Evolution and Human Behavior 30 (2009) 315–321

The relation between mate value, entitlement, physical aggression, sizeand strength among a sample of young Indian men

John Archer⁎, Vanlal ThanzamiUniversity of Central Lancashire, PR1 3TQ Preston, UK

Initial receipt 10 January 2008; final revision received 6 March 2009

Abstract

This study extends previous ones showing a link between direct aggression and size and strength among young men, which wereinformed by the evolutionary concept of resource holding power (RHP), using measures of size, strength, flexed bicep circumference andhand grip strength among a sample of young men from the Indian state of Mizoram. The study also examined the relation of these variables toreactive and proactive aggression, to entitlement to resources (related to the threatened egotism theory of aggression) and mate value (centralto a modular theory of self-esteem and more broadly to sexual selection). The findings showed only a weak association between size andstrength and direct aggression, which was also significantly correlated with entitlement and mate value, as predicted. Mate value also showedsome association with size and strength. Reactive but not proactive aggression was linked with entitlement, but neither was associated withsize or strength. In a regression analysis, controlling for age, mate value was the strongest predictor of direct aggression, but both weight(highly correlated with strength) and entitlement were marginally significant predictors independent of mate value. The findings providesupport for the view that young males who view themselves as more attractive to women are more aggressive, independently of the impact onaggressiveness of RHP or entitlement to resources.© 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Physical aggression; Indirect aggression; Resource holding power; Mate value; Entitlement; Size and strength

1. Introduction

Measures of aggression or dominance have been found tobe associated with bodily size in preschool children(Pellegrini et al., 2007), 11-year-olds (Raine, Reynolds,Venables, & Mednick, 1997), early adolescents (Tremblay etal., 1998) and adults (Felson, 1996). These findings areconsistent with the evolutionary game-theory concept ofresource holding power (RHP; Parker, 1974), derived fromgame-theory models of the evolution of animal fighting(Archer & Huntingford, 1994; Parker, 1974). Individualsassess their retaliatory power in relation to that of theircompetitors, and if it is higher, they are less likely towithdraw from a physical confrontation. Throughout theanimal kingdom, size provides a generally reliable indicator

⁎ Corresponding author. School of Psychology, University of CentralLancashire, PR1 3TQ Preston, UK.

E-mail address: jarcher@uclan.ac.uk (J. Archer).

1090-5138/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.003

of RHP (Archer, 1988), so that larger animals are less likelyto withdraw and are more likely to win fights. Consistentwith this, the association between size and direct aggressionin humans may represent the lesser tendency of largerindividuals to withdraw in the assessment phase of a conflict.In this way, high RHP individuals will come to have engagedin more physical aggression over a period of time than lowRHP individuals. Similar reasoning is apparent in theconcept of “coercive power” (Felson, 1996) associatedwith the social interactionist approach (Tedeschi & Felson,1994). However, the concept of RHP has the advantage oflinking the assessment process to that which occursthroughout the animal kingdom (Archer, 1988), and itsevolutionary stability has been demonstrated in mathema-tical models of evolutionary change (Maynard Smith, 1982;Parker, 1976).

Sell (2006) explicitly used the concept of RHP in a studyof the relation between several measures of lifting strengthand aggression among samples of young American men. Hefound that not only was lifting strength (and its associated

316 J. Archer, V. Thanzami / Evolution and Human Behavior 30 (2009) 315–321

somatic measure, flexed bicep circumference) correlatedwith a history of fights (r=.46) and proneness to anger(r=.36), but it was also correlated with attitudinal measures,the first measuring the person's feelings that they wereentitled to more resources than were others (r=.33), thesecond approval of the use of interpersonal violence (r=.33)and the third their approval of political violence (r=.27).Archer and Thanzami (2007) extended parts of Sell'sanalysis to a sample of young men, from Aizawl in theNorth Eastern Indian state of Mizoram. They found that thefrequency of physical aggression during the previous yearwas more strongly associated with weight (r=.40) and height(r=.40) than flexed bicep circumference (r=.27) in thissample, although these lower correlations were still sig-nificant. Hand grip strength was used as an additionalmeasure of strength, and the correlation between left handgrip strength and direct aggression was r=.25. Gallup,White, and Gallup (2007) studied hand grip strength inrelation to somatic and self-report measures of physicalattractiveness in a sample of American students, since gripstrength is known to be associated with health-relatedmeasures. They included a measure of aggression in theirstudy and found a small association between this and lefthand grip strength, similar in magnitude to that in the studyby Archer and Thanzami (2007). Aggression was not themain focus of this study, and their five-item measurecontained only one item of physical aggression, the othersrepresenting mainly indirect forms, which were found to beunrelated to hand grip strength in our study (Archer &Thanzami, 2007).

Overall, these findings show a degree of generality in theassociation between size and strength and a history ofphysical aggression, at different ages (from 4 years to aroundpuberty to adulthood) and nations (US, Canada, Mauritiusand India), associations that can be understood in terms ofthe principle of RHP, described above. The first aim of thepresent study was to seek to replicate the association betweendirect aggression, size and strength in another sample ofIndian men. We used the same measure of acts of direct andindirect aggression as in the previous study (Archer &Thanzami, 2007), but supplemented this with a measure thatseparates proactive and reactive aggression (Vitaro &Brendgen, 2005). Although these tend to be shown by thesame individuals, they are conceptually different and mayoccur on different occasions. Reactive aggression is regardedas being more closely related to anger and impulsiveness inthat it involves reactions to frustration or provocation.Proactive aggression is more concerned with gainingsomething, either status or a tangible gain. If larger strongermales show more physical aggression because they are morewilling to compete for status and resources, there should bean association with this measure. Similarly, if such men aremore readily provoked by challenges, they should also showmore reactive aggression.

The second aim of the study was to seek to replicate theassociation between strength and entitlement to resources

found in the sample of young American men by Sell (2006).Sell used a self-report measure of entitlement designed forhis study. However, the alpha reliability of this scale wasrelatively low, at .54 (Sell, 2006). Since there is a standardmeasure of entitlement available, in the form of theentitlement subscale of the Narcissism scale (Raskin &Terry, 1988), this was used in the present study. We alsopredicted a link between direct aggression and entitlementfrom the theory of Baumeister, Smart, and Boden (1996),which linked threatened high self-esteem with aggression.They argued that narcissists, who have grandiose, inflatedviews of themselves, will be particularly prone to aggressiveactions, since they are likely to encounter ego threats and tobe intolerant of them. Subsequent studies have demonstratedthe link between trait narcissism and aggression, usinglaboratory measures (e.g., Bushman & Baumeister, 1998;Kirkpatrick, Waugh, Valencia, & Webster, 2002) and a self-report measure of the tendency to react aggressively toprovoking events (Lawrence, 2006).

The process of sexual selection involves two aspects,intermale competition and female choice (Darwin, 1871).Successful men are therefore those who are either able to out-compete other men for access to resources and mates, or bemore attractive to the opposite sex. In most social situationsprior to the advent of societies with an effective rule of law,size and strength would have been an important componentfor competing successfully by engaging in physical aggres-sion (Archer, 1994; Daly &Wilson, 1988; Eisner, 2003). Theextent to which these features are related to the other aspectof sexual selection, attractiveness to women, is notimmediately obvious. There are, however, several studieslinking attractiveness to men's size and strength, suggestingthat it provides an indicator of a man's physical condition,which is in turn linked to his competitive ability. Sell (2006)found that a composite measure of bodily strength wasassociated with reported number of sexual partners amongAmerican students. Likewise, Gallup et al. (2007) found apositive association between hand grip strength and reportednumber of sexual partners (r=.33) and a negative correlationwith the age of first intercourse. Fredrick and Haselton(2007) found that muscular men were more attractive towomen than less muscular men, at least as short-termpartners; muscular men also viewed themselves as moreattractive to women and reported more sexual partners thandid less muscular men. Hönekopp Rudolph, Beier, Liebert,and Müller (2007) found that an exercise-based measure ofphysical fitness correlated with bodily attractiveness, ratedby young women, and more weakly with self-reportedmating success, among a sample of young German men.

In the present study, we assessed whether a man's self-perceived attractiveness was associated with both his sizeand strength, and with his experience of direct physicalaggression. We used the measure of self-perceived “matevalue” (Apicella & Marlowe, 2007; Symons, 1992),designed by Williams (1999) and previously used in twoevolutionary-based studies of self-esteem (Kirkpatrick et al.,

317J. Archer, V. Thanzami / Evolution and Human Behavior 30 (2009) 315–321

2002; Webster & Kirkpatrick, 2006). In these studies,perceived mate value was found to be associated with alaboratory measure of willingness to inflict discomfort onanother person (the “hot sauce paradigm”; Lieberman,Solomon, Greenberg, & McGregor, 1999). Webster andKirkpatrick (2006) also found that it was associated with twocomposite measures of trait aggression, which includedsome components of direct aggression along with otherfeatures such as anger, hostility and indirect aggression.Since previous associations between size and strength andaggression have involved direct physical aggression (and notmeasures of trait anger or hostility, or indirect aggression;Archer & Thanzami, 2007), in this study we specificallypredicted an association between perceived mate value andphysical aggression, rather than indirect aggression, whichwould not be well suited to intermale competition for mates.

To summarise these predictions: (1) larger and strongeryoung men will show higher rates of physical aggression,and this will involve both proactive and reactive forms butnot indirect aggression; (2) physical strength will also bepositively associated with entitlement, which will also beassociated with physical aggression; (3) perceived matevalue will be associated with physical aggression but notwith indirect aggression; and (4) perceived mate value willalso be associated with physical strength.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Eighty-five young men from the city of Aizawl in theNorth Eastern Indian state of Mizoram took part in thestudy. The Mizos are of Mongolian ancestry, migratingfrom China in the 16th century. Although English iswidespread and predominant in schools, colleges and worksettings, the first language is Mizo. Mizoram has the secondhighest literacy rate (88.8%) of all the states in India.Christianity is the main religion, with approximately 87%following it. The participants were an opportunity sample,recruited from the community (ages 18 to 33 years:mean=23.81 years; S.D.=3.47).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Physical measuresA hand dynamometer (Takei Instruments dynamometer)

was used to measure hand grip strength [in kilograms force(kgf)], for left and right hands. Flexed bicep circumferencefor right and left biceps was measured using a tape measure.The participants were also asked to write down their heightand weight. Previous studies have shown a reasonabledegree of accuracy for self-reports of height and weight (e.g.,Imrhan, Imrhan, & Hart, 1996).

2.2.2. The Richardson Conflict Response QuestionnaireThe Richardson Conflict Response Questionnaire

(RCRQ; Green, Richardson, & Lago, 1996) is a self-report

measure of direct and indirect aggression, consisting ofseven direct and seven indirect aggression items. Participantswere asked to rate along a five-point Likert-type scale theextent to which they have engaged in the direct and indirectaggressive behaviours indicated in the past year. Theirresponses range from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). Examples ofdirect aggression items are “yelled, screamed or insultedthem” and “pushed, grabbed or shoved them”. Examples ofindirect aggression items are “made up stories to get them introuble” and “talk about the person behind their back.” Forthe purpose of this study, the RCRQ was translated intoMizo, the native language of the participants. The items weretranslated and back-translated by one of the authors and twoexperts in the Mizo language. Cronbach's alpha for the directaggression scale was .80 and the indirect aggression scalewas .69.

2.2.3. The Reactive-Proactive Aggression QuestionnaireThe Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ;

Raine et al., 2006) is a self-report measure of reactive(hostile) and proactive (instrumental) aggression. Originallydeveloped for adolescents, it can be used on an adultpopulation as well. The measure is composed of 12 proactiveitems (e.g., had fights with others to show who was on top,and hurt others to win a game) and 11 reactive items (e.g.,reacted angrily when provoked by others, and gotten angrywhen frustrated). Participants were asked to rate along athree-point Likert-type scale (0–2: from never to often) theextent to which they engage in these two forms ofaggression. The RPQ was also translated into Mizo, withthe two scales showing acceptable alpha values (proactive:α=.72, reactive: α=.65).

2.2.4. The Mate Value ScaleThe Mate Value Scale (Williams, 1999) measures a

person's perceptions of his or her suitability as a potentialpartner. The scale is a self-report measure and consists of 12items that ask participants about how they perceivethemselves as a mate. Although the items were essentiallythose in Williams' original scale, the wording was alteredwith a view to making them more immediately accessible(e.g., replacing “the opposite sex” by “women”). Examplesof items are “women seem to like me” and “I often getcompliments from women even when I don't think that Ilook especially good.” Participants were asked to indicate theextent they agree with the statement along a five-pointLikert-type scale (1 to 5). This scale was translated intoMizo: Cronbach's α=.65.

2.2.5. The Entitlement ScaleThe Entitlement Scale (Raskin & Terry, 1988) is a six-

item subscale of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI).It measures the extent to which people feel they deservespecial treatment or respect in their daily lives. Examples ofitems (the last six in Raskin & Terry's Table 1) are follows: “Iexpect a great deal from other people” and “I insist upongetting the respect that is due me.” The items were rated

318 J. Archer, V. Thanzami / Evolution and Human Behavior 30 (2009) 315–321

along a 1-to-5 Likert-type scale. This scale was translatedinto Mizo, with a reasonable Cronbach's alpha, consideringthe few items, of .62.

2.3. Procedure

Participants were first asked to fill in the informationregarding their age, height and weight. Their grip strengthwas then recorded using the hand dynamometer, with twotrials for each hand. They gripped the dynamometer withtheir preferred hand first, followed by their nonpreferredhand. This procedure was repeated. Flexed biceps for botharms were then measured with a tape measure. One set ofmeasurements was taken for each bicep. As the correlationbetween the right and left bicep measures was extremelyhigh (r=.90), the mean of these two measures was used forstatistical analysis. For the hand grip strength, the mean ofeach hand was calculated separately and used in the analyses.The rationale for this is that two previous studies (Archer &Thanzami, 2007; Gallup et al., 2007) have found strongerassociations with the left hand. Once the physical measure-ments were taken, the participants filled out the ques-tionnaires. After they completed the questionnaires, theywere debriefed about the study.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive statistics

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations and rangesfor the variables, including body mass index, calculated fromheight and weight. Values for height and weight were lowerthan in comparable Western samples. Those for both directand indirect aggression were higher than values found in asample of male US college students (Richardson & Green,

Table 1Descriptive statistics (N=85); values for the questionnaire measures aretotals of all the items

Mean S.D. Minimum Maximum

Age (year) 23.81 3.47 18 33Height (m) 1.69 .049 1.52 1.80Weight (kg) 60.79 6.36 48 75Body mass index 21.39 2.10 16.76 26.49Bicep circumference (cm) 30.65 2.10 25.75 35.0Right grip (kgf) 40.16 5.49 27.5 55.45Left grip (kgf) 37.82 5.33 22 53.15Direct aggression

(7 items: 0–4 per item)5.84 4.52 0 22

Indirect aggression(7 items: 0–4 per item)

4.53 3.04 0 14

Proactive aggression(12 items: 0–3 per item)

3.41 3.01 0 12

Reactive aggression(11 items: 0–3 per item)

9.22 3.01 3 19

Mate value (12 items: 1–5 per item) 36.64 5.80 10 53Entitlement (6 items: 1–5 per item) 21.27 3.58 10 29

1999, p. 4321). Values for proactive and reactive aggressionwere slightly higher than the values reported for samples of16-year-old American boys by Raine et al. (2006), althoughstill lower than the midpoint of the scale (“sometimes”).Means for mate value were similar to those reported byWebster & Kirkpatrick (2006, p. 21) for a mixed-sex sampleof US college students.

3.2. Correlations

Table 2 shows the correlations between the variables usedin the study. Of the physical measures, direct aggressionmeasured by the RCRQ was significantly and positivelyassociated only with weight (r=.25, pb.05). Although thecorrelations with hand grip strength, height and bicepcircumference were in the predicted direction, they weresmall and nonsignificant. Direct aggression was, as pre-dicted, positively associated with entitlement (r=.26, pb.05)and mate value (r=.36, pb.01). Although direct aggressionwas, as expected, positively correlated with both proactive(r=.43, pb.001) and reactive aggression (r=.46, pb.001),neither measure was associated with size, strength, matevalue or entitlement. As in the previous study, indirectaggression was not significantly associated with any of themeasures of size and strength; it was also unrelated toentitlement or mate value.

Weight and right grip strength showed small butsignificant correlations with mate value, consistent with thefourth prediction, although bicep circumference showed noassociation. In view of this association with weight, a partialcorrelation was calculated between direct aggression andmate value, controlling for weight. The value was r=.32,only very slightly lower than the bivariate correlation.

There was a significant negative association betweendirect aggression and age (r=−.37, pb.01). Table 2 alsoshows (in parentheses) the correlations between the variableswhen age is controlled. This made little difference to theresults, although the correlation between direct aggressionand bicep circumference became near to significance atr=.21 with age controlled.

3.3. Regression analyses

Table 3 shows the results of a sequential multipleregression, with direct aggression as the criterion variable.The predictor variables were age as Step 1, and left grip,weight, height, entitlement and mate value as Step 2. Bicepcircumference was omitted in view of its high correlationwith weight (r=.71). The overall model accounted for 29% ofvariance (F[6, 78]=6.67; pb.0001). In Step 1, age was asexpected a significant predictor of physical aggression.

1 The values shown in this table are per item for a scale of 1 to 5: toonvert them into the equivalent totals for a 0-to-4 scale, we subtracted 1

c and multiplied by 7.

Table2

Correlatio

nsbetweenphysical

attributes,aggression,entitlem

entandmatevalue

Variable

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1.Directaggression

−2.

Age

−.37⁎⁎

−3.

Heigh

t.16(.09

)−.21

−4.

Weight

.25⁎

(.28⁎ )

.03

.40⁎⁎(.41⁎⁎)

−5.

Bodymassindex

.16(.25

⁎ ).17

−.18

(−.15)

.83⁎

⁎(.84⁎⁎

)−

6.Right

grip

.13(.10

)−.11

.29⁎⁎(.28⁎)

.16(.17)

−.02

(.00

4)−

7.Leftgrip

.18(.08

)−.29⁎⁎

.30⁎⁎(.26⁎ )

.16(.18)

−.02

(.03

).67⁎⁎(.67

)−

8.Bicep

.10(.21

).23⁎

.07(.12)

.71⁎

⁎(.72)

.72⁎⁎(.71

⁎⁎)

.11(.14

).18(.26

⁎)−

9.Indirect

aggression

.12(.07

)−.14

−.12

(−.15

).14(.14)

.22⁎

(.25

⁎ )−.03

(−.05)

.03(−.01)

.07(.10)

−10

.Proactiv

eaggression

.43⁎⁎(.41⁎⁎)

−.15

.08(.05)

.11(.12)

.07(.09

).04(.03

).16(.13

).17(.21)

.17(.15

)−

11.R

eactive

aggression

.46⁎⁎(.43⁎⁎)

−.16

.03(.00)

.01(.02)

−.02

(.02

).03(.01

).08(.04

).06(.10)

−.01

(−.03)

.33⁎

⁎(.32⁎⁎

)−

12.Entitlem

ent

.26⁎

(.27⁎)

−.04

.07(−.08)

.07(.07)

.11(.12

).04(.04

).12(.12

).06(.07)

.01(.00

).11(.10)

.31⁎⁎(.30

⁎⁎)

−13

.Matevalue

.36⁎⁎(.39⁎⁎)

−.01

.20(.21)

.24⁎

(.24⁎ )

.12(.12

).22⁎

(.22

⁎ ).00(.00

).11(.11)

−.05

(−.06)

.14(.14)

.21(.21

).13(.13

)

Valuesin

parentheses:with

agepartialledout.

⁎pb

.05.

⁎⁎pb

.01.

319J. Archer, V. Thanzami / Evolution and Human Behavior 30 (2009) 315–321

Participants showed less physical aggression with age, withan adjusted R2 of .126. In Stage 2, the R2 change was .203,with mate value showing the largest contribution (β=.30;p=.003), and entitlement and weight being near tosignificance. The regression was recalculated using acomposite measure of size and strength, from the Z scoresfor height, weight, bicep circumference and combined grip:both mate value and entitlement reaching statistical sig-nificance, although the composite size and strength measuredid not (Table 4).

4. Discussion

The associations between variables measuring size andstrength and direct aggression were weaker than in previousstudies, with only weight showing a significant correlation(although bicep circumference was near to significance whenage was controlled). The associations were nevertheless inthe predicted direction and would, if combined with previousfindings in a meta-analysis, have shown a clear overallassociation with size and strength. The present findingsindicate that the strength of the association varies inmagnitude between samples, even those similar in demo-graphic characteristics and from the same geographicalregion. From the perspective of RHP, on which these studieswere based, it is clear that size and strength, as measured inthis study, provide only one cue to this value. In humans,demeanor, a reputation as someone who does not back down,and connections with formidable allies are all likely to beimportant components of RHP, besides size and strength(Archer & Benson, 2008).

As found previously (Archer & Thanzami, 2007), indirectaggression showed no association with measures of size andstrength. Although direct aggression was moderatelycorrelated with both reactive and proactive aggression,these showed no association with measures of size andstrength, the only one coming close to significance beingbicep circumference and proactive aggression when age wascontrolled. This was clearly contrary to what was predictedon the basis of the overall measure of direct aggression.However, the values for both reactive and (especially)proactive aggression were low in this sample, as they were ina previous US sample (Raine et al., 2006).

Contrary to the finding from Sell's (2006) study ofAmerican students, entitlement was unrelated to measures ofstrength. It was significantly correlated with direct aggres-sion and with reactive but not with proactive aggression,which supports previous findings linking narcissism (a widerconcept than entitlement) with proneness to direct aggression(Bushman & Baumeister 1998; Kirkpatrick et al., 2002;Lawrence, 2006), and is novel in finding a link specificallywith reactive aggression. In relation to this, Bushman andBaumeister (1998) found that, in an experimental essay-evaluation situation, perceived threat mediated the linkbetween narcissism and aggression. Lawrence (2006) found

able 4equential multiple regression of direct aggression on age (Block 1), andcomposite measure of size and strength, entitlement and mate valuelock 2)

lock Blockvariable

β t pvalue

R2 Adjusted R2 R2 change

Age −.37 −3.62 .001 .137 .126Mate value .31 3.22 .002Entitlement .20 2.11 .038 .185Size/strength .13 1.33 .19

320 J. Archer, V. Thanzami / Evolution and Human Behavior 30 (2009) 315–321

that being roused to aggression by provocations was relatedto both higher narcissism scores and higher trait physicalaggression (the Aggression Questionnaire; Buss & Perry,1992). Both of these findings are consistent with a link withreactive and not with proactive aggression, as we found.However, in comparing our findings with these studies, weshould note that we used only one subscale of the NPI(Raskin & Terry, 1988), entitlement (following Sell, 2006),and not the whole scale, although Bushman and Baumeister(1998) did report that all the NPI subscales were associatedwith aggression.

As predicted from the studies of Kirkpatrick et al. (2002)and Webster and Kirkpatrick (2006), direct physicalaggression was correlated with perceived mate value, andthis measure showed the highest association with physicalaggression in the current sample. Indirect aggression wasunrelated to mate value, as predicted. A regression of thephysical measures of size and strength, mate vale andentitlement, on to physical aggression, controlling for age,produced the highest beta weight for mate value, with weight(also representing bicep circumference) and entitlementcontributing at a marginally significant level to the overallincrease in R2. Thus, of the variables included in this study,mate value was the most strongly associated with physicalaggression, indicating that young men who regardedthemselves as more attractive to the opposite sex also reportengaging in more acts of physical aggression. This isconsistent with a sexual selection-based prediction linkingaggression among young males with their perceivedattractiveness to women.

Perceived mate value also showed a weak associationwith weight and right (but not left) hand grip, consistent withprevious studies using measures of self-reported matingsuccess, and either grip strength or physical condition(Hönekopp et al., 2007; Gallup et al., 2007; Sell, 2006). Thisprovides further evidence for a link between featuresassociated with male competition and those associated withattractiveness to females. The association with size andstrength was relatively independent of that between physicalaggression and mate value.

The finding that age was negatively correlated with directaggression replicated a similar finding in a similar sample ofIndian men (Archer & Thanzami, 2007) and replicates asimilar negative correlation with age found in several studies

Table 3Sequential multiple regression of direct aggression on age (Block 1), andheight, weight, left grip strength, entitlement and mate value (Block 2)

Block Blockvariable

β t p value R2 AdjustedR2

R2 change

1 Age −.37 −3.62 .001 .137 .1262 Mate Value .30 3.11 .003

Entitlement .19 1.98 .052 .202Weight .19 1.87 .065Left grip .03 .30 NSHeight −.05 −.45 NS

TSa(B

B

12

of young men from Western samples (e.g., Archer, 2004;Harris, 1996; O'Connor, Archer, & Wu, 2001). From abroader perspective, it can also be linked to the decline inviolent crime from young adulthood onwards that has beenfound across different nations and historical times (e.g., Daly& Wilson, 1990; Eisner, 2003; Quetelet, 1833/1984), andcan be understood in terms of a decline from the peak yearsof reproductive competition (Archer, 2004).

Overall, these findings provide further, albeit weaker,support for an association between size and strength, and arecent history of physical aggression, based on the concept ofRHP. The associations did not extend to measures ofproactive and reactive aggression. Consistent with previousstudies, a history of physical aggression was associated withentitlement and with self-perceived mate value. In aregression containing weight, height, left grip strength,entitlement and mate value, mate value proved the strongestpredictor of direct aggression, supporting previous findingsand predictions derived from a sexual selection approach toaggression. However, there was evidence for separateassociations with both entitlement and weight. The first ofthese indicates that, in this sample, the association betweenmate value and physical aggression is not mediated throughmate value being a part of a general belief in one's ownsuperiority. It therefore provides further support for the viewthat there are specific aspects of self-esteem that can beunderstood in terms of their evolutionary function (Webster& Kirkpatrick, 2006). In summary, the findings showed thatphysical aggression by young men was associated withperceived attractiveness, independently of any associationbetween either perceived entitlement or the impact of RHPon physical aggression.

References

Apicella, C. L., & Marlowe, F. W. (2007). Men's reproductive investmentdecisions: Mating, parenting, and self-perceived mate value. HumanNature, 18, 22–34.

Archer, J. (1988). The behavioural biology of aggression. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Archer, J. (1994). Violence between men. In: J. Archer (Ed.),Male violence.(pp. 121–140). London: Routledge.

Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: Ameta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291–322.

Archer, J., & Benson, D. (2008). Physical aggression as a function ofperceived fighting ability and provocation: An experimental investiga-tion. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 9–24.

321J. Archer, V. Thanzami / Evolution and Human Behavior 30 (2009) 315–321

Archer, J., & Huntingford, F. (1994). Game theory models and escalation ofanimal fights. In: Potegal M, & Knutson JF (Eds.), The dynamics ofaggression (pp. 3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Archer, J., & Thanzami, V. L. (2007). The relation between physicalaggression, size and strength, among a sample of young Indian men.Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 627–633.

Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism,narcissism, self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Doesself-love or self-hate lead to violence? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 75, 219–229.

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatenedegotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem.Psychological Review, 103, 5–33.

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459.

Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1990). Killing the competition: Female/female and

male/male homicide. Human Nature, 1, 81.Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex.

London: Murray.Eisner, M. (2003). Long-term historical trends in violent crime. Crime and

Justice: A Review of Research, 30, 83–142.Felson, R. B. (1996). Big people hit little people: Sex differences in physical

power and interpersonal violence. Criminology, 34, 433–452.Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests

of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 33, 1167–1183.

Gallup, A. C., White, D. D., & Gallup Jr, G. G. (2007). Handgrip strengthpredicts sexual behavior, body morphology, and aggression in malecollege students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 423–429.

Green, L. R., Richardson, D. R., & Lago, T. (1996). How do friendship,indirect, and direct aggression relate? Aggressive Behavior, 22, 81–86.

Harris, M. B. (1996). Aggressive experiences and aggressiveness: Relation-ship to ethnicity, gender, and age. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,26, 843–870.

Hönekopp, J., Rudolph, U., Beier, L., Liebert, A., & Müller, C. (2007).Physical attractiveness of face and body as indicators of physical fitnessin men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 106–111.

Imrhan, S. N., Imrhan, V., & Hart, C. (1996). Can self-estimates of bodyweight and height be used in place of measurements for collegestudents? Ergonomics, 39, 1445–1453.

Kirkpatrick, L. A., Waugh, C. E., Valencia, A., &Webster, G. D. (2002). Thefunctional domain specificity of self-esteem and the differentialprediction of aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,82, 756–767.

Lawrence, C. (2006). Measuring individual responses to aggression-triggering events: Development of the Situational Triggers of AggressiveResponses (STAR) scale. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 241–252.

Lieberman, J. D., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Ahot new way to measure aggression: Hot sauce allocation. AggressiveBehavior, 25, 331–348.

Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

O'Connor, D. B., Archer, J., & Wu, F. W. C. (2001). Measuring aggression:Self-reports, partner reports and responses to provoking scenarios. Ag-gressive Behavior, 27, 79-101.

Parker, G. A. (1974). Assessment strategy and the evolution of fightingbehavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 47, 223–243.

Pellegrini, A. D., Roseth, C. J., Mliner, S., Bohn, C. M., van Ryzin, M., &Vance, N., et al. (2007). The development of dominance in preschoolclassrooms. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 54–64.

Quetelet, A. (1833/1984). Recherches sur le penchant au crime aux differensages. Bruxelles: M. Hayez. (Trans by S.F. Sylvester as Research on thePropensity for Crime at Different Ages, Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson).

Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber, R., Gatzke-Kopp, L., Lynam, D., & Reynolds,C, et al. (2006). The Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire:Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescentboys. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 159–171.

Raine, A., Reynolds, C., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (1997).Biosocial bases of aggressive behaviour in childhood: Resting heartrate, skin conductance orienting, and physique. In: A. Raine, P. A.Brennan, D. P. Farrington, & S. A. Mednick (Eds.), Biosocial basesof violence (pp. 107–126). New York: Plenum.

Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of theNarcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of itsconstruct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54, 890–902.

Richardson, D. R., & Green, L. R. (1999). Social sanction and threatexplanations of gender effects on direct and indirect aggression.Aggressive Behavior, 25, 425–434.

Sell, A. (2006). Regulating welfare tradeoff ratios: Three tests of anevolutionary-computational model of human anger. DissertationAbstracts International, 66 (8-B), pp. 4516.

Symons, D. (1992). On the use and misuse of Darwinism in thestudy of human behavior. In: J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby(Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generationof culture (pp. 137–159). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coerciveactions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Tremblay, R. E., Schaal, B., Boulerice, B., Arseneault, L., Soussignan, R.G., & Paquette, D. (1998). Testosterone, physical aggression, dom-inance, and physical development in early adolescence. InternationalJournal of Behavioral Development, 22, 753–757.

Vitaro, F., & Brendgen, M. (2005). Proactive and reactive aggression. In: R.Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.). Developmental origins ofaggression (pp. 178–201). New York: Guilford.

Webster, G. D., Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2006). Behavioral and self-reportedaggression as a function of domain-specific self-esteem. AggressiveBehavior, 32, 17–27.

Williams, T. E. (1999). Domain-specificity of self-esteem: An evolu-tionary approach. Unpublished master's thesis, College of Williamand Mary.