Abstract

Alliance formation is a critical dimension of social intelligence in political, social and biological systems. As some allies may provide greater “leverage” than others during social conflict, the cognitive architecture that supports alliance formation in humans may be shaped by recent experience, for example in light of the outcomes of violent or non-violent forms intrasexual competition. Here we used experimental priming techniques to explore this issue. Consistent with our predictions, while men’s preferences for dominant allies strengthened following losses (compared to victories) in violent intrasexual contests, women’s preferences for dominant allies weakened following losses (compared to victories) in violent intrasexual contests. Our findings suggest that while men may prefer dominant (i.e. masculine) allies following losses in violent confrontation in order to facilitate successful resource competition, women may “tend and befriend” following this scenario and seek support from prosocial (i.e. feminine) allies and/or avoid the potential costs of dominant allies as long-term social partners. Moreover, they demonstrate facultative responses to signals related to dominance in allies, which may shape sex differences in sociality in light of recent experience and suggest that intrasexual selection has shaped social intelligence in humans.Significance statementAlthough alliance formation is an important facet of social intelligence in political and biological systems, we know relatively little about the cognitive processes involved in social preferences for allies. As recent experience may alter the leverage provided by different social partners, here we tested whether preferences for facial cues to dominance-prosociality (masculinity-femininity) alter in light of recent experience of violent and economic contests for status. Our findings demonstrate sex-specific responses to these facial cues. While men’s preferences for facial cues related to dominance in allies strengthen following losses (compared to wins) in violent contests, women’s preferences for facial cues related to dominance in allies weaken following losses (compared to wins) in violent contests. These findings suggest that intrasexual selection, in part, has shaped the evolution of social intelligence in humans as revealed in flexibility in social preferences for allies.

Highlights

  • An important aspect of social intelligence is the ability to cooperate within strategic alliances in order to maximise reproductive fitness

  • Analysing the data separately for male and female judges revealed that men preferred masculine men more than feminine men as allies (M = 3.73, 95 % CI [0.06, 0.40]; t(121) = 2.64; p < 0.01, r = 0.23), but women had no overall preference for masculine or feminine men as allies (M = 3.50, 95 % CI [−0.15, 0.16]; t(125) = 0.01; p = 0.99)

  • We observed a significant interaction between face sex and sex of participant (F(1, 238) = 6.04; p = 0.015, np2 = 0.03). This interaction demonstrated that the tendency to prefer masculine allies more when judging men than women was greater in male participants (r = 0.27) than it was in female participants (r = 0.21)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

An important aspect of social intelligence is the ability to cooperate within strategic alliances in order to maximise reproductive fitness (see DeScioli and Kurzban 2009 for discussion). Male wild Guinea baboons form different levels of alliance with other males (Patzelt et al 2014) and, in some primates, male alliances directly increase their reproductive success and dominance rank (Schülke et al 2010; Gilby et al 2013) In other examples, such as Camargue horses (Feh 1999) and male chimpanzees (Duffy et al 2007), support from high-ranking partners facilitates access to mates, and, among male savannah baboons, coalitions improve fighting ability against rivals (Noë and Sluijter 1995; see Caro and Collins 1987 and Packer and Pusey 1982 for coalitions in male cheetahs and lions). There are potential benefits to alliances with conspecifics, including the facilitation of successful resource competition

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call