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-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:44:06.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Sexual Selection

from Part I - Foundations of Evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

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

Summary

Darwin found that many animals had characteristics that were difficult to explain in terms of natural selection (i.e., the gradual process in which organisms better adapted to their environment survive and reproduce more successfully over sufficiently long time periods). He proposed a new selective force, sexual selection, which refers to the process generated by differential sexual access to opposite-sex mates. The process of sexual selection, in its classic conceptualization, consisted of two components: male–male competition, resulting in built-in weapons, and female choice, resulting in ornaments. Following Darwin, sexual selection is often divided into two forms: (1) intrasexual selection, in which members of one sex, most often males, compete with one another to gain sexual access to opposite-sex mates; and (2) intersexual selection, in which individuals of one sex, most often females, choose among individuals of the opposite sex as mates. The two forms of sexual selection have been investigated in humans across cultures, producing a large body of work on psychological similarities and differences between women and men in the context of mating. Post-mating sexual selection and its effect on sexual psychology have also gained increasing research attention in the last two decades. Two post-mating strategies in sexual selection are discussed: sperm competition (the competition between the sperm of two or more males to fertilize the egg(s) of a single female) and mate guarding (behaviors used to maintain reproductive opportunities and sexual access to a mate). Previous applications of sexual selection to sexual psychology and future directions in integration of multiple perspectives in evolutionary social sciences are discussed.

Keywords

sexual selectionintrasexual competitionmate choicesperm competitionmate retentionsexual psychology.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology , pp. 21 - 53
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

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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Apicella, C. L. (2014). Upper-body strength predicts hunting reputation and reproductive success in Hadza hunter–gatherers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 508–518.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Archer, J. (2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 249–266.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1988b). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 616–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J. (2015). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.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, 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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

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.

  • Sexual Selection
  • 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/10.1017/9781108943529.004
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.

  • Sexual Selection
  • 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/10.1017/9781108943529.004
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.

  • Sexual Selection
  • 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/10.1017/9781108943529.004
Available formats
×