Aggression in young men high in threat potential increases after hearing low-pitched male voices: two tests of the retaliation-cost model

Abstract

Abstract Research suggests that male voice pitch is an honest dominance signal because it indexes men's physicality and because lower-pitched voices are more costly to develop and maintain. Rather than considering these signaler-dependent mechanisms, we tested a receiver-dependent mechanism hypothesized by M. Enquist's (1985) retaliation-cost model of aggressive signaling. The model predicts that, given a competitive scenario, low-pitched male voices will elicit aggression from male listeners (i.e., signal receivers) who are relatively high in threat potential. We confirmed this hypothesis in two experiments. Under a sexual but not control prime and after listening to low- but not average-pitched male voices, increases in heterosexual male participants' trait dominance predicted stronger aggressive cognitions (Experiment 1), and increases in male participants' handgrip strength predicted stronger aggressive intent (Experiment 2). These findings provide the first direct support for the retaliation-cost model in humans, extend research on the effects of male voice pitch on receiver psychology, and demonstrate an additional cost mechanism that explains why voice pitch is an honest signal of dominance in men.