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-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T09:19:08.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Parental Investment Theory

from Part II - Middle-Level Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

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

Summary

Parental Investment Theory, as an overarching theory in evolutionary biology, has not only deepened our understanding of sexual selection and mate preferences, as is evident in this chapter, but has also contributed to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms producing sexual behavior in all sexually reproducing species, including humans. In evolutionary biology, parental investment, as formulated by Robert Trivers in 1972, is any cost or expenditure (e.g., resources, time, energy) associated with raising offspring that increases that offspring’s chances of survival or reproductive success, and reduces a parent’s ability to invest in other or future offspring. There are many applications of Parental Investment Theory when considering the behavior of sexually reproducing species; however, the current chapter focuses on the implications of the evolution of asymmetrical parental investment for human sexual psychology. Parental investment theory has inspired new theories in the human evolutionary sciences addressing sexual preference and mating behaviors, including sex difference in sexual preferences and attraction tactics, emergence of intrasexual competition and intersexual selection, cognitive biases in perceptions of sexual intent, sexual coercion and rape, female coyness and sexual regret, mate guarding and sex difference in sexual jealousy, and sex differences in the consumption of sexually explicit content and the psychology of extramarital relationships. This chapter considers how knowledge of asymmetric parental investment, which is a result of the evolution of sexual reproduction, has contributed to our understanding of sexual behavior and psychology. Finally, ecological variation in parental investment across different human populations due to environmental harshness and demand, as well as the importance of cross-cultural research in human sexual psychology, are discussed.

Keywords

Parental Investment Theorysexual selectionhuman sexual psychologymate preferences
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology , pp. 137 - 159
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

Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females’ friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(5), 830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbey, A. (1987). Misperceptions of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey of naturally occurring incidents. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(2), 173–194.Google Scholar
Alexander, R. D., & Noonan, K. M. (1979). Concealment of ovulation, parental care, and human social evolution. In Chagnon, N. & Irons, W. (Eds.), Evolutionary biology and human social behavior: An anthropological perspective (pp. 436–453). Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.Google Scholar
Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Andersson, M., & Iwasa, Y. (1996). Sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11(2), 53–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Apicella, C. L., & Barrett, H. C. (2016). Cross-cultural evolutionary psychology. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 92–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, J. (2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(3–4), 249–266.Google Scholar
Archer, J., & Thanzami, V. (2007). The relation between physical aggression, size and strength, among a sample of young Indian men. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(3), 627–633.Google Scholar
Arnocky, S., Perilloux, C., Cloud, J. M., Bird, B. M., & Thomas, K. (2016). Envy mediates the link between social comparison and appearance enhancement in women. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2(2), 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnocky, S., & Piché, T. (2014). Cosmetic surgery as intrasexual competition: The mediating role of social comparison. Psychology, 5, 1197–1205.Google Scholar
Arnqvist, G. (1997). The evolution of animal genitalia: Distinguishing between hypotheses by single species studies. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 60(3), 365–379.Google Scholar
Arnqvist, G. (1998). Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature, 393(6687), 784–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnqvist, G., & Rowe, L. (2005). Sexual conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atari, M., Chegeni, R., & Fathi, L. (2017). Women who are interested in cosmetic surgery want it all: The association between considering cosmetic surgery and women’s mate preferences. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 3(1), 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R. R. (1996). Copulation, masturbation, and infidelity. In Schmitt, A., Atzwanger, K., Grammer, K., & Schäfer, K. (Eds.), New aspects of human ethology (pp. 163–188). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1995). Human sperm competition: Copulation, masturbation and infidelity. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Barbaro, N., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015a). Solving the problem of partner infidelity: Individual mate retention, coalitional mate retention, and in-pair copulation frequency. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 67–71.Google Scholar
Barbaro, N., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015b). Sperm competition risk and sexual coercion predict copulatory duration in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(4), 1474704915618411.Google Scholar
Barbaro, N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2016). Female-directed violence as a form of sexual coercion in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 130(4), 321.Google Scholar
Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(5), 395–424.Google Scholar
Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2(3), 349–368.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Catanese, K. R., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 242–273.Google Scholar
Bendixen, M., Kennair, L. E. O., Biegler, R., & Haselton, M. G. (2019). Adjusting signals of sexual interest in the most recent naturally occurring opposite-sex encounter in two different contexts. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 13(4), 345.Google Scholar
Benshoof, L., & Thornhill, R. (1979). The evolution of monogamy and concealed ovulation in humans. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 2(2), 95–106.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, H. K., Leyva, R. P., Nicolas, S. C., & Hill, S. E. (2019). Costly female appearance-enhancement provides cues of short-term mating effort: The case of cosmetic surgery. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bröder, A., & Hohmann, N. (2003). Variations in risk taking behavior over the menstrual cycle: An improved replication. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(6), 391–398.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1988). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(5), 291–317.Google 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. (2002). Human mate guarding. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23(4), 23–29.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(3), 395–422.CrossRefGoogle 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., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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), 1–9.Google Scholar
Buunk, A. P., & Fisher, M. (2009). Individual differences in intrasexual competition. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(1), 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camilleri, J. A., Quinsey, V. L., & Tapscott, J. L. (2009). Assessing the propensity for sexual coaxing and coercion in relationships: Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Tactics to Obtain Sex Scale. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(6), 959–973.Google Scholar
Campbell, B. G. (Ed.). (1972). Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Cashdan, E. (1996). Women’s mating strategies. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 5(4), 134–143.Google Scholar
Chapman, T. (2006). Evolutionary conflicts of interest between males and females. Current Biology, 16(17), R744–R754.Google Scholar
Chavanne, T. J., & Gallup, G. G. Jr. (1998). Variation in risk taking behavior among female college students as a function of the menstrual cycle. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(1), 27–32.Google Scholar
Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39–55.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H., Hodge, S. J., Spong, G., Russell, A. F., Jordan, N. R., Bennett, N. C., … & Manser, M. B. (2006). Intrasexual competition and sexual selection in cooperative mammals. Nature, 444(7122), 1065–1068.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Parker, G. A. (1995). Sexual coercion in animal societies. Animal Behaviour, 49(5), 1345–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. R. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Davis, J. A., & Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2006). Preeclampsia and other pregnancy complications as an adaptive response to unfamiliar semen. In Platek, S. & Shackleford, T. (Eds.), Female infidelity and paternal uncertainty (pp. 191–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Crawford, J. R., Welling, L. L., & Little, A. C. (2010). The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: Cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 277(1692), 2405–2410.Google Scholar
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Crawford, J. R., & Welling, L. L. (2011). Further evidence for regional variation in women’s masculinity preferences. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 278(1707), 813–814.Google Scholar
DelPriore, D. J., Bradshaw, H. K., & Hill, S. E. (2018). Appearance enhancement produces a strategic beautification penalty among women. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 12(4), 348.Google Scholar
DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M. Y., Braverman, J., & Salovey, P. (2002). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolutionary mechanism or artifact of measurement? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dixson, B. J., Duncan, M., & Dixson, A. F. (2015). The role of breast size and areolar pigmentation in perceptions of women’s sexual attractiveness, reproductive health, sexual maturity, maternal nurturing abilities, and age. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(6), 1685–1695.Google Scholar
Dixson, B. J., Grimshaw, G. M., Ormsby, D. K., & Dixson, A. F. (2014). Eye-tracking women’s preferences for men’s somatotypes. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 73–79.Google Scholar
Dixson, B. J., Little, A. C., Dixson, H. G., & Brooks, R. C. (2017). Do prevailing environmental factors influence human preferences for facial morphology? Behavioral Ecology, 28(5), 1217–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, J. F., & Pazhoohi, F. (2012). Natural and augmented breasts: Is what is not natural most attractive? Human Ethology Bulletin, 27(4), 4–14.Google Scholar
Eberhard, W. G. (1985). Sexual selection and animal genitalia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, W. (1996). Female control: Sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2017). Sex differences in jealousy: A 25-year retrospective. In Olsen, J. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 55, pp. 259–302). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Elliot, A. J., Greitemeyer, T., & Pazda, A. D. (2013). Women’s use of red clothing as a sexual signal in intersexual interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 599–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emlen, D. J. (2008). The evolution of animal weapons. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39, 387–413.Google Scholar
Farris, C., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2008a). Perceptual mechanisms that characterize gender differences in decoding women’s sexual intent. Psychological Science, 19(4), 348–354.Google Scholar
Farris, C., Treat, T. A., Viken, R. J., & McFall, R. M. (2008b). Sexual coercion and the misperception of sexual intent. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(1), 48–66.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Klappauf, D., Brewer, G., & Shackelford, T. K. (2014). Female physical characteristics and intra-sexual competition in women. Personality and Individual Differences, 58, 138–141.Google Scholar
Fink, B., & Penton-Voak, I. (2002). Evolutionary psychology of facial attractiveness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 154–158.Google Scholar
Fisher, M. L. (2004). Female intrasexual competition decreases female facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 271(suppl. 5), S283–S285.Google Scholar
Fisher, M. L., & Archibald, N. (2019). A thousand times more beautiful: Priming competitor derogation in women. Current Psychology. doi: 10.1007/s12144-019-00551-zGoogle Scholar
Fisher, M., Cox, A., & Gordon, F. (2009). Self-promotion versus competitor derogation: The influence of sex and romantic relationship status on intrasexual competition strategy selection. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(4), 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, A. L. J., & Wong, H. Y. (1995). The evolution of self-concealed ovulation in humans. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(6), 531–533.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G. Jr., & Burch, R. L. (2006). The semen displacement hypothesis: Semen hydraulics and the intra-pair copulation proclivity model of female infidelity. In Platek, S. & Shackleford, T. (Eds.), Female infidelity and paternal uncertainty (pp. 129–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galperin, A., Haselton, M. G., Frederick, D. A., Poore, J., von Hippel, W., Buss, D. M., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2013). Sexual regret: Evidence for evolved sex differences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(7), 1145–1161.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Scheyd, G. J. (2005). The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annual Reviews in Anthropology, 34, 523–548.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
Garver-Apgar, C. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2007). Women’s perceptions of men’s sexual coerciveness change across the menstrual cycle. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(3), 536–540.Google Scholar
Garza, R., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2020). Effects of women’s short-term mating orientation and self-perceived attractiveness in rating and viewing men’s waist to chest ratios. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508-020-01846-0Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 55.Google Scholar
Glover, K. M., & Crowley, P. H. (2017). Female mate choice and the emergence of male coercion. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 71(12), 181.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2006). Sexual coercion and forced in-pair copulation as sperm competition tactics in humans. Human Nature, 17(3), 265–282.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). Sexual coercion in intimate relationships: A comparative analysis of the effects of women’s infidelity and men’s dominance and control. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(2), 226–234.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., & Camilleri, J. A. (2008). Proximate and ultimate explanations are required for a comprehensive understanding of partner rape. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13(2), 119–123.Google Scholar
Grammer, K., Renninger, L., & Fischer, B. (2004). Disco clothing, female sexual motivation, and relationship status: Is she dressed to impress? Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 66–74.Google Scholar
Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human (Homo sapiens) facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The role of symmetry and averageness. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108(3), 233.Google Scholar
Groyecka, A., Żelaźniewicz, A., Misiak, M., Karwowski, M., & Sorokowski, P. (2017). Breast shape (ptosis) as a marker of a woman’s breast attractiveness and age: Evidence from Poland and Papua. American Journal of Human Biology, 29(4), e22981.Google Scholar
Guitar, A. E., Geher, G., Kruger, D. J., Garcia, J. R., Fisher, M. L., & Fitzgerald, C. J. (2017). Defining and distinguishing sexual and emotional infidelity. Current Psychology, 36(3), 434–446.Google Scholar
Harris, C. R. (2003). Factors associated with jealousy over real and imagined infidelity: An examination of the social-cognitive and evolutionary psychology perspectives. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27(4), 319–329.Google Scholar
Harris, C. R. (2013). Humans, deer, and sea dragons: How evolutionary psychology has misconstrued human sex differences. Psychological Inquiry, 24(3), 195–201.Google Scholar
Haselton, M. G. (2003). The sexual overperception bias: Evidence of a systematic bias in men from a survey of naturally occurring events. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(1), 34–47.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
Haselton, M. G., & Galperin, A. (2013). Error management in relationships. In Simson, J. & Campbell, L. (Eds.), Handbook of close relationships (pp. 234–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Havlíček, J., Třebický, V., Valentova, J. V., Kleisner, K., Akoko, R. M., Fialová, J., … & Varella, M. A. C. (2017). Men’s preferences for women’s breast size and shape in four cultures. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(2), 217–226.Google Scholar
Hosken, D. J., & Stockley, P. (2004). Sexual selection and genital evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19(2), 87–93.Google Scholar
Janicke, T., Häderer, I. K., Lajeunesse, M. J., & Anthes, N. (2016). Darwinian sex roles confirmed across the animal kingdom. Science Advances, 2(2), e1500983.Google Scholar
Jasieńska, G., Ziomkiewicz, A., Ellison, P. T., Lipson, S. F., & Thune, I. (2004). Large breasts and narrow waists indicate high reproductive potential in women. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 271(1545), 1213–1217.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., Raulston, T., & Rotolo, A. (2012). More than just a pretty face and a hot body: Multiple cues in mate-choice. Journal of Social Psychology, 152(2), 174–184.Google Scholar
Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2004). When facial attractiveness is only skin deep. Perception, 33(5), 569–576.Google Scholar
Karastergiou, K., Smith, S. R., Greenberg, A. S., & Fried, S. K. (2012). Sex differences in human adipose tissues: The biology of pear shape. Biology of Sex Differences, 3(1), 13.Google Scholar
Karimi-Malekabadi, F., Ghanbarian, E., Afhami, R., & Chegeni, R. (2019). Theory-driven assessment of intrasexual rivalry. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5(3), 286–293.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 951.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., & Keefe, R. C. (1992). Age preferences in mates reflect sex differences in human reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(1), 75–91.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Sadalla, E. K., Groth, G., & Trost, M. R. (1990). Evolution, traits, and the stages of human courtship: Qualifying the parental investment model. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keys, E., & Bhogal, M. S. (2018). Mean girls: Provocative clothing leads to intra-sexual competition between females. Current Psychology, 37(3), 543–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kočnar, T., Saribay, S. A., & Kleisner, K. (2019). Perceived attractiveness of Czech faces across 10 cultures: Associations with sexual shape dimorphism, averageness, fluctuating asymmetry, and eye color. PLoS One, 14(11), e0225549.Google Scholar
Kurki, H. K. (2011). Pelvic dimorphism in relation to body size and body size dimorphism in humans. Journal of Human Evolution, 61(6), 631–643.Google Scholar
La France, B. H., Henningsen, D. D., Oates, A., & Shaw, C. M. (2009). Social–sexual interactions? Meta-analyses of sex differences in perceptions of flirtatiousness, seductiveness, and promiscuousness. Communication Monographs, 76(3), 263–285.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(3), 468.Google Scholar
Lindgren, K. P., Parkhill, M. R., George, W. H., & Hendershot, C. S. (2008). Gender differences in perceptions of sexual intent: A qualitative review and integration. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 423–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lippa, R. A. (2009). Sex differences in sex drive, sociosexuality, and height across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social structural theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(5), 631–651.Google 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
Marcinkowska, U. M., Kozlov, M. V., Cai, H., Contreras-Garduño, J., Dixson, B. J., Oana, G. A., … & Prasai, K. (2014). Cross-cultural variation in men’s preference for sexual dimorphism in women’s faces. Biology Letters, 10(4), 20130850.Google Scholar
Marcinkowska, U. M., Rantala, M. J., Lee, A. J., Kozlov, M. V., Aavik, T., Cai, H., … & Onyishi, I. E. (2019). Women’s preferences for men’s facial masculinity are strongest under favorable ecological conditions. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Marlowe, F. (1998). The nubility hypothesis. Human Nature, 9(3), 263–271.Google Scholar
McCarty, K., Darwin, H., Cornelissen, P. L., Saxton, T. K., Tovée, M. J., Caplan, N., & Neave, N. (2017). Optimal asymmetry and other motion parameters that characterise high-quality female dance. Scientific Reports, 7, 42435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKibbin, W. F., Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., & Starratt, V. G. (2008). Why do men rape? An evolutionary psychological perspective. Review of General Psychology, 12(1), 86–97.Google Scholar
McNamara, J. M., Fromhage, L., Barta, Z., & Houston, A. I. (2009). The optimal coyness game. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 276(1658), 953–960.Google Scholar
Miller, G. F. (1998). How mate choice shaped human nature: A review of sexual selection and human evolution. In Crawford, C. & Krebs, D. L. (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 87–129). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Moore, F. R., Coetzee, V., Contreras-Garduño, J., DeBruine, L. M., Kleisner, K., Krams, I., … & Schaum, N. (2013). Cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for cues to sex-and stress-hormones in the male face. Biology Letters, 9(3), 20130050.Google Scholar
Morris, P. H., White, J., Morrison, E. R., & Fisher, K. (2013). High heels as supernormal stimuli: How wearing high heels affects judgements of female attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(3), 176–181.Google Scholar
Mueller, U., & Mazur, A. (2001). Evidence of unconstrained directional selection for male tallness. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 50(4), 302–311.Google Scholar
Muller, M. N., & Wrangham, R. W. (Eds.). (2009). Sexual coercion in primates and humans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. (2002a). Height and reproductive success in a cohort of British men. Human Nature, 13(4), 473–491.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. (2002b). Women’s height, reproductive success and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in modern humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269(1503), 1919–1923.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okami, P., & Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Human sex differences in sexual psychology and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12(1), 186–241.Google Scholar
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 29.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. (1970). Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biological Reviews, 45, 525–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G. A. (2006). Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: An overview. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361(1466), 235–259.Google Scholar
Pawłowski, B. (1999). Loss of oestrus and concealed ovulation in human evolution: The case against the sexual-selection hypothesis. Current Anthropology, 40(3), 257–276.Google Scholar
Pawłowski, B., Dunbar, R. I., & Lipowicz, A. (2000). Tall men have more reproductive success. Nature, 403(6766), 156.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F. (2011). Waist-to-hip ratio, attractiveness and gender discrimination. Gender and Behaviour, 9(1), 3580–3591.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F. (2017). Polygyny as a strategy for controlling male sexuality to secure child survival. Human Ethology Bulletin, 32(2), 24–35.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., Arantes, J., Kingstone, A., & Pinal, D. (2020a). Becoming sexy: Contrapposto pose increases attractiveness ratings and modulates observers’ brain activity. Biological Psychology, 151, 107842.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., Arantes, J., Kingstone, A., & Pinal, D. (2020b). Waist to hip ratio and breast size modulate the processing of female body silhouettes: An EEG study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(2), 150–169.CrossRefGoogle 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(2), 158–165.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., Garza, R., Doyle, J. F., Macedo, A. F., & Arantes, J. (2019a). Sex differences for preferences of shoulder to hip ratio in men and women: An eye tracking study. Evolutionary Psychological Sciences, 5, 405–415.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., Grammer, K., Macedo, A. F., & Arantes, J. (2020c). The effect of women’s leg posture on gazing behavior and perceived attractiveness. Current Psychology, 39(3), 1049–1054.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., & Kingstone, A. (2020a). Parasite prevalence and income inequality positively predict beardedness across 25 countries. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 6, 185–193.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., & Kingstone, A. (2020b). Sex difference on the importance of veiling: A cross-cultural investigation. Cross-Cultural Research, 54(5), 486–501.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., Lang, M., Xygalatas, D., & Grammer, K. (2017). Religious veiling as a mate-guarding strategy: Effects of environmental pressures on cultural practices. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3(2), 118–124.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., & Liddle, J. R. (2012). Identifying feminine and masculine ranges for waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6(2), 227.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., Macedo, A. F., Doyle, J. F., & Arantes, J. (2020d). Waist-to-hip ratio as supernormal stimuli: Effect of contrapposto pose and viewing angle. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(3), 837–847.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., Silva, C., Lamas, J., Mouta, S., Santos, J., & Arantes, J. (2019b). The effect of height and shoulder-to-hip ratio on interpersonal space in virtual environment. Psychological Research, 83(6), 1184–1193.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., Silva, C., Pereira, L., Oliveira, M., Santana, P., Rodrigues, R., & Arantes, J. (2019c). Is imagination of the infidelity more painful than actual infidelity? Current Psychology, 38(2), 572–578.Google Scholar
Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality: How do men and women differ? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(2), 37–40.Google Scholar
Perilloux, C., Easton, J. A., & Buss, D. M. (2012). The misperception of sexual interest. Psychological Science, 23(2), 146–151.Google Scholar
Petersen, J. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2010). A meta-analytic review of research on gender differences in sexuality, 1993–2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 21.Google Scholar
Petralia, S. M., & Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2002). Effects of a sexual assault scenario on handgrip strength across the menstrual cycle. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pham, M. N., DeLecce, T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Sperm competition in marriage: Semen displacement, male rivals, and spousal discrepancy in sexual interest. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 229–232.Google Scholar
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(4), 476–485.Google Scholar
Pisanski, K., & Feinberg, D. R. (2013). Cross-cultural variation in mate preferences for averageness, symmetry, body size, and masculinity. Cross-Cultural Research, 47(2), 162–197.Google Scholar
Platek, S. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.). (2006). Female infidelity and paternal uncertainty: Evolutionary perspectives on male anti-cuckoldry tactics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prokop, P. (2020). High heels enhance perceived sexual attractiveness, leg length and women’s mate-guarding. Current Psychology. doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-00832-yGoogle Scholar
Prokop, P., & Švancárová, J. (2020). Wearing high heels as female mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 152, 109558.Google Scholar
Pulit, S. L., Karaderi, T., & Lindgren, C. M. (2017). Sexual dimorphisms in genetic loci linked to body fat distribution. Bioscience Reports, 37(1), BSR20160184.Google Scholar
Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 157–175.Google Scholar
Puts, D. A., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2012). Sexual selection on human faces and voices. Journal of Sex Research, 49(2–3), 227–243.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Simmons, L. W., & Peters, M. (2005). Attractiveness and sexual behavior: Does attractiveness enhance mating success? Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(2), 186–201.Google Scholar
Röder, S., Carbon, C. C., Shackelford, T. K., Pisanski, K., Weege, B., & Fink, B. (2016). Men’s visual attention to and perceptions of women’s dance movements. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 1–3.Google Scholar
Ruff, C. (2002). Variation in human body size and shape. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31(1), 211–232.Google Scholar
Sagarin, B. J., Becker, D. V., Guadagno, R. E., Nicastle, L. D., & Millevoi, A. (2003). Sex differences (and similarities) in jealousy: The moderating influence of infidelity experience and sexual orientation of the infidelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(1), 17–23.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(1), 85.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 247.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Strategic self-promotion and competitor derogation: Sex and context effects on the perceived effectiveness of mate attraction tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1185.Google Scholar
Scott, I. M., Clark, A. P., Josephson, S. C., Boyette, A. H., Cuthill, I. C., Fried, R. L., … & Honey, P. L. (2014). Human preferences for sexually dimorphic faces may be evolutionarily novel. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(40), 14388–14393.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(1656), 575–584.Google Scholar
Sell, A., Lukazsweski, A. W., & Townsley, M. (2017). Cues of upper body strength account for most of the variance in men’s bodily attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 284(1869), 20171819.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K. (2002). Are young women the special targets of rape‐murder? Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 28(3), 224–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2004). Men’s sexual coercion in intimate relationships: Development and initial validation of the Sexual Coercion in Intimate Relationships Scale. Violence and Victims, 19(5), 541–556.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2007). Adaptation to sperm competition in humans. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(1), 47–50.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of sexual conflict in humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., McKibbin, W. F., & Starratt, V. G. (2007). Absence makes the adaptations grow fonder: Proportion of time apart from partner, male sexual psychology, and sperm competition in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121(2), 214.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(2), 123–138.Google Scholar
Shotland, R. L., & Craig, J. M. (1988). Can men and women differentiate between friendly and sexually interested behavior? Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 66–73.Google Scholar
Sillén-Tullberg, B., & Moller, A. P. (1993). The relationship between concealed ovulation and mating systems in anthropoid primates: A phylogenetic analysis. The American Naturalist, 141(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1991). Individual differences in sociosexuality: Evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 870.Google Scholar
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293–307.Google Scholar
Singh, D., & Randall, P. K. (2007). Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: Waist–hip ratio (WHR) and women’s attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(2), 329–340.Google Scholar
Singh, D., & Young, R. K. (1995). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio, breasts, and hips: Role in judgments of female attractiveness and desirability for relationships. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(6), 483–507.Google Scholar
Smuts, B. B., & Smuts, R. W. (1993). Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals: Evidence and theoretical implications. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 22(22), 1–63.Google Scholar
Strassmann, B. I. (1981). Sexual selection, paternal care, and concealed ovulation in humans. Ethology and Sociobiology, 2(1), 31–40.Google Scholar
Stulp, G., Buunk, A. P., & Pollet, T. V. (2013). Women want taller men more than men want shorter women. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(8), 877–883.Google Scholar
Stulp, G., Buunk, A. P., Verhulst, S., & Pollet, T. V. (2015). Human height is positively related to interpersonal dominance in dyadic interactions. PLoS One, 10(2), e0117860.Google Scholar
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In Abramson, P. R. & Pinkerton, S. D. (Eds.), Sexual nature, sexual culture (pp. 80–119). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R., & Palmer, C. T. (2001). A natural history of rape: Biological bases of sexual coercion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thornhill, N. W., & Thornhill, R. (1990a). An evolutionary analysis of psychological pain following rape: I. The effects of victim’s age and marital status. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11(3), 155–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, N. W., & Thornhill, R. (1990b). An evolutionary analysis of psychological pain following rape: II. The effects of stranger, friend, and family-member offenders. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11(3), 177–193.Google Scholar
Thornhill, N. W., & Thornhill, R. (1990c). An evolutionary analysis of psychological pain following rape. III: Effects of force and violence. Aggressive Behavior, 16(5), 297–320.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R., & Thornhill, N. W. (1992). The evolutionary psychology of men’s coercive sexuality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(2), 363–375.Google Scholar
Tooke, W., & Camire, L. (1991). Patterns of deception in intersexual and intrasexual mating strategies. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12(5), 345–364.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (2002). Parental investment and reproductive success. In Natural selection and social theory: Selected papers of Robert Trivers (pp. 56–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turke, P. W. (1984). Effects of ovulatory concealment and synchrony on protohominid mating systems and parental roles. Ethology and Sociobiology, 5(1), 33–44.Google Scholar
Vaillancourt, T. (2013). Do human females use indirect aggression as an intrasexual competition strategy? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1631), 20130080.Google Scholar
Wachtmeister, C. A., & Enquist, M. (1999). The evolution of female coyness: Trading time for information. Ethology, 105(11), 983–992.Google Scholar
Wachtmeister, C. A., & Enquist, M. (2000). The evolution of courtship rituals in monogamous species. Behavioral Ecology, 11(4), 405–410.Google Scholar
Walter, K. V., Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., … & Amjad, N. (2020). Sex differences in mate preferences across 45 countries: A large-scale replication. Psychological Science, 31(4), 408–423.Google Scholar
Walters, S., & Crawford, C. B. (1994). The importance of mate attraction for intrasexual competition in men and women. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15(1), 5–30.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The man who mistook his wife for a chattel. In Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Toobey, J. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 289–322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, K., & Richards, M. H. (2005). The parental investment model and minimum mate choice criteria in humans. Behavioral Ecology, 16(1), 57–61.Google Scholar
Zaadstra, B. M., Seidell, J. C., Van Noord, P. A., te Velde, E. R., Habbema, J. D., Vrieswijk, B., & Karbaat, J. (1993). Fat and female fecundity: Prospective study of effect of body fat distribution on conception rates. BMJ, 306, 484–487.Google Scholar
Żelaźniewicz, A., & Pawłowski, B. (2019). Maternal breast volume in pregnancy and lactation capacity. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 168(1), 180–189.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.

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.

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.

Available formats
×