Derogation of Competitors Instrument

Abstract

The Derogation of Competitors Instrument, historically operationalized as the Competitor Derogation Tactics Scale (CDTS), is a foundational psychometric tool developed by David M. Buss and Lisa A. Dedden in 1990. Designed within the paradigm of evolutionary psychology, the instrument assesses the behavioral tactics individuals deploy to diminish the perceived mate value of same-sex rivals during human mating competition. Intrasexual competition occurs predominantly through two complementary behavioral avenues: self-promotion (elevating one's own desirable attributes) and competitor derogation (belittling, slandering, or physically dominating rivals). The instrument evaluates tactical frequency across discrete thematic dimensions, notably including attacks on physical attractiveness, sexual morality and fidelity, financial resources and ambition, physical strength and athletic prowess, and character or social reputation.

Administered primarily as a self-report measure using a 7-point Likert response scale anchored from 1 ("Never") through 4 ("Sometimes") to 7 ("Very Often"), the instrument has demonstrated robust internal consistency across independent cross-cultural samples, with subscale Cronbach's alpha coefficients typically ranging between .74 and .91. Structural validity investigations, utilizing exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, confirm a multi-factorial architecture reflecting evolved sex-differentiated adaptive problems: men derogate rivals predominantly regarding financial status, athletic ability, and physical formidability, whereas women derogate competitors more frequently regarding physical appearance and sexual fidelity. This article provides a comprehensive academic analysis of the instrument's conceptual foundations, psychometric architecture, construct validity, empirical utility, and authentic measurement items.

Keywords

Competitor Derogation Tactics Scale, intrasexual competition, evolutionary psychology, mate value, sexual strategies theory, relational aggression, sexual selection, David M. Buss, mate poaching, reputation derogation

Authors

The primary architects of the Derogation of Competitors Instrument are:

• David M. Buss, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. Dr. Buss is widely recognized as one of the founders of modern evolutionary psychology, having authored foundational treatises on human mating strategies, jealousy, homicide, and intrasexual rivalry.
• Lisa A. Dedden — Collaborating researcher affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who co-developed the initial taxonomy and empirical validation protocol published in the 1990 seminal investigation.
• Subsequent Validation Contributors: David P. Schmitt (Bradley University) and April Bleske-Rechek (University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire), whose empirical expansions examined context effects, perceived effectiveness, and pursuit of short-term versus long-term sexual strategies.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Derogation of Competitors Instrument is to quantify the frequency and thematic nature of actions executed by an individual to diminish the relative desirability of same-sex reproductive rivals. Within evolutionary and social psychology, verbal communication and interpersonal behavior are recognized not merely as instruments for the exchange of objective facts, but as strategic signaling mechanisms calibrated to manipulate social impressions. When individuals compete for scarce, high-value romantic partners, they can maximize their relative mate value via two non-exclusive behavioral paths: self-enhancement (signaling high fitness indicators) or competitor derogation (impairing the target rival's social and sexual capital).

From an applied research perspective, the instrument serves several pivotal scientific purposes:

• Empirical Investigation of Intrasexual Selection: Providing operational metrics to test hypotheses derived from parental investment theory and sexual selection models regarding sex-specific vulnerabilities in mate competition.
• Mapping Covert and Relational Aggression: Serving as an objective index of indirect aggression, relational manipulation, and social ostracism among emerging adults, collegiate cohorts, and community populations.
• Understanding Mate Poaching and Guarding: Assessing behavioral repertoires engaged when individuals attempt to lure a partner away from an established relationship (poaching) or prevent existing partners from straying toward external rivals (mate guarding).
• Investigating Maladaptive Personality Profiles: Exploring how personality configurations, such as the Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy), predict callous, deceitful, and aggressive competitor derogation tactics.

Psychological Construct

The core psychological construct measured by the Derogation of Competitors Instrument is intrasexual competitor derogation: intentional verbal, social, or physical actions intended to decrease a rival's perceived desirability, status, or trustworthiness in the eyes of prospective mates or the broader social group. Rather than functioning as a unidimensional drive, competitor derogation operates across distinct evolutionary domains that correspond directly to human mate preferences.

1. Resource Potential, Ambition, and Financial Capacity

This dimension captures tactics that depict a competitor as impoverished, unmotivated, lacking career prospects, or financially exploitative. Because cross-cultural evidence indicates that females disproportionately prioritize socioeconomic status, industriousness, and resource acquisition capacity in long-term partners, questioning a male rival's financial solvency ("I told her the other male was poor", "I mentioned that the other male drove a poor car") specifically devalues him along critical mate-selection criteria.

2. Physical Formidability, Dominance, and Athleticism

This subscale evaluates behavioral attempts to subjugate, physically outperform, or highlight the somatic weakness of a competitor. Tactics range from non-violent demonstrations of athletic superiority ("I tried to outshine the other male in sports") to direct physical intimidation and confrontation ("I physically defeated the other", "I beat him up"). These behaviors reflect ancestral male-male combat dynamics and dominance hierarchies, where physical strength served as an honest signal of protection ability and genetic vigor.

3. Sexual Fidelity, Promiscuity, and Morality

This dimension encompasses derogatory claims focused on a rival's romantic unfaithfulness, promiscuous behavior, and lack of relational commitment ("I said the other male cheats on women", "I told everyone that the other male slept around a lot"). In long-term mating, paternity certainty is an adaptive challenge for males, whereas desertion and resource diversion present adaptive risks for females. Consequently, framing a rival as deceptive, promiscuous, or sexually exploitative triggers evolved psychological defenses in prospective mates.

4. Physical Attractiveness and Somatic Health

This construct domain reflects attacks targeting a competitor's physical appearance, facial symmetry, somatic hygiene, and health status ("I told her the other male had gross habits", "I made fun of the other male's appearance"). Physical attractiveness serves as an observable phenotypic cue reflecting health, developmental stability, and reproductive value. Derogating a competitor's physical condition directly devalues their aesthetic and reproductive viability.

5. Social Reputation, Intelligence, and Emotional Stability

This domain involves undermining a competitor's cognitive acuity, psychological balance, and social standing ("I made the other male seem dumb", "I said that none of the other guys like the other male"). Social ostracism and perceived emotional instability undermine an individual's alliances, cooperation networks, and overall social capital within the local hierarchy.

Theoretical Framework

The Derogation of Competitors Instrument is theoretically grounded in sexual selection theory, originally articulated by Charles Darwin (1871) and substantially expanded by Robert Trivers (1972) through parental investment theory. Trivers posited that the sex investing greater biological resources in offspring (typically females in mammals) constitutes the limiting reproductive resource, becoming selective in mate choice. Conversely, the sex investing fewer obligatory parental resources competes intrasexually for access to the higher-investing sex.

Building on these principles, Buss and Schmitt (1993) introduced Sexual Strategies Theory, emphasizing that human mating psychology features adaptive solutions tailored to both short-term and long-term mating contexts. Intrasexual competition takes two structural forms: direct contest competition (contending with same-sex rivals) and mate attraction (appealing to the opposite sex). When individuals engage in competitor derogation, they exploit the evolved mate preferences of the opposite sex. The evolutionary logic dictates that an individual can enhance their relative mating attractiveness by either improving their own standing or degrading their rival's standing.

Crucially, Buss and Dedden (1990) formalized five core evolutionary hypotheses that guided the creation of this instrument:

1. Men will derogate other men more frequently regarding external resources, financial capacity, ambition, and career prospects than will women.
2. Men will derogate male rivals more heavily regarding physical prowess, formidability, and athletic capacity than will women.
3. Women will derogate female rivals more frequently and intensely regarding physical appearance, facial attractiveness, and youth than will men.
4. Women will derogate female rivals regarding sexual promiscuity, loose sexual conduct, and potential infidelity more frequently than will men when seeking long-term mates.
5. The perceived effectiveness of a derogation tactic corresponds directly to the evolutionary value of the attribute being attacked within the target sex.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Derogation of Competitors Instrument has been established across multiple empirical investigations in evolutionary, social, and developmental psychology.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by consistent sex differences aligning with evolutionary predictions. In Buss and Dedden's (1990) foundational studies across collegiate and community cohorts, men reported statistically significant higher deployment frequencies for tactics questioning financial status, vehicle ownership, ambition, and physical combat, yielding moderate-to-large effect sizes (Cohen's d ranging from 0.42 to 0.78). Conversely, female participants demonstrated significantly elevated rates of derogating competitors' physical attractiveness and sexual fidelity, particularly when the competitor was perceived as pursuing a committed, long-term mate.

Convergent validity has been established through correlations with related personality and behavioral constructs. Research demonstrates that total CDTS scores correlate positively with:

• The Dark Triad personality constellation: Machiavellianism (r = .34 to .46), Subclinical Psychopathy (r = .38 to .52), and Narcissism (r = .29 to .41).
• Intrasexual Competitiveness Scales (r = .48 to .62), confirming that individuals with high competitive drives routinely employ derogation tactics.
• Measures of covert and indirect aggression, relational bullying, and manipulative communication styles.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by low or non-significant correlations with general cognitive ability, generalized social anxiety, and socially desirable responding scales (such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, where correlations typically fall between r = -.08 and r = -.14). This demonstrates that reporting competitor derogation reflects actual behavioral tendencies rather than mere impression management or intellectual competence.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Schmitt and Buss (1996) examined context effects on perceived tactic effectiveness, demonstrating that the deployment of specific derogation tactics systematically predicted independent observer ratings of target mate value reduction. Furthermore, longitudinal assessments of mating outcomes show that individuals who strategically deploy competitor derogation in targeted contexts experience higher short-term mate acquisition success and lower partner infidelity rates, supporting criterion-related predictive validity.

Reliability

The reliability of the Derogation of Competitors Instrument has been verified across various developmental stages, marital statuses, and cultural contexts.

Internal Consistency

The overall instrument displays high internal consistency. In Buss and Dedden's initial studies (1990) and subsequent psychometric assessments (e.g., Schmitt & Buss, 1996; Bleske-Rechek & Buss, 2006; Fisher et al., 2009), the composite scale demonstrated Cronbach's alpha coefficients exceeding .90. The individual subscales exhibit acceptable to excellent internal consistency:

• Derogation of Physical Appearance: Cronbach's α = .84 – .89
• Derogation of Sexual Fidelity / Promiscuity: Cronbach's α = .82 – .91
• Derogation of Resources and Ambition: Cronbach's α = .79 – .87
• Derogation of Physical Strength / Athleticism: Cronbach's α = .75 – .85
• Derogation of Intellect and Personality: Cronbach's α = .78 – .86

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Test-retest reliability across a four-to-six-week test interval yielded Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from r = .71 to r = .83 across subscales, indicating that intrasexual competitive styles remain relatively stable behavioral dispositions over time, while fluctuating predictably in response to mating market shifts.

Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the Derogation of Competitors Instrument was established using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmed through structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Structure

In the original developmental phase (Buss & Dedden, 1990), an initial pool of candidate tactics was subjected to principal components analysis with varimax (orthogonal) and oblimin (oblique) rotations. The scree plot and eigenvalue criteria (λ > 1.0) supported a multi-dimensional structure explaining approximately 52.4% of the total variance across behavioral tactics. Items loaded substantially onto discrete evolutionary dimensions, with primary factor loadings exceeding .40 and minimal cross-loadings (< .25).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Fit Indices

Subsequent psychometric evaluations across diversified cohorts have supported the proposed multi-factor model. CFA evaluations testing correlated five-factor architectures have yielded acceptable goodness-of-fit indices across contemporary samples:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .91 to .94
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .90 to .93
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 to .062 (90% CI [.041, .068])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .051 to .059

Alternative single-factor models (positing a generalized "intrasexual nastiness" factor) consistently fail to satisfy minimum fit criteria (e.g., CFI < .70, RMSEA > .11), reinforcing the conceptualization of competitor derogation as a domain-specific, modular behavioral system rather than an undifferentiated aggressive trait.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Construct Measured: Frequency and tactical deployment of intrasexual competitor derogation behaviors.
• Instrument Type: Self-report behavioral frequency inventory.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically ages 16 and older) engaged in or entering mate-competition environments.
• Item Count: 28 core validated items (as presented in the primary behavioral evaluation inventory).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized digital assessment; self-administered.
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type rating format:
  • 1 = Never
  • 2 = Very Rarely
  • 3 = Rarely
  • 4 = Sometimes
  • 5 = Fairly Often
  • 6 = Often
  • 7 = Very Often
• Scoring Protocol: Subscale scores are calculated by computing the arithmetic mean or summing item responses within each designated domain. Total composite scores represent an overarching index of competitor derogation engagement. Higher scores indicate greater frequency of derogation tactics directed toward same-sex competitors. Reverse-scored items are not present, as all statements represent direct active engagement in derogation tactics.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Derogation of Competitors Instrument was first introduced into the scientific literature in 1990 by David M. Buss and Lisa A. Dedden. Published within peer-reviewed academic journals (notably the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships), the instrument is treated as an open-access psychometric instrument for academic, non-commercial, and clinical research purposes.

Researchers wishing to implement the scale in empirical, non-profit investigations generally do not require paid licensing fees. However, formal citation of the seminal publication (Buss & Dedden, 1990) is required in all derived scholarly works. For commercial, corporate, or for-profit implementations, direct consultation and permission from the primary author (David M. Buss) or the copyright-holding academic publishers is required.

References

• Bleske-Rechek, A., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Sexual strategies pursued and mate attraction tactics deployed. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1299–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.011
• Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 616–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.616
• Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(3), 395–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590073006
• Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204
• Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray. https://doi.org/10.1037/12293-000
• Fisher, M., Cox, A., & Gordon, F. (2009). Crossing lines: Women's competitor derogation tactics in personal advertisements. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.7.2009.2.4
• Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Mate attraction and competitor derogation: Context effects on perceived effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1185–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1185
• Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Aldine.

Items of the Scale