Competitive Threats in Mating and the Workplace: Intra and Inter Sexual Competition

Competitive Threats in Mating and the Workplace: Intra and Inter Sexual Competition | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Competitive Threats in Mating and the Workplace: Intra and Inter Sexual Competition Rachel Zambrano, Aurelio Jose Figueredo, Daniel Jones This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6649136/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Much research has been conducted on the psychological mechanisms that underlie competitive behavior, yet no research has investigated what traits contribute to another individual, or rival, being considered a competitive threat. The goal in this research is to identify the factors that contribute to an individual being considered a competitive threat in work and dating, and impart how biological, ecological, and personality variables influence an individual’s perception of these factors. In a university sample ( N = 336), we found that being considered a Dating Threat was the most important predictor of an individual being considered a Working Threat, suggesting an overlap in the traits that constitute an individual being evaluated as a competitive threat in the dating and working marketplaces. A potential outcome of competition in the workplace, employee turnover, was not significantly predicted by the presence of a dating threat or a working threat but was significantly predicted by indirect and direct aggression in the workplace. Further research and replication are needed to fully enumerate the traits that contribute to an individual being considered a competitive threat. Competition Mating Employee Turnover Life History Strategy Mate Value Dark Triad Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 1. Introduction 1.1 Natural Selection and Competition The theory of evolution by natural selection, as proposed by Darwin (1859), described two main components that contributed to an organisms’ fitness: survival and reproduction. To ensure survival and reproduction, organisms need to draw on biological and ecological resources. As these resources are finite, different organisms have continuously engaged in competition over resources, with the outcome of competition potentially determining whether they would survive and reproduce. This makes competition an inherent component in the evolution of organisms. Within a competitive bout, you typically have winners and losers. In the case of competition over food and mates, losing a competitive bout could result in death due to battle injuries, death by starvation, or genetic death due to decreased mating opportunities. Any of these outcomes would severely limit an individual's reproductive fitness. Being able to recognize an individual who poses a competitive threat would be vital for humans to be aware of and take into consideration before entering a bout. This process may work in a similar manner to the mental algorithm that human or nonhuman animals engage in when foraging, as described by optimal foraging models (Bautista et al., 1998 ; Kacelnik, 1984 ). Individuals must determine whether the number of calories that are expended by chasing, or hunting food will be less than the number of calories gained by consuming the food. Due to the large potential benefit netted by this sensitivity to competitive threats, selection may have been shaping this evolved mechanism for many thousands of years. Theories such as Coalitional Value Theory argue that, due to humans’ evolution in competitive contexts, we have developed mental mechanisms that allow for individuals to assess the marginal value of others and their contribution to the group (Winegard et al., 2020). These mental mechanisms extend to evaluating groups of individuals as well (Winegard et al., 2020). With this theoretical starting point in mind, we hypothesize that humans may have also developed evolved a psychological mechanism that makes them sensitive to traits that would make an individual more or less of a competitive threat. We identify the factors that contribute to an individual being considered a competitive threat, how these might factors vary by sex and context, and investigate whether biological and personality traits might influence a participant’s perception of a competitive threat. The specific a priori hypotheses advanced are enumerated H1-H10 (in parentheses) in the text that follows for ease of reference. 1.2 Biological Sex Men and women may require different traits in others to consider an individual threatening in a competitive context. Physical strength and size may be more threatening to men, as men have historically leveraged their physical strength as one route to gain access to resources and monopolize mates (Puts, 2010 ). Women have historically used physical beauty as one route to gain access to resources, monopolize mates, and gain greater male investment (Puts, 2010 ). This difference between the sexes in the traits that leverage more (or better) mates and resources may be reflected in the traits that male and female participants identify as contributing to other individuals being considered a competitive threat. The overall amount of competitiveness perceived may be influenced by the biological sex of the respondent (Subject) and the sex of the hypothetical competitive rival (Target). Lee, Kesebir, & Pillutla ( 2016 ) found that women viewed competition with a same-sex coworker as less desirable than men. This study also found that women reported their social relationships as negatively affected by the presence of competition. This social consequence associated with competition between women may directly decrease the number of competitive behaviors and competitive estimations women engage in. Our first hypothesis is that the sex of the participant, in conjunction with other predictors to be described below, will affect the traits that they think contribute to any target individual, even if only hypothetical or imaginary, being perceived as a competitive threat (H1). 1.3 Assessing Different Contexts We specifically addressed whether there was a difference between the traits that constitute an individual being considered a competitive threat for two contexts, mating and the workplace. We aim to highlight the unique features and behaviors associated with competition in these environments and how our variables of interest manifest in separate ecologies. While most modern humans are no longer competing over hunting territory or foraging areas, we are still engaged in competition over finite resources that contribute to our survival. Employment can result in monetary gain that can be exchanged for good and services essential to survival. Work environments have their own jargon, culture, and social hierarchies (Chandler, 2022; Seppala & Cameron, 2015; Edelman & Larkin, 2015 ). The work environment might thus resemble the small-scale societies in which ancestral humans competed for status. 1.4 Inter- and Intra- Sexual Competition Evolutionary psychological research has shown that men and women engage in competition differently. Because men have engaged in physical competition (single and coalitional competition) longer than women, men may have a lower threshold for activation of physical competition that may manifest modernly as differences in sports enrollments (Deaner et al., 2012 ). Even in mating, men are more likely than women to engage in exaggerating the number of mating partners they have when speaking with other males, as a means of signalling their intrasexual social status (Jonason, 2008 ). Most of this research has investigated the ways in which the sexes differ in their intra sexual competitive behaviors and attitudes, while never assessing inter sexual competitive behaviors and attitudes. As more women have moved into the workforce, men and women engage in competition for promotions, contracts, grants, and career advances. We therefore assessed both men and women’s intra- and inter- sexual competitive behaviors and attitudes. 1.5 Life History Strategy Life history theory models the strategic allocation of somatic and reproductive resources employed by human and nonhuman organisms as a function of the conditions in the environment that the organism inhabits. The coordinated suite of behaviors that an individual employs is called a life history strategy (LHS). This far-reaching theory has been empirically connected to a wide range of human behaviors, including intelligence (Dunkel et al., 2021 ), mating strategies (Gladden et al., 2008 ; Kruger & Fisher, 2008 ; Kruger, 2018), and parental behaviors (Sotomayor-Peterson et al., 2013 ; Cabeza de Baca, Figueredo, & Ellis, 2012). LHS models resource allocation as investments in fitness outcomes that are adaptive given the local ecology. This reflection of an individual’s local ecology makes LHS an ideal broad baseline datum on the participants’ rearing and social environment. Within LHS, there is a continuum behavior ranging from “fast” to “slow” (Jeschke et al., 2008 ; Del Giudice, 2020). The slow end of the spectrum represents behaviors that have evolved in ecologies with stable resources and low extrinsic mortality rates, which selects for humans to focus on somatic growth and parenting behaviors (Jeschke & Kokko, 2009 ). The “fast” end of the spectrum represents behaviors that have evolved in ecologies that have unpredictable or unstable resources and higher mortality rates, which selects for humans to focus on early maturation and mating behaviors (Sykorova & Flegr, 2021). By looking at the LHS of the participant, we will be able to assess if there is a difference in the perception of a competitor based on how “fast” or “slow” their life history strategy is. We hypothesize that due to the increased competition over resources in ecologies with higher levels of extrinsic and intrinsic mortality and morbidity, individuals with “faster” LHS will be more likely to perceive the hypothetical individual as a competitive threat (H2). 1.6 Mate Value Mate value is an estimate of an individual’s negotiating power on the mating market (Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad & Simpson, 2000 ; Krisner et al., 2003, 2009; Figueredo et al., 2006 ). This correlate of self-esteem (Gladden, Figueredo, & Snyder, 2010 ) can be leveraged to gain advantages when competing with others for mates, and potentially in work contexts as well. Individuals who possess more desired romantic characteristics (e.g., a higher mate value), such as quality genetics and resource provisioning capabilities, are able to monopolize multiple partners in a mating system or poach partners from current relationships. This can limit the sexual opportunities of lower mate value individuals. Men and women also engage in intersexual competition for mates. For example, heterosexual men can engage in competition over a bisexual female partner with other bisexual or lesbian females. This phenomenon has arisen in media outlets such as Cosmopolitan, Reddit, and Pinterest, who discuss how to deal with the topic. In the case of the mate poaching scenario as described above, the mate value of the partner being poached and the poacher are positively correlated, with higher mate value partners being poached by higher mate value individuals (Davies & Shackelford, 2017 ). Thus, we hypothesize that individuals with higher mate values will be perceived as a larger competitive threat in a dating context (H3), regardless of respondent sex or sexual orientation. 1.7 Social Comparison Alternatively, Social Comparison Theory states that social comparison is the root of competitive behaviors. In this view, individuals are driven by a need to improve their performance at tasks that reduce discrepancies in rank between themselves and others (Festinger, 1954; Garcia et al., 2013 ). Social comparison is thought to facilitate competitive behaviors and attitudes to maintain social status/rank and protect an individual's superiority at said task (Festinger, 1954; Garcia et al., 2013 ). This theory states that competitiveness is simply a manifestation of the entire social comparison process. Social comparison theory models consider situational factors, such as context, and individual factors, such as personality, as contributing to concerns about social comparisons and the resulting competitive behavior. In this study, we carefully defined and controlled for the situational factors, such that participants are rating a same-sex competitor and opposite-sex competitor in both a work and dating context. By also collecting data on the personality characteristics described below, we were able to model the two factors that underlie social comparison and thus competitive behavior from the view of social comparison theory. This measure also provides a baseline for each participant’s level of social comparison, an important factor that we statistically controlled for by entering it before the personality variables in the model. 1.8 Personality Characteristics 1.8.1 General Factor of Personality The general factor of personality (GFP) is a higher-order latent factor that is derived from the Big Five factors of personality (OCEAN) (Musek, 2007; Just, 2011; Figueredo & Rushton, 2009). This latent hierarchical factor is an indicator of ego-resiliency (Dunkel et al., In Press) and social effectiveness, exerting a board influence over behaviors (van der Linden, Dunkel, & Petrides, 2016 ). Outcomes such as ego-resiliency and social effectiveness are meant to aid in an individual’s mastery of and adaptations to new demands from their environment. In the context of a competitive bout, we hypothesize that individuals with higher GFP will be less sensitive to potential threatening traits of competitors (H4). 1.8.2 Dominance and Prestige As humans transitioned from small-scale societies to states and empires, navigating social hierarchies became of increasing importance facing individuals and groups (Turchin & Gavrilets, 2009 ). Within human societies, individuals at the top of the hierarchy are able to net more resources than individuals at the lower end of the hierarchy (Kenton, 2021). These resources can then be leveraged to gain more mating partners in a population, potentially monopolizing multiple potential sexual partners, and survival aids such as food and shelter (Hughes & Aung, 2017 ). Hierarchy creates large amounts of competition between members of a society to increase their social status or rank. Dominance and prestige represent two more unique factors contributing to self-esteem. These traits have been hypothesized to be evolved strategies humans have used to navigate these social hierarchies (Maner, 2017 ). Dominance represents gaining social rank through intimidation and coercion, while prestige represents gaining social rank by displaying skills and knowledge to gain respect (Maner, 2017 ). Dominance has also been defined as obtaining social rank through the capacity to inflict costs, while prestige is characterized as the capacity to benefit others (Cheng, 2020 ). Dominance is analogous to agonistic rank in nonhuman primates and Prestige is analogous to affiliative rank in nonhuman primates (Bernstein, 1981). These two attributes may alter the way an individual views and behaves in competitive bouts by changing their perceived goals of the interaction. A dominant individual may be more focused on hurting their opponents, while a prestigious individual may be more focused on sportsmanship and helping the group (Cheng, 2020 ). This perceptual alteration of goals, be they the goals of prestige or dominance, may also affect the evaluation of relevant traits that contribute to considering a hypothetical individual to be a competitive threat. Thus, we hypothesize that overall men and women will consider more dominant individuals as a larger competitive threat (H5), due to the infliction of costs by dominant individuals that result in the loss of life, resources, or reproductive opportunity. As there has been a long-reported sex difference in the types of aggression in which men and women typically engage, with men engaging in more direct aggression (Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992 ), associated with dominance. Women have been reported as engaging in more indirect aggression, a kind of social manipulation (Österman et al., 1989), manifesting in social arenas (Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992 ), associated with prestige. One might reasonably infer those individuals with more affiliative rank, which is presumably analogous to prestige, can manipulate allies to socially exclude or ostracize others. Thus, we hypothesize that women may be more sensitive than men to levels of prestige in competitors, as women have spent majority time competing in a social arena that favors prestige (H6). 1.8.3 Agency and Communion The relative emphasis put on agency and communion by the individual as social desiderata is hypothesized to differentially influence competitive behavior and attitudes (Carrier et al., 2014 ; Hibbard & Buhrmester, 2010 ). Agency refers to an individuals’ level of assertiveness, experience competence, and achievement. Communion refers to an individual’s level of desire to relate to and cooperate with others (Bakan, 1966 ). As achievement sometimes requires competition, it seems obvious that agency would facilitate more competitive behaviors and communion would facilitate less competitive behaviors. Previous research has shown that possession of agentic traits alters an individual’s workplace experience. Specifically, women who possess more agentic traits experience higher levels of intrasexual incivility in the workplace (Gabriel et al., 2018 ); such experiences were not assessed in men. We hypothesize that this difference experienced in work incivility is due to more agentic women being considered a larger competitive threat than less agentic women (H7). We have included a measure of agency and communion in hopes of replicating Gabriel’s original finding and testing the hypothesis that more agentic women are considered a larger competitive threat in the workplace and in a dating context. 1.8.4 The Dark Triad The Dark Triad is composed of three personality traits: Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and Narcissism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002 ). Jonason et al. ( 2015 ) showed that individuals who are high on psychopathy ( sR = .19, p < .03) and Machiavellianism ( sR = .24, p < .03) were more likely to perceive workplaces as competitive settings. This work has shown that Dark Triad traits can influence the perception of a competitive situation and suggests that these traits be considered when looking at workplace outcomes (Jonason, Wee, & Li, 2015 ), such as competitive contexts like getting a promotion. We hypothesize that individuals who are high in Dark Triad traits will rate hypothetical individuals, in both contexts, as more threatening due to their perceptual bias towards competitive contexts (H8). Jonason et al. also found that men were overall more likely to view workplace as more competitive than women. Alternatively, work by Carter et al. ( 2015 ) used an all-female sample and found positive correlations between Dark Triad traits and general and sexual competitiveness. To test for a potential sex difference, we tested an interaction between Sex and Dark Triad, as was done for all such individual difference variables. 1.9 Indirect and Direct Aggression Indirect and direct aggression represent two systems of behaviors that one could deploy when dealing with a rival that is considered a competitive threat. Direct aggression involves physical or verbal assaults and threats of harm to one’s body or property (Campbell, 1999 ; Wyckoff & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Indirect aggression involves roundabout techniques, such as social exclusion and gossiping (Campbell, 1999 ; Wyckoff & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Certain strategies of aggression may be favored in one context over another, such that direct aggression may be useful in mating context (displaying dominance and genetic quality), while indirect aggression may be favored in contexts where direct aggression could result in termination or dismissal, such as the working context. Boys engage in more direct aggression, while girls tend to engage in more indirect aggression (Björkqvist et al., 1992 , Wyckoff & Kirkpatrick, 2016). A more recent meta-analytic review of the literature by Card et al. ( 2008 ) found that boys were more directly aggressive than girls ( sR = .29, d = .61) and a weak but significant sex difference in indirect aggression, with girls exhibiting slightly more indirect aggression. Card et al. found that this relationship varied by who was reporting. Such that reports from parents and teachers followed the more traditional narrative of girls engaging in more indirect aggression, while self-report data suggested that boys engaged in more indirect aggression. To test for any sex effects associated with indirect and direct aggression, interactions between sex and indirect and direct aggression were entered into the statistical model. Thus, we hypothesize that men will engage in more direct aggression and women will engage in slightly more indirect aggression (H9). 1.10 Employee Turnover Much Industrial and Organizational Psychology research addresses how to reduce employee turnover (Hom et al., 2017 ; Cotton & Tuttle, 1986 ). Employee Turnover reflects the total amount of employees who leave an employment entity, through their own volition or though termination and layoffs across a specific time period (Holliday, 2021). Specifically, researchers are interested in the predictors of employee turnover (Wright & Bonett, 2007 ; Farrell & Rusbult, 1981 ; Du Plooy & Roodt, 2010). Thus, we hypothesize that being more sensitive to perceptions of other employees as competitive threats may also lead to employee turnover (H10). Engaging in consistent competition where one feels as if they are outmatched would certainly make individuals enjoy their job less, likely leading to them to leave the position. 1.11 Related Research Done Previously Research by Buss et al. ( 2000 ) looked at how much distress traits of a rival can cause in a subject in a cross-cultural study of the US, the Netherlands, and Korea, finding that when a rival surpassed the participant in traits linked to mate value, such as attractiveness and financial prospects, women reported more distress. Men were more distressed about rivals who possessed more resource provisioning traits than them, such as financial prospects and better job prospects. This study was not able to support the hypothesis that more prestigious individuals provoked more distress in the American or Korean sample, but it was supported in the Dutch sample. The limitation of this work is that it only assessed same sex rivals on sex-linked traits in a mating context. Buunk et al. ( 2010 ) investigated jealousy-evoking characteristics that prompted rivalry between an employee and a hypothetical supervisor, finding a sex difference in traits that evoked jealousy. For men, social dominance, communal attributes, and physical dominance evoked the most jealousy. For women, communal attributes, social dominance, and physical attractiveness evoked the most jealousy. When looking at same sex and opposite sex supervisors (targets), an opposite sex target with more communal attributes caused more jealousy in individuals who engaged in more social comparison. One of the strengths of this study is that same sex and opposite sex targets were used, but they were not investigated in a working context and a mating context. 2. The Present Study 2.1 Overview of the Present Study The goal of this study was to identify the factors that contribute to an individual or rival being considered a competitive threat and how these factors vary by target sex, subject sex, personality, and ecological variables in a mating and working context. In addition to testing the hypothesized factor structure associated with a competitive threat, we have employed a Cascade Model analytic methodology. This form of exploratory structural equation modeling allows for exploratory and empirically supported hypothesis testing and handles a dynamic system of components by identifying direct and indirect relationships between variables. The variables in a Cascade Model are modeled in their hypothesized causal progression, which allows us to test “alternative hypotheses” that are not mutually exclusive. Thus, the variables in the Cascade Model are not necessarily proposed as being in direct competition with each other, but instead a Cascade Model specifies a system of direct and indirect effects that describe how the variables relate to each other within this overall cascade of consequences. In the present study, the goal of applying this methodology is to identify a comprehensive and dynamic model of the traits that contribute to an individual being considered a competitive threat in dating or working contexts and how these traits vary by biological, personality, ecological variables and context. In traditional causal modeling, there is a crisp distinction between exploratory and confirmatory models. Cascade Modeling represents an area that exists between these two categories and can be described as a partially confirmatory and partially exploratory model. While the presence of a priori hypotheses, theory, and empirical evidence support a more confirmatory model for the main sequence of hypothesized effects, there are still some pathways in the present model that are exploratory in nature, notably the residual direct effects of prior criterion variables. Many of the hypothesized effects described have not been tested in the previous literature, which favors conducting a partially exploratory analysis. Specifically, the factor structure of a competitive threat has not been tested, which is hypothesized here to be composed of a combination of genetic indicators and personality traits. 3. Methods 3.1 Participants Data were collected using the Student Subject Pool from the [redacted for peer review] and the [redacted for peer review]. 336 students (88 men and 248 women) signed up to participate in the experiment by selecting it on Sona Systems. The sample from [redacted for peer review] was collected as an effort to oversample working students. The enrollment at [redacted for peer review] was seriously affected by COVID-19, resulting in small number of students participating in research at the university. 3.2 Procedures Students were directed from Sona to Qualtrics to agree to the informed consent and fill out demographic information, survey measures, debriefing material, and then directed out of the webpage. The average time for completion was 45 minutes. All methods and procedures have been approved by the Internal Review Board at [redacted for peer review]. 3.3 Measures Below are the citations for each measure. A detailed description of each measure is provided in Appendix A. Copies of the measures used have been included in the Supplementary Materials. Early Development K-SF-42 (Figueredo et al., 2006 ). Mate Value Inventory (Kirsner, Figueredo, & Jacobs, 2003 ). Scale for Social Comparison (INCOM) (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999 ). Personality Traits Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999 ). Self-Perceived Social Status Scale (Buttermore, 2004 ). Personal Attributes Questionnaire (Spence & Helmreich, 1978 ). Dark Triad Short Form (Jones & Paulhus, 2014 ). Behavioral Outcomes Intra and Intersexual Competition Scale (Buunk & Fisher, 2009 ). Competitive Trait Questionnaire (Zambrano & Figueredo, 2021). Richardson Conflict Response Questionnaire (Richardson & Green, 2003 ). Employee Turnover (Hom & Griffeth, 1991 ). 3.4 Statistical Analyses Here we model and estimate the dynamic system of variables that are hypothesized to influence the traits contributing to being perceived as a competitive threat. Data collected has been anonymized and is available in the Supplementary Materials. 3.4.1 Measurement Model. Five multi-item scales were constructed to provide a functional organization of the kind of traits that would make for a threatening competitor for either mates or status. The hypothesized five factors of a competitive threat are: attractive fitness indicator personality traits, attractive socially relevant personality characteristics, attractive competitive resource-relevant personality characteristics, and attractive physical characteristics. Each factor was assessed by target sex and context, such that four higher order factors were created to distinguish between sex and context, entitled, MenDating, WomenDating, MenWorking, WomenWorking, respectively. Scree plots indicated that each factor, Attractive Fitness Indicator Personality Traits, Attractive Socially Relevant Personality Characteristics, Attractive Competitive Resource-Relevant Personality Characteristics, and Attractive Physical Characteristics, were indicators of only one factor. Unit-weighted factors were obtained by correlating each standardized indicator with the common factors (Woodley of Menie et al., 2015 ). Measurement model coefficients and measures can be found in Appendix C. 3.4.2 Structural Model. All analyses were performed using SAS (SAS Institute Inc., 2015) and UniMult2 (Gorsuch, 2016 ). To address missing data issues, Multiple Imputations was conducted using PROC MI. Then we estimated unit weighted common factor scores as means of the standardized scores for all nonmissing subscales on each factor (McKnight, McKnight, Sidani, & Figueredo, 2007 ;). Cronbach’s alphas (α) and part-whole correlations for subscale with unit-weighted factors obtained using SAS STANDARD, DATA, and PROC CORR. The cascade model was constructed from a series of multiple regressions using UniMult2. In each multiple regression, the previous criterion variable is entered as the first predictor in the successive regression without altering the indirect effects (Figueredo et al., 2020). While some a priori hypotheses were present, the directions and magnitudes of all variables were not theoretically specified which would be needed for Path Analysis. To test for sex differences, each variable was interacted with sex and followed the same cascade procedure, with all the interactions entered in reverse order after all the main effects. To test if there were differences between contexts, orthogonal contrasts were used to operationalize differences between a threat in dating and a threat in the workplace. To protect against alpha slippage, the main effects and interactions were assessed setwise by an omnibus protective F-ratio. If the overall set test was not statistically significant, the individual effects were not interpreted. This protective procedure was implemented to reduce risks for Type I Errors by reducing the number of significance tests interpreted (Cohen & Cohen, 1983 ; Figueredo et al., 2020). Consistent with the Principle of Brunswik-Symmetry, the variables in the subsequent Cascade Model are entered with the broader effects coming first and the narrower effects coming later. Figure 2 identifies the hypothesized order of the variables present in the Cascade Model. The hypothesized progression of variables was as follows: (1) Sex of an individual will influence their life history strategy; (2) the life history strategy (LSH) of an individual will influence their perceived mate value (Dillon et al., 2013 ); (3) the degree to which an individual engages in social comparison will be influenced by their mate value; (4) the degree of social comparison may vary by broad personality traits, such as the General Factor of Personality; the General Factor of Personality may influence an individual’s degree of (5) Prestige and (6) Dominance; Dominance may influence the individual’s degree of (7) Communion and (8) Agency; Baseline competitiveness may influence the degree to which an individual is threatened by a rival who is a Dating Threat (9) or a Work Threat (10); A Dating Threat or Work Threat may influence reactions such as Indirect Aggression (11) and Direct Aggression (12); Finally, Direct and Indirect Aggression may influence the likelihood of (13) Employee Turnover. 4. Results 4.1 Descriptive Statistics Self-report data on 314 students were collected from the [redacted for peer review] and on 22 students from the [redacted for peer review]. The average age of participants from the [redacted for peer review] was 18.9 years old and the average age of participants at the [redacted for peer review] was 22.5 years old. In the combined sample there were scores from 248 women, 88 men, and 116 working students. Raw means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all the study variables are displayed in Appendix B. To identify the effect of Target Sex, we reviewed the raw means of each higher order factor. There was negatable difference between the Target Sex in either context (MenDating – WomenDating = .02, MenWorking – WomenWorking = .06), while the raw means of the contexts Dating and Working differed more dramatically (~ .38 − .31). This suggests that there was no effect of Target Sex, but there seems to be an effect of context. 4.2 Measurement Model A General Linear Model with orthogonal contrasts was used to test if there was a significant difference according to context among the raw mean scores. Context was statistically significant ( F = 21.82, p < .0001). Due to a statistically significant difference in context, factors MenDatingThreat and WomenDatingThreat were used to construct the higher order factor of Dating Threat. This same procedure was applied to factors MenWorkingThreat and WomenWorkingThreat to construct the higher order factor of Work Threat. Dating Threat and Work Threat were then entered as predictors in the Cascade model. Semipartial correlations of the indictors on the higher order factors can be found in Fig. 3 . To test if men and women identify the same indicators contributing to a rival being considered a competitive threat Continuous Parameter Estimation (CPEM) was used to estimate the correlations between individual indicators and factors. CPEM is able to estimate correlations at the individual level as this process takes the cross products of standardized scores for each of the individual’s scores on any two variables, allowing for the assessment at the level of each case (Figueredo et al., 2015). Below is the formula for the CPEM Correlation Equation: CPE(r xy ) = (z x *z y ) The CPEM correlations were then analyzed through a General Linear Model with orthogonal contrasts to test whether the correlation coefficients were significantly different from one another. The CPEM correlations can be found in Appendix C, Table C4 . The contrasts on fitness indicator personality traits, socially relevant personality traits, and resource-relevant personality traits were nonsignificant. One contrast on physical characteristics was statistically significant ( β = .10, p = .03), but the whole model R 2 was not significant. 4.3 Structural Model The magnitudes and directions of the statistically significant effects are shown below in parentheses, as indicated by either the multiple correlation coefficients ( R ) or the semipartial correlation coefficients ( sR ). These are followed by the probability under the null hypothesis (e.g., p < .05). Interpretation of these results has been deferred to the Discussion. The protective omnibus F-ratios for all sets of main effects on all criterion variables were statistically significant, meaning that all the sets of main effects could be interpreted. In contrast, the protective omnibus F-ratios for thirteen of the fifteen interaction effects with Sex on all criterion variables were statistically nonsignificant, meaning that of the fifteen interactions sets tested only the two significant effects are reported verbally. Results are organized such that positive and negative coefficients are grouped separately and not reflective of the order that they were entered into the Cascade Model. The complete list of variables and their order of entrance into the Cascade can be found in Fig. 4 . Table 1 Structural Model Coefficients. Cascade Eq. 1: Life History Strategy ( R = .04, p = .51). • Main effect of sex upon LHS was nonsignificant. Cascade Eq. 2: Mate Value ( R = .59 , p < .0001). • The main effect of LHS was positive and significant ( sR = .58, p < .0001), but the main effect of Sex was not significant. The interaction of Sex and LHS was nonsignificant. Cascade Eq. 3: Social Comparison ( R = .25 , p = .0007). • The main effect of LHS (R = .15, p = .005) and Sex (R = .15, p = .005) was positive and significant. Cascade Eq. 4: GF P ( R = .62 , p < .0001). • The main effect of Social Comparison was negative and significant ( sR = − .09, p = .04). The main effect of Mate Value was positive and significant ( sR = .58, p < .0001). The main effect of LHS was positive and significant ( sR = .16, p = .0002). Cascade Eq. 5: Prestige ( R = .60 , p < .0001). • The main effects of GFP ( sR = .44, p < .0001), Social Comparison ( sR = .10, p = .02), Mate Value ( sR = .33, p < .0001), LHS ( sR = .17, p < .0001) were positive and statistically significant. Cascade Eq. 6: Dominance ( R = .32 , p < .0001). • The main effect of Prestige ( sR = .20, p = .0002) was positive and statistically significant. The main effect of GFP ( sR = − .19, p = .0004) was negative and statistically significant. Cascade Eq. 7: Communion ( R = .54 , p < .0001). • The main effect of Dominance ( sR = − .14, p = .003) was negative and statistically significant. The main effects of Prestige ( sR = .17, p = .0003), GF P ( sR = .31, p < .0001), Social Comparison ( sR = .25, p < .0001), Mate Value ( sR = .17, p = .0003), and Sex ( sR = .20, p < .0001) were positive and statistically significant. Cascade Eq. 8: Agency ( R = .68 , p < .0001). • The main effects of Communion ( sR = .17, p < .0001), Dominance ( sR = .23, p < .0001), Prestige ( sR = .37, p < .0001), GF P ( sR = .36, p < .0001), and Mate Value ( sR = .27, p < .0001) were positive and statistically significant. The main effects of Social Comparison ( sR = − .15, p = .0002) and Sex ( sR = − .08, p = .05) were negative and statistically significant. Cascade Eq. 9: Dark Triad ( R = .59 , p < .0001). • The main effects of Dominance ( sR = .48, p < .0001), Prestige ( sR = .09, p = .04), and Social Comparison ( sR = .10, p = .04) were positive and statistically significant. The main effects of Communion ( sR = − .21, p < .0001), GF P ( sR = − .11, p = .02), and Sex ( sR = − .13, p = .004) were negative and statistically significant. Cascade Eq. 10: Competitiveness ( R = .41 , p < .0001). • The main effects of Dark Triad ( sR = .26, p < .0001), Dominance ( sR = .22, p < .0001), and Social Comparison ( sR = .12, p = .02) were positive and statistically significant. Cascade Eq. 11: Dating Threat ( R = .40 , p < .0001). • The main effects of Dark Triad ( sR = .17, p = .0009), Communion ( sR = .25, p < .0001) and Mate Value ( sR = .05, p = .02) were positive and statistically significant. These results support H3 and H8 in the dating context. However, the nonsignificance of Sex disconfirms H1 in the dating context and the nonsignificance of LHS disconfirms H2 in the dating context. Cascade Eq. 12: Working Threat ( R = .62 , p < .0001). • The main effects of Dating Threat ( sR = .52, p < .0001), Competitiveness ( sR = .12, p = .007), Prestige ( sR = .09, p = .04), and Mate Value ( sR = .17, p < .0001) were positive and statistically significant. These results support H1 in the work context. The interaction of Sex*Social Comparison ( sR = − .16, p = .0004) was negative and statistically significant. However, the nonsignificance of Sex disconfirms H1 in the work context and the nonsignificance of LHS disconfirms H2 in the working context. Cascade Eq. 13: Indirect Aggression ( R = .56 , p < .0001). • The main effects of Competitiveness ( sR = .32, p < .0001), Dark Triad ( sR = .34, p < .0001), and Dominance ( sR = .10, p = .03) were positive and statistically significant. The main effects of Agency ( sR = − .15, p = .001) and GF P ( sR = − .09, p = .04) were negative and statistically significant. The interaction of Sex*Prestige ( sR = − .15, p = .001) was negative and statistically significant. The nonsignificance of Sex disconfirms H9. Cascade Eq. 14: Direct Aggression ( R = .65 , p < .0001). • The main effect of Indirect Aggression ( sR = .61, p < .0001) and Dominance ( sR = .15, p = .004) were positive and statistically significant. The nonsignificance of Sex disconfirms H9. Cascade Eq. 15: Employee Turnover ( R = .35 , p = .03). • The main effect of Direct Aggression ( sR = .15, p = .004) and Indirect Aggression ( sR = .14, p = .01) were positive and statistically significant. The nonsignificance of Dating Threat and Working Threat disconfirm H10. 5. Discussion The goal of assessing different contexts was to identify unique traits that contribute to an individual being considered a competitive threat. Dating and working have different required skill sets and it was hypothesized that the different contexts may favor certain traits over others. We found a statistically significant difference between the two contexts, which supports this hypothesis. Table 1 displays a systematic list of the conclusions reached for all the a priori hypotheses tested. Table 2. Table of Hypotheses and the Outcomes of Testing. Hypotheses Outcome H1: The sex of the participant will affect the traits that they think contribute to a hypothetical individual being perceived as a competitive threat. Disconfirmed H2: Due to the increased competition over resources in ecologies with higher levels of extrinsic and intrinsic mortality and morbidity, individuals with “faster” LHS will be more likely to perceive the hypothetical individual as a competitive threat overall. Disconfirmed H3: Individuals with higher mate values will be perceived as a larger competitive threat in a dating context. Confirmed H4: In the context of a competitive bout, individuals with higher GFP will be less sensitive to potential threatening traits of competitors. Disconfirmed H5: Overall men and women will consider dominant individuals as a larger competitive threat. Disconfirmed H6: Women may be more sensitive than men to levels of prestige in competitors, as women have spent majority time competing in a social arena that favors prestige. Disconfirmed H7: This difference experienced in work incivility is due to more agentic women being considered a larger competitive threat than less agentic women. Disconfirmed H8: Individuals who are high in Dark Triad traits will rate hypothetical individuals as more threatening due to their perceptual bias towards competitive contexts. Confirmed H9: Based on the traditional line of research, men will engage in more direct aggression and women will engage in slightly more indirect aggression. Disconfirmed H10: Being more sensitive to perceptions of other employees as competitive threats may lead to employee turnover. Disconfirmed Some effects were significant in a dating and not a working context and vice versa. Communion had a significant effect on Dating Threat, but not Working Threat, suggesting that this trait may be valued in a romantic relationship but not a work environment. This is contrary to the results reported by Buunk et al. (2010) who found that communal attributes in rivals at work evoked more jealousy. Dark Triad personality traits significantly affected evaluation of competitive threat in dating, suggesting that individuals with Dark Triad personality traits may have a lower threshold for identifying a hypothetical individual as a competitive threat in dating, but not in work contexts. This is contrary to the recommendations of Jonason et al. (2015), who advised employers to consider the impact of Dark Triad personality traits when hiring employees. Working Threat was uniquely predicted by Competitiveness which suggests that more competitive individuals pose a larger threat in the workplace then they do in a dating context. This may be due to the favoring of competitiveness through social systems, such as capitalism, while the behaviors associated with competitiveness, such as aggression and confrontation, may not be favored in the mating market. Nevertheless, we did find overlap between the two contexts. Dating Threat was the biggest predictor of Working Threat, and Mate Value and Prestige were significant predictors of both factors, suggesting that while there were some unique influences at play, there are influences that project across both contexts. This result supports the hypothesis that people with higher Mate Value will be considered larger competitive threats. Further inquiry will be needed to elucidate these contrasting results on context. Originally, it was hypothesized that there would be an effect of participant sex on the perception of a competitive threat in both dating and the workplace. While sex differences have long been reported in the perception of a rival, we found that sex of the participant mattered in only two of fifteen equations. The main effect of Sex on Dating Threat and Working Threat were nonsignificant suggesting that there are little to no differences between men and women in the traits that contribute to an individual being considered a competitive threat in either context. This suggests that the influence of sex may be a reflection of methodological or sampling differences. Sex differences could also emerge later in the developmental trajectory, which was not captured in our younger sample. Probing further, we tested whether men and women had differences in the specific indicators that they use to identify a rival. While there was one significant contrast on our physical characteristics factor, the effect was very small ( sR = .10, p = .03,) and may be an artifact of Type I Error, given that the protective whole-model R 2 was not statistically significant. The lack of significant contrasts on the rest of the factors suggests that men and women identify the same indicators when recognizing a competitive threat. Effects of LHS on the perception of a competitive threat in dating and work were also hypothesized, such that individuals with “faster” life history strategies would be more sensitive to traits that indicate a competitive threat. The main effect of LHS was nonsignificant on both Dating Threat and Working Threat suggesting that there was no effect of LHS. Regarding mate value, it was found that individuals who are high in mate value are considered threats in dating and in the workplace, which supports our original hypothesis. The lack of effect of LHS with the presence of effects of Mate Value suggests that the effect of LHS may be overwhelmed by the effects of Mate Value, which may be due to the high heritability of both variables. Dominance was found to not be predictive of a competitive threat in either context. This is contrary to the findings by Buunk et al. (2010), who found that men were more jealous of rivals that exerted physical dominance. Prestige was a significant predictor of Working Threat, which supports Buunk’s findings that men and women find more socially dominant individuals (analogous to Prestige) provoke more jealousy in the workplace. There was not a significant interaction between Sex and Prestige on Dating Threat or Working Threat, suggesting that women are not more likely to find prestigious individuals more threatening in a competitive bout than men. There was no significant effect of Agency on Dating Threat or Working Threat, suggesting that agentic individuals are not being considered more threatening in either context. We found that women were lower in agency overall, but the lack of interaction between Sex and Agency on Dating Threat or Working Threat suggests that women do not perceive agentic individuals as a competitive threat than men in either context. This contrary to the finding by Gabriel et al. (2018) that more agentic women experience incivility in the workplace and suggests that there may be other variables at play beyond being considered a competitive threat. Moreover, the interaction of Sex and Social Comparison negatively predicted Working Threat, suggesting that women who engage in more social comparisons are not considered a competitive threat in the workplace. The negative relationship between Agency and Social Comparison suggests that the inverse may be supported, such that Agency would be positively related to Working Threat. Further research is needed to flush out the relationship between Agency and Working Threat. The main effect of GFP on Dating Threat and Working Threat were nonsignificant, suggesting that individuals with higher GFP are not less sensitive to competitive threats as originally hypothesized. GFP has been described as a protective attribute that enables ego resilience. The lack of a significant effect on Dating Threat or Working Threat does not empirically support this description. Individuals possessing Dark Triad personality traits had a higher baseline of competitiveness, as predicted. The predicted sex differences in Dark Triad personality traits were nonsignificant in both contexts, suggesting that men and women with Dark Triad personality traits do not perceive traits that contribute to a competitive threat differently. This result does not support the starkly claimed sex difference in Dark Triad personality traits and competitiveness. While the main effect of Sex on Indirect Aggression was nonsignificant, the interaction between Sex and Prestige was negative and significant, suggesting that more prestigious women were less likely to engage in indirect aggression. The effect of Sex on Direct Aggression and all the Sex interactions were nonsignificant, suggesting that there is not a difference between men and women in Direct Aggression, contrary to previous findings. Agency was found to negatively predict Indirect Aggression, suggesting that more agentic individuals engage in less indirect aggression. Dating Threat and Work Threat did not significantly predict Employee Turnover, suggesting that individuals are not leaving their jobs because they are threatened by competitive traits in other employees. Indirect Aggression and Direct Aggression were the largest predictors of Employee Turnover, suggesting that direct threats and indirect aggressions form other employees are what motivates individuals to leave their jobs. This suggests that employers may need to look at overt and covert forms of aggression as a way to mitigate employee turnover. 5.1 Limitations and Future Directions One of the limitations of this research is that it collected self-report data. Some participants may have experienced self-presentation bias and reported being equally threatened by men and women, as being threatened by one more than the other may be considered sexist. In addition, some of the smaller effect sizes seen may be reflective of a need for stronger stimuli. Asking students to imagine a hypothetical individual may not have been enough probing to elicit their concrete ideas on the subject. In addition, while a second sample was collected at the [redacted for peer review], this sample was collected during the Spring Semester of 2022, which saw a sharp decrease in enrollment as compared to other years. While twenty-two subjects were not much, 40% of the sample was working students and it was a majority male sample, therefore included in our analyses. Future research on competitive threats in dating and the workplace should take place on an older sample. College students may not have enough experience in dating and the workplace to be able to identify the traits that contribute to a competitive threat in those contexts and lack job experience overall. The low internal consistency of the factor Attractive Material Characteristics may also be reflective of this sampling bias, as college students do not often own attractive material characteristics. Declarations Declaration of Interest: None. Funding for this Project: None. Availability of Data: Correlation matrices are included in the supplementary material. Code Availability: SAS procedure commands can be found in the Measurement Model. For the structural model, UniMult 2 was used, has a point-and-click graphical user interface; therefore, there is no code to make available. Ethics Approval: Human subjects’ approval from the Institutional Review Board at the [redacted for peer review] was obtained for this study. Consent to Participate: All participants provided consent for participation and were shown debriefing information after completion of the measures. Consent for Publication: All authors on this project consent to publication. Authors Contributions: All authors made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Clinical Trial Number: Not Applicable. References Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man (Vol. 395). Beacon Press (MA). Bautista, L. M., Tinbergen, J., Wiersma, P., & Kacelnik, A. (1998). Optimal foraging and beyond: how starlings cope with changes in food availability. The American Naturalist , 152 (4), 543-561. Bereczkei, T., Voros, S., Gal, A., & Bernath, L. (1997). Resources, attractiveness, family commitment; reproductive decisions in human mate choice. Ethology , 103 (8), 681-699. Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M., & Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior , 18 (2), 117-127. Boysen, G. A. (2019). Sexual stigmatization of mental illness: The impact of sex, mental illness, and evolutionarily salient traits on the evaluation of potential mates. Stigma and Health , 4 (2), 225. Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Choe, J. A. E., Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2000). Distress about mating rivals. Personal Relationships , 7 (3), 235-243. Buttermore, N. R. (2004). Status, dominance, or prestige?: domains of self-esteem as moderators of reactions to an embarrassing situation. Dissertations, Theses, and Master’s Projects. College of William and Mary. Buunk, A.P., & Fisher, M. (2009). Individual Differences in Intrasexual Competition. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology , 7 , 37-48. Buunk, A. P., Aan't Goor, J., & Solano, A. C. (2010). Intrasexual competition at work: Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking effect of rival characteristics in work settings. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 27 (5), 671-684. Cabeza De Baca, T., Figueredo, A. J., & Ellis, B. J. (2012). An evolutionary analysis of variation in parental effort: Determinants and assessment. Parenting , 12 (2-3), 94-104. Campbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women's intrasexual aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 22 (2), 203-214. Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta‐analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development , 79 (5), 1185-1229. Carrier, A., Louvet, E., Chauvin, B., & Rohmer, O. (2014). The primacy of agency over competence in status perception. Social Psychology . Carter, G. L., Montanaro, Z., Linney, C., & Campbell, A. C. (2015). Women’s sexual competition and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences , 74, 275-279. Chandler, B. (2014). Office Talk: Exploring Jargon in the Workplace. Grassroots Writing Research Journal , 53-60. Cheng, J. T. (2020). Dominance, prestige, and the role of leveling in human social hierarchy and equality. Current opinion in psychology , 33 , 238-244. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Cotton, J. L., & Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. Academy of Management Review , 11 (1), 55-70. Davies, A. P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Don't you wish your partner was hot like me?: The effectiveness of mate poaching across relationship types considering the relative mate-values of the poacher and the partner of the poached. Personality and Individual Differences , 106, 32-35. Deaner, R. O., Geary, D. C., Puts, D. A., Ham, S. A., Kruger, J., Fles, E., ... & Grandis, T. (2012). A sex difference in the predisposition for physical competition: males play sports much more than females even in the contemporary US. PloS One , 7 (11). Diehl, M., Owen, S. K., & Youngblade, L. M. (2004). Agency and communion attributes in adults’ spontaneous self-representations. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 28(1), 1-15. Dillon, H. M., Adair, L. E., Wang, Z., & Johnson, Z. (2013). Slow and steady wins the race: Life history, mate value, and mate settling. Personality and Individual Differences , 55 (5), 612-618. Dunkel, C. S., van der Linden, D., & Holler, R. H. (2021). Life history strategy and intelligence: Commonality and personality profile differences. Personality and Individual Differences , 175, 110667. Edelman, B., & Larkin, I. (2015). Social comparisons and deception across workplace hierarchies: Field and experimental evidence. Organization Science , 26 (1), 78-98. Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1981). Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover: The impact of rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Organizational behavior and human performance , 28 (1), 78-95. Figueredo, A.J., Black, C.J., Patch, E.A., Heym, N., Ferreira, J.H.B.P., Varella, M.A.C., Defelipe, R.P., Cosentino, L.A.M., Castro, F.N., Natividade, J.C., Hattori, W.T., Pérez-Ramos, M., Madison, G., & Fernandes, H.B.F. (2021). The cascade of chaos: From early adversity to interpersonal aggression. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences , 15(3), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000241 Figueredo, A. J., Garcia, R. A., Menke, J. M., Jacobs, W. J., Gladden, P. R., Bianchi, J., Patch, E. A., Beck, C., Kavanagh, P. S., Sotomayor-Peterson, M., Jiang, Y., & Li, N. P. (2017). The K-SF-42: A new short form of the Arizona Life History Battery. Evolutionary Psychology , 15 (1), 1474704916676276. Figueredo, A. J., Sefcek, J. A., & Jones, D. N. (2006). The ideal romantic partner personality. Personality and Individual Differences , 41 (3), 431-441. Figueredo, A. J., Woodley, M. A., Brown, S. D., & Ross, K. C. (2013). Multiple successful tests of the Strategic Differentiation-Integration Effort (SD-IE) hypothesis. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology , 7 (4), 361. Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (2000). Relations of emotional intelligence, practical intelligence, general intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview outcomes: It's not all just ‘G’. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior , 21 (2), 203-220. Gabriel, A. S., Butts, M. M., Yuan, Z., Rosen, R. L., & Sliter, M. T. (2018). Further understanding incivility in the workplace: The effects of gender, agency, and communion. Journal of Applied Psychology , 103 (4), 362. Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 23 (4), 573-587. Garcia, S. M., Tor, A., & Schiff, T. M. (2013). The psychology of competition: A social comparison perspective. Perspectives on psychological science , 8 (6), 634-650. Gibbons, F.X. & Buunk, B.P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: The development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 , 129-142. Gladden, P.R., Figueredo, A.J., & Snyder, B. (2010). Life history strategy and evaluative self-assessment. Personality and Individual Differences , 48 (6), 731–735. Gladden, P. R., Sisco, M., & Figueredo, A. J. (2008). Sexual coercion and life-history strategy. Evolution and Human Behavior , 29 (5), 319-326. Gorsuch, R.L. (2016). UniMult: For univariate and multivariate data analysis . Altadena,CA: UniMult, Inc. Retrieved from https://unimult.000webhostapp.com/ Helgeson, V. S., & Fritz, H. L. (1999). Unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion: Distinctions from agency and communion. Journal of Research in Personality , 33 (2), 131-158. Hibbard, D. R., & Buhrmester, D. (2010). Competitiveness, gender, and adjustment among adolescents. Sex Roles , 63 (5), 412-424. Holliday, M. (2022, January 14). What is Employee Turnover and Why It Matters For Your Business . Oracle Netsuite. https://www.netsuite.com/portal/resource/articles/human-resources/employee-turnover.shtml?mc24943=v1 Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1991). Structural equations modeling test of a turnover theory: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology , 76(3), 350. Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology , 102 (3), 530. Hughes, S. M., & Aung, T. (2017). Modern-day female preferences for resources and provisioning by long-term mates. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences , 11 (3), 242. Jeschke, J. M., Gabriel, W., & Kokko, H. (2008). r-Strategist/K-Strategists. In S. E. Jørgensen & B. D. Fath (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Ecology (pp. 3113–3122). Oxford: Elsevier. Jeschke, J. M., & Kokko, H. (2009). The roles of body size and phylogeny in fast and slow life histories. Evolutionary Ecology, 23, 867–878. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). Jonason, P. K. (2008). A mediation hypothesis to account for the sex difference in reported number of sexual partners: An intrasexual competition approach. International Journal of Sexual Health , 19 (4), 41-49. Jonason, P. K., Garcia, J. R., Webster, G. D., Li, N. P., & Fisher, H. E. (2015). Relationship dealbreakers: Traits people avoid in potential mates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 41 (12), 1697-1711. Jonason, P. K., Wee, S., & Li, N. P. (2015). Competition, autonomy, and prestige: Mechanisms through which the Dark Triad predict job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences , 72, 112-116. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3) a brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment , 21(1), 28-41. Kacelnik, A. (1984). Central place foraging in starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). I. Patch residence time. The Journal of Animal Ecology , 283-299. Kanyongo, G. Y. (2005). Determining the correct number of components to extract from a principal components analysis: a Monte Carlo study of the accuracy of the scree plot. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods , 4 (1), 13. Kenton, W. (2021, July 30). Upper Class Definition . Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/upper-class.asp Kirsner, B. R., Figueredo, A. J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2003). Self, friends, and lovers: Structural relations among Beck Depression Inventory scores and perceived mate values. Journal of Affective Disorders , 75 (2), 131-148. Kirsner, B. R., Figueredo, A. J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2009). Structural relations among negative affect, mate value, and mating effort. Evolutionary Psychology , 7 (3), 147470490900700304. Khokhar, C. P., & Kush, T. (2009). Emotional intelligence and work performance among executives. Europe’s Journal of Psychology , 5 (1). Khosla, A., & Gupta, P. (2017). Traits of successful entrepreneurs. The Journal of Private Equity , 20 (3), 12-15. Kruger, D. J., & Fisher, M. L. (2008). Women's life history attributes are associated with preferences in mating relationships. Evolutionary Psychology , 6 (2), doi: 147470490800600206. Ledesma, R. D., Valero-Mora, P., & Macbeth, G. (2015). The scree test and the number of factors: a dynamic graphics approach. The Spanish Journal of Psychology , 18 . Lee, S. Y., Kesebir, S., & Pillutla, M. M. (2016). Gender differences in response to competition with same-gender coworkers: A relational perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 110 (6), 869. Lippa, R. A. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: An examination of biological and cultural influences. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 36 (2), 193-208. Maner, J. K. (2017). Dominance and prestige: A tale of two hierarchies. Curent Directions in Psychological Science , 26(6), 526-531. Maples, J. L., Lamkin, J., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of two brief measures of the dark triad: The dirty dozen and short dark triad. Psychological Assessment , 26, 326-331. McKnight, P. E., McKnight, K. M., Sidani, S., & Figueredo, A. J. (2007). Missing data: A gentle introduction . Guilford Press. Nichols, A. L. (2016). What do people desire in their leaders? The effect of leadership experience on desired leadership traits. Leadership & Organization Development Journal . Österman, K., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M., Kaukiainen, A., Landau, S. F., Frączek, A., & Caprara, G. V. (1998). Cross‐cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression , 24 (1), 1-8. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality , 36 (6), 556-563. Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: on the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57 (4), 672. Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior , 31 (3), 157-175. Richardson, D. S., & Green, L. R. (2003). Defining direct and indirect aggression: The Richardson Conflict Response Questionnaire. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale . SAS Institute, Inc. (2015). SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 8, Vols. 1–3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Sotomayor-Peterson, M., De Baca, T. C., Figueredo, A. J., & Smith-Castro, V. (2013). Shared parenting, parental effort, and life history strategy: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 44 (4), 620-639. Spence, J.T., & Helmreich, R.L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. University of Texas Press. Suitner, C., & Maass, A. (2008). The role of valence in the perception of agency and communion. European Journal of Social Psychology , 38(7), 1073-1082. Sýkorová, K., & Flegr, J. (2021). Faster life history strategy manifests itself by lower age at menarche, higher sexual desire, and earlier reproduction in people with worse health. Scientific Reports , 11 (1), 1-18. Turchin, P., & Gavrilets, S. (2009). Evolution of complex hierarchical societies. Social Evolution & History , 8 (2), 167-198. van der Linden, D., Dunkel, C. S., & Petrides, K. V. (2016). The General Factor of Personality (GFP) as social effectiveness: Review of the literature. Personality and Individual Differences , 101, 98-105. Vaughan, R., Madigan, D. J., Carter, G. L., & Nicholls, A. R. (2019). The Dark Triad in male and female athletes and non-athletes: Group differences and psychometric properties of the Short Dark Triad (SD3). Psychology of Sport and Exercise , 43, 64-72. Ward, L. C., Thorn, B. E., Clements, K. L., Dixon, K. E., & Sanford, S. D. (2006). Measurement of agency, communion, and emotional vulnerability with the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment , 86(2), 206-216. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54 (6), 1063. Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). Job satisfaction and psychological well-being as nonadditive predictors of workplace turnover. Journal of Management , 33 (2), 141-160. Woodley of Menie, M. A., Fernandes, H. B., & Hopkins, W. D. (2015). The more g-loaded, the more heritable, evolvable, and phenotypically variable: Homology with humans in chimpanzee cognitive abilities. Intelligence , 50 , 159-163. Zambrano, R. C., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M., Figueredo, A. J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2022). Comparing and Contrasting Rates of Firearm Homicides and Suicides. Evolutionary Psychological Science , 1-17. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files DeidentifiedDataNoDemographics.csv Appendix.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 21 May, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 19 May, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 19 May, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 19 May, 2025 First submitted to journal 12 May, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6649136","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":458727461,"identity":"8dde4784-3ab7-4294-9daa-7111bfd527c2","order_by":0,"name":"Rachel Zambrano","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Arizona","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rachel","middleName":"","lastName":"Zambrano","suffix":""},{"id":458727462,"identity":"26ec6abf-7898-4646-b192-4f65559af4a9","order_by":1,"name":"Aurelio Jose Figueredo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Arizona","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aurelio","middleName":"Jose","lastName":"Figueredo","suffix":""},{"id":458727463,"identity":"2239e134-63ff-4791-bc14-5fa7ce3345ac","order_by":2,"name":"Daniel Jones","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Nevada Reno","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Daniel","middleName":"","lastName":"Jones","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-12 18:38:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6649136/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6649136/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":83258177,"identity":"0f61ef69-2f15-49d4-81a0-65350b1ce259","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 02:24:41","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":26173,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAssessing multiple dimensions of biological sex and competition with the Competitor Trait Questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6649136/v1/58297694cdda5eb261661a36.png"},{"id":83258234,"identity":"601350ee-cfd3-447c-90fa-d7ada02370be","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 02:32:41","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":86478,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eHypothesized dimensions that contribute to an individual being considered a Competitive Threat.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6649136/v1/7a2d97e45634ee96afce9308.png"},{"id":83258178,"identity":"7538f140-af2b-4038-918e-ad849c70fdd2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 02:24:41","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":51363,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe hypothesized order of variables in the Cascade Model.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6649136/v1/fe1170a91b59f4ac3d2e31e5.png"},{"id":83258179,"identity":"0626bea7-83f8-4202-b6b9-7c6a1a553b26","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 02:24:41","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":33750,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLatent variable models for Dating Threat and Working Threat. The abbreviation \u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003edenotes semipartial correlations.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6649136/v1/2cf8bc7e10acf5415491c8d3.png"},{"id":83258240,"identity":"a50080a4-64bc-409b-8665-a6b2fd2d319b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 02:32:42","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":59699,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe hypothesized order of variables with semipartial correlations and significance tests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote: * denotes significance at \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .05\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6649136/v1/a6131651b8aee53f5cc0fa4c.png"},{"id":83259201,"identity":"11a96300-9cc2-4060-bb4e-a01d4de18379","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 02:56:42","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1660315,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6649136/v1/14b4f1e8-26aa-492c-8a34-8aab1633d656.pdf"},{"id":83258657,"identity":"117df254-d6c1-4ae7-9add-ffe9ed4c9d5b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 02:40:41","extension":"csv","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":381940,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"DeidentifiedDataNoDemographics.csv","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6649136/v1/0b19192787bc0daba6a4f952.csv"},{"id":83258193,"identity":"25b35c40-9b8e-410f-97a9-ffdab25d2311","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-22 02:24:42","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":36280,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendix.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6649136/v1/0faa7af8018aebbf32a501a0.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Competitive Threats in Mating and the Workplace: Intra and Inter Sexual Competition","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.1 \u003cem\u003eNatural Selection and Competition\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe theory of evolution by natural selection, as proposed by Darwin (1859), described two main components that contributed to an organisms\u0026rsquo; fitness: survival and reproduction. To ensure survival and reproduction, organisms need to draw on biological and ecological resources. As these resources are finite, different organisms have continuously engaged in competition over resources, with the outcome of competition potentially determining whether they would survive and reproduce. This makes competition an inherent component in the evolution of organisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWithin a competitive bout, you typically have winners and losers. In the case of competition over food and mates, losing a competitive bout could result in death due to battle injuries, death by starvation, or genetic death due to decreased mating opportunities. Any of these outcomes would severely limit an individual\u0026apos;s reproductive fitness. Being able to recognize an individual who poses a competitive threat would be vital for humans to be aware of and take into consideration before entering a bout. This process may work in a similar manner to the mental algorithm that human or nonhuman animals engage in when foraging, as described by optimal foraging models (Bautista et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Kacelnik, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e). Individuals must determine whether the number of calories that are expended by chasing, or hunting food will be less than the number of calories gained by consuming the food.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDue to the large potential benefit netted by this sensitivity to competitive threats, selection may have been shaping this evolved mechanism for many thousands of years. Theories such as Coalitional Value Theory argue that, due to humans\u0026rsquo; evolution in competitive contexts, we have developed mental mechanisms that allow for individuals to assess the marginal value of others and their contribution to the group (Winegard et al., 2020). These mental mechanisms extend to evaluating groups of individuals as well (Winegard et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWith this theoretical starting point in mind, we hypothesize that humans may have also developed evolved a psychological mechanism that makes them sensitive to traits that would make an individual more or less of a competitive threat. We identify the factors that contribute to an individual being considered a competitive threat, how these might factors vary by sex and context, and investigate whether biological and personality traits might influence a participant\u0026rsquo;s perception of a competitive threat. The specific \u003cem\u003ea priori\u003c/em\u003e hypotheses advanced are enumerated H1-H10 (in parentheses) in the text that follows for ease of reference.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.2 \u003cem\u003eBiological Sex\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMen and women may require different traits in others to consider an individual threatening in a competitive context. Physical strength and size may be more threatening to men, as men have historically leveraged their physical strength as \u003cem\u003eone\u003c/em\u003e route to gain access to resources and monopolize mates (Puts, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Women have historically used physical beauty as \u003cem\u003eone\u003c/em\u003e route to gain access to resources, monopolize mates, and gain greater male investment (Puts, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). This difference between the sexes in the traits that leverage more (or better) mates and resources may be reflected in the traits that male and female participants identify as contributing to other individuals being considered a competitive threat.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe overall amount of competitiveness perceived may be influenced by the biological sex of the respondent (Subject) and the sex of the hypothetical competitive rival (Target). Lee, Kesebir, \u0026amp; Pillutla (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) found that women viewed competition with a same-sex coworker as less desirable than men. This study also found that women reported their social relationships as negatively affected by the presence of competition. This social consequence associated with competition between women may directly decrease the number of competitive behaviors and competitive estimations women engage in. Our first hypothesis is that the sex of the participant, in conjunction with other predictors to be described below, will affect the traits that they think contribute to any target individual, even if only hypothetical or imaginary, being perceived as a competitive threat (H1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.3 \u003cem\u003eAssessing Different Contexts\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWe specifically addressed whether there was a difference between the traits that constitute an individual being considered a competitive threat for two contexts, mating and the workplace. We aim to highlight the unique features and behaviors associated with competition in these environments and how our variables of interest manifest in separate ecologies.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhile most modern humans are no longer competing over hunting territory or foraging areas, we are still engaged in competition over finite resources that contribute to our survival. Employment can result in monetary gain that can be exchanged for good and services essential to survival. Work environments have their own jargon, culture, and social hierarchies (Chandler, 2022; Seppala \u0026amp; Cameron, 2015; Edelman \u0026amp; Larkin, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The work environment might thus resemble the small-scale societies in which ancestral humans competed for status.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.4 \u003cem\u003eInter- and Intra- Sexual Competition\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEvolutionary psychological research has shown that men and women engage in competition differently. Because men have engaged in physical competition (single and coalitional competition) longer than women, men may have a lower threshold for activation of physical competition that may manifest modernly as differences in sports enrollments (Deaner et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Even in mating, men are more likely than women to engage in exaggerating the number of mating partners they have when speaking with other males, as a means of signalling their intrasexual social status (Jonason, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMost of this research has investigated the ways in which the sexes differ in their \u003cem\u003eintra\u003c/em\u003esexual competitive behaviors and attitudes, while never assessing \u003cem\u003einter\u003c/em\u003esexual competitive behaviors and attitudes. As more women have moved into the workforce, men and women engage in competition for promotions, contracts, grants, and career advances. We therefore assessed both men and women\u0026rsquo;s intra- and inter- sexual competitive behaviors and attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.5 \u003cem\u003eLife History Strategy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLife history theory models the strategic allocation of somatic and reproductive resources employed by human and nonhuman organisms as a function of the conditions in the environment that the organism inhabits. The coordinated suite of behaviors that an individual employs is called a life history strategy (LHS). This far-reaching theory has been empirically connected to a wide range of human behaviors, including intelligence (Dunkel et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), mating strategies (Gladden et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Kruger \u0026amp; Fisher, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Kruger, 2018), and parental behaviors (Sotomayor-Peterson et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Cabeza de Baca, Figueredo, \u0026amp; Ellis, 2012). LHS models resource allocation as investments in fitness outcomes that are adaptive given the local ecology.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis reflection of an individual\u0026rsquo;s local ecology makes LHS an ideal broad baseline datum on the participants\u0026rsquo; rearing and social environment. Within LHS, there is a continuum behavior ranging from \u0026ldquo;fast\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;slow\u0026rdquo; (Jeschke et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Del Giudice, 2020). The slow end of the spectrum represents behaviors that have evolved in ecologies with stable resources and low extrinsic mortality rates, which selects for humans to focus on somatic growth and parenting behaviors (Jeschke \u0026amp; Kokko, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). The \u0026ldquo;fast\u0026rdquo; end of the spectrum represents behaviors that have evolved in ecologies that have unpredictable or unstable resources and higher mortality rates, which selects for humans to focus on early maturation and mating behaviors (Sykorova \u0026amp; Flegr, 2021). By looking at the LHS of the participant, we will be able to assess if there is a difference in the perception of a competitor based on how \u0026ldquo;fast\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;slow\u0026rdquo; their life history strategy is. We hypothesize that due to the increased competition over resources in ecologies with higher levels of extrinsic and intrinsic mortality and morbidity, individuals with \u0026ldquo;faster\u0026rdquo; LHS will be more likely to perceive the hypothetical individual as a competitive threat (H2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.6 \u003cem\u003eMate Value\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMate value is an estimate of an individual\u0026rsquo;s negotiating power on the mating market (Buss \u0026amp; Schmitt, 1993; Gangestad \u0026amp; Simpson, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Krisner et al., 2003, 2009; Figueredo et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). This correlate of self-esteem (Gladden, Figueredo, \u0026amp; Snyder, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) can be leveraged to gain advantages when competing with others for mates, and potentially in work contexts as well. Individuals who possess more desired romantic characteristics (e.g., a higher mate value), such as quality genetics and resource provisioning capabilities, are able to monopolize multiple partners in a mating system or poach partners from current relationships. This can limit the sexual opportunities of lower mate value individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMen and women also engage in intersexual competition for mates. For example, heterosexual men can engage in competition over a bisexual female partner with other bisexual or lesbian females. This phenomenon has arisen in media outlets such as Cosmopolitan, Reddit, and Pinterest, who discuss how to deal with the topic. In the case of the mate poaching scenario as described above, the mate value of the partner being poached and the poacher are positively correlated, with higher mate value partners being poached by higher mate value individuals (Davies \u0026amp; Shackelford, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, we hypothesize that individuals with higher mate values will be perceived as a larger competitive threat in a dating context (H3), regardless of respondent sex or sexual orientation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.7 \u003cem\u003eSocial Comparison\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlternatively, Social Comparison Theory states that social comparison is the root of competitive behaviors. In this view, individuals are driven by a need to improve their performance at tasks that reduce discrepancies in rank between themselves and others (Festinger, 1954; Garcia et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Social comparison is thought to facilitate competitive behaviors and attitudes to maintain social status/rank and protect an individual\u0026apos;s superiority at said task (Festinger, 1954; Garcia et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). This theory states that competitiveness is simply a manifestation of the entire social comparison process.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial comparison theory models consider situational factors, such as context, and individual factors, such as personality, as contributing to concerns about social comparisons and the resulting competitive behavior. In this study, we carefully defined and controlled for the situational factors, such that participants are rating a same-sex competitor and opposite-sex competitor in both a work and dating context. By also collecting data on the personality characteristics described below, we were able to model the two factors that underlie social comparison and thus competitive behavior from the view of social comparison theory. This measure also provides a baseline for each participant\u0026rsquo;s level of social comparison, an important factor that we statistically controlled for by entering it before the personality variables in the model.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.8 \u003cem\u003ePersonality Characteristics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.8.1 \u003cem\u003eGeneral Factor of Personality\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe general factor of personality (GFP) is a higher-order latent factor that is derived from the Big Five factors of personality (OCEAN) (Musek, 2007; Just, 2011; Figueredo \u0026amp; Rushton, 2009). This latent hierarchical factor is an indicator of ego-resiliency (Dunkel et al., In Press) and social effectiveness, exerting a board influence over behaviors (van der Linden, Dunkel, \u0026amp; Petrides, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Outcomes such as ego-resiliency and social effectiveness are meant to aid in an individual\u0026rsquo;s mastery of and adaptations to new demands from their environment. In the context of a competitive bout, we hypothesize that individuals with higher GFP will be less sensitive to potential threatening traits of competitors (H4).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.8.2 \u003cem\u003eDominance and Prestige\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs humans transitioned from small-scale societies to states and empires, navigating social hierarchies became of increasing importance facing individuals and groups (Turchin \u0026amp; Gavrilets, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Within human societies, individuals at the top of the hierarchy are able to net more resources than individuals at the lower end of the hierarchy (Kenton, 2021). These resources can then be leveraged to gain more mating partners in a population, potentially monopolizing multiple potential sexual partners, and survival aids such as food and shelter (Hughes \u0026amp; Aung, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Hierarchy creates large amounts of competition between members of a society to increase their social status or rank.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDominance and prestige represent two more \u003cem\u003eunique\u003c/em\u003e factors contributing to self-esteem. These traits have been hypothesized to be evolved strategies humans have used to navigate these social hierarchies (Maner, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Dominance represents gaining social rank through intimidation and coercion, while prestige represents gaining social rank by displaying skills and knowledge to gain respect (Maner, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Dominance has also been defined as obtaining social rank through the capacity to inflict costs, while prestige is characterized as the capacity to benefit others (Cheng, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Dominance is analogous to \u003cem\u003eagonistic\u003c/em\u003e rank in nonhuman primates and Prestige is analogous to \u003cem\u003eaffiliative\u003c/em\u003e rank in nonhuman primates (Bernstein, 1981).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThese two attributes may alter the way an individual views and behaves in competitive bouts by changing their perceived goals of the interaction. A dominant individual may be more focused on hurting their opponents, while a prestigious individual may be more focused on sportsmanship and helping the group (Cheng, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This perceptual alteration of goals, be they the goals of prestige or dominance, may also affect the evaluation of relevant traits that contribute to considering a hypothetical individual to be a competitive threat. Thus, we hypothesize that overall men and women will consider more dominant individuals as a larger competitive threat (H5), due to the infliction of costs by dominant individuals that result in the loss of life, resources, or reproductive opportunity.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs there has been a long-reported sex difference in the types of aggression in which men and women typically engage, with men engaging in more direct aggression (Bj\u0026ouml;rkqvist, Lagerspetz, \u0026amp; Kaukiainen, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e), associated with dominance. Women have been reported as engaging in more indirect aggression, a kind of social manipulation (\u0026Ouml;sterman et al., 1989), manifesting in social arenas (Bj\u0026ouml;rkqvist, Lagerspetz, \u0026amp; Kaukiainen, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e), associated with prestige. One might reasonably infer those individuals with more affiliative rank, which is presumably analogous to prestige, can manipulate allies to socially exclude or ostracize others. Thus, we hypothesize that women may be \u003cem\u003emore\u003c/em\u003e sensitive than men to levels of prestige in competitors, as women have spent majority time competing in a social arena that favors prestige (H6).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.8.3 \u003cem\u003eAgency and Communion\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe relative emphasis put on agency and communion by the individual as social desiderata is hypothesized to differentially influence competitive behavior and attitudes (Carrier et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Hibbard \u0026amp; Buhrmester, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Agency refers to an individuals\u0026rsquo; level of assertiveness, experience competence, and achievement. Communion refers to an individual\u0026rsquo;s level of desire to relate to and cooperate with others (Bakan, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1966\u003c/span\u003e). As achievement \u003cem\u003esometimes\u003c/em\u003e requires competition, it seems obvious that agency would facilitate more competitive behaviors and communion would facilitate less competitive behaviors.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrevious research has shown that possession of agentic traits alters an individual\u0026rsquo;s workplace experience. Specifically, women who possess more agentic traits experience higher levels of intrasexual incivility in the workplace (Gabriel et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e); such experiences were not assessed in men. We hypothesize that this difference experienced in work incivility is due to more agentic women being considered a larger competitive threat than less agentic women (H7). We have included a measure of agency and communion in hopes of replicating Gabriel\u0026rsquo;s original finding and testing the hypothesis that more agentic women are considered a larger competitive threat in the workplace and in a dating context.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.8.4 \u003cem\u003eThe Dark Triad\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Dark Triad is composed of three personality traits: Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and Narcissism (Paulhus \u0026amp; Williams, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). Jonason et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) showed that individuals who are high on psychopathy (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.19, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.03) and Machiavellianism (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.24, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.03) were more likely to perceive workplaces as competitive settings. This work has shown that Dark Triad traits can influence the perception of a competitive situation and suggests that these traits be considered when looking at workplace outcomes (Jonason, Wee, \u0026amp; Li, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), such as competitive contexts like getting a promotion. We hypothesize that individuals who are high in Dark Triad traits will rate hypothetical individuals, in both contexts, as more threatening due to their perceptual bias towards competitive contexts (H8). Jonason et al. also found that men were overall more likely to view workplace as more competitive than women. Alternatively, work by Carter et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) used an all-female sample and found positive correlations between Dark Triad traits and general and sexual competitiveness. To test for a potential sex difference, we tested an interaction between Sex and Dark Triad, as was done for all such individual difference variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.9 \u003cem\u003eIndirect and Direct Aggression\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect and direct aggression represent two systems of behaviors that one could deploy when dealing with a rival that is considered a competitive threat. Direct aggression involves physical or verbal assaults and threats of harm to one\u0026rsquo;s body or property (Campbell, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Wyckoff \u0026amp; Kirkpatrick, 2016). Indirect aggression involves roundabout techniques, such as social exclusion and gossiping (Campbell, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Wyckoff \u0026amp; Kirkpatrick, 2016). Certain strategies of aggression may be favored in one context over another, such that direct aggression may be useful in mating context (displaying dominance and genetic quality), while indirect aggression may be favored in contexts where direct aggression could result in termination or dismissal, such as the working context.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBoys engage in more direct aggression, while girls tend to engage in more indirect aggression (Bj\u0026ouml;rkqvist et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e, Wyckoff \u0026amp; Kirkpatrick, 2016). A more recent meta-analytic review of the literature by Card et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) found that boys were more directly aggressive than girls (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.29, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.61) and a weak but significant sex difference in indirect aggression, with girls exhibiting slightly more indirect aggression. Card et al. found that this relationship varied by who was reporting. Such that reports from parents and teachers followed the more traditional narrative of girls engaging in more indirect aggression, while self-report data suggested that boys engaged in more indirect aggression. To test for any sex effects associated with indirect and direct aggression, interactions between sex and indirect and direct aggression were entered into the statistical model. Thus, we hypothesize that men will engage in more direct aggression and women will engage in slightly more indirect aggression (H9).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.10 \u003cem\u003eEmployee Turnover\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMuch Industrial and Organizational Psychology research addresses how to reduce employee turnover (Hom et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Cotton \u0026amp; Tuttle, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). Employee Turnover reflects the \u003cem\u003etotal\u003c/em\u003e amount of employees who leave an employment entity, through their own volition or though termination and layoffs across a specific time period (Holliday, 2021). Specifically, researchers are interested in the predictors of employee turnover (Wright \u0026amp; Bonett, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Farrell \u0026amp; Rusbult, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e; Du Plooy \u0026amp; Roodt, 2010). Thus, we hypothesize that being more sensitive to perceptions of other employees as competitive threats may also lead to employee turnover (H10). Engaging in consistent competition where one feels as if they are outmatched would certainly make individuals enjoy their job less, likely leading to them to leave the position.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e1.11 Related Research Done Previously\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResearch by Buss et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) looked at how much distress traits of a rival can cause in a subject in a cross-cultural study of the US, the Netherlands, and Korea, finding that when a rival surpassed the participant in traits linked to mate value, such as attractiveness and financial prospects, women reported more distress. Men were more distressed about rivals who possessed more resource provisioning traits than them, such as financial prospects and better job prospects. This study was not able to support the hypothesis that more prestigious individuals provoked more distress in the American or Korean sample, but it was supported in the Dutch sample. The limitation of this work is that it only assessed same sex rivals on sex-linked traits in a mating context.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBuunk et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) investigated jealousy-evoking characteristics that prompted rivalry between an employee and a hypothetical supervisor, finding a sex difference in traits that evoked jealousy. For men, social dominance, communal attributes, and physical dominance evoked the most jealousy. For women, communal attributes, social dominance, and physical attractiveness evoked the most jealousy. When looking at same sex and opposite sex supervisors (targets), an opposite sex target with more communal attributes caused more jealousy in individuals who engaged in more social comparison. One of the strengths of this study is that same sex and opposite sex targets were used, but they were not investigated in a working context and a mating context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"2. The Present Study","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Overview of the Present Study\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe goal of this study was to identify the factors that contribute to an individual or rival being considered a competitive threat and how these factors vary by target sex, subject sex, personality, and ecological variables in a mating and working context. In addition to testing the hypothesized factor structure associated with a competitive threat, we have employed a Cascade Model analytic methodology. This form of exploratory structural equation modeling allows for exploratory and empirically supported hypothesis testing and handles a dynamic system of components by identifying direct and indirect relationships between variables.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe variables in a Cascade Model are modeled in their hypothesized causal progression, which allows us to test \u0026ldquo;alternative hypotheses\u0026rdquo; that are not mutually exclusive. Thus, the variables in the Cascade Model are not necessarily proposed as being in direct competition with each other, but instead a Cascade Model specifies a system of direct and indirect effects that describe how the variables relate to each other within this overall cascade of consequences. In the present study, the goal of applying this methodology is to identify a comprehensive and dynamic model of the traits that contribute to an individual being considered a competitive threat in dating or working contexts and how these traits vary by biological, personality, ecological variables and context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn traditional causal modeling, there is a crisp distinction between exploratory and confirmatory models. Cascade Modeling represents an area that exists between these two categories and can be described as a partially confirmatory and partially exploratory model. While the presence of \u003cem\u003ea priori\u003c/em\u003e hypotheses, theory, and empirical evidence support a more confirmatory model for the main sequence of hypothesized effects, there are still some pathways in the present model that are exploratory in nature, notably the residual direct effects of prior criterion variables. Many of the hypothesized effects described have not been tested in the previous literature, which favors conducting a partially exploratory analysis. Specifically, the factor structure of a competitive threat has not been tested, which is hypothesized here to be composed of a combination of genetic indicators and personality traits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methods","content":" \u003ch2\u003e3.1 \u003cem\u003eParticipants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected using the Student Subject Pool from the [redacted for peer review] and the [redacted for peer review]. 336 students (88 men and 248 women) signed up to participate in the experiment by selecting it on Sona Systems. The sample from [redacted for peer review] was collected as an effort to oversample working students. The enrollment at [redacted for peer review] was seriously affected by COVID-19, resulting in small number of students participating in research at the university.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 \u003cem\u003eProcedures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudents were directed from Sona to Qualtrics to agree to the informed consent and fill out demographic information, survey measures, debriefing material, and then directed out of the webpage. The average time for completion was 45 minutes. All methods and procedures have been approved by the Internal Review Board at [redacted for peer review].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 \u003cem\u003eMeasures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelow are the citations for each measure. A detailed description of each measure is provided in Appendix A. Copies of the measures used have been included in the Supplementary Materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEarly Development\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eK-SF-42\u003c/em\u003e (Figueredo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eMate Value Inventory\u003c/em\u003e (Kirsner, Figueredo, \u0026amp; Jacobs, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eScale for Social Comparison\u003c/em\u003e (INCOM) (Gibbons \u0026amp; Buunk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003ePersonality Traits\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eBig Five Inventory\u003c/em\u003e (John \u0026amp; Srivastava, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eSelf-Perceived Social Status Scale\u003c/em\u003e (Buttermore, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003ePersonal Attributes Questionnaire\u003c/em\u003e (Spence \u0026amp; Helmreich, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1978\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eDark Triad Short Form\u003c/em\u003e (Jones \u0026amp; Paulhus, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eBehavioral Outcomes\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIntra and Intersexual Competition Scale\u003c/em\u003e (Buunk \u0026amp; Fisher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eCompetitive Trait Questionnaire\u003c/em\u003e (Zambrano \u0026amp; Figueredo, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eRichardson Conflict Response Questionnaire\u003c/em\u003e (Richardson \u0026amp; Green, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eEmployee Turnover\u003c/em\u003e (Hom \u0026amp; Griffeth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 \u003cem\u003eStatistical Analyses\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHere we model and estimate the dynamic system of variables that are hypothesized to influence the traits contributing to being perceived as a competitive threat. Data collected has been anonymized and is available in the Supplementary Materials.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e3.4.1\u003c/b\u003e \u003cem\u003eMeasurement Model.\u003c/em\u003e Five multi-item scales were constructed to provide a functional organization of the kind of traits that would make for a threatening competitor for either mates or status. The hypothesized five factors of a competitive threat are: attractive fitness indicator personality traits, attractive socially relevant personality characteristics, attractive competitive resource-relevant personality characteristics, and attractive physical characteristics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEach factor was assessed by target sex and context, such that four higher order factors were created to distinguish between sex and context, entitled, MenDating, WomenDating, MenWorking, WomenWorking, respectively. Scree plots indicated that each factor, Attractive Fitness Indicator Personality Traits, Attractive Socially Relevant Personality Characteristics, Attractive Competitive Resource-Relevant Personality Characteristics, and Attractive Physical Characteristics, were indicators of only one factor. Unit-weighted factors were obtained by correlating each standardized indicator with the common factors (Woodley of Menie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Measurement model coefficients and measures can be found in Appendix C.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e3.4.2\u003c/b\u003e \u003cem\u003eStructural Model.\u003c/em\u003e All analyses were performed using SAS (SAS Institute Inc., 2015) and UniMult2 (Gorsuch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). To address missing data issues, Multiple Imputations was conducted using PROC MI. Then we estimated unit weighted common factor scores as means of the standardized scores for all nonmissing subscales on each factor (McKnight, McKnight, Sidani, \u0026amp; Figueredo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e;). Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alphas (α) and part-whole correlations for subscale with unit-weighted factors obtained using SAS STANDARD, DATA, and PROC CORR.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe cascade model was constructed from a series of multiple regressions using UniMult2. In each multiple regression, the previous criterion variable is entered as the first predictor in the successive regression without altering the indirect effects (Figueredo et al., 2020). While some \u003cem\u003ea priori\u003c/em\u003e hypotheses were present, the directions and magnitudes of all variables were not theoretically specified which would be needed for Path Analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo test for sex differences, each variable was interacted with sex and followed the same cascade procedure, with all the interactions entered in reverse order after all the main effects. To test if there were differences between contexts, orthogonal contrasts were used to operationalize differences between a threat in dating and a threat in the workplace.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo protect against alpha slippage, the main effects and interactions were assessed setwise by an omnibus protective F-ratio. If the overall set test was not statistically significant, the individual effects were not interpreted. This protective procedure was implemented to reduce risks for Type I Errors by reducing the number of significance tests interpreted (Cohen \u0026amp; Cohen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1983\u003c/span\u003e; Figueredo et al., 2020). Consistent with the Principle of Brunswik-Symmetry, the variables in the subsequent Cascade Model are entered with the broader effects coming first and the narrower effects coming later. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e identifies the hypothesized order of the variables present in the Cascade Model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe hypothesized progression of variables was as follows: (1) Sex of an individual will influence their life history strategy; (2) the life history strategy (LSH) of an individual will influence their perceived mate value (Dillon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e); (3) the degree to which an individual engages in social comparison will be influenced by their mate value; (4) the degree of social comparison may vary by broad personality traits, such as the General Factor of Personality; the General Factor of Personality may influence an individual\u0026rsquo;s degree of (5) Prestige and (6) Dominance; Dominance may influence the individual\u0026rsquo;s degree of (7) Communion and (8) Agency; Baseline competitiveness may influence the degree to which an individual is threatened by a rival who is a Dating Threat (9) or a Work Threat (10); A Dating Threat or Work Threat may influence reactions such as Indirect Aggression (11) and Direct Aggression (12); Finally, Direct and Indirect Aggression may influence the likelihood of (13) Employee Turnover.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.1 \u003cem\u003eDescriptive Statistics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-report data on 314 students were collected from the [redacted for peer review] and on 22 students from the [redacted for peer review]. The average age of participants from the [redacted for peer review] was 18.9 years old and the average age of participants at the [redacted for peer review] was 22.5 years old. In the combined sample there were scores from 248 women, 88 men, and 116 working students. Raw means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all the study variables are displayed in Appendix B.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo identify the effect of Target Sex, we reviewed the raw means of each higher order factor. There was negatable difference between the Target Sex in either context (MenDating \u0026ndash; WomenDating\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, MenWorking \u0026ndash; WomenWorking\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06), while the raw means of the contexts Dating and Working differed more dramatically (~\u0026thinsp;.38 \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.31). This suggests that there was no effect of Target Sex, but there seems to be an effect of context.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.2 \u003cem\u003eMeasurement Model\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA General Linear Model with orthogonal contrasts was used to test if there was a \u003cem\u003esignificant\u003c/em\u003e difference according to context among the raw mean scores. Context was statistically significant (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;21.82, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001). Due to a statistically significant difference in context, factors MenDatingThreat and WomenDatingThreat were used to construct the higher order factor of Dating Threat. This same procedure was applied to factors MenWorkingThreat and WomenWorkingThreat to construct the higher order factor of Work Threat. Dating Threat and Work Threat were then entered as predictors in the Cascade model. Semipartial correlations of the indictors on the higher order factors can be found in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo test if men and women identify the same indicators contributing to a rival being considered a competitive threat Continuous Parameter Estimation (CPEM) was used to estimate the correlations between individual indicators and factors. CPEM is able to estimate correlations at the individual level as this process takes the cross products of standardized scores for each of the individual\u0026rsquo;s scores on any two variables, allowing for the assessment at the level of each case (Figueredo et al., 2015). Below is the formula for the CPEM Correlation Equation:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCPE(r\u003c/em\u003e \u003csub\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003exy\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cem\u003e)\u003c/em\u003e = \u003cstrong\u003e(z\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ex\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e*z\u003c/strong\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ey\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe CPEM correlations were then analyzed through a General Linear Model with orthogonal contrasts to test whether the correlation coefficients were significantly different from one another. The CPEM correlations can be found in Appendix C, Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eC4\u003c/span\u003e. The contrasts on fitness indicator personality traits, socially relevant personality traits, and resource-relevant personality traits were nonsignificant. One contrast on physical characteristics was statistically significant (\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03), but the whole model R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e was not significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e4.3 \u003cem\u003eStructural Model\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe magnitudes and directions of the statistically significant effects are shown below in parentheses, as indicated by either the multiple correlation coefficients (\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e) or the semipartial correlation coefficients (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e). These are followed by the probability under the null hypothesis (e.g., \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05). Interpretation of these results has been deferred to the Discussion.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe protective omnibus F-ratios for all sets of main effects on all criterion variables were statistically significant, meaning that all the sets of main effects could be interpreted. In contrast, the protective omnibus F-ratios for thirteen of the fifteen interaction effects with Sex on all criterion variables were statistically nonsignificant, meaning that of the fifteen interactions sets tested only the two significant effects are reported verbally. Results are organized such that positive and negative coefficients are grouped separately and not reflective of the order that they were entered into the Cascade Model. The complete list of variables and their order of entrance into the Cascade can be found in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStructural Model Coefficients.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;1: Life History Strategy (\u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.51).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Main effect of sex upon LHS was nonsignificant.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;2: Mate Value (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.59\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The main effect of LHS was positive and significant (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.58, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), but the main effect of Sex was not significant. The interaction of Sex and LHS was nonsignificant.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;3: Social Comparison (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.25\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.0007).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The main effect of LHS \u003cem\u003e(R\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.005) and Sex \u003cem\u003e(R\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.005) was positive and significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;4: GF\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eP\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.62\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The main effect of Social Comparison was negative and significant (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04). The main effect of Mate Value was positive and significant (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.58, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001). The main effect of LHS was positive and significant (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.16, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.0002).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;5: Prestige (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.60\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The main effects of \u003cem\u003eGFP\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.44, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), Social Comparison (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02), Mate Value (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.33, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), LHS (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.17, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001) were positive and statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;6: Dominance (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.32\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The main effect of Prestige (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.20, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.0002) was positive and statistically significant. The main effect of \u003cem\u003eGFP\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.19, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.0004) was negative and statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;7: Communion (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.54\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The main effect of Dominance (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.14, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003) was negative and statistically significant. The main effects of Prestige (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.17, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.0003), GF\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.31, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), Social Comparison (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), Mate Value (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.17, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.0003), and Sex (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.20, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001) were positive and statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;8: Agency (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.68\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The main effects of Communion (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.17, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), Dominance (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.23, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), Prestige (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), GF\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.36, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), and Mate Value (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.27, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001) were positive and statistically significant. The main effects of Social Comparison (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.0002) and Sex (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.08, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05) were negative and statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;9: Dark Triad (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.59\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The main effects of Dominance (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.48, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), Prestige (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04), and Social Comparison (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04) were positive and statistically significant. The main effects of Communion (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.21, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), GF\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02), and Sex (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.13, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.004) were negative and statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;10: Competitiveness (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.41\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The main effects of Dark Triad (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.26, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), Dominance (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.22, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), and Social Comparison (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02) were positive and statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;11: Dating Threat (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.40\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The main effects of Dark Triad (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.17, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.0009), Communion (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001) and Mate Value (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02) were positive and statistically significant. These results support H3 and H8 in the dating context. However, the nonsignificance of Sex disconfirms H1 in the dating context and the nonsignificance of LHS disconfirms H2 in the dating context.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;12: Working Threat (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.62\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The main effects of Dating Threat (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.52, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), Competitiveness (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.007), Prestige (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04), and Mate Value (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.17, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001) were positive and statistically significant. These results support H1 in the work context. The interaction of Sex*Social Comparison (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.16, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.0004) was negative and statistically significant. However, the nonsignificance of Sex disconfirms H1 in the work context and the nonsignificance of LHS disconfirms H2 in the working context.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;13: Indirect Aggression (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.56\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The main effects of Competitiveness (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), Dark Triad (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.34, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001), and Dominance (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03) were positive and statistically significant. The main effects of Agency (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.001) and GF\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04) were negative and statistically significant. The interaction of Sex*Prestige (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.001) was negative and statistically significant. The nonsignificance of Sex disconfirms H9.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;14: Direct Aggression (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.65\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The main effect of Indirect Aggression (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.61, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001) and Dominance (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.004) were positive and statistically significant. The nonsignificance of Sex disconfirms H9.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCascade Eq.\u0026nbsp;15: Employee Turnover (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eR\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.35\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ep\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cstrong\u003e=\u0026thinsp;.03).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; The main effect of Direct Aggression (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.004) and Indirect Aggression (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.14, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.01) were positive and statistically significant. The nonsignificance of Dating Threat and Working Threat disconfirm H10.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe goal of assessing different contexts was to identify \u003cem\u003eunique\u003c/em\u003e traits that contribute to an individual being considered a competitive threat. Dating and working have different required skill sets and it was hypothesized that the different contexts may favor certain traits over others. We found a statistically significant difference between the two contexts, which supports this hypothesis. Table 1 displays a systematic list of the conclusions reached for all the a priori hypotheses tested.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eTable of Hypotheses and the Outcomes of Testing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83.0455%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHypotheses\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9545%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutcome\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83.0455%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH1: The sex of the participant will affect the traits that they think contribute to a hypothetical individual being perceived as a competitive threat.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9545%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisconfirmed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83.0455%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH2: Due to the increased competition over resources in ecologies with higher levels of extrinsic and intrinsic mortality and morbidity, individuals with \u0026ldquo;faster\u0026rdquo; LHS will be more likely to perceive the hypothetical individual as a competitive threat overall.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9545%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisconfirmed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83.0455%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH3: Individuals with higher mate values will be perceived as a larger competitive threat in a dating context.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9545%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConfirmed\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83.0455%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH4: In the context of a competitive bout, individuals with higher GFP will be less sensitive to potential threatening traits of competitors.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9545%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisconfirmed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83.0455%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH5: Overall men and women will consider dominant individuals as a larger competitive threat.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9545%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisconfirmed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83.0455%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH6: Women may be more sensitive than men to levels of prestige in competitors, as women have spent majority time competing in a social arena that favors prestige.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9545%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisconfirmed\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83.0455%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH7: This difference experienced in work incivility is due to more agentic women being considered a larger competitive threat than less agentic women.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9545%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisconfirmed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83.0455%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH8: Individuals who are high in Dark Triad traits will rate hypothetical individuals as more threatening due to their perceptual bias towards competitive contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9545%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConfirmed\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83.0455%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH9: Based on the traditional line of research, men will engage in more direct aggression and women will engage in slightly more indirect aggression.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9545%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisconfirmed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83.0455%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH10: Being more sensitive to perceptions of other employees as competitive threats may lead to employee turnover.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 16.9545%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDisconfirmed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome effects were significant in a dating and not a working context and vice versa. Communion had a significant effect on Dating Threat, but not Working Threat, suggesting that this trait may be valued in a romantic relationship but not a work environment. This is contrary to the results reported by Buunk et al. (2010) who found that communal attributes in rivals at work evoked more jealousy.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDark Triad personality traits significantly affected evaluation of competitive threat in dating, suggesting that individuals with Dark Triad personality traits may have a lower threshold for identifying a hypothetical individual as a competitive threat in dating, but not in work contexts. This is contrary to the recommendations of Jonason et al. (2015), who advised employers to consider the impact of Dark Triad personality traits when hiring employees.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWorking Threat was uniquely predicted by Competitiveness which suggests that more competitive individuals pose a larger threat in the workplace then they do in a dating context. This may be due to the favoring of competitiveness through social systems, such as capitalism, while the behaviors associated with competitiveness, such as aggression and confrontation, may not be favored in the mating market.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNevertheless, we did find overlap between the two contexts. Dating Threat was the biggest predictor of Working Threat, and Mate Value and Prestige were significant predictors of both factors, suggesting that while there were some unique influences at play, there are influences that project across both contexts. This result supports the hypothesis that people with higher Mate Value will be considered larger competitive threats. Further inquiry will be needed to elucidate these contrasting results on context.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOriginally, it was hypothesized that there would be an effect of participant sex on the perception of a competitive threat in both dating and the workplace. While sex differences have long been reported in the perception of a rival, we found that sex of the participant mattered in only two of fifteen equations. The main effect of Sex on Dating Threat and Working Threat were nonsignificant suggesting that there are little to no differences between men and women in the traits that contribute to an individual being considered a competitive threat in either context. This suggests that the influence of sex may be a reflection of methodological or sampling differences. Sex differences could also emerge later in the developmental trajectory, which was not captured in our younger sample.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProbing further, we tested whether men and women had differences in the specific indicators that they use to identify a rival. While there was one significant contrast on our physical characteristics factor, the effect was very small (\u003cem\u003esR\u003c/em\u003e = .10, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .03,) and may be an artifact of Type I Error, given that the protective whole-model \u003cem\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/em\u003e was not statistically significant. The lack of significant contrasts on the rest of the factors suggests that men and women identify the same indicators when recognizing a competitive threat.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEffects of LHS on the perception of a competitive threat in dating and work were also hypothesized, such that individuals with \u0026ldquo;faster\u0026rdquo; life history strategies would be more sensitive to traits that indicate a competitive threat. The main effect of LHS was nonsignificant on both Dating Threat and Working Threat suggesting that there was no effect of LHS. Regarding mate value, it was found that individuals who are high in mate value are considered threats in dating and in the workplace, which supports our original hypothesis. The lack of effect of LHS with the presence of effects of Mate Value suggests that the effect of LHS may be overwhelmed by the effects of Mate Value, which may be due to the high heritability of both variables.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDominance was found to not be predictive of a competitive threat in either context. This is contrary to the findings by Buunk et al. (2010), who found that men were more jealous of rivals that exerted physical dominance. Prestige was a significant predictor of Working Threat, which supports Buunk\u0026rsquo;s findings that men and women find more socially dominant individuals (analogous to Prestige) provoke more jealousy in the workplace. There was not a significant interaction between Sex and Prestige on Dating Threat or Working Threat, suggesting that women are not more likely to find prestigious individuals more threatening in a competitive bout than men.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere was no significant effect of Agency on Dating Threat or Working Threat, suggesting that agentic individuals are not being considered more threatening in either context. We found that women were lower in agency overall, but the lack of interaction between Sex and Agency on Dating Threat or Working Threat suggests that women do not perceive agentic individuals as a competitive threat than men in either context. This contrary to the finding by Gabriel et al. (2018) that more agentic women experience incivility in the workplace and suggests that there may be other variables at play beyond being considered a competitive threat. Moreover, the interaction of Sex and Social Comparison negatively predicted Working Threat, suggesting that women who engage in more social comparisons are not considered a competitive threat in the workplace. The negative relationship between Agency and Social Comparison suggests that the inverse may be supported, such that Agency would be positively related to Working Threat. Further research is needed to flush out the relationship between Agency and Working Threat.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe main effect of GFP on Dating Threat and Working Threat were nonsignificant, suggesting that individuals with higher GFP are not less sensitive to competitive threats as originally hypothesized. GFP has been described as a protective attribute that enables ego resilience. The lack of a significant effect on Dating Threat or Working Threat does not empirically support this description.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndividuals possessing Dark Triad personality traits had a higher baseline of competitiveness, as predicted. The predicted sex differences in Dark Triad personality traits were nonsignificant in both contexts, suggesting that men and women with Dark Triad personality traits do not perceive traits that contribute to a competitive threat differently. This result does not support the starkly claimed sex difference in Dark Triad personality traits and competitiveness.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the main effect of Sex on Indirect Aggression was nonsignificant, the interaction between Sex and Prestige was negative and significant, suggesting that more prestigious women were less likely to engage in indirect aggression. The effect of Sex on Direct Aggression and all the Sex interactions were nonsignificant, suggesting that there is not a difference between men and women in Direct Aggression, contrary to previous findings. Agency was found to negatively predict Indirect Aggression, suggesting that more agentic individuals engage in less indirect aggression.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDating Threat and Work Threat did not significantly predict Employee Turnover, suggesting that individuals are not leaving their jobs because they are threatened by competitive traits in other employees. Indirect Aggression and Direct Aggression were the largest predictors of Employee Turnover, suggesting that direct threats and indirect aggressions form other employees are what motivates individuals to leave their jobs. This suggests that employers may need to look at overt and covert forms of aggression as a way to mitigate employee turnover.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.1 Limitations and Future Directions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne of the limitations of this research is that it collected self-report data. Some participants may have experienced self-presentation bias and reported being equally threatened by men and women, as being threatened by one more than the other may be considered sexist. In addition, some of the smaller effect sizes seen may be reflective of a need for stronger stimuli. Asking students to imagine a hypothetical individual may not have been enough probing to elicit their concrete ideas on the subject. In addition, while a second sample was collected at the [redacted for peer review], this sample was collected during the Spring Semester of 2022, which saw a sharp decrease in enrollment as compared to other years. While twenty-two subjects were not much, 40% of the sample was working students and it was a majority male sample, therefore included in our analyses.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture research on competitive threats in dating and the workplace should take place on an older sample. College students may not have enough experience in dating and the workplace to be able to identify the traits that contribute to a competitive threat in those contexts and lack job experience overall. The low internal consistency of the factor Attractive Material Characteristics may also be reflective of this sampling bias, as college students do not often own attractive material characteristics.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of Interest:\u003c/strong\u003e None.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding for this Project:\u003c/strong\u003e None.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of Data:\u003c/strong\u003e Correlation matrices are included in the supplementary material.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCode Availability:\u003c/strong\u003e SAS procedure commands can be found in the Measurement Model. For the structural model, UniMult 2 was used, has a point-and-click graphical user interface; therefore, there is no code to make available.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval:\u003c/strong\u003e Human subjects\u0026rsquo; approval from the Institutional Review Board at the [redacted for peer review] was obtained for this study. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate:\u003c/strong\u003e All participants provided consent for participation and were shown debriefing information after completion of the measures.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for Publication:\u003c/strong\u003e All authors on this project consent to publication.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors Contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e All authors made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content; approved the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trial Number:\u003c/strong\u003e Not Applicable.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man (Vol. 395). Beacon Press (MA).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBautista, L. M., Tinbergen, J., Wiersma, P., \u0026amp; Kacelnik, A. (1998). Optimal foraging and beyond: how starlings cope with changes in food availability. \u003cem\u003eThe American Naturalist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e152\u003c/em\u003e(4), 543-561.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBereczkei, T., Voros, S., Gal, A., \u0026amp; Bernath, L. (1997). Resources, attractiveness, family commitment; reproductive decisions in human mate choice. \u003cem\u003eEthology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e103\u003c/em\u003e(8), 681-699.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBj\u0026ouml;rkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M., \u0026amp; Kaukiainen, A. (1992). Do girls manipulate and boys fight? Developmental trends in regard to direct and indirect aggression. \u003cem\u003eAggressive Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(2), 117-127.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoysen, G. A. (2019). Sexual stigmatization of mental illness: The impact of sex, mental illness, and evolutionarily salient traits on the evaluation of potential mates. \u003cem\u003eStigma and Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 225.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Choe, J. A. E., Buunk, B. P., \u0026amp; Dijkstra, P. (2000). Distress about mating rivals. \u003cem\u003ePersonal Relationships\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(3), 235-243.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eButtermore, N. R. (2004). Status, dominance, or prestige?: domains of self-esteem as moderators of reactions to an embarrassing situation. Dissertations, Theses, and Master\u0026rsquo;s Projects. College of William and Mary. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuunk, A.P., \u0026amp; Fisher, M. (2009). Individual Differences in Intrasexual Competition. \u003cem\u003eJournal \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eof Evolutionary Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 37-48. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuunk, A. P., Aan\u0026apos;t Goor, J., \u0026amp; Solano, A. C. (2010). Intrasexual competition at work: Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking effect of rival characteristics in work settings. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social and Personal Relationships\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(5), 671-684.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCabeza De Baca, T., Figueredo, A. J., \u0026amp; Ellis, B. J. (2012). An evolutionary analysis of variation in parental effort: Determinants and assessment. \u003cem\u003eParenting\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(2-3), 94-104.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women\u0026apos;s intrasexual aggression. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral and Brain Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(2), 203-214.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCard, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., \u0026amp; Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta‐analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e79\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1185-1229.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarrier, A., Louvet, E., Chauvin, B., \u0026amp; Rohmer, O. (2014). The primacy of agency over competence in status perception. \u003cem\u003eSocial Psychology\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarter, G. L., Montanaro, Z., Linney, C., \u0026amp; Campbell, A. C. (2015). Women\u0026rsquo;s sexual competition and the Dark Triad. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, 74, 275-279.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChandler, B. (2014). Office Talk: Exploring Jargon in the Workplace. \u003cem\u003eGrassroots Writing Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 53-60.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCheng, J. T. (2020). Dominance, prestige, and the role of leveling in human social hierarchy and equality. \u003cem\u003eCurrent opinion in psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e, 238-244.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen, J., \u0026amp; Cohen, P. (1983). \u003cem\u003eApplied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eBehavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCotton, J. L., \u0026amp; Tuttle, J. M. (1986). Employee turnover: A meta-analysis and review with implications for research. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 55-70.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavies, A. P., \u0026amp; Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Don\u0026apos;t you wish your partner was hot like me?: The effectiveness of mate poaching across relationship types considering the relative mate-values of the poacher and the partner of the poached. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, 106, 32-35.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeaner, R. O., Geary, D. C., Puts, D. A., Ham, S. A., Kruger, J., Fles, E., ... \u0026amp; Grandis, T. (2012). A sex difference in the predisposition for physical competition: males play sports much more than females even in the contemporary US. \u003cem\u003ePloS One\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(11).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiehl, M., Owen, S. K., \u0026amp; Youngblade, L. M. (2004). Agency and communion attributes in adults\u0026rsquo; spontaneous self-representations. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Behavioral Development\u003c/em\u003e, 28(1), 1-15.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDillon, H. M., Adair, L. E., Wang, Z., \u0026amp; Johnson, Z. (2013). Slow and steady wins the race: Life history, mate value, and mate settling. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(5), 612-618.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunkel, C. S., van der Linden, D., \u0026amp; Holler, R. H. (2021). Life history strategy and intelligence: Commonality and personality profile differences. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, 175, 110667.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEdelman, B., \u0026amp; Larkin, I. (2015). Social comparisons and deception across workplace hierarchies: Field and experimental evidence. \u003cem\u003eOrganization Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(1), 78-98.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarrell, D., \u0026amp; Rusbult, C. E. (1981). Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover: The impact of rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational behavior and human performance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 78-95.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFigueredo, A.J., Black, C.J., Patch, E.A., Heym, N., Ferreira, J.H.B.P., Varella, M.A.C., Defelipe, R.P., Cosentino, L.A.M., Castro, F.N., Natividade, J.C., Hattori, W.T., P\u0026eacute;rez-Ramos, M., Madison, G., \u0026amp; Fernandes, H.B.F. (2021). The cascade of chaos: From early adversity to interpersonal aggression. \u003cem\u003eEvolutionary Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 15(3), 231\u0026ndash;250. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000241 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFigueredo, A. J., Garcia, R. A., Menke, J. M., Jacobs, W. J., Gladden, P. R., Bianchi, J., Patch, E. A., Beck, C., Kavanagh, P. S., Sotomayor-Peterson, M., Jiang, Y., \u0026amp; Li, N. P. (2017). The K-SF-42: A new short form of the Arizona Life History Battery. \u003cem\u003eEvolutionary Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1474704916676276. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFigueredo, A. J., Sefcek, J. A., \u0026amp; Jones, D. N. (2006). The ideal romantic partner personality. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(3), 431-441.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFigueredo, A. J., Woodley, M. A., Brown, S. D., \u0026amp; Ross, K. C. (2013). Multiple successful tests of the Strategic Differentiation-Integration Effort (SD-IE) hypothesis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(4), 361.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFox, S., \u0026amp; Spector, P. E. (2000). Relations of emotional intelligence, practical intelligence, general intelligence, and trait affectivity with interview outcomes: It\u0026apos;s not all just \u0026lsquo;G\u0026rsquo;. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(2), 203-220.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGabriel, A. S., Butts, M. M., Yuan, Z., Rosen, R. L., \u0026amp; Sliter, M. T. (2018). Further understanding incivility in the workplace: The effects of gender, agency, and communion. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e103\u003c/em\u003e(4), 362.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGangestad, S. W., \u0026amp; Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral and Brain Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(4), 573-587.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarcia, S. M., Tor, A., \u0026amp; Schiff, T. M. (2013). The psychology of competition: A social comparison perspective. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on psychological science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(6), 634-650.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibbons, F.X. \u0026amp; Buunk, B.P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: The development of a scale of social comparison orientation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e76\u003c/em\u003e, 129-142. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGladden, P.R., Figueredo, A.J., \u0026amp; Snyder, B. (2010). Life history strategy and evaluative self-assessment.\u003cem\u003e Personality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(6), 731\u0026ndash;735.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGladden, P. R., Sisco, M., \u0026amp; Figueredo, A. J. (2008). Sexual coercion and life-history strategy. \u003cem\u003eEvolution and Human Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(5), 319-326.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGorsuch, R.L. (2016). \u003cem\u003eUniMult: For univariate and multivariate data analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Altadena,CA: UniMult, Inc. Retrieved from https://unimult.000webhostapp.com/ \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHelgeson, V. S., \u0026amp; Fritz, H. L. (1999). Unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion: Distinctions from agency and communion. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Personality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 131-158.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHibbard, D. R., \u0026amp; Buhrmester, D. (2010). Competitiveness, gender, and adjustment among adolescents. \u003cem\u003eSex Roles\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e(5), 412-424.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHolliday, M. (2022, January 14). \u003cem\u003eWhat is Employee Turnover and Why It Matters For Your Business\u003c/em\u003e. Oracle Netsuite. https://www.netsuite.com/portal/resource/articles/human-resources/employee-turnover.shtml?mc24943=v1 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHom, P. W., \u0026amp; Griffeth, R. W. (1991). Structural equations modeling test of a turnover theory: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 76(3), 350.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., \u0026amp; Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e102\u003c/em\u003e(3), 530.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHughes, S. M., \u0026amp; Aung, T. (2017). Modern-day female preferences for resources and provisioning by long-term mates. \u003cem\u003eEvolutionary Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(3), 242.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJeschke, J. M., Gabriel, W., \u0026amp; Kokko, H. (2008). r-Strategist/K-Strategists. In S. E. J\u0026oslash;rgensen \u0026amp; B. D. Fath (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia of Ecology \u003c/em\u003e(pp. 3113\u0026ndash;3122). Oxford: Elsevier. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJeschke, J. M., \u0026amp; Kokko, H. (2009). The roles of body size and phylogeny in fast and slow life histories. \u003cem\u003eEvolutionary Ecology, 23, \u003c/em\u003e867\u0026ndash;878. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohn, O. P., \u0026amp; Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin \u0026amp; O. P. John (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Personality: Theory\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eand Research \u003c/em\u003e(Vol. 2, pp. 102\u0026ndash;138). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJonason, P. K. (2008). A mediation hypothesis to account for the sex difference in reported number of sexual partners: An intrasexual competition approach. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sexual Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e(4), 41-49.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJonason, P. K., Garcia, J. R., Webster, G. D., Li, N. P., \u0026amp; Fisher, H. E. (2015). Relationship dealbreakers: Traits people avoid in potential mates. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1697-1711.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJonason, P. K., Wee, S., \u0026amp; Li, N. P. (2015). Competition, autonomy, and prestige: Mechanisms through which the Dark Triad predict job satisfaction. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, 72, 112-116.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones, D. N., \u0026amp; Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3) a brief measure of dark personality traits. \u003cem\u003eAssessment\u003c/em\u003e, 21(1), 28-41.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKacelnik, A. (1984). Central place foraging in starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). I. Patch residence time. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Animal Ecology\u003c/em\u003e, 283-299.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKanyongo, G. Y. (2005). Determining the correct number of components to extract from a principal components analysis: a Monte Carlo study of the accuracy of the scree plot. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKenton, W. (2021, July 30). \u003cem\u003eUpper Class Definition\u003c/em\u003e. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/upper-class.asp\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKirsner, B. R., Figueredo, A. J., \u0026amp; Jacobs, W. J. (2003). Self, friends, and lovers: Structural relations among Beck Depression Inventory scores and perceived mate values. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Affective Disorders\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(2), 131-148. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKirsner, B. R., Figueredo, A. J., \u0026amp; Jacobs, W. J. (2009). Structural relations among negative affect, mate value, and mating effort. \u003cem\u003eEvolutionary Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(3), 147470490900700304.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhokhar, C. P., \u0026amp; Kush, T. (2009). Emotional intelligence and work performance among executives. \u003cem\u003eEurope\u0026rsquo;s Journal of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhosla, A., \u0026amp; Gupta, P. (2017). Traits of successful entrepreneurs. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Private Equity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(3), 12-15.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKruger, D. J., \u0026amp; Fisher, M. L. (2008). Women\u0026apos;s life history attributes are associated with preferences in mating relationships. \u003cem\u003eEvolutionary Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(2), doi: 147470490800600206.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLedesma, R. D., Valero-Mora, P., \u0026amp; Macbeth, G. (2015). The scree test and the number of factors: a dynamic graphics approach. \u003cem\u003eThe Spanish Journal of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, S. Y., Kesebir, S., \u0026amp; Pillutla, M. M. (2016). Gender differences in response to competition with same-gender coworkers: A relational perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e110\u003c/em\u003e(6), 869.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLippa, R. A. (2007). The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: An examination of biological and cultural influences. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Sexual Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(2), 193-208.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManer, J. K. (2017). Dominance and prestige: A tale of two hierarchies. \u003cem\u003eCurent Directions in Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, 26(6), 526-531.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaples, J. L., Lamkin, J., \u0026amp; Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of two brief measures of the dark triad: The dirty dozen and short dark triad. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, 26, 326-331. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcKnight, P. E., McKnight, K. M., Sidani, S., \u0026amp; Figueredo, A. J. (2007). \u003cem\u003eMissing data: A gentle introduction\u003c/em\u003e. Guilford Press. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNichols, A. L. (2016). What do people desire in their leaders? The effect of leadership experience on desired leadership traits. \u003cem\u003eLeadership \u0026amp; Organization Development Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ouml;sterman, K., Bj\u0026ouml;rkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K. M., Kaukiainen, A., Landau, S. F., Frączek, A., \u0026amp; Caprara, G. V. (1998). Cross‐cultural evidence of female indirect aggression. \u003cem\u003eAggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaulhus, D. L., \u0026amp; Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Research in Personality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(6), 556-563.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePelham, B. W., \u0026amp; Swann, W. B. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: on the sources and structure of global self-esteem. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e(4), 672.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePuts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. \u003cem\u003eEvolution and Human Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(3), 157-175.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRichardson, D. S., \u0026amp; Green, L. R. (2003). Defining direct and indirect aggression: The Richardson Conflict Response Questionnaire. \u003cem\u003eRevue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale\u003c/em\u003e. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSAS Institute, Inc. (2015). SAS/STAT User\u0026rsquo;s Guide, Version 8, Vols. 1\u0026ndash;3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSotomayor-Peterson, M., De Baca, T. C., Figueredo, A. J., \u0026amp; Smith-Castro, V. (2013). Shared parenting, parental effort, and life history strategy: A cross-cultural comparison. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e44\u003c/em\u003e(4), 620-639.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpence, J.T., \u0026amp; Helmreich, R.L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. University of Texas Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSuitner, C., \u0026amp; Maass, A. (2008). The role of valence in the perception of agency and communion. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 38(7), 1073-1082.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026yacute;korov\u0026aacute;, K., \u0026amp; Flegr, J. (2021). Faster life history strategy manifests itself by lower age at menarche, higher sexual desire, and earlier reproduction in people with worse health. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTurchin, P., \u0026amp; Gavrilets, S. (2009). Evolution of complex hierarchical societies. \u003cem\u003eSocial Evolution \u0026amp; History\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(2), 167-198.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan der Linden, D., Dunkel, C. S., \u0026amp; Petrides, K. V. (2016). The General Factor of Personality (GFP) as social effectiveness: Review of the literature. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, 101, 98-105.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVaughan, R., Madigan, D. J., Carter, G. L., \u0026amp; Nicholls, A. R. (2019). The Dark Triad in male and female athletes and non-athletes: Group differences and psychometric properties of the Short Dark Triad (SD3). \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Sport and Exercise\u003c/em\u003e, 43, 64-72.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWard, L. C., Thorn, B. E., Clements, K. L., Dixon, K. E., \u0026amp; Sanford, S. D. (2006). Measurement of agency, communion, and emotional vulnerability with the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality Assessment\u003c/em\u003e, 86(2), 206-216.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatson, D., Clark, L. A., \u0026amp; Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1063.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWright, T. A., \u0026amp; Bonett, D. G. (2007). Job satisfaction and psychological well-being as nonadditive predictors of workplace turnover. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 141-160.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWoodley of Menie, M. A., Fernandes, H. B., \u0026amp; Hopkins, W. D. (2015). The more g-loaded, the more heritable, evolvable, and phenotypically variable: Homology with humans in chimpanzee cognitive abilities. \u003cem\u003eIntelligence\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e, 159-163.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZambrano, R. C., Pe\u0026ntilde;aherrera-Aguirre, M., Figueredo, A. J., \u0026amp; Jacobs, W. J. (2022). Comparing and Contrasting Rates of Firearm Homicides and Suicides. \u003cem\u003eEvolutionary Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, 1-17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"evolutionary-psychological-science","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"evop","sideBox":"Learn more about [Evolutionary Psychological Science](http://link.springer.com/journal/40806)","snPcode":"40806","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/40806/3","title":"Evolutionary Psychological Science","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Competition, Mating, Employee Turnover, Life History Strategy, Mate Value, Dark Triad","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6649136/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6649136/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eMuch research has been conducted on the psychological mechanisms that underlie competitive behavior, yet no research has investigated what traits contribute to another individual, or rival, being considered a competitive threat. The goal in this research is to identify the factors that contribute to an individual being considered a competitive threat in work and dating, and impart how biological, ecological, and personality variables influence an individual\u0026rsquo;s perception of these factors. In a university sample (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;336), we found that being considered a Dating Threat was the most important predictor of an individual being considered a Working Threat, suggesting an overlap in the traits that constitute an individual being evaluated as a competitive threat in the dating and working marketplaces. A potential outcome of competition in the workplace, employee turnover, was not significantly predicted by the presence of a dating threat or a working threat but was significantly predicted by indirect and direct aggression in the workplace. Further research and replication are needed to fully enumerate the traits that contribute to an individual being considered a competitive threat.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Competitive Threats in Mating and the Workplace: Intra and Inter Sexual Competition","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-22 02:24:37","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6649136/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"5579128825160199413909809223771434061","date":"2025-05-21T20:19:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-05-19T12:28:02+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-05-19T12:09:19+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-05-19T12:06:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Evolutionary Psychological Science","date":"2025-05-12T18:22:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"evolutionary-psychological-science","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"evop","sideBox":"Learn more about [Evolutionary Psychological Science](http://link.springer.com/journal/40806)","snPcode":"40806","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/40806/3","title":"Evolutionary Psychological Science","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"6779c0b9-ca69-4a38-89be-9327c1ad289a","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 22nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-15T14:39:48+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-22 02:24:37","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6649136","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6649136","identity":"rs-6649136","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}