Eine interessante Studie zu Ausschluss aus der Gruppe als Strategie und diesbezüglichen Geschlechterunterschieden:
Theoretical models based on primate evidence suggest that social structure determines the costs and benefits of particular aggressive strategies. In humans, males more than females interact in groups of unrelated same-sex peers, and larger group size predicts success in inter-group contests. In marked contrast, human females form isolated one-on-one relationships with fewer instrumental benefits, so social exclusion constitutes a more useful strategy. If this model is accurate, then human social exclusion should be utilized by females more than males and females should be more sensitive to its occurrence. Here we present four studies supporting this model. In Study 1, using a computerized game with fictitious opponents, we demonstrate that females are more willing than males to socially exclude a temporary ally. In Study 2, females report more actual incidents of social exclusion than males do. In Study 3, females perceive cues revealing social exclusion more rapidly than males do. Finally, in Study 4, females’ heart rate increases more than males’ in response to social exclusion. Together, results indicate that social exclusion is a strategy well-tailored to human females’ social structure.
Aus der Besprechung der Ergebnisse:
Past studies of social exclusion uniformly conclude that it is comparable in pain to physical injury , . While generally the two sexes report similar levels of distress in response to social exclusion , when sex differences are found, females report more distress than males . Our two initial studies utilizing a computerized model as well as a self-report measure provide evidence that human females confront social exclusion more frequently than males do. Our latter two studies demonstrate that females are more cognitively and perceptually sensitive than males to incidents of social exclusion.
The results of this series of studies thus are consistent with the theoretical model derived from non-human primates that suggests that human females confront social exclusion by same-sex individuals more frequently than males do . Use of social exclusion likely provides benefits to human females by reducing survival and reproductive costs since fewer individuals compete for the same resources, including food, territory, and assistance from sexual partners. Benefits from female alliance formation may be limited because unrelated human females provide less instrumental help to one another than human males do, . In contrast, human males who also can profit from reducing competition for mates and resources must balance these benefits against costs imposed by potential defeat by larger external hostile groups due to loss of intra-group allies. This suggests that human males must negotiate a compromise between the individual quest to attain dominance within the community and the individual’s need for intra-group alliances, especially during inter-group contests , , .
Traditional research on sex differences in non-human competition and aggression extrapolates from an animal model based primarily on male competition for mates . Newer research suggests that non-human females also benefit from competing for resources, territory, breeding opportunities, and assistance with rearing offspring , . Human models need to incorporate female competition as well. The formation of temporary exclusionary coalitions provides an elegant means by which females, either directly or indirectly, can minimize competition without incurring large costs.
Interessanterweise ist vieles im Feminismus genau auf diese Weise aufgebaut: Alle Rausschmeißen, die intrasexuelle Konkurrenz unter Frauen betonen und diese nicht als Schuld von Männern ansehen.