AINSWORTH AND MANER General Discussion The current stud offer factors that motivat reproductive con rting that ated matine motives c may be a more in ag gs are consistent with evidence hat don lasts of painful whit These al.199% Su ,2011).1he ent ale violence when men first hac ing mot nd ao sion These findin istentwith the thatadesire idual differ in e on.This is co s aggre designed ultim mation about when and why men Mil Implications of the Current Research in the ab ith ting displ ed in ased agg havior often erves in the against another ise b sults and of r on alr and aggres beh ior i of aggre is linked to int na The current work thus extends p Firs e par ants an particip This is heones (e.g.. 1983.198 n and in on play in male (compared with female)mating tuations that give ris rides a basi showed no se in aggres cing- ster().in which prming the ted that th o ted with sexuality.and in se tify not just its sur ce char teristics but also its underlying the functional forms of human social behavior desire for social dominance the current studies provide importan Limitations and Future Directions imental support for evolutionary theories of mating.motiva Third. mating prime sexual as physical aggression,which is especially common among men.we General Discussion The current studies offer insight into the factors that motivate aggression in men and provide the first direct experimental evidence demonstrating that situationally activated mating motives cause men to engage in aggressive behavior. In each study, men primed with a mating motive assaulted a same-sex partner with louder and longer blasts of painful white noise. These studies thus provide rigorous experimental support for evolutionary theories suggesting that male violence serves underlying mating-related functions. Mating primes failed to increase male violence when men first had achieved social dominance over their partner by winning a competi￾tion. This is consistent with the hypothesis that a desire to assert one’s dominance over other men underlies men’s aggression in response to mating-related situations. This research thus provides crucial infor￾mation about when and why men behave violently. Implications of the Current Research Several aspects of the current findings support the evolutionary view that male aggression is tied to intrasexual competition over access to potential mates. Moreover, the findings support the notion that male aggressive behavior serves functions associated with asserting one man’s dominance over another. Indeed, men primed with mating displayed increased aggression toward a same￾sex partner, but this effect was eliminated among men who achieved social dominance over their partner by winning a com￾petition. Thus, mating primes increased physical aggression only when it was not possible to achieve social dominance through other (nonviolent) means. When men were given a less costly method of achieving social dominance, they showed no increase in aggression toward their partner. These findings provide the first rigorous experimental evidence directly linking mating motives, intrasexual competition, and aggressive behavior in men. The specificity of the results provides additional evidence that male aggression is linked to intrasexual competition in the domain of mating. First, effects were specific to male participants; no increases in aggression toward same-sex partners were observed in female participants. This is consistent with evolutionary theories of sexual selection and differential parental investment, which empha￾size the more substantial role direct aggression and intrasexual com￾petition play in male (compared with female) mating strategies. Second, mating-related increases in aggression among men were specific to male targets. Men who believed they were interacting with a female partner showed no increase in aggressive behavior. These findings can be contrasted with an experiment by Muss￾weiler and Förster (2000), in which priming the concept of sex increased men’s aggression toward women, but not toward other men. Those authors suggested that priming the concept of sex activated a schema associated with sexuality, and in sexual situa￾tions men are more likely to be aggressing against women than other men. Our findings—rather than being produced by semantic activation or associationist priming—are more consistent with a view of male aggression as being caused by sexual motives and a desire for social dominance. The current studies provide important experimental support for evolutionary theories of mating, motiva￾tion, and male aggression. Third, mating primes increased intrasexual aggression more strongly among men who were sexually unrestricted than those who were sexually restricted. Because unrestricted men tend to seek relatively large numbers of mating opportunities, gaining access to new mates is a particularly relevant reproductive con￾straint. Therefore, direct intrasexual competition may be a more salient concern for unrestricted men than for restricted men. In￾deed, the current findings are consistent with evidence that dom￾inance displays and direct intrasexual competition are observed more strongly among unrestricted men than among restricted men (Simpson et al., 1999; Sundie et al., 2011). The current research is the first to demonstrate that sociosexuality moderates the link between mating motives and aggression. These findings highlight the important role of individual differences in evolutionary anal￾yses. Contemporary evolutionary theories suggest that although all people possess mechanisms designed ultimately to increase repro￾ductive success, those mechanisms interact with proximate indi￾vidual differences to shape social behavior (Maner et al., 2009; Maner, Miller, Moss, Leo, & Plant, 2012; Schaller, Park, & Mu￾eller, 2003). This research illustrates the value of integrating proximate (social psychological) and ultimate (evolutionary) ap￾proaches to understanding social behavior. In the current studies, mating primes led men to increase their aggressive behavior even in the absence of an audience (cf. Griskevicius et al., 2009). While some mating-induced violence is likely to be motivated by self-presentational concerns, many in￾stances of aggression are likely also to be driven more directly by a desire to dominate other men. This is consistent with the prev￾alence of male intrasexual aggression in many other species, for whom violent behavior often serves functions directly associated with social dominance (e.g., de Waal, 1982). We also saw evi￾dence in the current studies that mating motives caused men to aggress against another man even in the absence of any provoca￾tion (i.e., aggression on the very first trial of the noise blast task). Although insults and other forms of provocation almost certainly increase the likelihood of aggression, the current findings suggest that provocation is not a requisite condition for mating-induced male violence. The current work thus extends previous evidence for the links among mating, dominance, and aggression in humans, and builds on the work of Griskevicius et al. (2009) and Daly and Wilson (e.g., 1983, 1988). Implications of the current work extend beyond the laboratory. Evolutionary theorists have noted that many violent crimes com￾mitted by men are disproportionate to the situations that give rise to them (Wilson & Daly, 1985). In tying male violence to its more ultimate motivational roots, the current research provides a basis for understanding—and reducing—many seemingly irrational acts of violence. For example, the current findings suggest that provid￾ing people with peaceful routes to attaining social dominance might reduce their aggressive tendencies, as the competition did in Experiment 2. Indeed, to combat a social problem, one must identify not just its surface characteristics but also its underlying causes. In identifying those causes, an evolutionary approach provides a larger window into the factors underlying many dys￾functional forms of human social behavior. Limitations and Future Directions Limitations of the current work provide valuable avenues for future investigation. For example, although we focused on direct physical aggression, which is especially common among men, we 826 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