820 AINSWORTH AND MANER and childbirth.Women'srively higher level of signed not ony to help males self-present:it serves as a means ng th al sex ratio.which re nts th who is watchine Thus our research examines mating-induced eproductive cap of men mot dominance unerlies mting-induced male on See their rese iolent behavior.Our work focuses on the more general hypothesi hat m. standard on another over ng n of many species .Third.whereasG kevicius et al.'s exper The male ire of strategi in a elf-reported willingnes avior.Although e to enga ep.c nd to limit intra 197 whe phys the ntext of risky behaviors that oc n is not a beh 2007)ot P din the 00 the I-repor which tend to p 1999)The current work is the first to examine effects of matins motives on aggressive behavior 988Lc d to be att to socially d .1985)and socially Dominance striving and male Aggression nd t that it is evolution psychology men' it occurs,but psychologica ext of mating is not only to harm another person. t is intended to harm spec tha ctivate tors one's l Th 2009.1iu end in itself.but rathe a means to attainine social dominance Tha expect that violence among men may be mos ht topromot reproductiv ne many animal spe male ments have luring mating sea (Archer 2006).a time when mating Ronev &D help men in ase their level of socia e,aggressive behavior also diverts energy from the pur th nen.Existing experimental idence for this hypothesis is ted by ageresionistheorizcdtobolSierre ductiv inske ca(2009. uld lead t on the self-presentational functions of mating-induced aggre npetitor primarily when their social dominanc sat stake.Mor actvationof how of a male audie m an evoluti of ac ving dominance are readily avail Daly.1985). pregnancy and childbirth. Women’s relatively higher level of obligatory parental investment limits men’s access to mates by skewing the operational sex ratio, which represents the proportion of fertile females to sexually active males (Glutton-Brock & Vin￾cent, 1991). Due to the length of pregnancy and women’s limited lifetime reproductive capacity, the number of men motivated to find sexual partners typically far exceeds the number of fertile women. Men’s reproductive access is further limited by women’s high mating standards. Because women are obliged to invest heavily in their offspring, they tend to be more selective than men when choosing mates (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Women’s high mating standards cause men to compete with one another over access to mating opportunities (Geary, 1998). The males of many species use a repertoire of strategies— including violence—to compete with other males, thereby increas￾ing their access to mating opportunities (Archer, 2009). Like other sexually selected traits, aggression is theorized to have been sex￾ually selected through both intrasexual competition and intersexual selection. Men use aggression to compete directly with other men and to limit other men’s access to mates (i.e., intrasexual compe￾tition). Men also use aggression to signal qualities that are desired by the opposite sex (i.e., intersexual selection). Although aggres￾sion is not a behavior that women necessarily find attractive on its own, men use aggression to increase their level of social domi￾nance, a characteristic upon which women tend to place a premium (Buss, 1988; Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002; Sadalla, Kenrick, & Vershure, 1987; Schmitt & Buss, 1996). Across many societies, women tend to be attracted to socially dominant men (Buss, 1988; Li & Kenrick, 2006; Maner, DeWall, & Gailliot, 2008; Turke & Betzig, 1985) and socially dominant men tend to achieve relatively high levels of reproductive success (Betzig, 1986, 1992). Theories from evolutionary psychology suggest that men’s historical need to compete with other men over access to mates causes them to be more violent than women, in general. How￾ever, contemporary evolutionary psychological research also suggests that although humans are equipped with mechanisms designed to enhance their reproductive success, those mecha￾nisms become operative particularly in situations that activate proximate mating motives (e.g., Maner, Gaillot, Rouby, & Miller, 2007, Maner, Miller, Rouby, & Gaillot, 2009). Thus, there is reason to expect that violence among men may be most prevalent when proximate mating motives are active. Indeed, among many animal species, male aggression reaches its zenith during mating season (Archer, 2006), a time when mating motives are presumably most salient. Because aggression is theorized ultimately to serve mating￾related functions, we hypothesized that activating a mating motive would increase men’s tendency to behave aggressively toward other men. Existing experimental evidence for this hypothesis is limited. To date, the most compelling experimental study demon￾strating the effect of mating motives on aggression was reported by Griskevicius et al. (2009). Our research differs from their work in a number of important respects. First, Griskevicius et al. focused on the self-presentational functions of mating-induced aggres￾sion—they reported an experiment suggesting that activation of a mating motive led men to display aggression, but only in the presence of a male audience. From an evolutionary perspective, mating-induced aggression in humans and other species is de￾signed not only to help males self-present; it serves as a means through which males directly dominate one another, regardless of who is watching. Thus, our research examines mating-induced aggression in the absence of self-presentational concerns and fo￾cuses more squarely on the hypothesis that the desire to assert one’s dominance underlies mating-induced male aggression. Sec￾ond, their research focused on aggressive responses to an explicit insult (e.g., when someone spills a drink on you and fails to apologize), whereas our research does not rely on insults to trigger violent behavior. Our work focuses on the more general hypothesis that mating motives lead men to adopt a fundamentally aggressive stance toward other men, even in the absence of an audience or insulting provocation. Third, whereas Griskevicius et al.’s exper￾iment examined men’s self-reported willingness to act aggres￾sively in a hypothetical situation, we examine actual aggressive behavior. Although examining self-reported willingness to engage in hypothetical aggression reflects a valuable step, classic research on the intention– behavior gap shows that self-reports do not necessarily translate into actual behavior (e.g., Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), especially when that behavior causes physical pain or carries the cost of potential retaliation (see Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007). Indeed, in the context of risky behaviors that occur in the heat of the moment, self-reported behavioral intentions often only weakly predict actual behavior (Sheeran, Abraham, & Orbell, 1999). The current work is the first to examine effects of mating motives on aggressive behavior. Dominance Striving and Male Aggression A commonly used definition of aggression states that it is a behavior intended to harm another individual (Archer, 2009). This definition is useful for classifying aggression when it occurs, but it is mute to the motivational bases of aggression. From a function￾alist perspective, aggression in the context of mating is not only intended to harm another person, it is intended to harm specific others (same-sex romantic competitors) for specific reasons (see Griskevicius et al., 2009). These reasons include subordinating competitors to increase one’s level of social dominance. This perspective suggests that mating-induced male aggression is not an end in itself, but rather a means to attaining social dominance. That is, aggression is thought to promote reproductive success because it increases a man’s dominance over other men. Indeed, several experiments have demonstrated that priming mating goals acti￾vates concepts related to status (Griskevicius et al., 2007; Roney, 2003; Wilson & Daly, 2004). Although aggression can help men increase their level of social dominance, aggressive behavior also diverts energy from the pur￾suit of other goals and can lead to injury or death (Daly & Wilson, 1988). These costs imply that men should engage in aggression selectively. Because aggression is theorized to bolster reproductive success in part by increasing men’s social dominance, we hypoth￾esized that mating motives would lead men to aggress against a competitor primarily when their social dominance is at stake. More specifically, we predicted that men primed with mating would show increases in aggression toward other men only when no other, less costly ways of achieving dominance are readily avail￾able (cf. Wilson & Daly, 1985). 820 AINSWORTH AND MANER This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly