Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004) 406 – 415

Relational dominance and mate-selection criteria:

Evidence that males attend to female dominance
Stephanie L. Browna,*, Brian P. Lewisb
a
Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, 426 Thompson Street, PO Box 1248,
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248, United States
b
University of California, Los Angeles, CA, United States
Initial receipt 18 December 2003; final revision received 6 August 2004

Abstract

The present study argues that pressures associated with the threat of paternal uncertainty shaped a
male mate-preference for relatively subordinate partners in the context of long- (high investment) but
not short-term (low investment) relationships. Using a hypothetical scenario depicting a workplace
setting, 120 male and 208 female undergraduates were randomly assigned to one of six experimental
conditions in which they were asked to judge a male or female target, described as either their
supervisor (higher dominance), coworker (equal dominance), or their assistant (lower dominance).
Participants exposed to an opposite-sex target rated their attraction to the target for varying types of
investment (e.g., desire for a one-night stand, desire to affiliate, or desire for a long-term relationship),
and participants exposed to a same-sex target rated their desire to affiliate with the target. Results
supported predictions and indicated that males preferred the subordinate over the dominant target for
affiliation and high-investment items, and females were unaffected by the target’s dominance status.
The results of same-sex ratings indicated that dominance status did not influence females’ ratings of
the female target, and that dominance did not influence males’ ratings of the male target. These results
are discussed in terms of the role of relational dominance in shaping male mate-preferences.
D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Female dominance; Mate selection criteria; Attraction; Paternal uncertainty; Evolution; Gender;
differences

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 734 936 0447; fax: +1 734 764 3576.
E-mail address: stebrown@isr.umich.edu (S.L. Brown).

1090-5138/04/$ – see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.003
 S.L. Brown, B.P. Lewis / Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004) 406–415 407

1. Introduction

Research examining sex differences in mate preferences has demonstrated that males
are relatively indifferent to cues associated with social dominance in women when
choosing a mate (e.g., Li, Bailey, Kenrick, & Linsenmeier, 2002; Sadalla, Kenrick, &
Vershure, 1987). These results have led some researchers to conclude that female social
dominance (as measured by the possession of valued resources or by personality traits
reflecting dominance) is irrelevant to males’ mate selection criteria (e.g., Sadalla et al.,
1987). Other studies have documented that human and nonhuman males are attracted to
subordination cues displayed by females (e.g., Keating, 1985; Maier & Maier, 1970;
Townsend & Levey, 1990). Moreover, widely held stereotypes include the belief that
powerful males will be considerably more attracted to a subordinate woman than to a
supervisor (e.g., Costrich, Feinstein, Kidder, Marecek, & Pascale, 1975). Contradictory
findings such as these may be explained, in part, by different conceptions of bsocial
dominance.’’ The present study was designed to examine people’s reactions to persons in
a hypothetical scenario depicting social dominance, defined as a difference in rank, status,
or power, and whether this would reflect their mate preferences. In particular, we
hypothesized that males would reveal a mate preference for relatively subordinate partners
because of past selection pressures associated with the threat of paternal uncertainty and
intrasexual competition. Using a workplace setting, we tested the prediction that males
would be more attracted to a target if she were described as his assistant than if she were
described as his coworker or supervisor.

1.1. Defining social dominance

Previous research that failed to demonstrate a male preference for subordinate partners
either defined social dominance as a personality trait, such as assertiveness (e.g., Sadalla
et al., 1987), or examined the possession of valued resources, such as social status, fame, or
fortune (e.g., Buss, 1989), which is often equated with dominance (Sadalla et al., 1987).
Studies that attempt to manipulate dominance as a personality trait have done so using
nonverbal gestures, such as a relaxed versus formal posture, or vignettes describing an
individual’s assertiveness or competitiveness.
An alternative approach views dominance in dynamic rather than static terms,
suggesting that asymmetries in successful competition result in social dominance (e.g.,
Hawley, 1999). Social dominance, in this case, is defined in terms of the relationship
between two people rather than a personality trait. Personality traits may predict relative
position within a group (e.g., Hawley & Little, 1999), but the trait per se is not social
dominance (Hawley, 1999).
If dominance is defined as a difference in rank, status, or power—relational
dominance—then dominant individuals have the option of controlling others and/or
events. This is not to suggest that all individuals with dominance are controlling or
domineering. In fact, Hawley (1999) suggests that dominance need not be coercive
because cooperative tactics can be just as successful at achieving control of others.
408 S.L. Brown, B.P. Lewis / Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004) 406–415

Whether employed with coercive or cooperative tactics, dominant individuals have the
power to exercise their own will at the expense of a less dominant other. Because this
power can be used to control a partner’s behavior, it may have played an important role
in shaping mate preferences.

1.2. Paternal uncertainty and female social dominance

Relational dominance may be an important part of male mate-selection criteria if it

constitutes a cue for the risk of paternal uncertainty, one of the most serious repro-
ductive threats to males (Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst, 1982). Males who preferred to
mate with relatively subordinate partners (as opposed to higher dominance partners) may
have been better able to limit the chance (or amount) of paternal uncertainty either
by preventing their partner from having sex outside of the partnership or by being
able to closely monitor their partner’s sexual behavior for possible infidelity. Consis-
tent with this, research conducted on nonhumans demonstrates that male dominance
is associated with effective mate guarding and with increased reproductive success
(e.g., Cant, 2000).
If a sensitivity to female dominance paid reproductive dividends to males in the form
of a reduced risk of paternal uncertainty, then this sensitivity should be most pronounced
for long-term relationships, when the threat associated with paternal uncertainty is high
(Daly et al., 1982). That is, paternal uncertainty is only a threat to males when there is
some chance of providing parental investment to a competitor’s offspring. Thus, a male
preference for relatively subordinate partners should be most pronounced when males
consider a long-term, investing relationship, as opposed to a short-term encounter (e.g.,
one-night stand), in which there is low investment in a partner and, therefore, a low
probability of investing in a competitor’s offspring.

1.3. Overview of the present investigation

Relational dominance was manipulated using a description of an organizational setting

so that participants could envision a target as varying in dominance by virtue of relative
position in the workplace. To examine male mate-preferences directly, male and female
participants read a scenario in which either a male or female target was described as
either the participants’ supervisor (high-dominance condition), coworker (control
condition), or assistant (low-dominance condition). Participants evaluated the opposite-
sex targets by responding to mate preference items varying in relationship length (e.g., bIs
this person. . .attractive for a one time sexual encounter?’’ b. . .attractive as a marriage
partner?’’). Those who were exposed to a same-sex target indicated their interest in the
target by responding to nonsexual dimensions of affiliation (e.g., brate the extent to which
you would enjoy exercising with this person’’). The following prediction was tested:
Males were expected to be most attracted to the female target when she was described as
a subordinate, and we expected a male preference for the subordinate target to be most
 S.L. Brown, B.P. Lewis / Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004) 406–415 409

pronounced when males were considering a long-term (high investment) relationship with
the target.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

One hundred twenty male and 208 female undergraduate students at a large university in
the southwestern United States participated in partial fulfillment of course requirements.

2.2. Design overview

A 2 (Participant Gender)2 (Target Gender)3 (Relative Dominance: higher, equal, or

lower) between-subjects design was used, in which the desire to affiliate with the target
constituted the dependent variable. We also obtained measures of attraction to the target
among participants exposed to an opposite-sex target. Thus, investment type of the attraction
response (low, high, affiliation) constituted a repeated-measures factor for examining sex
differences in romantic attraction.

2.3. Independent variables

Relational dominance was varied with three relative dominance descriptions of the target
(higher, same, or lower). The higher dominance description read:
Please imagine that you have just taken a job and that Jennifer/John is your immediate
supervisor. She/he is the person you report to on a daily basis. She/he has the responsibility
for disciplining absence or poor performance on your part, for rewarding reliable or creative
performance...
The equal dominance description read:
Please imagine that you have taken a job and that Jennifer/John is your peer. She/he has
the exact same job as you, works in the same office, has the same supervisor as you. . .
The lower dominance description read:
Please imagine that you have just taken a job and that Jennifer/John is working as your
assistant. She/he reports to you on a daily basis. You have the responsibility for disciplining
absence or poor performance on her/his part, for rewarding reliable or creative perfor-
mance...
Target gender was varied by having half of the participants read descriptions of bJennifer’’
as above, accompanied by a photo of a female. The other half read identical descriptions with
a male photo, in which all details were identical, except that the name was changed to bJohn.’’
The photos used in this study were preselected on the basis that eight judges considered them
to be similar in age and attractiveness.
410 S.L. Brown, B.P. Lewis / Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004) 406–415

2.4. Dependent variables

After participants were exposed to the dominance description and photo of the target, they
rated the extent to which they would want to affiliate with the target outside of the
occupational setting.

2.4.1. Affiliation
All participants responded to the following items: brate the extent to which you
would enjoy exercising with this person;’’ brate the extent to which you think this
person would be someone you would enjoy going to a party with.’’ Using a nine-point
Likert scale (1 = not at all, 9 = very much) the affiliation composite was created by
taking the mean of these two items. (As a measure of the scale’s homogeneity, the
Cronbach’s a = .78).

2.4.2. Investment type

Only participants who were exposed to an opposite-sex target evaluated the target on
romantic dimensions that varied in the level of investment inherent in the attraction item. We
operationalized this level of investment as the inherent relationship length described by the
item. Thus, assessments of high investment consisted of taking the mean of two items
assessing the target’s desirability as a dating and as a marriage partner (Cronbach’s a =.94).
The target’s desirability as a bone-time sexual encounter’’ constituted the low investment
attraction response. Participants used the same nine-point Likert-type scale (1 = not at all,
9 = very) to indicate their responses (Cronbach’s a = .91).

2.4.3. Manipulation check

After answering the previous requests for ratings, the participants were asked the following
two items that assessed the likelihood of having power over the other person: bHow likely is
it that this person will have power over you (reversed)?’’ and bHow likely is it that you will
have power over this person?’’ Participants indicated their responses according to a nine-point
Likert-type scale (1 = not at all likely, 9 = extremely likely).

2.5. Procedure

Male and female participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions. Each
participant was asked to complete a questionnaire that described the experiment as a study
of impression formation. First, the questionnaire instructed participants to form an
impression of a target person. All participants were told that they would be asked to form
an impression of John/Jennifer based on viewing a photograph of him/her. Next, the
questionnaire prompted participants to imagine that they were working in an office and
that John/Jennifer was either their supervisor, coworker, or assistant (the three dominance
conditions). After reading the relative dominance description, participants viewed the
photo of John/Jennifer. Participants were then asked to describe, what it would be like to
bwork for this person,’’ bwork with this person,’’ or bhave this person work for you.’’
 S.L. Brown, B.P. Lewis / Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004) 406–415 411

After describing their response, participants in the opposite-sex target condition rated their
romantic attraction to the target, and all participants rated their desire to affiliate with the
target. Finally, all participants responded to the manipulation check items. To avoid any
participant concerns about social restrictions on affiliation and the work place, participants
were instructed to assume that they were working for an organization that had no rules
against employee fraternization before rating the target.

3. Results

Before examining the effects of relative dominance on romantic attraction, a 2 (Participant

Gender)2 (Target Gender)3 (Dominance) ANOVA was conducted on the manipulation
check. As expected, there was a main effect of dominance level [ F(2,315) = 59.52, p b .001]
and no interaction of dominance level with target or participant gender. These results
indicated that the manipulation was successful, as participants who were exposed to the
subordinate target were more likely than those exposed to either the control or the dominant
target to indicate that they would have power over the target.

3.1. Ratings of opposite-sex targets

To test the prediction that males would be most attracted to the female target when she was
described as subordinate to the participant, a 2 (Participant Gender)3 (Dominance Level)3
(Investment Type of Attraction Response) repeated-measures ANOVA was run for
participants exposed to an opposite-sex target (Table 1). Results of this analysis indicated
a significant multivariate three-way interaction of participant gender, dominance level, and
investment type of the attraction response [multivariate F(4,386) = 2.48, p = .044]. As can be
seen in Table 1, males (and not females) appeared to be most strongly attracted to the
subordinate (as opposed to the supervisor) for the high-investment measure. There was a
significant simple GenderDominance Level interaction for both the high-investment and

Table 1
Average (S.D.) males’ and females’ ratings of target person (nine-point Likert scale: not at all–very much)
Dominance
Type of rating Investment type Target sex Participant sex Assistant Coworker Supervisor
Opposite sex Short-term Female Male 6.8F2.3 6.3F3.2 6.2F2.6
Male Female 3.2F2.6 3.1F2.6 3.44F2.9
Long-term Female Male 6.4F2.1 4.9F2.2 4.2F2.7
Male Female 3.2F2.2 3.2F2.3 3.1F2.2
Affiliation Female Male 6.8F1.9 6.5F1.6 5.2F2.5
Male Female 4.7F2.0 4.2F1.9 4.5F1.8
Same sex Affiliation Male Male 4.2F1.5 3.7F1.6 4.5F2.4
Female Female 6.1F2.4 5.7F2.0 6.1F1.5
412 S.L. Brown, B.P. Lewis / Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004) 406–415

affiliation measures [ F high(2,194) = 3.67, p = .027; F moderate(2,194) = 3.34, p = .038], but not
for the low-investment measure [ F(2,194) b 1].
Among males, there was a significant simple effect of female dominance for the high-
investment measure [ F(2,63) = 5.22, p = .008]. Consistent with predictions, males preferred
the subordinate over the control target [ F(1,35) = 4.10, p = .051] but did not distinguish
between the control and dominant targets ( Fb1). Furthermore, there was also a significant
effect of female dominance for the affiliation measure [ F(2,63) = 4.39, p b .05]; however, the
subordinate target was only different from the dominant [ F(1,49) = 6.88, p = .012] and not the
control target [ F(1,35) b 1]. For the low-investment measure, there was no overall effect of
female dominance ( F b 1, n.s.). This pattern of differences according to the investment type
of the attraction response is also characterized by a significant interaction of dominance and
investment type for males [ F(2,63) = 3.38, p = .04].

3.2. Comparing same- versus opposite-sex ratings of affiliation

To examine whether this male interest in less dominant partners extended to same-sex
affiliates, we conducted a Participant GenderTarget GenderDominance ANOVA on the
affiliation composite. Results indicated a significant three-way interaction of gender, target
sex, and dominance [ F(2,319) = 3.07, p b .05; Table 1]. As Table 1 shows, the male tendency
to prefer lower to higher dominance partners did not extend to include either (a) a male
preference to affiliate with the less dominant male target or (b) a female preference to also
prefer to affiliate with the less dominant female target. This pattern of means is characterized
by a significant simple interaction of dominance level and target gender for males [ F(2,116) =
3.88, p = .023] and a significant simple participant gender by dominance interaction for
ratings of the female target [ F(2,135) = 3.28, p b .05].

4. Discussion

The results of this study indicated that males’ mate preferences were sensitive to the
relational dominance of the female target. In particular, males exhibited a preference for the
subordinate over the dominant target for both the high-investment and affiliation composites.
Females, on the other hand, did not show the expected preference for the dominant male
target, which extends other work that qualifies the male dominance effect (i.e., Burger &
Cosby, 1999; Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, Todd, & Finch, 1997).
Our results also demonstrated that the male preference for the subordinate target
increased as the kind of investment of the attraction items increased. This pattern of
findings is consistent with the possibility that there were reproductive advantages for males
who preferred to form long-term relationships with relatively subordinate partners. Given
that female infidelity is a severe reproductive threat to males only when investment is high
(e.g., Daly et al., 1982), a preference for subordinate partners may provide adaptive benefits
to males in the context of only a long-term, investing relationship—which is not the case
for a one-night stand.
 S.L. Brown, B.P. Lewis / Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004) 406–415 413

The possibility that paternal uncertainty shaped a male mate-preference for subordination
cues is consistent with the work of Wilson and Daly (1996), who have suggested that
control over a partner’s reproductive behavior would have been reproductively advanta-
geous for males, in part, because of the reduced risk of paternal uncertainty. This may
explain why masculine power has been associated with increased attraction to females
(Bargh, Raymond, Pryor, & Strack, 1995) and why behavioral expressions of vulnerability
have been demonstrated to enhance female attractiveness (Rainville & Gallagher, 1990).
Moreover, our results provide further explanation for why males might attend to female
dominance-linked characteristics, such as the relative age (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992) or the
relative income of a partner (Townsend, 1987), and why adult males typically prefer a
partner who is lower in each of these domains.
Note, however, that, on the surface, our findings are inconsistent with the demonstration
that adolescent males prefer older partners (Kenrick, Gabrielidis, Keefe, & Cornelius, 1996).
These findings may be reconciled with our own if we consider the likely investment behavior
of adolescent males. To the extent that adolescent males are unlikely to provide substantial,
costly long-term investment to females, or to their offspring, then the selection pressures
associated with paternal uncertainty would be minimal and sufficiently small that they would
be overwhelmed by the reproductive advantages of mating with any female who is at the peak
of her fertility. This possibility may help to explain why male mate-preferences change and
develop over time (Kenrick et al., 1996), as the threat of paternal uncertainty that grows with
increasing male investment favors males who can be more selective in their choice of a
mating partner.

4.1. Alternative explanations, caveats, and directions for future research

The results of the present study are not only consistent with a paternal certainty analysis of
mate preferences, but they also rule out some competing explanations for a male preference
for subordinate partners. For example, if the preference for a female subordinate were merely
an expression of a desire to affiliate with others over whom we hold power, or to avoid being
controlled, then we would expect such a preference to include same-sex others, which it did
not. Our results are also inconsistent with the possibility that social roles for females account
for a male’s preference to affiliate with subordinate partners. If exposure to media depictions
of females in subordinate roles makes subordinate females more attractive, then both male
and female judges should have preferred to affiliate with the subordinate target, which also
did not occur. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that media depictions of opposite-sex
interactions uniquely affect male, but not female, preferences. Future research should
examine the role of dominance in real-world organizational settings to determine whether
these findings generated with hypothetical scenarios extend to the workplace.

4.2. Concluding remarks

The results of this investigation are noteworthy for two reasons. First, our findings suggest
that, under some circumstances, males are concerned with the dominance of a female when
414 S.L. Brown, B.P. Lewis / Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004) 406–415

choosing a mate. Second, these results highlight the importance of relational dominance in mate
selection. The differences between the findings of this experimental paradigm and those from
previous work on mate-selection criteria indicate that it may be inaccurate to conceptualize
dominant personalities and dominant power differentials as synonymous (Sheets & Braver,
1999, also underscore the importance of this distinction). Rather, there may be important
distinctions between personality and those situational factors correlated with personality, which
need to be taken into consideration before generalizing findings from one domain to the other.
As this experimental investigation indicates, evolutionary theory may be a useful tool for
making these types of distinctions.

Acknowledgments

We hereby acknowledge Dylan M. Smith and Douglas T. Kenrick for providing valuable
comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Preparation of this manuscript was supported,
in part, by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (K01-MH065423).

References

Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: an automatic
powerYsex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68, 768 – 781.
Burger, J. M., & Cosby, M. (1999). Do women prefer dominant men? The case of the missing control condition.
Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 358 – 368.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1 – 49.
Cant, M. A. (2000). Social control of reproduction in banded mongooses. Animal Behavior, 59, 147 – 158.
Costrich, N., Feinstein, J., Kidder, L., Marecek, J., & Pascale, L. (1975). When stereotypes hurt: three studies of
personality for sex role reversals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 520 – 530.
Daly, M., Wilson, M. I., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 11 – 27.
Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Todd, M., & Finch, J. F. (1997). Interpersonal attraction from an
evolutionary psychology perspective: women’s reactions to dominant and prosocial men. In J. A. Simpson, &
D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 141 – 167). Mahwah, NJ7 Erlbaum.
Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: a strategy-based evolutionary perspective.
Developmental Review, 19, 97 – 132.
Hawley, P. H., & Little, T. D. (1999). On winning some and losing some: a social relations approach to social
dominance in toddlers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 185 – 214.
Keating, C. F. (1985). Gender and the physiognomy of dominance and attractiveness. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 48, 61 – 70.
Kenrick, D. T., Gabrielidis, C., Keefe, R. C., & Cornelius, J. S. (1996). Adolescents’ age preferences for dating
partners: support for an evolutionary model of life-history strategies. Child Development, 67, 1499 – 1511.
Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive
strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 75 – 133.
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate
preferences: testing the trade-offs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947 – 955.
Maier, R. A., & Maier, B. M. (1970). Comparative animal behavior. Belmont, CA7 Brooks/Cole.
 S.L. Brown, B.P. Lewis / Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004) 406–415 415

Rainville, R. E., & Gallagher, J. G. (1990). Vulnerability and heterosexual attraction. Sex Roles, 23, 25 – 31.
Sadalla, E. K., Kenrick, D. T., & Vershure, B. (1987). Dominance and heterosexual attraction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 730 – 738.
Sheets, V., & Braver, S. (1999). Organizational status and perceived sexual harassment: detecting the mediators of
a null effect. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1159 – 1171.
Townsend, J. M. (1987). Sex differences in sexuality among medical students: effects of increasing socioeconomic
status. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16, 427 – 446.
Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ costume and physical attractiveness on
sexuality and partner selection. Journal of Psychology, 124, 371 – 389.
Wilson, M. I., & Daly, M. (1996). Male sexual proprietariness and violence against wives. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 5, 2 – 7.