CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 173Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorAnimal Behavior and ReproductionEmotions and Moral Behavior

A socio-relational framework of sex differences in the expression of emotion

Vigil, Jacob Miguel·2009·Behavioral and Brain Sciences
DOI 10.1017/s0140525x09991075
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite a staggering body of research demonstrating sex differences in expressed emotion, very few theoretical models (evolutionary or non-evolutionary) offer a critical examination of the adaptive nature of such differences. From the perspective of a socio-relational framework, emotive behaviors evolved to promote the attraction and aversion of different types of relationships by advertising the two most parsimonious properties of reciprocity potential, or perceived attractiveness as a prospective social partner. These are the individual's (a) perceived capacity or ability to provide expedient resources, or to inflict immediate harm onto others, and their (b) perceived trustworthiness or probability of actually reciprocating altruism (Vigil 2007). Depending on the unique social demands and relational constraints that each sex evolved, individuals should be sensitive to advertise "capacity" and "trustworthiness" cues through selective displays of dominant versus submissive and masculine versus feminine emotive behaviors, respectively. In this article, I introduce the basic theoretical assumptions and hypotheses of the framework, and show how the models provide a solid scaffold with which to begin to interpret common sex differences in the emotional development literature. I conclude by describing how the framework can be used to predict condition-based and situation-based variation in affect and other forms of expressive behaviors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0140525x09991075

Cites

602 of 602 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sex differences in emotional functioning are well established, with males reporting higher levels of empowerment gestures and females reporting higher levels of vulnerability gestures.

    “sex differences in emotional functioning are well established, with males reporting higher levels of empowerment gestures (e.g., inflated confidence), and females reporting higher levels of vulnerability gestures (e.g., sadness, worrying, and pain behaviors; see Vigil 2009).”

    From Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity (2012) · cites this paper as Vigil 2009

  • Unique contributions from father-child interactions to evolutionarily favorable sex-specific emotional expressions of the developing child may significantly constitute the mechanism through which sex differences in the expression of emotion cross generations.

    “unique contributions from father-child interactions (Boyce et al., 2006; Grossmann et al., 2002) to evolutionarily favorable sex-specific emotional expressions of the developing child may significantly constitute the mechanism through which sex differences in the expression of emotion (Vigil, 2009) cross generations.”

    From Approaching the biology of human parental attachment: Brain imaging, oxytocin and coordinated assessments of mothers and fathers (2014) · cites this paper as Vigil, 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Vigil, J. M.
Affiliations
University of North Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Vigil, Jacob Miguel
ORCID
Vigil, Jacob Miguel
Venue
Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2009-10
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
375-390
ISSN
  • 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1825
DOI
10.1017/s0140525x09991075
OpenAlex
W2168146063
Cited by
173
References
602
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 13
FWCI
16.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 13 d)
Locations
  • Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
Keywords
sex differences, emotional expression, evolutionary psychology, reciprocity, perceived attractiveness, trustworthiness, dominance, emotional development, emotional behavior, gender differences in emotion
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Child, Child Development, Culture, Facial Expression, Female, Hostility, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Nonverbal Communication, Sex Characteristics, Social Behavior, Social Environment, Social Perception, Verbal Behavior, Expressed Emotion, Trust, Femininity, Masculinity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review