Indirekte Aggression unter Frauen als Mittel intrasexueller Konkurrenz

Über Sciencefiles bin ich auf einen interessanten Artikel gestoßen, der Aggression unter Frauen behandelt:

Indirect aggression includes behaviours such as criticizing a competitor’s appearance, spreading rumours about a person’s sexual behaviour and social exclusion. Human females have a particular proclivity for using indirect aggression, which is typically directed at other females, especially attractive and sexually available females, in the context of intrasexual competition for mates. Indirect aggression is an effective intrasexual competition strategy. It is associated with a diminished willingness to compete on the part of victims and with greater dating and sexual behaviour among those who perpetrate the aggression.

Quelle: Do human females use indirect aggression as an intrasexual competition strategy?

Zu den Vorzügen indirekter Aggression:

According to Bjorkqvist [15], females prefer to use indirect aggression over direct aggression (i.e. verbal and physical aggression) because this form of aggression maximizes the harm inflicted on the victim while minimizing the personal danger involved. The risk to the perpetrator is lower because he/she often remains anonymous, thereby avoiding a counterattack. As well, indirect aggression harms others in such a socially skilled manner that the aggressor can also make it appear as if there was ‘no intention to hurt at all’ [25, p. 118]. Campbell [26,27] has suggested that because females have a greater parental investment than males [28], the costs associated with direct aggression (i.e. physical injury and even death; [29,30]) are too great and for that reason, indirect aggression is used. For females, it is more important that they ‘stay alive’ [26] so that their offspring’s chances of survival improves (and hence their own fitness). Historically among humans, and current in many low-socioeconomic regions around the world, offspring survival was/is inextricably linked to maternal survival [31,32].

Also insbesondere der Umstand, dass man auf diesem Weg eher die Aggression leugnen kann und sich auch einem geringeren Risiko eigener körperlicher Gewalt aussetzt.

Dabei scheint sich die Aggression insbesondere auch auf das körperliche und das sexuelle zu erstrecken, also letztendlich um Partnerwahl- und Partnersicherungskriterien:

According to Baumeister&Twenge [73], females are threatened by promiscuous females because ‘sex is a limited resource that women use to negotiate with men, and scarcity gives women an advantage’ (p. 166). That is, females, not males, suppress the sexuality of other females and they do so by using ‘informal sanctions such as ostracism and derogatory gossip’ (p. 172). In other words, females punish other females who seem to make sex too readily available using indirect aggression [74–77]. There are some studies supporting this line of reasoning. For example, in a study of adolescents, Leenaars et al. [44] found that for girls and not boys, recent sexual behaviour was associated with increased indirect peer victimization—a finding that was, above all, present for older adolescent girls. In another study, Vaillancourt & Sharma [78] found very strong support for women’s intolerance of sexy peers. In their experiment, young women were randomly assigned in dyads to one of two conditions. In the first condition, the dyad’s conversation was interrupted by an attractive female confederate who was dressed in sexy clothing; whereas in the second condition, participants were interrupted by the same confederate who was dressed in a conservative manner (figure 1). Participants were secretly video-recorded (with audio) and their reactions to the presence of the confederate were coded by independent female raters blind to condition. Results of this experiment were striking—with the exception of two women, all of the participants who were coded as engaging in indirect aggression were assigned to the sexy condition.

In a follow-up experiment, Vaillancourt & Sharma [78] demonstrated that the sexy confederate from their first study was perceived as a sexual rival. Indeed, the women in this experiment demonstrated a clear preference to not wanting to introduce the sexy confederate to a boyfriend or to allowhimto spend time alonewith her. They also did not want to be friends with the sexy confederate. Bleske & Shackelford [79] also found that women, and not men, were less willing to become friends with a member of the same sex if the person was described as sexually promiscuous, and argued that the reason was owing to the fact that ‘promiscuous women threaten other women’s efforts to attract and retain a desirable long-term mate by triggering men’s desire for sexual variety and casual sex’ (p. 411). Given this established mating preference for males [3], it seems reasonable that it would be in a female’s best interest to avoid girls and women who appear to be sexually available. Associating with such females may (i) lower a person’s own mate value (guilty by association), (ii) result in the poaching of one’s romantic partner [34,73,80] or (iii) induce a feeling of jealousy because they are perceived to be obtaining something that is valued (i.e. the attention of males).

Um so schöner die Frau, um so mehr wird sie also auch als Bedrohung wahrgenommen. Das gilt um so mehr, wenn frau meint, dass sie promiskutiv ist. Solche Frauen werden dann eher aus dem eigenen Freundeskreis fern gehalten. Das ist durchaus verständlich, wenn man bedenkt, dass aufgrund des stärkeren Sexualtriebs des Mannes sexuelle Verfügbarkeit eine hohe Gefahr für die Beziehung darstellen kann.