby femalesin general, by anxietyabout weight gain, which would be exacerbat- andwomen more than men reported that they werelikely ed by higherlevels of competitionin Westernsocieties to use it themselves.Naturalistic studies concur that pejo- wheredelayed reproduction and longer interbirth intervals rativecomments about other girls' appearance rank high in meanthat women retain their nubile shape until older ages. girls' topics of gossip (Brown, 1998; Duncan, 1999; Althoughstudies of eatingdisorders and social climates Owens,Shute, & Slee, 2000; Simmons,2002). have not supportedthe competitionhypothesis (Connor- Fidelity Greene,Striegel-Moore, & Cronan,1994; Striegel-Moore, Connor-Greene,& Shime, 1991), competitivenessas a A woman'schances of securinga desirablelong-term mate personalitytrait has beenfound to be relatedto eatingdis- dependin largepart upon the mate's evaluation of herlike- orders(Striegel-Moore, Silberstein, Grunberg, & Rodin, ly futurefidelity. Since the best predictorof futurebehav- 1990),and interpersonal competitiveness (the desire to do iour is past behaviour,a woman'spast willingnessto betterthan others) is a strongercorrelate than goal com- engagein casualsex is informationthat is likely to carry petitiveness(the desire to excel;Webber, 2003). considerableweight. That is why terms such as "slag," If physicalappearance is so criticalto men'schoice of "tart,"or "whore"are powerful sources of reputationchal- mates,women should not only competewith one another lenge among women (Brown, 1998; Campbell,1982, to meetmen's criteria but they shouldalso use gossipas a 1995; Duncan, 1999; Lees, 1993; Marsh & Patton, 1986). way to derogate rivals. Women gossip about others more Wilson's (1978) study of working-class teenage girls than do men (Bischoping, 1993; Eckert, 1990; Levin & found that sex without at least lip service to marriage Campbell 21 placedthe girlin dangerof developinga sexualreputation. the falsityof the accusation.If she publiclyconfronts the The girls themselveswere vocal in enforcingthis code. boy she is allegedto havehad sex with,he has everyrea- "The girls regulatedtheir contactwith other girls who son to lie andit is his wordagainst hers. If she refusesto wereknown as 'lays'in orderto preservetheir own repu- rise to the bait andrespond to the remark,she is takento tations.In fact they openlyridiculed the girls referringto have tacitly admittedthe truthof the accusation.If she them as 'whores"'(Wilson, 1978, p. 70). Fifteen years admitsthe act but repudiatesthe double standardused afterthis study,teenagers were still alertto the distinction againsther, whatothers view as her "freeand easy"atti- betweennice girls and tartsand avoidedfriendships with tude to sex may furtherdamage her reputation.The best sexuallyavailable girls for fear of reputation-by-associa- she can do is to forcefullyrepel anyone who labelsher as tion (Lees, 1993).Boys continuedto makethe samedis- a tartand so minimisethe likelihoodof such a reputation tinctionbetween prospective wives ("Notsomeone who's attackbeing repeated. been out with people I know";Lees, 1993, p. 139) and slags ("Youwouldn't go out with her, you would just THECONTEXTS OF FEMALE COMPETITION knockher ofr'; Duncan,1999, p. 54). Evolutionaryaccounts are sensitiveto the fact that any Indeed,girls themselvesactively collude in enforcing evolvedmechanism interacts with environmentalfactors. the double standardnot only throughdistancing them- Withrespect to matecompetition, many variables affect a selves from "easy"girls but throughgossip and rumour young woman'sstrategy, including her family structure spreading (Coleman, 1961; Du Bois-Reymond & and circumstances(Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper,1991), Ravesloot,1996). Buss andDedden's (1990) studyfound age, sexual maturity,and mate value (Campbell,1995). thatyoung womenwere judged more likely thanmen to HereI brieflyconsider how one ecologicalfactor (resource questiona rival's fidelity and to draw attentionto her availability)can alterreproductive timing and the intensi- promiscuity.Nor is such gossip aboutsexual reputation ty of femalecompetition. confined to "nice" middle-class girls (Millhausen& As we havenoted, women require assistance in raising Herold,1999). Members of streetgangs in deprivedinner- childrenand all the more so in contemporaryWestern city areas show the same concern (Campbell, 1984; nations where an artificial barrierhas been erected Hanna,1999). betweenwomen's roles as mothersand as workers.As Hrdy(1999) pointsout, womenin traditionalhunter-gath- [T]he girls have very distinct notions and expectations of other erersocieties are able to foragelocally and to carefor their female members'appearance and conduct that are clearly tied to their sexual reputation.... At times, they can be more judgemen- childrenat the same time. The requirementthat women tal regardingother girls' respectabilitythan their male counter- now abandontheir children and travel to a child-freesite parts...we find gang girls spending a great deal of energy 'bitch- to workfor 8 hoursa day has createda situationthat ben- ing' or casting doubt on others' reputations.This cross-cultural efits neithermothers nor children. The problem has result- process operates not only as a mechanism of social control, but ed in a bifurcationof women's reproductivestrategies. also of distancing and confirming one's own reputation. (Joe Laidler& Hunt, 2001, p. 668) One routeis to delay childbirth,a choice often madeby those whose income is high enoughto guaranteefuture Feministshave struggledto understandthe continuing advantagesfor theiroffspring (private schooling, tertiary potencyof accusationsof sexual accessibility.With the education).But among women facing minimumwage inequityof thesexual double standard acknowledged, "slut" employmentor survivalon statebenefits, delayed repro- shouldhave lost its powerlong ago. Buteven today,young ductionpromises no economicbenefits for theirchildren. womenare deeply offended by suchaccusations, and eman- Early childbearinghas positive advantages(Geronimus, cipatedattempts to turnthe same accusationof excessive 1996).Adult mortality is one of the strongestpredictors of sexualexperience on mensimply provoke laughter (Duncan, reproductivetiming (Low, 2000), andin poorBlack popu- 1999, p. 53). Unlike young women, sexual conquests lationsin the UnitedStates, mortality and morbidityare enhancerather than detract from a youngman's reputation. high. With age, poor healthincreases the difficultiesof Whenphysical fights do occuramong young women, bothconceiving and raising a child.A womanwho gives they are frequentlya responseto gossip spreadabout a birthat a youngerage alsoimproves the likelihood that her girl's sexualreputation (Campbell, 1982; Duncan,1999; own motherwill be alive to provideassistance. By the age Marsh& Paton,1986; Owens et al., 2000).As Lees (1993, of 20, the probabilityof a Black woman'smother being p. 267) notes alive drops to only 40%, comparedto 75% duringthe teenageyears (see Low,2000). ...a girl reactsby denying the accusationrather than by objecting But why do so manyyoung women in poorcommuni- to the use of the category.For them what is importantis to prove ties rely on maternalassistance? First, there is a severe that you are not a slag: what they unquestioninglyaccept is the legitimacy of the category of slag. In other words, the category shortageof men. In the 20 to 29 age groupthere are 85 has uncontestedstatus. Blackmen for every 100 women,compared to 99 among Whites (U.S. Bureau of the Census, l995). The ratio has Such accusationsplace girls in a strategicallyawkward sit- been worsening since the 1920s, and the currentsituation uation. It is virtually impossible for a girl to demonstrate is a confluence of high mortality and incarcerationrates 22 Female Competition

(Tucker& Mitchell-Kernan,1995). Second, young women see, I am just with him because that is the environmentthat I am are understandablyreluctant to marrymen who have few in, and I am tryingto get out of this environment.I would like to have a man. Not no nigger that wants to beat me and makes me materialbenefits to offer (Cherlin,1981). Between 1970 make money all the time and give it to him. I want somebodyyou and 1990, the proportionof Black womenwho had ever know that cares about me and loves me, and loves my kids and marrieddropped from 83% to 63%.The high proportion of helps me raise them, and give them a good family."(Joe Laidler birthsto Black single mothers(which rose from42% to & Hunt, 2001, p. 674) 70%between 1960 and 1989;U.S. Bureauof the Census, These young women'splight derivesfrom an opera- 1992)was chieflythe resultof a decliningrate of marriage tionalsex ratiothat is skewedin the directionof too few ratherthan an increasein the birthrate to youngerwomen 4'good"men (Campbell, 1995). Homicide, accidents, drug (Weinraub& Gringlas,1995). A husbandwho makesno financialcontribution is not merelyeconomically neutral. addiction,incarceration, and unemploymentmean that Thewife is effectivelypaying for theprivilege of his pres- youngwomen in deprivedurban areas are pittedagainst ence and, given the still modestcontribution of men to one anotherin an intensecompetition. The results are two- householdduties, she is likely to receive little in return. fold. First,the paucityof good menputs them in a seller's Statisticaland ethnographicstudies of the Black under- marketwhere they are able to impose their preferred class in the United States have documentedthe male promiscuousmating strategyon women (Guttentag& response to such situations (e.g., Anderson, 1981; Secord,1983). Cross culturally teenage girls are more like- Glasgow,1981; Wilson, 1987). Unable to effectivelycon- ly to becomepregnant where there is a shortageof men tributein thehome and viewing it as a femalepreserve, the (Barber,2000). Althoughwomen may succeedin extract- men pass their days in the streetstalking, drinking, and ing short-termresources in returnfor sex with "high attemptingto salvagesome pride if only in theirability rollers"(Taylor, 1993), these men are unlikelyto remain to attractwomen despite their conspicuousabsence of andassist with child-rearing, forcing women back to their resources.Divorce rates among Black Americans are high- mothersfor practicaland financial assistance. er thanamong other ethnic groups (Norton & Glick,1979). A secondconsequence is thatintensified female compe- In 1990, there were 358 divorcesper thousandamong tition,usually managed by displayand indirect aggression, Black womencompared to 166 amongU.S. womenas a can escalateto physicallevels. O'Brien(1988) generated whole (Tucker& Mitchell-Kernan,1997). The lower the predictionsabout the expected distribution of male-on-male rateof male employment,the higherthe rate of female- andfemale-on-female crime based on theproportion of each headed households with children (Sampson, 1995). sex in the populationand the sex of violentoffenders. He Anxietyabout the abilityto providehas been foundto be foundthat women commit simple and aggravatedassault a strongcontributor to maritalinstability among African againstother women more often than expected by demo- Americans(Hatchett, Veroff, & Douvan,1995). However, graphic predictions,especially in instances of simple whenthe effectsof povertyand family size arecontrolled, assault.An examinationof juvenilefemale crime in the Black partnersare less likely to separatethan Whites UnitedStates found that the majorityof victimsof violence (Hampton,1975). This underlinesthe centralimportance (70 - 75%)were other females predominantly of similarage of economicrather than cultural factors in matingtactics. Black men earn less, are unemployedmore often, and to theirattackers (Bureau of JusticeStatistics, 1999; Federal occupylow statuspositions all of whichmake them eco- Bureauof Investigation,n.d.), and this is equallytrue in nomicallydispensable (Wilson, 1987). With economically Britain(Home Office Research and Planning Unit, 1995,p. supportivemales thin on the ground,young women often 8). A numberof studies(Campbell, 1986a; George, 1999; seek supportfrom female kin (Apfel & Seitz, 1996; Home Office Researchand PlanningUnit, 1993; Home Leadbeater,Way, & Raden,1996). OfficeStatistical Bulletin, 1996) concur that female-female But this strategyseems to be a second-bestchoice. fights are usuallybetween young similarlyaged women Tuckerand Mitchell-Kernan(1997, p. 2) note that the (15-24years old) who are acquainted. They occur chiefly in "strikingdecline in marriageentry among Blacks has not drinkingestablishments or in the streetsand involvenon- been accompaniedby a devaluingof marriageas an insti- weapon,hand-to-hand tactics such as pushing,shoving, tution,but ratherrecognition of constraintson the ability grabbing,tripping, slapping, kicking, and punching. to marry."Ethnographic studies of young underclass But what are they fightingabout? Campbell (1986a) womenaffirm that their ideal situation is a solventand sta- foundthat the mostcommon category (accounting for 46% ble husband(Campbell, 1984; Miller, 1986). Streethus- of fights) was an attackon the girl's personalintegrity tlers and gang members,far from rejectingtraditional whichincluded instances where there had been allegations roles,continue to aspireto a situationwhere they can raise aboutthe girl's promiscuity,false accusations,or pejora- theirchildren in economicand emotional security. tive gossipingbehind her back.The next most common categorywas loyalty,in whichthe girlfought to defendthe We are looking for workingmen basically.Men thatwant to work and are going to be responsible.Like if they get us pregnantwe nameof a friendor relativewho had been the buttof an want them to stay with us. Whereasthe men that we are left with integrity attack. The third most common category was are the street niggers that wear gold rings, wear gerry curls. You Jealousy about a romanticpartner (12%). 23 Campbell Violenceoccurs disproportionatelyamong the under- appearanceand guarding their sexual reputation, since this . . . . . class (the long-termunwaged) where competitionfor as slm1ar lmp 1catlons. resourcesis highest(Brownfield, 1986; Campbell, 1986b; This modelcan be testedagainst alternative arguments Farnworth,Thornberry, Krohn, & Lizotte,1994). The par- framedaround conformity to culture-specificgender ticularsalience of economicfactors in explainingfemale- stereotypes(with regard to aggression)and internalisation femaleassault was examinedby Campbell,Muncer, and of patriarchalvalues (with regard to competitivefoci). To Bibel (1998). Using data from 34 reportingdistricts in do so, cross-culturaldata are needed. While an evolution- Massachusettsas their units of analysis,they examined arymodel highlights variability as stemmingfrom ecolog- female-femaleassault in relationto rates of male and icalfactors that diminish or intensifycompetition (such as female unemployment,receipt of Aid to Familieswith operationalsex ratio,need for biparentalcare), alternative DependentChildren (AFDC), and the prevailingsex ratio. modelsview variabilityas resultingfrom culturally vari- A female-biasedsex ratiowas associatedwith higher lev- able genderstereotypes and the societaldegree of patri- els of AFDCreceipt a paymentmade overwhelmingly to archy.However, cultural changes during the last 50 years single mothersand an index of male desertion.Both havenot had a dramaticeffect uponfemale competition. AFDCand female unemployment were significant predic- Relaxationof femininestereotypes in the 1970s did not tors of female-femaleassault, suggesting that as women lead to a rise in femaleviolence (Steffensmeier & Allan, face greaterpoverty and are unable to supportthemselves, 1996). The ideology of free love would be expectedto ratesof intrasexualassault rise. Thoughwe cannotfrom decreasewomens' concern about sexual reputation, but it these dataknow the triggersfor such assaults,cross-cul- did not (Tanenbaum,1999; Wolf, 1998).The doublestan- turalevidence (both quantitative and qualitative) supports dard endures,and women express greaterreservations the view thatwomen's dependence on menincreases com- aboutpromiscuity (Smith, 1994) and greaterregret after petitionfor resource-richmales (Burbank, 1987; Schuster, one-nightstands (Townsend, 1995) thando men. Studies 1985). Among the very poorestsections of society, the of individualdifferences within cultures can also be use- intensityof competitionfor "good"men drives young ful. An evolutionarymodel would suggest that relevant women from display and gossip to outrightattack. But variablesmight include markersof mate value such as evenhere, the disparity in severityremains. Women are far physical attractivenessand sexual maturity.A cultural less likely thanmen to use weaponsand to inflict serious modelwould point to individualdifferences in genderrole injury(Bureau of JusticeStatistics, 1999; Federal Bureau conformityand internalisationof patriarchalvalues. As of Investigation,n.d.). academicinterest in femalecompetition grows, let us hope thatthe relevantdata will be forthcoming. CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES Female competition,once a politically taboo subject, Abed, R. T. (1998). The sexual competition hypothesis for eating disorders. assumes central theoreticalimportance in evolutionary BritishJournal of MedicalPsychology, 71, 525-547. psychology.All animalsmust compete when resources are Ahmad, Y., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Bullying in schools and the issue of sex andthat includes women. Women manifestly have differences. In J. Archer (Ed.), Male Violence(pp. 70-83). London: scarce Routledge. the abilityto detectrivals and to employa varietyof tac- Alexander, R. D. (1979). Darwinismand humanaDffairs. Seattle: University tics to place themselvesat an advantageover them.The of Washington Press. twin questionsthat have vexedtraditional psychology are Allman, J., Rosin, A., Kumar, R., & Hasenstaub, A. ( 1998). Parenting and lesseraggression relative to men survival in anthropoid primates: Caretakers live longer. Proceedingsof how to explainwomen's the NationalAcademy of Science,95, 6866-6869. and how to offer an accountof the circumstancesunder Anderson, E. (1981). A place on the corner.London: Chicago University whichwomen can and do use aggression.I haveargued for Press. a single model that can explain both effects. Women Anderson, J. L., Crawford, C. B., Nadeau, J., & Lindberg, T. (1992). Was becausetheir threshold the Duchess of Windsor right? A cross-cultural review of the socioecol- aggressless frequentlythan men ogy of ideals of female body shape. Ethologyand Sociobiolo,gn13, forthe expressionof competitionas overtaggression is set 197-227. higher,and this is an evolvedadaptation that has servedto Apfel, N., & Seitz, H. (1996). African American adolescent mothers, their increasewomen's reproductive success. Women can and families and their daughters: A longitudinal perspective over twelve years. ln B. J. R. Leadbeater & N. Way (Eds.), Urbangirls: Resisting do use physical aggressionwhere the competitionfor stereot>pes,creating identities (pp. 149-170). London: New York reproductivelyrelevant resources becomes extreme. This University Press. modeldirects attention to the specificallyfemale costs and Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual part- benefitsof "crossingthe line"into overt aggression, and in ners: A meta-analytic review. PsychologicalBulletin, 126, 651-680. Archer, J., & Mehdikhani, M. (in press). Variability in sexually selected doing so sets out predictionsabout the triggersthat are attributes. Reviewof GeneralPsychology. salientto women but not men. Men more than women Arrindell, W. A., Kolk, A. M., Pickersgill, M. J., & Hageman, W. J. J. M. shouldbe concernedwith publicly visible dominance rank (1993). Biological sex, sex-role orientation, masculine sex role stress, to it throughaffronts and humiliation), since dissimulation and self-reported fears. Advancesin BehaviourResearch (andthreats and Therapy,15, 103-146. this has considerableimplications for their mating strategy Barber, N. (2000). On the relationship between country sex ratios and teen and is a traitthat affects female choice. Women more than pregnancy rates: A replication. Cross-CulturalResearch, 34, 26-37. men should be concerned with enhancing their physical Baumeister, R. F., & Twenge, J. M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female 24 Female Competition

sexuality.Review of GeneralPsychology, 6, 16S203. Coleman,J. S. (1961). Theadolescent society. New York:Free Press. Belsky,J., Steinberg,L., & Draper,P. (1991). Childhoodexperience, inter- Connor-Greene,P. A., Striegel-Moore,R. H., & Cronan, S. (1994). personaldevelopment, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionarytheo- Perceivedsocial climate and weight preoccupationin women. Eating ry of socialization.Child Development, 62, 647470. Disorders,2, 12S134. Bettencourt,B. A., & Miller,N. (1996). Genderdifferences in aggressionas Crick,N. R., & Grotpeter,J. K. (1995). Relationalaggression, gender and a functionof provocation:A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 119, social-psychologicaladjustment. Child Development, 66, 71s722. 422447. Daly, M., & Wilson,M. (1988). Homicide.New York:Aldine de Gruyter. Betzig, L. (1986). Despotismand differentialreproduction: A Darwinian Damasio,A. R. (1994). Descartes'error: Emotion, reason and the human view of history.New York:Aldine de Gruyter. brain.New York:Putnam. Betzig, L. (1995). Medieval monogamy.Journal of Family History,20, Dijkstra,P., & Buunk,B. P. (2001). Sex differencesin thejealousy-evoking 181-216. natureof a rival's body build. Evolutionand HumanBehavior, 22, Bischoping, K. (1993). Gender differences in conversation topics, 335-341. 1922-1990. Sex Roles, 28, 1-18. Draper,P., & Harpending,H. (1988). A sociobiologicalperspective on the Biver,F., Lotstra,F., Monclus,M., Wikler,D., Damhaut,P., Mendlewicz, J., developmentof humanreproductive strategies. In K. B. MacDonald et al. (1996). Sex differencein SHT(2) receptorin the living human (Ed.), Sociobiological perspectives on human development (pp. brain.Neuroscience Letters, 204, 1-2. 34s372). New York:Springer-Verlag. Bjorkqvist,K., Lagerspetz,K., & Kaukiainen,A. (1992). Do girls manipu- Dubois-Reymond,M., & Ravesloot,J. (1996). The roles of parentsand late and boys fight?Developmental trends in regardto directand indi- peers in the sexual and relationalsocialization of adolescents.In K. rect aggression.Aggressive Behavior, 18, 117-127. Hurrelmann& S. Hamilton(Eds.), Social problems and social contexts Brown, L. M. (1998). Raising their voices: The politics of girls' anger. in adolescence(pp. 175-197). New York:Aldine de Gruyter. London:Harvard University Press. Duncan,N. (1999). Sexual bullying:Gender conJ7ict and pupil culturein Brownfield,D. (1986). Social class andviolent behaviour. Criminology, 24, secondaryschools. London:Routledge. 421439. Eagly,A. H., & Steffen,V. (1986). Genderand aggressive behavior: A meta- Burbank,V. (1987). Female aggression in cross-culturalperspective. analytic review of the social psychologicalliterature. Psychological BehavioralScience Research, 21, 70-100. Bulletin,100, 309-330. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999). Special report: Womenoffenders. Eckert, P. (1990). Cooperativecompetition in adolescent "girl talk." Retrieved2003 fromhttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wo.pdf DiscourseProcesses, 13, 91-122. Buss, D. M. (1988a). The evolution of human intrasexualcompetition: Eder,D. (1985). Cycles of popularity:Interpersonal relations among female Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social adolescents.Sociology of Education,58, 15>165. Psychology,54, 61S628. Eder,D. (1990). Serious and playful disputes:Variations in conflict talk Buss, D. M. (1988b).From vigilance to violence:Tactics of materetention among female adolescents.In A. D. Grimshaw(Ed.), Conflict talk: in Americanundergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology,9, 291-317. Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations (pp. Buss, D. M. (2000) Thedangerous passion. London:Bloomsbury. 67-84). New York:Cambridge University Press. Buss, D. M., & Dedden,L. A. (1990). Derogationof competitors.Journal Eder,D., & Enke,J. L. (1991). The structureof gossip: Opportunitiesand of Personaland Social Relationships,7, 395v22. constraintson collective expression among adolescents. American Buss, D. M., & Schmitt,D. (1993). Sexualstrategies theory: An evolution- SociologicalReview, 56, 49>508. aryperspective on humanmating. Psychological Review, 100, 20$232. Ellis, L. (1995). Dominanceand reproductivesuccess among nonhuman Buunk,B. P., Dijkstra,P., Kenrick,D. T., & Warntjes,A. (2001). Age pref- animals:A cross-speciescomparison. Ethology and Sociobiology,16, erencesfor matesas relatedto gender,own age, and involvementlevel. 257-333. Evolutionand HumanBehavior, 22, 241-250. Etcoff, N. (1999). Sarvival of the prettiest.London: Little, Brown and Byrnes,J. P., Miller,D. C., & Schafer,W. D. (1999). Genderdifferences in Company. risk taking:A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367-383. Fallon,A. E., & Rozin, P. (1985). Sex differencesin perceptionsof desir- Campbell,A. (1982). Femaleaggression. In P.Marsh & A. Campbell(Eds.), able body shape.Journal of AbnortnalPsychology, 94, 102-105. Aggressionand violence(pp. 137-150). Oxford,UK: Blackwell. Farnworth,M., Thornberry,T. P., Krohn,M. D., & Lizotte,A. J. (1994). Campbell,A. (1984). Thegirls in the gang. Oxford,UK: Blackwell. Measurementin the studyof class and delinquency:Integrating theory Campbell,A. (1986a).Self reportof fightingby females.British Journal of andresearch. Journal of Researchin Crimeand Delinquency, 31, 3241. Criminology,26, 2846. Federal Bureau of Investigation.(n.d.). Unifortncrime reportsfor the Campbell,A. (1986b).The streetsand violence. In A. Campbell& J. Gibbs UnitedStates 1997. Section V:Juvenile female crime:A special study. (Eds.), Violenttransactions: The limits of personality(pp. 115-132). Retrieved 2003 from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/97crime/ Oxford,UK: Blackwell. 97crimeS.pdf Campbell,A. (1995).A few good men:Evolutionary psychology and female Feingold,A. (1990). Genderdifferences in effects of physicalattractiveness adolescentaggression. Ethology and Sociobiology,16, 99-123. on romanticattraction: A comparisonacross five paradigms.Journal of Campbell,A. (1999). Stayingalive: Evolution,culture and women'sintra- Personalityand Social Psychology,59, 981-993. sexualaggression. Behavioral and BrainSciences, 22, 203-252. Fillion, K. (1997). Lip service: Challengingthe sexual roles of the modern Campbell,A. (2002). A mind of her own: The evolutionarypsychology of woman.London: Pandora. women.Oxford, UK: OxfordUniversity Press. Fine, G. A., & Rosnow, R. L. (1978). Gossip, gossipers, gossiping. Campbell,A., Muncer,S., & Bibel, D. (1998). Female-femalecriminal Personalityand Social PsychologyBulletin, 4, 161-168. assault:An evolutionaryperspective. Journal of Researchin Crimeand Forsberg,A. J. L., & Tullberg,B. S. (1995).The relationshipbetween cumu- Delinquency,35, 413428. lativenumber of cohabitingpartners and number of childrenfor men and Cashdan,E. (1998). Are men more competitive than women? British womenin modernSweden. Ethology and Sociobiology,16, 221-232. Journalof Social Psychology,37, 213-229. Frayer,D. W., & Wolpoff, M. H. (1985). Sexual dimorphism.Annual Chapais,B. ( 1992).The role of alliancesin socialinheritance of rankamong Reviewof Anthropology,14, 429-473. female primates.In A. Harcourt& F.B.M. de Waal (Eds.), Coalitions Furnham,A., & Radley,S. (1989). Sex differencesin the perceptionof male and alliances in humansand other animals(pp. 29-59). Oxford,UK: and female body shapes. Personalityand IndividualDifferences, 10, OxfordUniversity Press. 653-662. Cherlin, A. (1981). Marriage, divorce, remarriage.Cambridge, MA: Gangestad,S., & Simpson, J. (2000). The evolution of humanmating: HarvardUniversity Press. Trade-offsand strategicpluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,23, Clutton-Brock,T. H. (1991). Theevolution of parentalcare. Princeton,NJ: 573-644. PrincetonUniversity Press. Geary,D. (1998). Male,female: The evolutionof humansex differences. Cohn, J., Adler, N. E., Irwin, C. E., Millstein, S. G., Kegeles, S. M., & Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Stone, G. (1987). Body-figure preference in male and female adoles- Geary, D. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal cents. Journalof AbnormalPsychology, 96, 27S279. investment. PsychologicalBulletin, 126, 55-77. Campbell 25

George,M. J. (1999). A victimizationsurvey of female-perpetratedassaults Lees, S. (1993). Sugarand spice: Sexualityand adolescentgirls. London: in the UnitedKingdom. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 67-79. Penguin Geronimus,A. T. (1996). What teen mothersknow. Human Nature, 7, Lever, J. (1976). Sex differences in the games children play. Social 323-352. Problems,23,478-487. Gilligan,C. (1982). In a diffierentvoice: Psychologicaltheory and women's Levin,P., & Arluke,A. ( 1985).An exploratoryanalysis of sex differencesin development.Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press. gossip. Sex Roles, 12, 281-286. Glasgow,D. G. (1981). Theblack underclass. New York:Vintage. Loewenstein,G. F., Weber,E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch,N. (2001). Risk as Goodwin,M. (1980). He-said-she-said:Formal cultural procedures for the feelings.Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-286. constructionof a gossip dispute activity. American Ethnologist, 7, Low,B. S. (2000). Whysex matters:A Darwinianlook at humanbehaviour 674-694. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press. Graziano,W. G., Jensen-Campbell,L. A., Shebilske,L. J., & Lundgren,S. Marsh,P., & Paton,R. (1986). Gender,social class andconceptual schemas R. (1993). Social influence,sex differencesand judgements of beauty: of aggression.In A. Campbell& J. Gibbs (Eds.), Violenttransactions: Puttingthe interpersonalback into interpersonalattraction. Journal of Thelimits of personality(pp. 59-85). Oxford,UK: Blackwell. Personalityand Social Psychology,65, 522-531. Martin,R. (1997). "Girlsdon't talk aboutgarages!": Perceptions of conver- Guttentag,M., & Secord,P. (1983). Toomany women? Beverly Hills, CA: sationin same-sexand cross-sex friendships. Personal Relationships, 4, Sage. 115-130. Hall,K. (2002). Whodo menand womengossip about and whatis discussed McHenry,H. M. (1994). Behavioral ecological implications of early about them? Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation,Durham University, hominidbody size. Journalof HumanEvolution, 27, 77-87. England. Mealey, L. (2000). Anorexia: A losing strategy?Human Nature, 11, Hampton,R. L. (1975). Maritaldisruption: Some social andeconomic con- 105-116. sequences. In G. J. Duncan & J. N. Morgan (Eds.), Five thousand Merten,D. (1997). The meaningof meanness:Popularity, competition and Americanfamilies: Patternsof economicprogress (pp. 163-188). Ann conflict amongjunior high school girls. Sociology of Education,70, Arbor,MI: Institutefor Social Research. 175-191. Hanna,C. (1999). Gangingup on girls:Young women and theiremerging Miller,E. M. (1986). Streetwoman. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. violence.Arizona Law Review, 41, 93-141. Miller,L. C., & Fishkin,S. A. (1997). The dynamicsof humanbonding and Hatchett,S., Veroff,J., & Douvan, E. (1995). Maritalinstability among reproductivesuccess: Seeking a window on the adapted-for-human- Black and White couples in early marriage.In M. B. Tucker& C. environment interface. In J.A. Simpson & D.T. Kenrick (Eds.), Mitchell-Kiernan (Eds.), The decline in marriage among Afro- Evolutionarysocial psychology(pp.197-235). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum. Americans: Causes, consequences and policy implications (pp. Miller,L. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula,A., & Pedersen,W. C. (2002). Men'sand 177-218). New York:Russell Sage Foundation. women's mating preferences: Distinct evolutionary mechanisms? Hill, K., & Hurtado,A. M. (1996). Ache life history: The ecology and CurrentDirections in PsychologicalScience, 11, 88-93. demographyof a foragingpeople. New York:Aldine de Gruyter. Millhausen,R. R., & Herold,E. S. (1999). Does the sexualdouble standard Home Office Researchand PlanningUnit. (1993). The 1992 BritishCrime still exist? Perceptionsof university women. The Journal of Sex Survey.London: Her Majesty'sStationary Office. Research,36,361-368. Home OfElceResearch and PlanningUnit. (1995). Youngpeople, victimisa- Miner,V., & Longino,H. (Eds.). (1987). Competition:A feminist taboo? tionand thepolice: BritishCrime Survey findings on the experiencesand New York:Feminist Press. attitudesof 12 to 15 year olds. London:Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Moore,T. M., Scarpa,A., & Raine,A. (2002). A meta-analysisof serotonin Home Office StatisticalBulletin. (1996). The 1996 British CrimeSurvey metabolite5-HIAA and antisocialbehavior. Aggressive Behavior, 28, Englandand Wales.London: Government Statistical Service. 299-3 16. Hrdy, S. B. (1981). The woman that never evolved. Cambridge,MA: Murdock,G. P. (1981). Atlas of worldcultures. Pittsburgh, PA: University HarvardUniversity Press. of PittsburghPress. Hrdy,S. B. (1999). MotherNature: Natural selection and thefemale of the Nevo, O., Nevo, B., & Derech-Zehavi,A. (1993). The developmentof the species. London:Chatto and Windus. Tendencyto Gossip Questionnaire:Construct and concurrentvalidity Hughes,L. (1988). "Butthat's not reallymean": Competing in a coopera- for a sampleof Israelicollege students.Educational and Psychological tive mode. Sex Roles, 19, 669487. Measurement,53, 973-981. Joe Laidler,K., & Hunt, G. (2001). Accomplishingfemininity among the Norton,A. J., & Glick,P. C. (1979). Maritalstability in America:Past, pre- girls in the gang.British Journal of Criminology,41, 656-678. sent and future.In G. Levinger& O. C. Moles (Eds.),Divorce and sep- Kaplan,H. S., & Lancaster,J. B. (2003). An evolutionaryand ecological aration:Context, causes and consequences(pp. S19). New York:Basic analysisof humanfertility, mating patterns and parentalinvestment. In Books. K. W. Wachter& R. A. Bulatao(Eds.), Offspring:Human fertility in O'Brien, R. (1988). Exploringthe intersexualnature of violent crimes. biodemographicperspective (pp. 170-223). Washington,DC: National Criminology,26, 151-170. AcademiesPress. Osterman,K., Bjorkqvist,K., Lagerspetz,K., Kaukiainen,A., Huesmann, Kenrick,D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferencesin matesreflect sex L. R., & Fraczek,A. (1994). Peerand self-estimated aggression and vic- differences in human reproductivestrategies. Behavioral and Brain timisationin 8-year-oldchildren from five ethnic groups.Aggressive Sciences,15, 75-133. Behavio; 20, 411A28. Kenxick,D. T., Keefe, R. C., Gabrielidis,C., & Cornelius,J. S. (1996). Owens,L., Shute,R., & Slee, P. (2000). "Guesswhat I just heard!":Indirect Adolescents'age preferencesfor datingpartners: Support for an evolu- aggressionamong teenage girls in Australia.Aggressive Behaviog 26, tionary model of life-history strategies. Child Development, 67, 67-83. 1499-1511. Pederson,W. C., Miller,L. C., Putcha-Bhagavatula,A. D., & Yang,Y. J. Kenrick,D. T., Sadalla,E. K., Groth,G., & Trost,M. R. (1990). Evolution, (2002). Evolvedsex differencesin the numberof partnersdesired? The traitsand the stagesof humancourtship: Qualifying the parentalinvest- long and shortof it. PsychologicalScience, 13, 157-161. mentmodel. Journal of Personality,58, 97-116. Pellegrini,A. D., & Archer,J. (in press).Sex differencesin competitiveand Langlois,J. H., Kalakanis,L., Rubenstein,A. J., Larson,A., Hallam,M., & aggressivebehavior: A view from sexual selectiontheory. In B. J. Ellis Smoot,M. (2000). Maximsor mythsof beauty?A meta-analyticand the- & D. F. Bjorklund(Eds.), Origins of the social mind:Evolutionary psy- oreticalreview. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390923. chologyand child development.New York:Guildford. Leadbeater,B. J. R., Way,N., & Raden,A. (1996). Why not marryyour Placvan,J. M., & van Schaik,C. P. (1997a).Interpreting hominid behavior baby'sfather? Answers from African American and Hispanic mothers. In on the basis of sexual dimorphism.Journal of HumanEvolution, 32, B. J. R. Leadbeater& N. Way(Eds.), Urban girls: Resistingstereotypes, 345-374. creating identities (pp. 193-209). London: New York University Press. Placvan,J. M., & van Schaik,C. P. (1997b). Intrasexualcompetition and Leaper, C., & Holliday, H. (1995). Gossip in same-gender and cross-gender body weight dimorphismin anthropoidprimates. American Journal of friends' conversations. Personal Relationships, 2, 237-246. Physical Anthropology, 103, 37-68. 26 Female Competition

Polivy, J., & Herman,C. P. (2002). Causes of eating disorders.Annual Thomas,J. R., & French,K. E. (1985). Genderdifferences across age in Reviewof Psychology,53, 187-213. motor performance:A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 9S, Pusey,A., Williams,J., & Goodall,J. (1997). The influenceof dominance 26(}282. rankon the reproductivesuccess of female chimpanzees.Science, 277, Tooke,W., & Camire,L. (1991). Patternsof deceptionin intersexualand 823-83 1. intrasexualmating strategies. Ethology and Sociobiology,12, 345-364. Reisert,I., & Pilgrim,C. (1991). Sexual differentiationof monoaminergic Townsend,J. M. (1995). Sex withoutemotional involvement: An evolu- neurons genetic or epigenetic? Trends in Neural Sciences, 14, tionaryinterpretation of sex differences.Archives of Sexual Behavior, 468A73. 24, 173-206. Ridley,M. (1993). The red queen:Sex and the evolutionof humannature. Tracy, L. (1991). The secret between us: Competitionamong women. London:Penguin. Boston:Little, Brown. Rodseth,L., Wrangham,R. W.,Harrigan, A. M., & Smuts,B. B. ( 1991).The Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parentalinvestment and sexual selection. In B. human communityas a primate society. CurrentAnthropology, 32, Campbell(Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971. 221-254. Chicago:Aldine. Sampson,R. (1995). Unemploymentand imbalancedsex ratios:Race-spe- Tucker,M. B., & Mitchell-Kernan,C. (Eds.). (1995). Thedecline in mar- CifilC consequencesfor familystructure and crime. In M. B. Tucker& C. riage among African Americans: Causes, consequencesand policy Mitchell-Kiernan(Eds.), The decline in marriage among Afro- implications.New York:Russell Sage Foundation. Americans: Causes, consequences and policy implications (pp. Tucker, M. B ., & Mitchell-Kernan,C. ( 1997). Understandingmarital 229-254). New York:Russell Sage Foundation. declineamong African Americans. Perspectives, 3, 1-5. Schuster,I. (1985). Femaleaggression and resourcescarcity: A cross-cul- UnitedStates Bureau of the Census.(1992). Households,families and chil- turalperspective. In M. Haug,D. Benton,P. Brain,B. Oliver,& J. Mos dren: A 30 year perspective(Current Population Reports Series P23, (Eds.), Theaggressive female (pp. 185-208). Amsterdam,Netherlands: PublicationNo. 181). Washington,DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting CIP-GegevensKoninklijke Bibioteheek. Office. Sear, R., Mace, R., & McGregor,I. A. (2000). Maternalgrandmothers United States Bureau of the Census. ( 1995). Retrived 2003 from improve nutritionalstatus and survivalof childrenin rural Gambia. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/race/black/tabs95/tabO1.txt Proceedingsof the RoyalSociety of London,B, 267, 1641-1647. Voland,E. (1988). Differentialinfant and child mortalityin evolutionary Sheldon,A. (1992). Conflicttalk: Sociolinguistic challenges to self assertion perspective:Data from late 17thto l9th centuryOstfrieland (Germany). andhow younggirls meet them. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 38, 95-117. In L. Betzig, M. BorgerhoffMulder, & P. Turke(Eds.), Human repro- Simmons,R. (2002). Oddgirl out: Thehidden culture of aggressionin girls. ductivebehavior: A Darwinianperspective (pp. 253-262). Cambridge, London:Harcourt. UK: CambridgeUniversity Press. Singh, D. (1993). Adaptivesignificance of female physicalattractiveness: Walters,S., & Crawford,C. B. (1994). The importanceof mate attraction Role of waistto hip ratio.Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, for intrasexual competition in men and women. Ethology and 65,293-307. Sociobiology,15, 5-30. Smith,T. (1994).Attitudes toward sexual permissiveness: Trends, correlates Webber,J. (2003). An investigationinto the sexual competitionhypothesis andbehavioral connections. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.),Sexuality across the life of eating disorders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Durham course(pp.63-97). Chicago:University of ChicagoPress. University,England. Smuts,B. B. (1987). Sexualcompetition and matechoice. In B. B. Smuts, Weinraub,M., & Gringlas, M. B. ( 1995). Single parenthood.In M. D. L. Cheney,R. M. Seyfarth,R. W. Wrangham,& T. T. Struhsaker Bornstein(Ed.), Handbookof parenting,Volume 3: Statusand social (Eds.),Primate societies (pp.385-399). Chicago:University of Chicago conditionsof parenting(pp. 65-87). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum. Press. VVilliams,G. C. (1966). Adaptationand naturalselection: A critiqueof Smuts,B. B. (1995). The evolutionaryorigins of patriarchy.Human Nature, some currentevolutionary thought. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity 6,1-32. Press. Steffensmeier,D., & Allan,E. (1996).Gender and crime: Toward a gendered Wilson,D. (1978). Sexualcodes and conduct:A studyof teenagegirls. In theoryof femaleoffending. Annual Review of Sociology,22,459 4 87. C. Smartand B. Smart(Eds.), Women,sexuality and social control(pp. Streeter,S. A., & McBurney,D. H. (2003). Waist-hipratio and attractive- 65-73). London:Routledge and KeganPaul. ness: New evidence and a critiqueof "a criticaltest." Evolutionand HumanBehavior, 24,88-98. Wilson,M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness,risk-taking and violence: Striegel-Moore,R. H., Connor-Greene,P. A., & Shime,B. S. (1991). School The young male syndrome.Ethology and Sociobiology,6, 59-73. milieu characteristicsand disorderedeating in high school graduates. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged.Chicago: Universityof InternationalJournal of EatingDisorders, 10, 187-192. ChicagoPress. Striegel-Moore,R. H., Silberstein,L. R., Grunberg,N. E., & Rodin, J. Wolf, N. (1998). Promiscuities:The secret strugglefor womanhood.New (1990). Competingon all fronts:Achievement orientation and disor- York:Ballantine. deredeating. Sex Roles, 23,697-702. Wood,W., & Eagly,A. H. (2002). A cross-culturalanalysis of behaviorof Tanenbaum,L. (1999). Slut:Growing up female witha bad reputation.New women and men: Implicationsfor the origins of sex differences. York:Seven StoriesPress. PsychologicalBulletin, 128, 699-727. Tanenbaum,L. (2002). CaMight:Women and competition.New York:Seven Zaadstra,B. M., Seidell,J. C., VanNoord, P. A., te Velde,E. R., Habbema, Stories. J. D., Vrieswijk,B., et al. (1993). Fat andfemale fecundity: Prospective Tanner,J. M. (1990). Foetus into man:Physical growth from conceptionto study of body fat distributionon conceptionrates. British Medical maturity.Cambndge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Journal,306, 484-487. Tassinary,L. G., & Hansen,K. A. ( 1998).A criticaltest of the WHRhypoth- Zuckerman,M. (1994). Behavioralexpressions and biosocialbases of sen- esis of femalephysical attractiveness. Psychological Science, 9, 15-155. sationseeking. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press. Taylor,C. (1993). Girls,gangs, womenand drugs.East Lansing: Michigan StateUniversity Press. Manuscriptaccepted June 2, 2003