186

SRI

Resource Inequality Sensitivity

Class: II - Sexual Selection

EPA Total Score: 49 /100

SRI

Resource Inequality Sensitivity

Class: II - Sexual Selection

EPA Total Score: 49 /100

Scores:

Theoretical 60/60

Psychological 60/60

Medical 0/60

Physiological 0/60

Cross-Cultural 60/60

Genetic 0/60

Phylogenetic 0/60

Hunter-Gatherer 53/60

Neurochemical Substrates:

Neurolocalization:

Elicitors:

-Physical elicitor: detectable (perhaps, especially, visibly) resources; resources desired by opposite sex may be most eliciting -Situational elicitors: general detectability of resources/resource holding being subject of general knowledge; display within mating contexts

Function:

Detection of physical (external/non-somatic) resource inequality: most likely serves to permit detection of one's own non-competitiveness and/or increase motivation for making oneself more competitive as a mate (intrasexually). Permits/motivates identification of rivals near to one's own competitiveness level/those with whom intrasexual competition would not likely yield an advantage to one.

Outputs:

-Cognitive/Emotional/Psychological outputs: envy towards holder of greater resources, desire for greater resource holding oneself/diminishing of greater resource-holder's resource -Behavioral outputs: calibrated various actions taken to counter competitive advantage of other(s) of same sex holding greater resources, especially in ways that would increase one's own competitiveness intrasexually in mateship competitions

Blake, K. R., Bastian, B., Denson, T. F., Grosjean, P., & Brooks, R. C. (2018). Income inequality not gender inequality positively covaries with female sexualization on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(35), 8722-8727. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1717959115

Abstract: Publicly displayed, sexualized depictions of women have proliferated, enabled by new communication technologies, including the internet and mobile devices. These depictions are often claimed to be outcomes of a culture of gender inequality and female oppression, but, paradoxically, recent rises in sexualization are most notable in societies that have made strong progress toward gender parity. Few empirical tests of the relation between gender inequality and sexualization exist, and there are even fewer tests of alternative hypotheses. We examined aggregate patterns in 68,562 sexualized self-portrait photographs (“sexy selfies”) shared publicly on Twitter and Instagram and their association with city-, county-, and cross-national indicators of gender inequality. We then investigated the association between sexy-selfie prevalence and income inequality, positing that sexualization—a marker of high female competition—is greater in environments in which incomes are unequal and people are preoccupied with relative social standing. Among 5,567 US cities and 1,622 US counties, areas with relatively more sexy selfies were more economically unequal but not more gender oppressive. A complementary pattern emerged cross-nationally (113 nations): Income inequality positively covaried with sexy-selfie prevalence, particularly within more developed nations. To externally validate our findings, we investigated and confirmed that economically unequal (but not gender-oppressive) areas in the United States also had greater aggregate sales in goods and services related to female physical appearance enhancement (beauty salons and women’s clothing). Here, we provide an empirical understanding of what female sexualization reflects in societies and why it proliferates.

Submitted by:

mmaceac1

Supporting Evidence

No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Theoretical evidence for this EPA.

55/100

Submitted by mmaceac1

No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Medical evidence for this EPA.

No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Physiological evidence for this EPA.

55/100

Submitted by mmaceac1

No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Genetic evidence for this EPA.

No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Phylogenetic evidence for this EPA.

No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any supporting Hunter-Gatherer evidence for this EPA.

Supporting Evidence is evidence that suggests that this trait is an Evolved Psychological Adaptation (EPA) - i.e., that it has been shaped by natural selection to solve a particular adaptive problem.

Challenging Evidence

No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Theoretical evidence for this EPA.

No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Psychological evidence for this EPA.

No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Medical evidence for this EPA.

No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Physiological evidence for this EPA.

No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Cross-Cultural evidence for this EPA.

No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Genetic evidence for this EPA.

No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Phylogenetic evidence for this EPA.

No one has (yet) rated this source as containing any challenging Hunter-Gatherer evidence for this EPA.

Challenging Evidence is evidence that suggests that this trait is not an EPA - e.g., that it is a product of cultural learning or genetic drift, or maybe it does not exist at all. However over each line of evidence for a description.