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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 597 of the 597 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0140525x09991075

Cites

597 of 597 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Camras, 1993, Handbook of emotions, 199
  2. Dunn, 2003, The handbook of affective science, 332
  3. de Waal, 1993, The origin of values, 285
  4. Davidson, 1993, Handbook of emotions, 143
  5. Daly, 1988, Homicide
  6. Cosmides, 2000, Handbook of emotions, 91
  7. Cacioppo, 1993, Handbook of emotions, 119
  8. Brown, 2000, Handbook of emotions, 75
  9. Brody, 2000, Handbook of emotions, 338
  10. Winston, 2002, Nature, 5, 277
  11. Eisenberg, 2003, The handbook of affective science, 787
  12. 10.1037/0012-1649.37.3.404 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Frijda, 1993, Handbook of emotions, 381
  14. Webbink, 1986, The power of the eyes
  15. Belle, 1987, Gender and stress, 257
  16. Vigil, Child Development
  17. 10.1037/0021-843X.111.4.578 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Seals, 2003, Adolescence, 38, 735
  19. Scherer, 2003, Handbook of the affective sciences, 433
  20. 10.1037/0012-1649.36.1.14 · DOI
  21. Probst, 2006, Family Medicine, 38, 653
  22. Panksepp, 2000, Handbook of emotions, 137
  23. Öhman, 2003, Handbook of affective sciences, 256
  24. McGuire, 1993, Handbook of emotions, 155
  25. Izard, 1993, Handbook of emotions, 631
  26. Isen, 2000, Handbook of emotions, 417
  27. McCart, 2005, Journal of Adolescent Health, e7
  28. Matthews, 1998, Personality traits
  29. Kim, 1994, Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications
  30. 10.1037/0033-2909.127.4.472 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Forgas, 2003, The handbook of affective science, 596
  32. Hamm, 2003, The handbook of affective science, 187
  33. Grammer, 1990, Natürlichkeit der Sprache und der Kultur: Acta Colloquii, 192

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 173

Related

See all

Metadata

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
597
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