Derogation of Competitors Instrument

Abstract

The Derogation of Competitors Instrument (DCI) is a psychometric tool designed to quantify the self-reported likelihood and frequency with which individuals employ specific verbal and behavioral tactics to undermine or derogate same-sex rivals. This instrument is fundamentally rooted in an evolutionary model of human-mate competition. The underlying theoretical framework posits that individuals engage in social manipulation—either through self-promotion or rival derogation—as a strategy for self-enhancement and increased desirability in the mating market. The items reflect hypothesized sex differences in competitive strategies, focusing on attributes critical for mate selection, such as resources, physical attractiveness, social status, and reproductive fidelity.

Keywords

Derogation, Competitor Derogation, Mate Competition, Sexual Strategies, Evolutionary Psychology, Social Tactics, Self-enhancement, Social Perception, David Buss.

Authors

David M. Buss

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Derogation of Competitors Instrument (DCI) is to measure the reported frequency of specific behaviors and verbal signals used by an individual to diminish the perceived value, status, or desirability of a perceived competitor. This measurement is crucial for testing hypotheses derived from evolutionary psychological models concerning rivalry and mate selection strategies.

The instrument provides a quantitative assessment of how individuals manage the impressions others form about their rivals, thereby serving the function of indirect self-enhancement. By targeting traits that are highly valued by potential mates, the DCI helps researchers understand the specific competitive tactics deployed by men and women in same-sex rivalry.

Construct

The DCI measures the psychological construct of Competitor Derogation, defined as the intentional use of tactics—often verbal—aimed at reducing a rival’s perceived worth. This construct is viewed through the lens of evolutionary psychology, where derogation is a strategic behavior evolved to facilitate reproductive success by reducing the threat posed by rivals.

The scale items are designed to capture derogation across several key domains relevant to human mate preferences: attacks on a competitor’s resources (e.g., poverty), physical status (e.g., appearance, health), social status (e.g., lack of friends, low rank), and reproductive reliability (e.g., infidelity, promiscuity). The pattern of derogation tactics is expected to show sex-specific differences, reflecting the differing mate preferences of men and women.

Validity

The validity of the Derogation of Competitors Instrument is strongly supported by its theoretical grounding. The items were generated directly from five specific hypotheses concerning same-sex rivalry derived from an evolutionary model of mate competition (Buss & Dedden, 1990). This foundation ensures strong construct validity.

Furthermore, studies utilizing the DCI have consistently demonstrated predictive validity by showing that the reported use of specific derogation tactics correlates predictably with variables such as mating goals, context (short-term vs. long-term mating), and perceived effectiveness of the tactics, as detailed in the key references.

Reliability

Psychometric evaluations of the DCI, as reported in the associated key references, typically indicate good to excellent levels of internal consistency. The original research by Buss and colleagues found that the various subscales, which measure different categories of derogation (e.g., resources, physical appearance, fidelity), demonstrate acceptable reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha), suggesting that the items within each domain consistently measure the intended construct.

Factor Analysis

Factor analytical studies on the DCI (e.g., Buss & Dedden, 1990; Schmitt & Buss, 1996) reveal a multi-dimensional structure corresponding to the domains of mate value being targeted. These factors align with the evolutionary hypotheses, clustering items that target a rival’s: (1) physical prowess and appearance, (2) resources and ambition, (3) social standing, and (4) fidelity or reproductive history. This factor structure reinforces the scale’s utility in discerning specific, adaptive competitive strategies.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report inventory

Format: 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from Never to Very Often.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Adults engaged in or responsive to social and mating competition.

Age Group: Typically college-aged and young adults (18-35) in research contexts.

Population Details: Utilized primarily to study heterosexual same-sex rivalry (e.g., men reporting derogation of male competitors; women reporting derogation of female competitors).

Test Methodology: Respondents rate the frequency with which they have engaged in each listed derogation tactic toward a same-sex competitor.

Keywords

Mate Selection, Social Tactics, Status Competition, Reproductive Success, Fidelity, Resources, David Buss, Psychological Measurement, Competitor Derogation.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source material.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1990 (Initial publication of the core instrument and findings).

Permissions & Fee: The instrument is available through the original published academic articles. Use for non-commercial academic research typically requires citation of the original works and adherence to standard academic fair use guidelines. Contacting the author, David M. Buss, for formal permission is recommended.

Reference’s

• Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 395-422.
• Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Mate attraction and competitor derogation: Context effects on perceived effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1185-1204.
• Bleske-Rechek, A., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Sexual strategies pursued and mate attraction tactics deployed. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1299-1311.

Items of the Derogation of Competitors Instrument

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

(seven point scale, Never to Sometimes to very often) How often have you done this to derogate a member of the same sex?

1. I played a practical joke on the other
2. I made the other male seem dumb.
3. I spread false rumors about the other
4. I said the other male was insensitive to other people’s
5. I told her the other male was poor.
6. I called the other male a
7. I said the other male cheats on women.
8. I said that none of the other guys like the other male.
9. I laughed at the other male’s
10. I scoffed at the other male’s
11. I told her the other male was physically
12. I told her the other male had gross habits.
13. I physically defeated the other
14. I told her the other male was stupid.
15. I told her the other male used people, especially
16. I said the other male was boring or uninteresting.
17. I said the other man was a
18. I said the other male never
19. I made fun of the other male’s
20. I ignored the other male’s
21. I got the other male
22. I beat him up.
23. I pretended to control or dominate the other male in front of women.
24. I said the other male attracted men.
25. I laughed at the other male’s
26. I said the other male was an alcoholic.
27. I mentioned that the other male’s clothes were
28. I mentioned that the other male drove a poor

How often have you done this to derogate a member of the same sex?

29. I told the other male that he looked good before going out, when he actually looked
30. I told her that the other male might be
31. I told her that the other male was a
32. I told her that the other male got out of hand at parties.
33. I openly ridiculed the other male.
34. I tried to outshine the other male in sports.
35. I made smart sarcastic little remarks that seemed
36. I was very attentive to her when the other male was
37. I told her that the other male was ugly.
38. I told her that the other male had a social disease.
39. I put down the other male’s intelligence.
40. I talked about the other male’s low level of cleanliness.
41. I told other people that the other male just wanted to get laid.
42. I told her how selfish and uncaring the other male
43. I made fun of the other male because he got sick while
44. I told people the other male was a
45. I told her that the other male had gotten a woman pregnant
46. I said that the other male had no goals in life.
47. I said that the other male had too many past girlfriends.
48. I criticized the other male’s lack of athletic
49. I said the other male was fat and
50. I said the other male was inconsiderate toward women.
51. I said that the other male had a very serious
52. I made fun of the size/shape of the other male’s
53. I laughed at the other male’s make-up.
54. I made derogatory remarks about the other male’s
55. I told girls that the other male was
56. I said that the other male was physically
57. I said that the other male was emotionally
58. I laughed at the other male’s
59. I told everyone that the other male slept around a lot. How often have you done this to derogate a member of the same sex?
60. I said that the other male was just a
61. I said that the other male couldn’t stay loyal to just one
62. I said that the other male was
63. I said that the other male was an
64. I said the other male only wanted money.
65. I mentioned that the other male lacked ambition.
66. I said the other male led women on.
67. I told people that the other male
68. I said that the other male wouldn’t put out.
69. I said that the other male was out to use
70. I said that the other male was
71. I said that the other male was loose.
72. I told her that the other male had no money.
73. I said that the other male nagged too
74. I said that the other male cried all the
75. I said that the other male was undisciplined.
76. I told her the other male was sleazy.
77. I said the other male was incredibly
78. I said that the other male flirted with numerous women.
79. I called the other male rich and
80. I told her that the other male was a virgin.
81. I told her that everyone else hated the other
82. I told her that the other male was very self-centered.
83. I pointed out how poorly the other male would do