The recalibration theory of anger predicts that relative differences in women's physical attractiveness forecasts women's proneness to anger. Attractive women are more able to confer benefits and are more likely to weigh their own welfare above others' and consequently communicate more anger at competitors with the aim of prevailing during conflict. Existing evidence for this model suggests that attractive women are more aggressive; however, this evidence is correlational and measured in terms of global, not relative, differences in physical attractiveness and in terms of self-reported aggression, not actual behavior. This dissertation will provide an experimental test of the recalibration model on behavioral outcomes of aggression and consider other moderating variables, Machiavellianism and ovulatory fertility, that may also impact women's aggression. One hundred and fifty heterosexual women were randomly assigned to a condition of a between-subjects factorial design: 3 (Relative physical attractiveness: less, similar, or more than rival) x 2 (Provocation level: low/high). Outcomes included behavioral measures of verbal and indirect aggression as well as several proxy measures (i.e., negative personality evaluations of rival). Predicted moderators are base line attractiveness, Machiavellianism, and ovulatory fertility. Findings suggest that women communicate aggression based upon relative differences in attractiveness during social comparisons, not just global differences in attractiveness overall. It was found that women need not be very attractive or even provoked to communicate indirect aggression towards a rival who is noticeably less attractive. Furthermore, women high in Machiavellianism negatively evaluate rivals who provoke them and communicate increased indirect aggression towards rivals who do not provoke them. And there is limited evidence suggesting that women's fertility status plays a role in their aggression, but not in the direction predicted.