Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T09:19:19.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part I - Foundations of Evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

Edited by
Todd K. Shackelford
Todd K. Shackelford
Affiliation:
Oakland University, Michigan
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology , pp. 1 - 134
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centanni, T. M., Green, J. R., Iuzzini-Seigel, J., Bartlett, C. W., & Hogan, T. P. (2015). Evidence for the multiple hits genetic theory for inherited language impairment: A case study. Frontiers in Genetics, 6, 272.Google Scholar
Cobb, M. (2017). 60 years ago, Francis Crick changed the logic of biology. PLoS Biology, 15(9), e2003243.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1994). Better than rational: Evolutionary psychology and the invisible hand. American Economic Review, 84(2), 327–332.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859). Origin of species: First edition, along with the complete original unpublished essays that described the theory of evolution [Kindle Paperwhite version]. Red and Black Publishers. Retrieved from Amazon.com.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (2016a). The extended phenotype: The long reach of the gene [Kindle Paperwhite version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (2016b). The selfish gene (40th anniversary edition) [Kindle Paperwhite version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1996). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meaning of life [Kindle Paperwhite version]. Simon & Schuster. Retrieved from Amazon.com.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (2017). From bacteria to Bach and back: The evolution of minds. [Kindle edition]. W.W. Norton & Company. Retrieved from Amazon.com.Google Scholar
Forbes, A. A., & Krimmel, B. A. (2010) Evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population through successive generations. Nature Education Knowledge, 3(10), 6.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heams, T. T., Huneman, P., Lecointre, G., & Silberstein, M. (2015). Introduction. In Heams, T., Huneman, P., Lecointre, G., & Silberstein, M. (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary thinking in the sciences (pp. 1–5). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Hoyle, F. (1983). The intelligent universe. London: Holt, Reinhardt, & Winston.Google Scholar
Kang, C., & Drayna, D. (2011). Genetics of speech and language disorders. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 12, 145–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larson, A. (2016). History of adaptation. In Kliman, R. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of evolutionary biology (pp. 1–8). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lehtonen, J., Parker, G. A., & Schärer, L. (2016). Why anisogamy drives ancestral sex roles. Evolution, 70(5), 1129–1135.Google Scholar
Le Paige, M. (2008, April 16). Evolution myths: Evolution is random. New Scientist. Retrieved from www.newscientist.com/article/dn13698-evolution-myths-evolution-is-randomGoogle Scholar
Mattison, D. R. (2010). Environmental exposures and development. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 22(2), 208.Google Scholar
Newbury, D. F., & Monaco, A. P. (2010). Genetic advances in the study of speech and language disorders. Neuron, 68(2), 309–320.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary (n.d.) Design. In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from www-oed-com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/view/Entry/50840Google Scholar
Pfaus, J. G. (2009). Reviews: Pathways of sexual desire. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6(6), 1506–1533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soderstrom, M. (1998, Fall). The very popular scientist: Steven Pinker on how our minds evolved. McGill News Alumni Quarterly. Retrieved from https://mcgillnews-archives.mcgill.ca/f98/pinker.htmGoogle Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology & Sociobiology, 11(4–5), 375–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vakirtzis, A. (2011, April). Mate choice copying and nonindependent mate choice: A critical review. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 48(2), 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1972). Adaptation and natural selection: A critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1932). The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Genetics, 1(8), 355–366.Google Scholar

References

Alcock, J. (2001). Animal behavior, 7th ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Andersson, M. (1986). Evolution of condition‐dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: Sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution, 40, 804–816.Google Scholar
Apicella, C. L. (2014). Upper-body strength predicts hunting reputation and reproductive success in Hadza hunter–gatherers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 508–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apicella, C. L., Feinberg, D. R., & Marlowe, F. W. (2007). Voice pitch predicts reproductive success in male hunter-gatherers. Biology Letters, 3, 682–684.Google Scholar
Archer, J. (2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 249–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnocky, S., & Piché, T. (2014). Cosmetic surgery as intrasexual competition: The mediating role of social comparison. Psychology, 5, 1197–1205.Google Scholar
Arnocky, S., & Vaillancourt, T. (2012). A multi-informant longitudinal study on the relationship between aggression, peer victimization, and adolescent dating status. Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 253–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Atari, M. (2017). Assessment of long-term mate preferences in Iran. Evolutionary Psychology, 15, 1474704917702459.Google Scholar
Atari, M., Barbaro, N., Sela, Y., Shackelford, T. K., & Chegeni, R. (2017). Consideration of cosmetic surgery as part of women’s benefit-provisioning mate retention strategy. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1389.Google Scholar
Atari, M., Chaudhary, N., & Al-Shawaf, L. (2020). Mate preferences in three Muslim-majority countries: Sex differences and personality correlates. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11, 533–545.Google Scholar
Atari, M., Graham, J., & Dehghani, M. (2020). Foundations of morality in Iran. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41, 367–384.Google Scholar
Atari, M., & Jamali, R. (2016). Dimensions of women’s mate preferences: Validation of a mate preference scale in Iran. Evolutionary Psychology, 14, 1474704916651443.Google Scholar
Atari, M., Lai, M. H., & Dehghani, M. (2020). Sex differences in moral judgements across 67 countries. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 287, 20201201.Google Scholar
Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1989). Number of sperm in human ejaculates varies in accordance with sperm competition theory. Animal Behaviour, 37, 867–869.Google Scholar
Balliet, D., Li, N. P., Macfarlan, S. J., & Van Vugt, M. (2011). Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 881–909.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349–368.Google Scholar
Bellis, M. A., Baker, R. R., & Gage, M. J. G. (1990). Variation in rat ejaculates consistent with the Kamikaze Sperm Hypothesis. Journal of Mammalogy, 71, 479–480.Google Scholar
Bergstrom, C. T., & Real, L. A. (2000). Towards a theory of mutual mate choice: Lessons from two-sided matching. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 2, 493–508.Google Scholar
Birkhead, T. R., & Møller, A. P. (1992). Sperm competition in birds. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bönte, W. (2015). Gender differences in competitive preferences: New cross-country empirical evidence. Applied Economics Letters, 22, 71–75.Google Scholar
Bovet, J. (2019). Evolutionary theories and men’s preferences for women’s waist-to-hip ratio: Which hypotheses remain? A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1221.Google Scholar
Burbank, V. K. (1987). Female aggression in cross-cultural perspective. Behavior Science Research, 21, 70–100.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1988a). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 291–317.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1988b). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616–628.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2007). The evolution of human mating. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39, 502–512.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 7, 395–422.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 77–110.Google Scholar
Butovskaya, M., Sorokowska, A., Karwowski, M., Sabiniewicz, A., Fedenok, J., Dronova, D., … & Sorokowski, P. (2017). Waist-to-hip ratio, body-mass index, age and number of children in seven traditional societies. Scientific Reports, 7, 1–9.Google Scholar
Buunk, A. P., & Fisher, M. (2009). Individual differences in intrasexual competition. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 37–48.Google Scholar
Buunk, A. P., Stulp, G., & Ormel, J. (2014). Parental social status and intrasexual competitiveness among adolescents. Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 1022–1037.Google Scholar
Caman, S., Kristiansson, M., Granath, S., & Sturup, J. (2017). Trends in rates and characteristics of intimate partner homicides between 1990 and 2013. Journal of Criminal Justice, 49, 14–21.Google Scholar
Chagnon, N. A. (1988). Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science, 239, 985–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Guinness, F. E., & Albon, S. D. (1982). Red deer: Behavior and ecology of two sexes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cobey, K. D., Klipping, C., & Buunk, A. P. (2013). Hormonal contraceptive use lowers female intrasexual competition in pair-bonded women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34, 294–298.Google Scholar
Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2016). Mate preferences. In Weekes-Shackelford, V. & Shackelford, T. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (2 vols.). London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Davis, A. C., & Arnocky, S. (2020). An evolutionary perspective on appearance enhancement behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508-020-01745-4Google Scholar
Davis, A. C., Dufort, C., Desrochers, J., Vaillancourt, T., & Arnocky, S. (2018). Gossip as an intrasexual competition strategy: Sex differences in gossip frequency, content, and attitudes. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4, 141–153.Google Scholar
De Cremer, D., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugand, R. J., Tomkins, J. L., & Kennington, W. J. (2019). Molecular evidence supports a genic capture resolution of the lek paradox. Nature Communications, 10, 1–8.Google Scholar
Durkee, P. K., Polo, P., Munoz-Reyes, J. A., Rodríguez-Ruiz, C., Losada-Pérez, M., Fernández-Martínez, A. B., … & Pita, M. (2019). Men’s bodily attractiveness: Muscles as fitness indicators. Evolutionary Psychology, 17, 1474704919852918.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1994). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 1–35.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408–423.Google Scholar
Eberhard, W. G. (2009). Postcopulatory sexual selection: Darwin’s omission and its consequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10025–10032.Google Scholar
Ellemers, N., Van den Heuvel, H., De Gilder, D., Maass, A., & Bonvini, A. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 315–338.Google Scholar
Endler, J. A., & McLellan, T. (1988). The processes of evolution: Toward a newer synthesis. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 19, 395–421.Google Scholar
Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., & Armstrong, M. M. (2019). No evidence that men’s voice pitch signals formidability. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 34, 190–192.Google Scholar
Feinberg, D. R., Jones, B. C., Smith, M. L., Moore, F. R., DeBruine, L. M., Cornwell, R. E., … & Perrett, D. I. (2006). Menstrual cycle, trait estrogen level, and masculinity preferences in the human voice. Hormones and Behavior, 49, 215–222.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Frederick, D. A., & Haselton, M. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1167–1183.Google Scholar
Gage, M. J. G. (1994). Associations between body-size, mating pattern, testis size and sperm lengths across butterflies. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 258, 247–254.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 573–587.Google Scholar
Garza, R., Heredia, R. R., & Cieslicka, A. B. (2016). Male and female perception of physical attractiveness: An eye movement study. Evolutionary Psychology, 14, 1474704916631614.Google Scholar
Godin, J. G. J., & McDonough, H. E. (2003). Predator preference for brightly colored males in the guppy: A viability cost for a sexually selected trait. Behavioral Ecology, 14, 194–200.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., Euler, H. A., Hoier, S., Schmitt, D. P., & LaMunyon, C. W. (2005). Mate retention, semen displacement, and human sperm competition: A preliminary investigation of tactics to prevent and correct female infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 749–763.Google Scholar
Gomendio, M., Harcourt, A. H., & Roldán, E. R. S. (1998). Sperm competition in mammals. In Birkhead, T. R. & Møller, A. P. (Eds.), Sperm competition and sexual selection (pp. 667–756). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grafen, A. (1990). Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144, 517–546.Google Scholar
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133, 55–66.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D., & Zuk, M. (1982). Heritable true fitness and bright birds: A role for parasites? Science, 218, 384–387.Google Scholar
Harcourt, A. H., Harvey, P. H., Larson, S. G., & Short, R. V. (1981). Testis weight, body weight, and breeding system in primates. Nature, 293, 55–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, M., Dunn, M., & Alwyn, T. (2017). Intrasexual competition as a potential influence on anabolic-androgenic steroid use initiation. Journal of Health Psychology, 24, 1210–1220.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. (2015). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.Google Scholar
Hinde, R. A. (1973). Nobel recognition for ethology. Nature, 245, 346.Google Scholar
Honarvar, B., Salehi, F., Barfi, R., Asadi, Z., Honarvar, H., Odoomi, N., … & Lankarani, K. B. (2016). Attitudes toward and experience of singles with premarital sex: A population-based study in Shiraz, southern Iran. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 395–402.Google Scholar
Hopcroft, R. L. (2006). Sex, status, and reproductive success in the contemporary United States. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 104–120.Google Scholar
Hosken, D. J., & Ward, P. I. (2001). Experimental evidence for testis size evolution via sperm competition. Ecology Letters, 4, 10–13.Google Scholar
Iredale, W., Van Vugt, M., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008). Showing off in humans: Male generosity as mate signal. Evolutionary Psychology, 6, 386–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irons, W. (1979). Cultural and biological success. In Chagnon, N. A. & Irons, W. (Eds.), Evolutionary biology and human social behavior: An anthropological perspective (pp. 257–272). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
Joensen, G., Lorentsen, E., Sagstad, K. M., Raes, E., Chegeni, R., & Sagoe, D. (2021). Heterosexual women rate perceived anabolic steroid-using men as less attractive for long-term romantic relationships. Journal of Substance Use, 1, 36–39.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. M., Mercer, C. H., Erens, B., Copas, A. J., McManus, S., Wellings, K., … & Field, J. (2001). Sexual behaviour in Britain: Partnerships, practices, and HIV risk behaviours. The Lancet, 358, 1835–1842.Google Scholar
Karimi-Malekabadi, F., & Esmaeilinasab, M. (2019). Religiosity, intrasexual rivalry, and mate retention behaviors in Iran. Personality and Individual Differences, 149, 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karimi-Malekabadi, F., Ghanbarian, E., Afhami, R., & Chegeni, R. (2019). Theory-driven assessment of intrasexual rivalry. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5, 286–293.Google Scholar
Kelly, C. D., & Jennions, M. D. (2011). Sexual selection and sperm quantity: Meta-analyses of strategic ejaculation. Biological Reviews, 86, 863–884.Google Scholar
Kilgallon, S. J., & Simmons, L. W. (2005) Image content influences men’s semen quality. Biology Letters, 1, 253–255.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, M., & Ryan, M. (1991). The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature, 350, 33–38.Google Scholar
Klindworth, H., & Voland, E. (1995). How did the Krummhörn elite males achieve above-average reproductive success? Human Nature, 6, 221–240.Google Scholar
Kościński, K. (2014). Assessment of waist-to-hip ratio attractiveness in women: An anthropometric analysis of digital silhouettes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 989–997.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruger, D. J., & Fitzgerald, C. J. (2012). Evolutionary perspectives on male–male competition, violence, and homicide. In Shackelford, T. K. & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary perspectives on violence, homicide, and war (pp. 153–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leivers, S., Rhodes, G., & Simmons, L. W. (2014). Sperm competition in humans: Mate guarding behavior negatively correlates with ejaculate quality. PLoS One, 9, e108099.Google Scholar
Leivers, S., & Simmons, L. W. (2014). Human sperm competition: Playing a defensive strategy. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 46, 1–44.Google Scholar
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 947–955.Google Scholar
Li, N. P., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 468–489.Google Scholar
Llaurens, V., Raymond, M., & Faurie, C. (2009). Ritual fights and male reproductive success in a human population. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 22, 1854–1859.Google Scholar
Malik, A. H., Ziermann, J. M., & Diogo, R. (2018). An untold story in biology: The historical continuity of evolutionary ideas of Muslim scholars from the 8th century to Darwin’s time. Journal of Biological Education, 52, 3–17.Google Scholar
Mallidis, C., Howard, E. J., & Baker, H. W. G. (1991). Variation of semen quality in normal men. International Journal of Andrology, 14, 99–107.Google Scholar
Manning, A., & Stamp-Dawkins, M. (1998). An introduction to animal behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers. Human Nature, 15, 365–376.Google Scholar
Mead, L. S., & Arnold, S. J. (2004). Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 264–271.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L. (2017). Psychological science as a complex system: Report card. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 669–674.Google Scholar
Medin, D., Bennis, W., & Chandler, M. (2010). Culture and the home-field disadvantage. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 708–713.Google Scholar
Miner, E. J., Starratt, V. G., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). It’s not all about her: Men’s mate value and mate retention. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 214–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooijman, M., Meindl, P., Oyserman, D., Monterosso, J., Dehghani, M., Doris, J. M., & Graham, J. (2018). Resisting temptation for the good of the group: Binding moral values and the moralization of self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 585.Google Scholar
Nakahashi, W. (2017). Cultural sexual selection in monogamous human populations. Royal Society Open Science, 4, 160946.Google Scholar
Newman, L. E., & Higham, J. P. (2019). Intrasexual male competition. In Shackelford, T. & Weekes-Shackelford, V. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Oyserman, D. (2017). Culture three ways: Culture and subcultures within countries. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 435–463.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. (1970). Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biological Reviews, 45, 525–567.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. (1982). Why are there so many tiny sperm? Sperm competition and the maintenance of two sexes. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 96, 281–294.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. (2020). Conceptual developments in sperm competition: A very brief synopsis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375, 20200061.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A., Ball, M. A., Stockley, P., & Gage, M. J. G. (1997). Sperm competition games: A prospective analysis of risk assessment. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 264, 1793–1802.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., Doyle, J. F., Macedo, A. F., & Arantes, J. (2018). Arching the back (lumbar curvature) as a female sexual proceptivity signal: An eye-tracking study. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4, 158–165.Google Scholar
Pham, M. N., Barbaro, N., Holub, A. M., Holden, C. J., Mogilski, J. K., Lopes, G. S., … & Welling, L. L. (2018). Do men produce higher quality ejaculates when primed with thoughts of partner infidelity? Evolutionary Psychology, 16, 1474704918757551.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2013). The relationship between objective sperm competition risk and men’s copulatory interest is moderated by partner’s time spent with other men. Human Nature, 24, 476–485.Google Scholar
Pham, M. N., Shackelford, T. K., Holden, C. J., Zeigler-Hill, V., Hummel, A., & Memering, S. L. (2014). Partner attractiveness moderates the relationship between number of sexual rivals and in pair copulation frequency in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 128, 328–331.Google Scholar
Pitnick, S., Markow, T. A., & Spicer, G. S. (1995). Delayed male maturity is a cost of producing large sperm in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 92, 10614–10618.Google Scholar
Pitnick, S., Miller, G. T., Reagan, J., & Holland, B. (2001). Males’ evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268, 1071–1080.Google Scholar
Pound, N., & Gage, M. J. G. (2004). Prudent sperm allocation in Rattus Norvegicus: A mammalian model of adaptive ejaculate adjustment. Animal Behaviour, 68, 819–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, C. S., Dyer, K. A., & Coyne, J. A. (1999). Sperm competition between Drosophila males involves both displacement and incapacitation. Nature, 400, 449–452.Google Scholar
Puts, D. A. (2005). Mating context and menstrual phase affect women’s preferences for male voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 388–397.Google Scholar
Puts, D. A., Gaulin, S. J., & Verdolini, K. (2006). Dominance and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in human voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 283–296.Google Scholar
Reynolds, T. A. (2021). Our grandmothers’ legacy: Challenges faced by female ancestors leave traces in modern women’s same-sex relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508-020-01768-xGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, T., Baumeister, R. F., & Maner, J. K. (2018). Competitive reputation manipulation: Women strategically transmit social information about romantic rivals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 195–209.Google Scholar
Rosvall, K. A. (2011). Intrasexual competition in females: Evidence for sexual selection? Behavioral Ecology, 22, 1131–1140.Google Scholar
Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 494–509.Google Scholar
Russell, R., Batres, C., Courrèges, S., Kaminski, G., Soppelsa, F., Morizot, F., & Porcheron, A. (2019). Differential effects of makeup on perceived age. British Journal of Psychology, 110, 87–100.Google Scholar
Ryan, M. J. (1988). Coevolution of sender and receiver: Effect on local mate preference in cricket frogs. Science, 240, 1786.Google Scholar
Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., von Rueden, C., & Gurven, M. (2009). Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 276, 575–584.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K. (2005). An evolutionary psychological perspective on cultures of honor. Evolutionary Psychology, 3, 147470490500300126.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2007). Adaptation to sperm competition in humans. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 47–50.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., Bleske-Rechek, A. L., Euler, H. A., & Hoier, S. (2002). Psychological adaptation to human sperm competition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 123–138.Google Scholar
Simmons, L. W. (2001). Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, L. W., & García‐González, F. (2008). Evolutionary reduction in testes size and competitive fertilization success in response to the experimental removal of sexual selection in dung beetles. Evolution, 62, 2580–2591.Google Scholar
Simmons, L. W., Parker, G. A., & Hosken, D. J. (2020). Evolutionary insight from a humble fly: Sperm competition and the yellow dungfly. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375, 20200062.Google Scholar
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307.Google Scholar
Smith, K. M., Olkhov, Y. M., Puts, D. A., & Apicella, C. L. (2017). Hadza men with lower voice pitch have a better hunting reputation. Evolutionary Psychology, 15, 1474704917740466.Google Scholar
Smith, R. L. (1984). Human sperm competition. In Smith, R. L. (Ed.), Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems (pp. 601–660). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Smuts, B. (1995). The evolutionary origins of patriarchy. Human Nature, 6, 1–32.Google Scholar
Swami, V., & Tovée, M. J. (2005). Male physical attractiveness in Britain and Malaysia: A cross-cultural study. Body Image, 2, 383–393.Google Scholar
Townsend, J. M., & Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 149–164.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Brummen-Girigori, O., & Buunk, A. P. (2016). Intrasexual competitiveness and non-verbal seduction strategies to attract males: A study among teenage girls from Curaçao. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 134–141.Google Scholar
Van Vugt, M., Roberts, G., & Hardy, C. (2007). Competitive altruism: Development of reputation-based cooperation in groups. In Dunbar, R. I. M. & Barrett, L. (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 531–540). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walter, K. V., Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., … & Zupančič, M. (2020). Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication. Psychological Science, 31, 408–423.Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. J. (1979). Sexual selection, social competition and evolution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 123, 222–234.Google Scholar
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2013). Biology or culture alone cannot account for human sex differences and similarities. Psychological Inquiry, 24, 241–247.Google Scholar
Workman, L., & Reader, W. (2004). Sexual selection. In Evolutionary psychology: An introduction (pp. 58–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wyckoff, J. P., Asao, K., & Buss, D. M. (2019). Gossip as an intrasexual competition strategy: Predicting information sharing from potential mate versus competitor mating strategies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40, 96–104.Google Scholar
Yan, H., Chen, W., Wu, H., Bi, Y., Zhang, M., Li, S., & Braun, K. L. (2009). Multiple sex partner behavior in female undergraduate students in China: A multi campus survey. BMC Public Health, 9, 305.Google Scholar
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection: A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–214.Google Scholar
Zhang, L., Lee, A. J., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2019). Are sex differences in preferences for physical attractiveness and good earning capacity in potential mates smaller in countries with greater gender equality? Evolutionary Psychology, 17, 1474704919852921.Google Scholar
Zuk, M., & Simmons, L. W. (2018). Sexual selection: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

References

Alberts, S. C. (1999). Paternal kin discrimination in wild baboons. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 266(1427), 1501–1506.Google Scholar
Alvergne, A., Faurie, C., & Raymond, M. (2009). Father–offspring resemblance predicts paternal investment in humans. Animal Behaviour, 78(1), 61–69.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. G., Kaplan, H., & Lancaster, J. (1999). Paternal care by genetic fathers and stepfathers I: Reports from Albuquerque men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(6), 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apicella, C. L., & Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Perceived mate fidelity and paternal resemblance predict men’s investment in children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(6), 371–378.Google Scholar
Apostolou, M. (2007). Sexual selection under parental choice: The role of parents in the evolution of human mating. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 403–409.Google Scholar
Apostolou, M. (2010). Parental choice: What parents want in a son‐in‐law and a daughter‐in‐law across 67 pre‐industrial societies. British Journal of Psychology, 101(4), 695–704.Google Scholar
Barash, D., & Lipton, J. E. (1997). Making sense of sex: How genes and gender influence our relationships. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Beaulieu, D. A., & Bugental, D. (2008). Contingent parental investment: An evolutionary framework for understanding early interaction between mothers and children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(4), 249–255.Google Scholar
Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119(3), 422–447.Google Scholar
Bjorklund, D. F., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). The origins of human nature: Evolutionary developmental psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Björkqvist, K. (1994). Sex differences in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression: A review of recent research. Sex Roles, 30(4), 177–188.Google Scholar
Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. M. (1994). Sex differences in covert aggression among adults. Aggressive Behavior, 20(1), 27–33.Google Scholar
Boesch, C., Lehmann, J., & Fickenscher, G. (2006). Kin biased investment in wild chimpanzees. Behaviour, 143(8), 931–955.Google Scholar
Bornstein, M. H., & Putnick, D. L. (2007). Chronological age, cognitions, and practices in European American mothers: A multivariate study of parenting. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 850.Google Scholar
Bressan, P., Colarelli, S. M., & Cavalieri, M. B. (2009). Biologically costly altruism depends on emotional closeness among step but not half and full siblings. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(1), 118–132.Google Scholar
Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., & Kitayama, S. (1994). Some neo-Darwinian decision rules for altruism: Weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 773–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1996). Paternity uncertainty and the complex repertoire of human mating strategies. American Psychologist, 51(2), 161–162.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind, 5th ed. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(3), 395–422.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., & Westen, D. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy: Not gone, not forgotten, and not explained by alternative hypotheses. Psychological Science, 7(6), 373–375.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4), 251–256.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Choe, J. A. E., Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2000). Distress about mating rivals. Personal Relationships, 7(3), 235–243.Google Scholar
Buunk, A. P., Park, J. H., & Dubbs, S. L. (2008). Parent–offspring conflict in mate preferences. Review of General Psychology, 12(1), 47–62.Google Scholar
Charpentier, M. J. E., Peignot, P., Hossaert-McKey, M., & Wickings, E. J. (2007). Kin discrimination in juvenile mandrills, Mandrillus sphinx. Animal Behaviour, 73(1), 37–45.Google Scholar
Clark, C. B. (1977). A preliminary report on weaning among chimpanzees of the Gombe National Park, Tanzania. In Chevalier-Skolnikoff, S. & Poirier, F. E. (Eds.), Primate bio-social development (pp. 235–260). New York, NY: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2002). Breeding together: Kin selection and mutualism in cooperative vertebrates. Science, 296(5565), 69–72.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H., O’Riain, M. J., Brotherton, P. N. M., Gaynor, D., Kansky, R., Griffin, A. S., & Manser, M. (1999). Selfish sentinels in cooperative mammals. Science, 284(5420), 1640–1644.Google Scholar
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Evolutionary social psychology and family homicide. Science, 242(4878), 519–524.Google Scholar
Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3(1), 11–27.Google Scholar
Danielsbacka, M., Tanskanen, A. O., Jokela, M., & Rotkirch, A. (2011). Grandparental child care in Europe: Evidence for preferential investment in more certain kin. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(1), 3–24.Google Scholar
Davis, A. C., Dufort, C., Desrochers, J., Vaillancourt, T., & Arnocky, S. (2018). Gossip as an intrasexual competition strategy: Sex differences in gossip frequency, content, and attitudes. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4(2), 141–153.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1979). Twelve misunderstandings of kin selection. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 51(2), 184–200.Google Scholar
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2008). Social perception of facial resemblance in humans. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(1), 64–77.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B. P. (2001). Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking nature of a rival’s body build. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(5), 335–341.Google Scholar
Dunn, M. J., & Ward, K. (2020). Infidelity-revealing Snapchat messages arouse different levels of jealousy depending on sex, type of message and identity of the opposite sex rival. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 6, 38–46.Google Scholar
Euler, H. A., & Weitzel, B. (1996). Discriminative grandparental solicitude as reproductive strategy. Human Nature, 7(1), 39–59.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, C. J. (2021). Problems with group selection. In Shackelford, T. K. & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, C. J., & Colarelli, S. M. (2009). Altruism and reproductive limitations. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2), 234–252.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, C. J., & Ketterer, H. L. (2011). Examining verbal and physical retaliation against kinship insults. Violence and Victims, 26(5), 580–592.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, C. J., Thompson, M. C., & Whitaker, M. B. (2010). Altruism between romantic partners: Biological offspring as a genetic bridge between altruist and recipient. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 462–476.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, C. J., & Whitaker, M. B. (2009). Sex differences in violent versus non-violent life-threatening altruism. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(3), 467–476.Google Scholar
Fredrickson, W. T., & Sackett, G. P. (1984). Kin preferences in primates (Macaca nemestrina): Relatedness or familiarity? Journal of Comparative Psychology, 98(1), 29–34.Google Scholar
Gaulin, S. J., McBurney, D. H., & Brakeman-Wartell, S. L. (1997). Matrilateral biases in the investment of aunts and uncles. Human Nature, 8(2), 139–151.Google Scholar
Gesselman, A. N., & Webster, G. D. (2012). Inclusive fitness affects both prosocial and antisocial behavior: Target gender and insult domain moderate the link between genetic relatedness and aggression. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(4), 750–761.Google Scholar
Gomendio, M. (1991). Parent/offspring conflict and maternal investment in rhesus macaques. Animal Behaviour, 42(6), 993–1005.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour: I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Harris, C. R. (2002). Sexual and romantic jealousy in heterosexual and homosexual adults. Psychological Science, 13(1), 7–12.Google Scholar
Harrison, M. L., & Tardif, S. D. (1988). Kin preference in marmosets and tamarins: Saguinus oedipus and Callithrix jacchus (Callitrichidae, Primates). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 77(3), 377–384.Google Scholar
Hauber, M. E., & Sherman, P. W. (2001). Self-referent phenotype matching: Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends in Neurosciences, 24(10), 609–616.Google Scholar
Hennighausen, C., Hudders, L., Lange, B. P., & Fink, H. (2016). What if the rival drives a Porsche? Luxury car spending as a costly signal in male intrasexual competition. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(4), 1474704916678217.Google Scholar
Hepper, P. G. (2005). Kin recognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, W. G. (1986). Kin recognition by phenotype matching in female Belding’s ground squirrels. Animal Behaviour, 34(1), 38–47.Google Scholar
Horr, D. A. (1977). Orangutan maturation: Growing up in a female world. In Chevalier-Skolnikoff, S. & Poirier, F. E. (Eds.), Primate bio-social development (pp. 289–321). New York, NY: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Jankowiak, W., & Diderich, M. (2000). Sibling solidarity in a polygamous community in the USA: Unpacking inclusive fitness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21(2), 125–139.Google Scholar
Jeon, J., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Altruism towards cousins. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 274(1614), 1181–1187.Google Scholar
Johnson, C., Koerner, C., Estrin, M., & Duoos, D. (1980). Alloparental care and kinship in captive social groups of vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus). Primates, 21(3), 406–415.Google Scholar
Judge, D. S., & Hrdy, S. B. (1992). Allocation of accumulated resources among close kin: Inheritance in Sacramento, California, 1890–1984. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13(5), 495–522.Google Scholar
Kazem, A. J., & Widdig, A. (2013). Visual phenotype matching: Cues to paternity are present in rhesus macaque faces. PLoS One, 8(2), e55846.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J. (2001). Psychological aspects of adaptations for kin directed altruistic helping behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality, 29(4), 323–330.Google Scholar
Krupp, D. B., DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2012). Kin recognition: Evidence that humans can perceive both positive and negative relatedness. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 25(8), 1472–1478.Google Scholar
Langergraber, K. E., Mitani, J. C., & Vigilant, L. (2007). The limited impact of kinship on cooperation in wild chimpanzees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(19), 7786–7790.Google Scholar
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445(7129), 727–731.Google Scholar
Lu, H. J., & Chang, L. (2016). Resource allocation to kin, friends, and strangers by 3- to 6-year-old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 150, 194–206.Google Scholar
Lu, H. J., Zhu, X. Q., & Chang, L. (2015). Good genes, good providers, and good fathers: Economic development involved in how women select a mate. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9(4), 215.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, M. M., McGrew, W. C., & Chamove, A. S. (1985). Social preferences in stump-tailed macaques (Macaca arcoides): Effects of companionship, kinship, and rearing. Developmental Psychobiology, 18(2), 115–123.Google Scholar
Maestripieri, D. (2002). Parent–offspring conflict in primates. International Journal of Primatology, 23(4), 923–951.Google Scholar
Marshall, J. A., 2016. What is inclusive fitness theory, and what is it for? Current Opinion in Behavioural Sciences, 12, 103–108.Google Scholar
Mateo, J. M. (2015). Perspectives: Hamilton’s legacy – mechanisms of kin recognition in humans. Ethology, 121(5), 419–427.Google Scholar
Michalski, R. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2005). Grandparental investment as a function of relational uncertainty and emotional closeness with parents. Human Nature, 16(3), 293–305.Google Scholar
Moehlman, P. D. (1979). Jackal helpers and pup survival. Nature, 277(5695), 382–383.Google Scholar
Neyer, F. J., & Lang, F. R. (2003). Blood is thicker than water: Kinship orientation across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 310–321.Google Scholar
Niemeyer, C. L., & Anderson, J. R. (1983). Primate harassment of matings. Ethology and Sociobiology, 4(4), 205–220.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 1560–1563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nowak, M. A., Tarnita, C. E., & Wilson, E. O. (2010). The evolution of eusociality. Nature, 466(7310), 1057–1062.Google Scholar
Park, J. H. (2007). Persistent misunderstandings of inclusive fitness and kin selection: Their ubiquitous appearance in social psychology textbooks. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(4), 860–873.Google Scholar
Park, J. H., Schaller, M., and Van Vugt, M. (2008). Psychology of human kin recognition: Heuristic cues, erroneous inferences, and their implications. Review of General Psychology, 12(3), 215–235.Google Scholar
Parr, L. A., & de Waal, F. B. M. (1999). Visual kin recognition in chimpanzees. Nature, 399(6737), 647–648.Google Scholar
Pashos, A. (2000). Does paternal uncertainty explain discriminative grandparental solicitude? A cross-cultural study in Greece and Germany. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21(2), 97–109.Google Scholar
Pashos, A., & McBurney, D. H. (2008). Kin relationships and the caregiving biases of grandparents, aunts, and uncles. Human Nature, 19(3), 311–330.Google Scholar
Perry, S., Manson, J. H., Muniz, L., Gros-Louis, J., & Vigilant, L. (2008). Kin-biased social behaviour in wild adult female white-faced capuchins, Cebus capucinus. Animal Behaviour, 76(1), 187–199.Google Scholar
Pizzari, T., Biernaskie, J. M., & Carazo, P. (2014). Inclusive fitness and sexual conflict: How population structure can modulate the battle of the sexes. Bioessays, 37, 155–166.Google Scholar
Platek, S. M., Burch, R. L., Panyavin, I. S., Wasserman, B. H., & Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2002). Reactions to children’s faces: Resemblance affects males more than females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(3), 159–166.Google Scholar
Pollet, T. V., Nelissen, M., & Nettle, D. (2009). Lineage based differences in grandparental investment: Evidence from a large British cohort study. Journal of Biosocial Science, 41(3), 355.Google Scholar
Pollet, T. V., Nettle, D., & Nelissen, M. (2006). Contact frequencies between grandparents and grandchildren in a modern society: Estimates of the impact of paternity uncertainty. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 4(3–4), 203–213.Google Scholar
Reid, C. R., Lutz, M. J., Powell, S., Kao, A. B., Couzin, I. D., & Garnier, S. (2015). Army ants dynamically adjust living bridges in response to a cost–benefit trade-off. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(49), 15113–15118.Google Scholar
Schlomer, G. L., Del Giudice, M., & Ellis, B. J. (2011). Parent–offspring conflict theory: An evolutionary framework for understanding conflict within human families. Psychological Review, 118(3), 496.Google Scholar
Seeley, T. D. (1997). Honey bee colonies are group-level adaptive units. The American Naturalist, 150(suppl. 1), S22–S41.Google Scholar
Silk, J. B. (2009). Nepotistic cooperation in non-human primate groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1533), 3243–3254.Google Scholar
Smith, K., Alberts, S. C., & Altmann, J. (2003). Wild female baboons bias their social behaviour towards paternal half-sisters. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270, 503–510.Google Scholar
Stewart-Williams, S. (2007). Altruism among kin vs. non-kin: Effects of cost of help and reciprocal exchange. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(3), 193–198.Google Scholar
Stewart-Williams, S. (2008). Human beings as evolved nepotists: Exceptions to the rule and effects of the cost of help. Human Nature, 19(4), 414–425.Google Scholar
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. A., & Fitzgerald, C. J. (2017). Nepotistic preferences in a computerized trolley problem. Current Research in Social Psychology, 25(7), 36–44.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. G. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent–offspring conflict. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 14(1), 249–264.Google Scholar
Vokey, J. R., Rendall, D., Tangen, J. M., Parr, L. A., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2004). Visual kin recognition and family resemblance in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118(2), 194–199.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. (2003). Prosocial behavior in families: Moderators of resource sharing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 644–652.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. (2004). Human kin investment as a function of genetic relatedness and lineage. Evolutionary Psychology, 2(1), 129–141.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D. (2008). The kinship, acceptance, and rejection model of altruism and aggression (KARMAA): Implications for interpersonal and intergroup aggression. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(1), 27–38.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D., Cottrell, C. A., Schember, T. O., Crysel, L. C., Crosier, B. S., Gesselman, A. N., & Le, B. M. (2012). Two sides of the same coin? Viewing altruism and aggression through the adaptive lens of kinship. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(8), 575–588.Google Scholar
Weeden, J., & Sabini, J. (2005). Physical attractiveness and health in Western societies: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 635.Google Scholar
Wells, P. A. (1987). Kin recognition in humans. In Fletcher, D. J. C. & Michener, C. D. (Eds.), Kin recognition in animals (pp. 395–416). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Widdig, A. (2007). Paternal kin discrimination: The evidence and likely mechanisms. Biological Reviews, 82(2), 319–334.Google Scholar
Wolff, J. O., & Peterson, J. A. (1998). An offspring-defense hypothesis for territoriality in female mammals. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 10(3), 227–239.Google Scholar
Wrangham, R. W. (1987). Evolution of social structure. In Smuts, B., Cheney, D. L., Seyfarth, R. M., Wrangham, R. W., & Struhsaker, T. T. (Eds.), Primate societies (pp. 282–296). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wu, H. M. H., Holmes, W. G., Medina, S. R., & Sackett, G. P. (1980). Kin preference in infant Macaca nemestrina. Nature, 285(5762), 225–227.Google Scholar

References

Ackerman, J. M., Griskevicius, V., & Li, N. P. (2011). Let’s get serious: Communicating commitment in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1079–1094.Google Scholar
Aeschlimann, P. B., Häberli, M. A., Reusch, T. B. H., Boehm, T., & Milinski, M. (2003). Female sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus use self-reference to optimize MHC allele number during mate selection. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 54(2), 119–126.Google Scholar
Andersson, M. (1982). Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature, 299(1982), 818–820.Google Scholar
Anjos-Duarte, C. S., Costa, A. M., & Joachim-Bravo, I. S. (2010). Influence of female age on variation of mate choice behavior in Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Insect Behavior, 24(1), 11–21.Google Scholar
Arnocky, S., Ribout, A., Mirza, R. S., & Knack, J. M. (2014). Perceived mate availability influences intrasexual competition, jealousy and mate-guarding behavior. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 45–64.Google Scholar
Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94(1), 327–337.Google Scholar
Bakker, T. C. M., & Pomiankowski, A. (1995). The genetic basis of female mate preferences. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 8(2), 129–171.Google Scholar
Bendixen, M., Kennair, L. E. O., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Jealousy: Evidence of strong sex differences using both forced choice and continuous measure paradigms. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 212–216.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preference. Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2006). The evolution of love. In Sternberg, R. J. & Weis, K. (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 65–86). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2009). The great struggles of life: Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary psychology. The American Psychologist, 64(2), 140–148.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2014). Evolutionary criteria for considering an emotion “ basic”: Jealousy as an illustration. Emotion Review, 6(4), 4–6.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Haselton, M. (2005). The evolution of jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(11), 506–507.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4), 251–255.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 346–361.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Choe, J. C., Lim, H. K., Hasegawa, M., … Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and Japan. Personal Relationships, 6(1), 125–150.Google Scholar
Charlesworth, D., & Charlesworth, B. (1987). Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 18(1), 237–268.Google Scholar
Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). How sexually dimorphic are human mate preferences? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1082–1093.Google Scholar
Cotton, S., Small, J., & Pomiankowski, A. (2006). Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Current Biology, 16(17), 755–765.Google Scholar
Crnokrak, P., & Roff, D. A. (1999). Inbreeding depression in the wild. Heredity, 83(3), 260–270.Google Scholar
Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3(1), 11–27.Google Scholar
Delaney, K. J., Roberts, J. A., & Uetz, G. W. (2007). Male signaling behavior and sexual selection in a wolf spider (Araneae: Lycosidae): A test for dual functions. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62(1), 67–75.Google Scholar
Dolgin, E. S., Charlesworth, B., Baird, S. E., & Cutter, A. D. (2007). Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in Caenorhabditis nematodes. Evolution, 61(6), 1339–1352.Google Scholar
Fessler, D. M. T., & Navarrete, C. D. (2004). Third-party attitudes toward sibling incest: Evidence for Westermarck’s hypotheses. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(5), 277–294.Google Scholar
Fisher, H., Aron, A., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Romantic love: An fMRI study of a neural mechanism for mate choice. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 493(1), 58–62.Google Scholar
Forsgren, E. (1997). Mate sampling in a population of sand gobies. Animal Behavior, 53, 267–276.Google Scholar
Frank, R. (1988). Passions within reason. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Galperin, A., & Haselton, M. (2010). Predictors of how often and when people fall in love. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(1), 5–28.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(2), 89–96.Google Scholar
Goossens, B., Graziani, L., Waits, L. P., Farand, E., Magnolon, S., Coulon, J., … Allainé, D. (1998). Extra-pair paternity in the monogamous Alpine marmot revealed by nuclear DNA microsatellite analysis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 43(4–5), 281–288.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1980). Sex versus non-sex versus parasite. Oikos, 35(2), 282–290.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D., Axelrod, R., & Tanese, R. (1990). Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites (a review). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 87(9), 3566–3573.Google Scholar
Haselton, M. G., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Conditional expression of women’s desires and men’s mate guarding across the ovulatory cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 49(4), 509–518.Google Scholar
Hedrick, P. W., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2000). Inbreeding depression in conservation biology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics Systems, 31, 139–162.Google Scholar
Hurtado, A. M., & Hill, K. R. (1992). Paternal effect on offspring survivorship among Ache and Hiwi hunter-gatherers: Implications for modeling pair-bond stability. In Hewlett, B. S. (Ed.), Father–child relations (pp. 31–55). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jennions, M. D., & Petrie, M. (1997). Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: A review of causes and consequences. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 72(2), 283–327.Google Scholar
Jormalainen, V. (1998). Precopulatory mate guarding in crustaceans: Male competitive strategy and intersexual conflict. Quarterly Review of Biology, 73(3), 275–304.Google Scholar
Kodric-Brown, A., & Nicoletto, P. F. (2001). Age and experience affect female choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). The American Naturalist, 157(3), 316–323.Google Scholar
Komdeur, J. (2001). Mate guarding in the Seychelles warbler is energetically costly and adjusted to paternity risk. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268(1481), 2103–2111.Google Scholar
Kuhle, B. X. (2011). Did you have sex with him? Do you love her? An in vivo test of sex differences in jealous interrogations. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(8), 1044–1047.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. M. G., Conroy-Beam, D., Asao, K., & Buss, D. M. (2017). Evolutionary psychology: A how-to guide. American Psychologist, 72(4), 353–373.Google Scholar
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2003). Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270(1517), 819–826.Google Scholar
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445(7129), 727–731.Google Scholar
Lifjeld, J. T., Dunn, P. O., Robertson, R. J., & Boag, P. T. (1993). Extra-pair paternity in monogamous tree swallows. Animal Behaviour. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1993.1028Google Scholar
Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2011). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1571), 1638–1659.Google Scholar
Lively, C. M., Craddock, C., & Vrijenhoek, R. C. (1990). Red Queen hypothesis supported by parasitism in sexual and clonal fish. Nature, 344, 864–866.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster (n.d.). Parasite. In Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasiteGoogle Scholar
Milinski, T. C. M., & Bakker, M. (1990). Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature, 344, 330–333.Google Scholar
Moore, P. J., & Moore, A. J. (2001). Reproductive aging and mating: The ticking of the biological clock in female cockroaches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(16), 9171–9176.Google Scholar
Moritz, C., McCallum, H., Donnellan, S., & Roberts, J. D. (1991). Parasite loads in parthenogenetic and sexual lizards (Heteronotia binoei): Support for the Red Queen hypothesis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 244(1310), 145–149.Google Scholar
Morran, L. T., Schmidt, O. G., Gelarden, I. A., Parrish, R. C. II, & Lively, C. M. (2011). Running with the Red Queen: Host–parasite coevolution selects for biparental sex. Science, 333(6039), 216–218.Google Scholar
Rabajante, J. F., Tubay, J. M., Uehara, T., Morita, S., Ebert, D., & Yoshimura, J. (2015). Red Queen dynamics in multi-host and multi-parasite interaction system. Scientific Reports, 5, 1–7.Google Scholar
Reichard, U. (1995). Extra-pair copulations in a monogamous gibbon (Hylobates lar). Ethology, 100, 99–112.Google Scholar
Reusch, T. B. H., Häberli, M. A., Aeschlimann, P. B., & Milinski, M. (2001). Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature, 414(6861), 300–302.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L. A., Clark, A., Kalick, S. M., Hightower, A., & McKay, R. (2001). Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(1), 31–46.Google Scholar
Schützwohl, A., & Koch, S. (2004). Sex differences in jealousy: The recall of cues of sexual and emotional infidelity in personally more and less threatening context conditions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(4), 249–257.Google Scholar
Searcy, W. A., & Andersson, M. (2012). Sexual selection and the evolution of song. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 17(1986), 507–533.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., Guta, F. E., & Schmitt, D. P. (2006). Mate guarding and frequent in-pair copulation in humans: Concurrent or compensatory anti-cuckoldry tactics? Human Nature, 17(3), 239–252.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 447–458.Google Scholar
Shepher, J. (1971). Self-imposed incest avoidance and exogamy in second generation kibbutz adults. Ph.D. dissertation. Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Human Nature, 4(3), 237–269.Google Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11(4–5), 375–424.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 52–95). Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F., & Paepke, A. J. (1995). MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 260, 245–249.Google Scholar
Weeden, J., Cohen, A. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2008). Religious attendance as reproductive support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(5), 327–334.Google Scholar
Weeden, J., & Kurzban, R. (2013). What predicts religiosity? A multinational analysis of reproductive and cooperative morals. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(6), 440–445.Google Scholar
Westermarck, E. (1981). The history of human marriage. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, A. P. (1995). Sexual attraction and childhood association. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Yamazaki, K., Boyse, E. A., Miké, V., Thaler, H. T., Mathieson, B. J., Abbott, J., … Thomas, L. (1976). Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 144(5), 1324–1335.Google Scholar
Zeki, S. (2007). The neurobiology of love. FEBS Letters, 581(14), 2575–2579.Google Scholar

References

Alexander, R. D., & Borgia, G. (1978) Group selection, altruism and the levels of organization of life. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 9, 449–475.Google Scholar
Ardlie, K. G. (1998). Putting the brake on drive: Meiotic drive of t haplotypes in natural populations of mice. Trends in Genetics, 14, 189–193.Google Scholar
Baldwin, J. M. (1896). A new factor in evolution. The American Naturalist, 30, 441–451.Google Scholar
Benne, R. (1992). Review: RNA editing in trypanosomes – the us(e) of guide RNAs. Molecular Biology Reports, 16, 217–227.Google Scholar
Berdoy, M., Webster, J. P., & Macdonald, D. W. (1995). The manipulation of rat behaviour by Toxoplasma gondii. Mammalia, 59(4), 605–613.Google Scholar
Berdoy, M., Webster, J. P., & Macdonald, D. W. (2000). Fatal attraction in rats infected with Toxoplasma gondii. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 267(1452), 1591–1594.Google Scholar
Blanchard, R., & Bogaert, A. F. (1996). Homosexuality in men and number of older brothers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153(1), 27–31.Google Scholar
Bogaert, A. F., Skorska, M. N., Wang, C., Gabrie, J., MacNeil, A. J., Hoffarth, M. R., … Blanchard, R. (2018). Male homosexuality and maternal immune responsivity to the Y-linked protein NLGN4Y. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 302–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouayed, J., & Bohn, T. (2020). Behavioral manipulation: Key to the successful global spread of the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2? Journal of Medical Virology. doi: 10.1002/jmv.26446Google Scholar
Bowman, J. (1997). The management of hemolytic disease in the fetus and newborn. [Review]. Seminars in Perinatology, 21(1), 39–44.Google Scholar
Camperio-Ciani, A., Corna, F., & Capiluppi, C. (2004). Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2217–2221.Google Scholar
Carson, H. L. (1968). The population flush and its genetic consequences. In Lewontin, R. C. (Ed.), Population biology and evolution (pp. 123–137). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Ciani, A. C., Battaglia, U., & Zanzotto, G. (2015). Human homosexuality: A paradigmatic arena for sexually antagonistic selection? Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 7(4). doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a017657Google Scholar
Cloninger, C. R. (1998). The genetics and psychobiology of the seven-factor model of personality. In Silk, K. R. (Ed.), Biology of personality disorders (pp. 63–92). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1860). On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (Vol. 5). London: Murray.Google Scholar
Dass, S. A. H., & Vyas, A. (2014). Toxoplasma gondii infection reduces predator aversion in rats through epigenetic modulation in the host medial amygdala. Molecular Ecology, 23(24), 6114–6122.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype: The gene as the unit of selection (Vol. 1). Oxford: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1983). The extended phenotype: The long reach of the gene. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dewar, C. S. (2003). An association between male homosexuality and reproductive success. Medical Hypotheses, 60, 225–232.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N., & Gould, S. J. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In Schopf, T. J. M. (Ed.), Models in paleontology (pp. 82–115). San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Emiliani, C. (1993). Extinction and viruses. BioSystems, 31, 155–159.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. W., Nabholz, M., & Bodmer, W. F. (1969). Evolution of the Rh polymorphism: A model for the interaction of incompatibility, reproductive compensation and heterozygote advantage. American Journal of Human Genetics, 21, 171–193.Google Scholar
Filbey, D., Hanson, U., & Wesstrom, G. (1995). The prevalence of red cell antibodies in pregnancy correlated to the outcome of the newborn: A 12 year study in central Sweden. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 74(9), 687–692.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A., Race, R. R., & Taylor, G. L. (1944). Mutation and the Rhesus reaction. Nature, 153, 106.Google Scholar
Flegr, J. (1994). Chemostat-turbidostat discontinuum, r–K continuum and population-size regulating mechanism. Acta Societatis Zoologica Bohemica, 58, 143–149.Google Scholar
Flegr, J. (1998). On the “origin” of natural selection by means of speciation. Rivista di Biologia – Biology Forum, 91(2), 291–304.Google Scholar
Flegr, J. (2010). Elastic, not plastic species: Frozen plasticity theory and the origin of adaptive evolution in sexually reproducing organisms. Biology Direct, 5, 2.Google Scholar
Flegr, J. (2013). Microevolutionary, macroevolutionary, ecological and taxonomical implications of punctuational theories of adaptive evolution. Biology Direct, 8, 1.Google Scholar
Flegr, J. (2016). Heterozygote advantage probably maintains Rhesus factor blood group polymorphism: Ecological regression study. PLoS One, 11(1). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147955Google Scholar
Flegr, J. (2017). Does Toxoplasma infection increase sexual masochism and submissiveness? Yes and no. Communicative & Integrative Biology. doi: 10.1080/19420889.2017.1303590Google Scholar
Flegr, J., & Escudero, D. Q. (2016). Impaired health status and increased incidence of diseases in Toxoplasma-seropositive subjects: An explorative cross-sectional study. Parasitology, 143(14), 1974–1989.Google Scholar
Flegr, J., Hoffmann, R., & Dammann, M. (2015). Worse health status and higher incidence of health disorders in Rhesus negative subjects. PLoS One, 10(10). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141362Google Scholar
Flegr, J., & Kuba, R. (2016). The relation of Toxoplasma infection and sexual attraction to fear, danger, pain, and submissiveness. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(3). doi: 10.1177/1474704916659746Google Scholar
Flegr, J., Kuba, R., & Kopecký, R. (2020). Rhesus-minus phenotype as a predictor of sexual desire and behavior, wellbeing, mental health, and fecundity. PLoS One, 15(7), e0236134.Google Scholar
Flegr, J., Lenochová, P., Hodný, Z., & Vondrová, M. (2011). Fatal attraction phenomenon in humans: Cat odour attractiveness increased for Toxoplasma-infected men while decreased for infected women. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 5(11), e1389.Google Scholar
Flegr, J., & Markoš, A. (2014). Masterpiece of epigenetic engineering: How Toxoplasma gondii reprogrammes host brains to change fear to sexual attraction. Molecular Ecology, 23(24), 5934–5936.Google Scholar
Flegr, J., Milinski, M., Kaňková, Š., Hůla, M., Hlaváčová, J., & Sýkorová, K. (2018). Latent toxoplasmosis and olfactory functions of Rh positive and Rh negative subjects. PLoS One, 13(12). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209773Google Scholar
Flegr, J., Novotná, M., Lindová, J., & Havlíček, J. (2008). Neurophysiological effect of the Rh factor: Protective role of the RhD molecule against Toxoplasma-induced impairment of reaction times in women. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 29, 475–481.Google Scholar
Flegr, J., Prandota, J., Sovičková, M., & Israili, Z. H. (2014). Toxoplasmosis: A global threat. Correlation of latent toxoplasmosis with specific disease burden in a set of 88 countries. PLoS One, 9(3). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090203Google Scholar
Flegr, J., Preiss, M., Klose, J., Havlíček, J., Vitáková, M., & Kodym, P. (2003). Decreased level of psychobiological factor novelty seeking and lower intelligence in men latently infected with the protozoan parasite Toxoplasma gondii. Dopamine, a missing link between schizophrenia and toxoplasmosis? Biological Psychology, 63, 253–268.Google Scholar
Flegr, J., Toman, J., Hůla, M., & Kaňková, Š. (2020). The role of balancing selection in maintaining human RhD blood group polymorphism: A preregistered cross-sectional study. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. doi: 10.1111/jeb.13745Google Scholar
Flegr, J., Zitkova, S., Kodym, P., & Frynta, D. (1996). Induction of changes in human behaviour by the parasitic protozoan Toxoplasma gondii. Parasitology, 113, 49–54.Google Scholar
Gaskell, E. A., Smith, J. E., Pinney, J. W., Westhead, D. R., & McConkey, G. A. (2009). A unique dual activity amino acid hydroxylase in Toxoplasma gondii. PLoS One, 4, e4801.Google Scholar
Gerbault, P., Liebert, A., Itan, Y., Powell, A., Currat, M., Burger, J., … Thomas, M. G. (2011). Evolution of lactase persistence: An example of human niche construction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1566), 863–877.Google Scholar
González-Forero, M. (2015). Stable eusociality via maternal manipulation when resistance is costless. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 28(12), 2208–2223.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful life. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1997). Evolution: The pleasures of pluralism. New York Review of Books, 44(11), 47–52.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 205, 581–598.Google Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. (1922). Sex ratio and unisexual sterility in hybrid animals. Journal of Genetics, 12, 101–109.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1964a). The genetical evolution of social behaviour: I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–16.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1964b). The genetical evolution of social behaviour: II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 17–52.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.Google Scholar
Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (1993). Humans, habitats and aesthetics. In Kellert, S. R. & Wilson, E. O. (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis (pp. 138–172). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Herrmann, B., Thoni, C., & Gachter, S. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319(5868), 1362–1367.Google Scholar
Hueffer, K., Khatri, S., Rideout, S., Harris, M. B., Papke, R. L., Stokes, C., & Schulte, M. K. (2017). Rabies virus modifies host behaviour through a snake-toxin like region of its glycoprotein that inhibits neurotransmitter receptors in the CNS. Scientific Reports, 7. doi: 10.1038/S41598-017-12726-4Google Scholar
Kaňková, Š., Flegr, J., Toman, J., & Calda, P. (2020). Maternal RhD heterozygous genotype is associated with male biased secondary sex ratio. Early Human Development, 140, 104864.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, R. C. (2000). The evolution of human homosexual behavior. Current Anthropology, 41(3), 385–413.Google Scholar
Kuběna, A. A., Houdek, P., Lindová, J., Příplatová, L., & Flegr, J. (2014). Justine effect: Punishment of the unduly self-sacrificing cooperative individuals. PLoS One, 9(3). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092336Google Scholar
Lewis, P. D. Jr. (1974). Helminths of terrestrial molluscs in Nebraska. II. Life cycle of Leucochloridium variae McIntosh, 1932 (Digenea: Leucochloridiidae). Journal of Parasitology, 60, 251–255.Google Scholar
Lieberman, B. S., & Vrba, E. S. (2005). Stephen Jay Gould on species selection: 30 years of insight. Paleobiology, 31, 113–121.Google Scholar
Lindová, J., Kuběna, A. A., Šturcová, A., Křivohlavá, R., Novotná, M., Rubešová, A., … Flegr, J. (2010). Pattern of money allocation in experimental games supports the stress hypothesis of gender differences in Toxoplasma gondii-induced behavioural changes. Folia Parasitologica, 57, 136–142.Google Scholar
Lindová, J., Novotná, M., Havlíček, J., Jozífková, E., Skallová, A., Kolbeková, P., … Flegr, J. (2006). Gender differences in behavioural changes induced by latent toxoplasmosis. International Journal for Parasitology, 36, 1485–1492.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1964). Group selection and kin selection. Nature, 201(4924), 1145–1147.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1954). Change of genetic environment and evolution. In Ford, E. B., Huxley, J., & Hardy, A. C. (Eds.), Evolution as a process (pp. 157–180). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1963). Animal species and evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, E. M. (2000). Homosexuality, birth order, and evolution: Toward an equilibrium reproductive economics of homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29(1), 1–34.Google Scholar
Mourant, A. E. (1954). The distribution of the human blood groups, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
Novotná, M., Hanušová, J., Klose, J., Preiss, M., Havlíček, J., Roubalová, K., & Flegr, J. (2005). Probable neuroimmunological link between Toxoplasma and cytomegalovirus infections and personality changes in the human host. BMC Infectious Diseases, 5, 54.Google Scholar
Novotná, M., Havlíček, J., Smith, A. P., Kolbeková, P., Skallová, A., Klose, J., … Flegr, J. (2008). Toxoplasma and reaction time: Role of toxoplasmosis in the origin, preservation and geographical distribution of Rh blood group polymorphism. Parasitology, 135, 1253–1261.Google Scholar
Pleasant, A., & Barclay, P. (2018). Why hate the good guy? Antisocial punishment of high cooperators is greater when people compete to be chosen. Psychological Science, 29(6), 868–876.Google Scholar
Poirotte, C., Kappeler, P. M., Ngoubangoye, B., Bourgeois, S., Moussodji, M., & Charpentier, M. J. E. (2016). Morbid attraction to leopard urine in Toxoplasma-infected chimpanzees. Current Biology, 26(3), R98–R99.Google Scholar
Prandovszky, E., Gaskell, E., Martin, H., Dubey, J. P., Webster, J. P., & McConkey, G. A. (2011). The neurotropic parasite Toxoplasma gondii increases dopamine metabolism. PLoS One, 6(9), e23866.Google Scholar
Roberts, P., Boivin, N., Lee-Thorp, J., Petraglia, M., & Stock, J. (2016). Tropical forests and the genus Homo. Evolutionary Anthropology, 25(6), 306–317.Google Scholar
Rozsa, L. (1999). Influencing random transmission is a neutral character in hosts. Journal of Parasitology, 85(6), 1032–1035.Google Scholar
Rozsa, L. (2000). Spite, xenophobia, and collaboration between hosts and parasites. Oikos, 91(2), 396–400.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1988). Homosexuality: A philosophical inquiry. New York, NY: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shanahan, T. (1997). Pluralism, antirealism, and the units of selection. Acta Biotheoretica, 45, 117–126.Google Scholar
Shanley, D. P., Sear, R., Mace, R., & Kirkwood, T. B. L. (2007). Testing evolutionary theories of menopause. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 274, 2943–2949.Google Scholar
Sherman, P. W. (1998). Animal behavior: The evolution of menopause. Nature, 392(6678), 759–761.Google Scholar
Skutch, A. F. (1935). Helpers at the nest. The Auk, 52(3), 257–273.Google Scholar
Slater, E. (1962). Birth order and maternal age of homosexuals. The Lancet, 1(7220), 69–71.Google Scholar
Stoltzfus, A. (1999). On the possibility of constructive neutral evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 49(2), 169–181.Google Scholar
Sylwester, K., Herrmann, B., & Bryson, J. J. (2013). Homo homini lupus? Explaining antisocial punishment. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 6(3), 167–188.Google Scholar
Templeton, A. R. (2008). The reality and importance of founder speciation in evolution. BioEssays, 30, 470–479.Google Scholar
Tenter, A. M., Heckeroth, A. R., & Weiss, L. M. (2000). Toxoplasma gondii: From animals to humans. International Journal for Parasitology, 30(12–13), 1217–1258.Google Scholar
Thanukos, A. (2009). How the adaptation got its start. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(4), 612–616.Google Scholar
Toman, J., & Flegr, J. (2017). Stability-based sorting: The forgotten process behind (not only) biological evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 435, 29–41.Google Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11(4–5), 375–424.Google Scholar
Torrey, E. F., Bartko, J. J., Lun, Z. R., & Yolken, R. H. (2007). Antibodies to Toxoplasma gondii in patients with schizophrenia: A meta-analysis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 33, 729–736.Google Scholar
Torrey, E. F., Bartko, J. J., & Yolken, R. H. (2012). Toxoplasma gondii and other risk factors for schizophrenia: An update. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 38(3), 642–647.Google Scholar
Torrey, E. F., & Yolken, R. H. (1995). Could schizophrenia be a viral zoonosis transmitted from house cats. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 21(2), 167–171.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent–offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14(1), 249–264.Google Scholar
Vanboven, M., Weissing, F. J., Heg, D., & Huisman, J. (1996). Competition between segregation distorters: Coexistence of “superior” and “inferior” haplotypes at the t complex. Evolution, 50, 2488–2498.Google Scholar
Vrba, E. S. (1984). What is species selection? Systematic Zoology, 33, 318–328.Google Scholar
Vrba, S., & Gould, S. J. (1986). The hierarchical expansion of sorting and selection: Sorting and selection cannot be equated. Paleobiology, 12, 217–228.Google Scholar
Wagner, F. F., & Flegel, W. A. (2000). RHD gene deletion occurred in the Rhesus box. Blood, 95(12), 3662–3668.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S., & Sober, E. (1994). Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral-sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(4), 585–608.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

References

Anderson, J. R., & Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2015). Mirror self-recognition: A review and critique of attempts to promote and engineer self-recognition in primates. Primates, 56(4), 317–326.Google Scholar
Apicella, C. L., Marlowe, F. W., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2012). Social networks and cooperation in hunter-gatherers. Nature, 481(7382), 497–501.Google Scholar
Baker, M. D. Jr., & Maner, J. K. (2009). Male risk-taking as a context-sensitive signaling device. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1136–1139.Google Scholar
Barnett, S. A. (1958). Experiments on “neophobia” in wild and laboratory rats. British Journal of Psychology, 49(3), 195–201.Google Scholar
Barrett, H. C., & Broesch, J. (2012). Prepared social learning about dangerous animals in children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(5), 499–508.Google Scholar
Birch, L. L. (1999). Development of food preferences. Annual Review of Nutrition, 19(1), 41–62.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, T. D., & Berg, K. W. (1986). Stimulus rise time, intensity, and bandwidth effects on acoustic startle amplitude and probability. Psychophysiology, 23(6), 635–641.Google Scholar
Boesch, C., & Boesch, H. (1984). Mental map in wild chimpanzees: An analysis of hammer transports for nut cracking. Primates, 25(2), 160–170.Google Scholar
Breuer, T., Ndoundou-Hockemba, M., & Fishlock, V. (2005). First observation of tool use in wild gorillas. PLoS Biology, 3(11), 380.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1991). Evolutionary personality psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 459–491.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Haselton, M. (2005). The evolution of jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(11), 506.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in the first year of marriage. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(2), 193–221.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & von Hippel, W. (2018). Psychological barriers to evolutionary psychology: Ideological bias and coalitional adaptations. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6(1), 148–158.Google Scholar
Cappe, C., Thut, G., Romei, V., & Murray, M. M. (2009). Selective integration of auditory-visual looming cues by humans. Neuropsychologia, 47(4), 1045–1052.Google Scholar
Chagnon, N. A. (2013). Noble savages: My life among two dangerous tribes – the Yanomamo and the anthropologists. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Chermahini, S. A., & Hommel, B. (2012). Creative mood swings: Divergent and convergent thinking affect mood in opposite ways. Psychological Research, 76(5), 634–640.Google Scholar
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1999). The truth about Cinderella: A Darwinian view of parental love. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype (Vol. 8). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, E. A., van Schaik, C. P., Sitompul, A., & Wright, D. N. (2004). Intra‐ and interpopulational differences in orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) activity and diet: Implications for the invention of tool use. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: The Official Publication of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 125(2), 162–174.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–587.Google Scholar
Garcia, J., Kimeldorf, D. J., & Koelling, R. A. (1955). Conditioned aversion to saccharin resulting from exposure to gamma radiation. Science, 122(3160), 157–158.Google Scholar
Grant, K. A., Prioleau, O., Nader, S. H., Nader, M. A., Gage, H. D., Morgan, D., … & Ehrenkaufer, R. L. (2002). Social dominance in monkeys: Dopamine D 2 receptors and cocaine self-administration. Nature Neuroscience, 5(2), 169–174.Google Scholar
Gürerk, Ö., Irlenbusch, B., & Rockenbach, B. (2006). The competitive advantage of sanctioning institutions. Science, 312(5770), 108–111.Google Scholar
Hagen, E. H., Roulette, C. J., & Sullivan, R. J. (2013). Explaining human recreational use of “pesticides”: The neurotoxin regulation model of substance use vs. the hijack model and implications for age and sex differences in drug consumption. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 4, 142.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 17–52.Google Scholar
Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 81.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., & Muthukrishna, M. (2021). The origins and psychology of human cooperation. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 207–240.Google Scholar
Humphrey, N. (1976). The social function of intellect. In Bateson, P. & Hinde, R. (Eds.), Growing points in ethology (pp. 303–317). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huneman, P., & Machery, E. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: Issues, results, debates. In Heams, T. (Ed.,) Handbook of evolutionary thinking in the sciences (pp. 647–657). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Hunt, G. R. (1996). Manufacture and use of hook-tools by New Caledonian crows. Nature (London), 379(6562), 249–251.Google Scholar
Jaeggi, A. V., De Groot, E., Stevens, J. M. G., & van Schaik, C. P. (2013). Mechanisms of reciprocity in primates: Testing for short-term contingency of grooming and food sharing in bonobos and chimpanzees. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(2), 69–77.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. E., & Cormack, L. K. (2007). Evolved navigation theory and the descent illusion. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(3), 353–362.Google Scholar
Jobe, L. E., & White, S. W. (2007). Loneliness, social relationships, and a broader autism phenotype in college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(8), 1479–1489.Google Scholar
Kipling, R. (1902). Just so stories. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Koenig, W. D. (1988). Reciprocal altruism in birds: A critical review. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(2–4), 73–84.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R. (2009). The gourmet ape: Evolution and human food preferences. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90(3), 707–711.Google Scholar
Lee, A. J., Sidari, M. J., Murphy, S. C., Sherlock, J. M., & Zietsch, B. P. (2020). Sex differences in misperceptions of sexual interest can be explained by sociosexual orientation and men projecting their own interest onto women. Psychological Science, 31(2), 184–192.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. M. G., Al-Shawaf, L., Thompson, M. B., & Buss, D. M. (2020). Evolved psychological mechanisms. In Shackelford, T. (Ed.), The Sage handbook of evolutionary psychology: Foundations of evolutionary psychology (pp. 96–120). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Li, Q., Zhang, W., Heyman, G. D., Compton, B. J., & Lee, K. (2020). Susceptibility to being lured away by a stranger: A real-world field test of selective trust in early childhood. Psychological Science, 31(12), 1488–1496.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P. (1984). The biology and evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mallan, K. M., Lipp, O. V., & Cochrane, B. (2013). Slithering snakes, angry men and out-group members: What and whom are we evolved to fear? Cognition & Emotion, 27(7), 1168–1180.Google Scholar
Marlowe, F. (2010). The Hadza: Hunter-gatherers of Tanzania (Vol. 3). Stanford, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Melis, A. P., & Semmann, D. (2010). How is human cooperation different? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1553), 2663–2674.Google Scholar
Mohr, J. P., Pessin, M. S., Finkelstein, S., Funkenstein, H. H., Duncan, G. W., & Davis, K. R. (1978). Broca aphasia: Pathologic and clinical. Neurology, 28(4), 311.Google Scholar
Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2010). Adaptive memory: Ancestral priorities and the mnemonic value of survival processing. Cognition and Psychology, 61(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Nesse, R. M., & Williams, G. C. (2012). Why we get sick: The new science of Darwinian medicine. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Neuhoff, J. G. (2001). An adaptive bias in the perception of looming auditory motion. Ecological Psychology, 13(2), 87–110.Google Scholar
Norman-Haignere, S. V., Kanwisher, N., McDermott, J. H., & Conway, B. R. (2019). Divergence in the functional organization of human and macaque auditory cortex revealed by fMRI responses to harmonic tones. Nature Neuroscience, 22(7), 1057–1060.Google Scholar
Oaten, M., Stevenson, R. J., & Case, T. I. (2009). Disgust as a disease-avoidance mechanism. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 303–321.Google Scholar
Penkunas, M. J., & Coss, R. G. (2013). Rapid detection of visually provocative animals by preschool children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(4), 522–536.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990). Natural language and natural selection. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 13(4), 707–727.Google Scholar
Reader, S. M., & Laland, K. N. (2002). Social intelligence, innovation, and enhanced brain size in primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(7), 4436–4441.Google Scholar
Redshaw, J., & Bulley, A. (2018). Future‑thinking in animals. In Oettingen, G., Sevincer, A. T., Gollwitzer, P., Anderson, F., & Atance, C. (Eds.), The psychology of thinking about the future (pp. 31–51). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. (2004). Superconditioning from a reduced reinforcer. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, 57(2), 133–152.Google Scholar
Ronay, R., & Hippel, W. V. (2010). The presence of an attractive woman elevates testosterone and physical risk taking in young men. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 57–64.Google Scholar
Rozin, P. (1976). The selection of foods by rats, humans, and other animals. In Rosenblatt, J., Hinde, R., Shaw, E., & Beer, C. (Eds.), Advances in the study of behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 21–76). New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rutz, C., Hunt, G. R., & St. Clair, J. J. H. (2018). Corvid technologies: How do New Caledonian crows get their tool designs? Current Biology, 28(18), 1109–1111.Google Scholar
Sanz, C. M., Call, J., & Boesch, C. (2013). Tool use in animals: Cognition and ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scarr, S., & Salapatek, P. (1970). Patterns of fear development during infancy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 16(1), 53–90.Google Scholar
Sidelinger, R. J., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2007). Mate value discrepancy as predictor of forgiveness and jealousy in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 55(2), 207–223.Google Scholar
Street, S. E., Navarrete, A. F., Reader, S. M., & Laland, K. N. (2017). Coevolution of cultural intelligence, extended life history, sociality, and brain size in primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(30), 7908–7914.Google Scholar
Suddendorf, T. (2013). The gap: The science of what separates us from other animals. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Suddendorf, T., Bulley, A., & Miloyan, B. (2018). Prospection and natural selection. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 24, 26–31.Google Scholar
Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (2007). The evolution of foresight: What is mental time travel, and is it unique to humans? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(3), 299–313.Google Scholar
Szolnoki, A., & Perc, M. (2010). Reward and cooperation in the spatial public goods game. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 92(3), 38003.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. E. (2014). Sexual conflict: Nice guys finish last. Current Biology, 24(23), 1125–1127.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie, 20(4), 410–433.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1994). The question of chimpanzee culture. In Wrangham, R., McGrew, W., de Waal, F., & Heltne, P. (Eds.), Chimpanzee cultures (pp. 301–317). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. (2011). Deceit and self-deception: Fooling yourself the better to fool others. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Urry, L. A., Meyers, N., Cain, M., Wasserman, S., Minorksy, P., & Reece, J. (2017). Campbell biology: Australian and New Zealand edition. Melbourne: Pearson Education Australia.Google Scholar
Van Boxtel, A., Boelhouwer, A. J. W., & Bos, A. R. (1998). Optimal EMG signal bandwidth and interelectrode distance for the recording of acoustic, electrocutaneous, and photic blink reflexes. Psychophysiology, 35(6), 690–697.Google Scholar
von Hippel, W. (2018). The social leap. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
von Hippel, W., & Buss, D. M. (2017). Do ideologically driven scientific agendas impede the understanding and acceptance of evolutionary principles in social psychology. In Crawford, J. & Jussim, L. (Eds.), The politics of social psychology (pp. 7–25). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
von Hippel, W., & Suddendorf, T. (2018). Did humans evolve to innovate with a social rather than technical orientation? New Ideas in Psychology, 51, 34–39.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M. (1992). The child’s theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., & Lagattuta, K. H. (2004). Theory of mind for learning and teaching: The nature and role of explanation. Cognitive Development, 19(4), 479–497.Google Scholar
Whiten, A., & Byrne, R. W. (1988). The Machiavellian intelligence hypotheses. Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whiten, A., Spiteri, A., Horner, V., Bonnie, K. E., Lambeth, S. P., Schapiro, S. J., & De Waal, F. B. M. (2007). Transmission of multiple traditions within and between chimpanzee groups. Current Biology, 17(12), 1038–1043.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, G. S. (1988). Reciprocal altruism in bats and other mammals. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(2–4), 85–100.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, G. S. (1990). Food sharing in vampire bats. Scientific American, 262(2), 76–83.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966). Natural selection, the costs of reproduction, and a refinement of Lack’s principle. The American Naturalist, 100(916), 687–690.Google Scholar
Zietsch, B. P., Sidari, M. J., Murphy, S. C., Sherlock, J. M., & Lee, A. J. (2020). For the good of evolutionary psychology, let’s reunite proximate and ultimate explanations. Evolution and Human Behavior, 42(1), 76–78.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Foundations of Evolution
  • Edited by Todd K. Shackelford, Oakland University, Michigan
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology
  • Online publication: 30 June 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108943529.002
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Foundations of Evolution
  • Edited by Todd K. Shackelford, Oakland University, Michigan
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology
  • Online publication: 30 June 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108943529.002
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Foundations of Evolution
  • Edited by Todd K. Shackelford, Oakland University, Michigan
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology
  • Online publication: 30 June 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108943529.002
Available formats
×