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-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:57:43.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part II - Middle-Level Theories

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. 135 - 432
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

Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males misperceive females’ friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(5), 830.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1988). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(5), 291–317.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. (2002). Human mate guarding. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23(4), 23–29.Google ScholarPubMed
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.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), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buunk, A. P., & Fisher, M. (2009). Individual differences in intrasexual competition. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(1), 37–48.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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), 134–143.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.Google 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-zCrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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/s10508-020-01846-0CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Keys, E., & Bhogal, M. S. (2018). Mean girls: Provocative clothing leads to intra-sexual competition between females. Current Psychology, 37(3), 543–551.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.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(2), 158–165.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google 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.Google 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

References

Alcock, J., Maley, C. C., & Aktipis, C. A. (2014). Is eating behavior manipulated by the gastrointestinal microbiota? Evolutionary pressures and potential mechanisms. BioEssays, 36, 940–949.Google Scholar
Allen-Blevins, C. R., Sela, D. A., & Hinde, K. (2015). Milk bioactives may manipulate microbes to mediate parent–offspring conflict. Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health, 2015, 106–121.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.Google Scholar
Apostolou, M. (2007a). 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. (2007b). Elements of parental choice: The evolution of parental preferences in relation to in-law selection. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(1), 70–83.Google Scholar
Apostolou, M. (2008a). Parent–offspring conflict over mating: The case of family background. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(3), 456–468.Google Scholar
Apostolou, M. (2008b). Parent–offspring conflict over mating: The case of beauty. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(2), 303–315.Google Scholar
Apostolou, M. (2009). Parent–offspring conflict over mating: The case of short-term mating strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 895–899.Google Scholar
Apostolou, M. (2010). Parent–offspring conflict over mating: The case of mating age. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 365–375.Google Scholar
Apostolou, M. (2011a). Parent–offspring conflict over mating: Testing the tradeoffs hypothesis. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(4), 470–495.Google Scholar
Apostolou, M. (2011b). Parent–offspring conflict over mating: A replication and extension study. Journal of Integrated Social Sciences, 2(1), 13–26.Google Scholar
Apostolou, M. (2017). The nature of parent–offspring conflict over mating: From differences in genetic relatedness to disagreement over mate choice. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3(1), 62–71.Google Scholar
Apostolou, M., Chari, I., Lefkides, C., Theophanous, I., & Khalil, M. (2016). Parent–offspring conflict over mating: The case of divorce. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 286–294.Google Scholar
Apostolou, M., & Papageorgi, I. (2014). Parental mate choice manipulation tactics: Exploring prevalence, sex and personality effects. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(3), 588–620.Google Scholar
Ball, H. (2008). Evolutionary paediatrics: A case study in applying Darwinian medicine. In Elton, S. & O’Higgins, P. (Eds.), Medicine and evolution: Current applications, future prospects (pp. 127–152). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Barrett, L., Halliday, J., & Henzi, S. P. (2006). The ecology of motherhood: The structuring of lactation costs by chacma baboons. Journal of Animal Ecology, 75, 875–886.Google Scholar
Barrett, L., & Henzi, S. P. (2000). Are baboon infants Sir Phillip Sydney’s offspring? Ethology, 106, 645–658.Google Scholar
Bartoš, L., Bartošová, J., Pluháček, J., & Olléová, M. (2012). Effect of ecological adaptation on suckling behaviour in three zebra species. Behaviour, 149, 1395–1411.Google Scholar
Bovet, J., Raiber, E., Ren, W., Wang, C., & Seabright, P. (2018). Parent–offspring conflict over mate choice: An experimental study in China. British Journal of Psychology, 109(4), 674–693.Google Scholar
Brown, W. M., & Consedine, N. S. (2004). Just how happy is the happy puppet? An emotion signaling and kinship theory perspective on the behavioral phenotype of children with Angelman syndrome. Medical Hypotheses, 63(3), 377–385.Google Scholar
Bugos, P. E., & McCarthy, L. M. (1984). Ayoreo infanticide: A case study. In Hausfater, G. & Hrdy, S. B. (Eds.), Infanticide: Comparative and evolutionary perspectives (pp. 503–520). New York, NY: Aldine.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
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
Buunk, A. P., & Solano, A. C. (2010). Conflicting preferences of parents and offspring over criteria for a mate: A study in Argentina. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(4), 391.Google Scholar
Caro, S. M., Griffin, A. S., Hinde, C. A., & West, S. A. (2016). Unpredictable environments lead to the evolution of parental neglect in birds. Nature Communications, 7, 1–10.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2002). Variation in homicide risk during infancy: United States, 1989–1998. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51, 187–189.Google Scholar
Cowlishaw, G. (1978). Infanticide in aboriginal Australia. Oceania, 48, 262–283.Google Scholar
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.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
Duijts, L., Ramadhani, M. K., & Moll, H. A. (2009). Breastfeeding protects against infectious diseases during infancy in industrialized countries: A systematic review. Maternal and Child Nutrition, 5, 199–210.Google Scholar
Euler, H. A. (2011). Grandparents and extended kin. In Salmon, C. A. & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary family psychology (pp. 181–210). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fowden, A. L., & Moore, T. (2012). Maternal–fetal resource allocation: Co-operation and conflict. Placenta, 33, e11–e15.Google Scholar
Fox, R. (1967). Kinship and marriage: An anthropological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, S. H., Horwitz, S. M., & Resnick, P. J. (2005). Child murder by mothers: A critical analysis of the current state of knowledge and a research agenda. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(9), 1578–1587.Google Scholar
Haig, D. (1993). Maternal–fetal conflict in human pregnancy. Quarterly Review of Biology, 68, 495–532.Google Scholar
Haig, D. (2010). Transfers and transitions: Parent–offspring conflict, genomic imprinting, and the evolution of human life history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (suppl. 1), 1731–1735.Google Scholar
Haig, D. (2014). Troubled sleep: Night waking, breastfeeding and parent–offspring conflict. Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health, 2014(1), 32–39.Google Scholar
Haig, D., & Wharton, R. (2003). Prader‐Willi syndrome and the evolution of human childhood. American Journal of Human Biology, 15(3), 320–329.Google Scholar
Hart, S. L. (2016). Jealousy protest: Ontogeny in accord with the 9-month period of human gestation. Evolutionary Psychology, 14(2), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman-Giddens, M. E., Smith, J. B., Mittal, M., Carlson, M., and Butts, J. D. (2003). Newborns killed or left to die by a parent: A population-based study. JAMA, 289(11), 1425–1429.Google Scholar
Hinde, K., & German, J. B. (2012). Food in an evolutionary context: Insights from mother’s milk. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 92(11), 2219–2223.Google Scholar
Hinde, K., Skibiel, A. L., Foster, A. B., Del Rosso, L., Mendeoza, S. P., & Capitanio, J. P. (2015). Cortisol in mother’s milk across lactation reflects maternal life history and predicts infant temperament. Behavioral Ecology, 26(1), 269–281.Google Scholar
Jasienska, G. (2009). Reproduction and lifespan: Trade-offs, overall energy budgets, intergenerational costs, and costs neglected by research. American Journal of Human Biology, 21, 524–532.Google Scholar
Kotler, J. (2016). Weaning and maternal–fetal conflict. In Shackelford, T. K. & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Maestripieri, D. (2002). Parent–offspring conflict in primates. International Journal of Primatology, 23, 923–951.Google Scholar
Maestripieri, D. (2004). Genetic aspects of mother–offspring conflict in rhesus macaques. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 55, 381–387.Google Scholar
Masciuch, S., & Kienapple, K. (1993). The emergency of jealousy in children 4 months to 7 years of age. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 421–435.Google Scholar
McDade, T. W. (2001). Parent–offspring conflict and the cultural ecology of breast-feeding. Human Nature, 12(1), 9–25.Google Scholar
McKerracher, L. J., Collard, M., Altman, R. M., Sellen, D., & Nepomnaschy, P. A. (2016). Energy-related influences on variation in breastfeeding duration among indigenous Maya women from Guatemala. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 162, 616–626.Google Scholar
Mehr, S. A., & Krasnow, M. M. (2017). Parent–offspring conflict and the evolution of infant-directed song. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 674–684.Google Scholar
Mock, D. W., Drummond, H., & Stinson, C. H. (1990). Avian siblicide. American Scientist, 78(5), 438–449.Google Scholar
Mock, D. W., & Parker, G. A. (1997). The evolution of sibling rivalry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morandini, V., & Ferrer, M. (2015). Sibling aggression and brood reduction: A review. Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 27, 2–16.Google Scholar
Mull, D. S., & Mull, J. D. (1987). Infanticide among the Tarahumara of the Mexican Sierra Madre. In Scheper-Hughes, N. (Ed.), Child survival: Anthropological perspectives on the treatment and maltreatment of children (pp. 113–132). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Newburg, D. S., Ruiz-Palacios, G. M., Altaye, M., Chaturvedi, P., Meinzen-Derr, J., Guerrero, M. D. L., & Morrow, A. L. (2004). Innate protection conferred by fucosylated oligosaccharides of human milk against diarrhea in breastfed infants. Glycobiology, 14(3), 253–263.Google Scholar
Niemeyer, C. L., & Anderson, J. R. (1983). Primate harassment of matings. Ethology and Sociobiology, 4, 205–220.Google Scholar
Overpeck, M. D., Brenner, R. A., Trumble, A. C., Trifiletti, L. B., & Berendes, H. W. (1998). Risk factors for infant homicide in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine, 339(17), 1211–1216.Google Scholar
Packard, J. M., Mech, L. D., & Ream, R. R. (1992). Weaning in an arctic wolf pack: Behavioral mechanisms. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 70(7), 1269–1275.Google Scholar
Paul, M., & Bhadra, A. (2017). Selfish pups: Weaning conflict and milk theft in free-ranging dogs. PLoS One, 12(2), e0170590.Google Scholar
Paul, M., Majumder, S. S., & Bhadra, A. (2014). Selfish mothers? An empirical test of parent–offspring conflict over extended parental care. Behavioural Processes, 103, 17–22.Google Scholar
Pavé, R., Kowalewski, M. M., Peker, S. M., & Zunino, G. E. (2010). Preliminary study of mother–offspring conflict in black and gold howler monkeys (Alouatta caraya). Primates, 51(3), 221–226.Google Scholar
Pavé, R., Kowalewski, M. M., Zunino, G. E., & Giraudo, A. R. (2015). How do demographic and social factors influence parent–offspring conflict? The case of wild black and gold howler monkeys (Alouatta caraya). American Journal of Primatology, 77(8), 911–923.Google Scholar
Perilloux, C., Fleischman, D. S., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Meet the parents: Parent–offspring convergence and divergence in mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 253–258.Google Scholar
Pluháček, J., Bartoš, L., & Bartošová, J. (2010). Mother–offspring conflict in captive plains zebra (Equus burchellii): Suckling bout duration. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 122, 127–132.Google Scholar
Rehling, A., Spiller, I., Krause, E. T., Nager, R. G., Monaghan, P., & Trillmich, F. (2012). Flexibility in the duration of parental care: Zebra finch parents respond to offspring needs. Animal Behaviour, 83, 35–39.Google Scholar
Reik, T. (2002). Love and lust: On the psychoanalysis of romantic and sexual emotions. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Rohwer, S., Herron, J. C., & Daly, M. (1999). Stepparental behavior as mating effort in birds and other animals. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(6), 367–390.Google Scholar
Salmon, C. A. (1999). On the impact of the sex and birth order on contact with kin. Human Nature, 10, 183–197.Google Scholar
Salmon, C. (2015). Parental investment and parent–offspring conflict. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 542–560). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Salmon, C. A., & Hehman, J. A. (2022). Evolutionary perspectives on infant–mother conflict. In Hart, S. L. & Bjorklund, D. (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on infancy. Cham: Springer.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, 496–521.Google Scholar
Schlomer, G. L., Ellis, B. J., & Garber, J. (2010). Mother–child conflict and sibling relatedness: A test of hypotheses from parent–offspring conflict theory. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(2), 287–306.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2015). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 258–291). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sellen, D. W. (2001). Comparison of infant feeding patterns reported for nonindustrial populations with current recommendations. Journal of Nutrition, 131(10), 2707–2715.Google Scholar
Sellen, D. W. (2009). Evolution of human lactation and complementary feeding: Implications for understanding contemporary cross-cultural variation. In Breast-feeding: Early influences on later health (pp. 253–282). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Smorti, M., Tschiesner, R., & Farneti, A. 2012. Grandparents–grandchildren relationship. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 895–898.Google Scholar
Trehub, S. E., Unyk, A. M., & Henderson, J. L. (1994). Children’s songs to infant siblings: Parallels with speech. Journal of Child Language, 21, 735–744.Google Scholar
Trehub, S. E., Unyk, A. M., & Trainor, L. J. (1993a). Adults identify infant-directed music across cultures. Infant Behavior and Development, 16, 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trehub, S. E., Unyk, A. M., & Trainor, L. J. (1993b). Maternal singing in cross-cultural perspective. Infant Behavior and Development, 16, 285–295.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. G. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1887–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent–offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14, 249–264.Google Scholar
Tully, K. P., & Ball, H. L. (2013). Trade-offs underlying maternal breastfeeding decisions: A conceptual model. Maternal and Child Nutrition, 9, 90–98.Google Scholar
van den Berg, P., Fawcett, T. W., Buunk, A. P., & Weissing, F. J. (2013). The evolution of parent–offspring conflict over mate choice. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(6), 405–411.Google Scholar
van Noordwijk, M. A., Kuzawa, C. W., & van Schaik, C. P. (2013). The evolution of the patterning of human lactation: A comparative perspective. Evolutionary Anthropology, 22, 202–212.Google Scholar
Veile, A., & Miller, V. (2019). Duration of breast feeding in ancestral environments. In Shackelford, T. K. & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Wells, J. C. (2003). Parent–offspring conflict theory, signaling of need, and weight gain in early life. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 78, 169–202.Google Scholar
Winberg, J. (2005). Mother and newborn baby: Mutual regulation of physiology and behavior – a selective review. Developmental Psychology, 47, 217–229.Google Scholar

References

Axelrod, R. The evolution of cooperation (revised edition). New York, NY: Basic Books, 2006.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, W. S. (2007). The scientific research potential of virtual worlds. Science, 317(5837), 472–476.Google Scholar
Barkow, J., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1995). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brandt, H., Ohtsuki, H., Iwasa, Y., & Sigmund, K. (2007). A survey of indirect reciprocity. In Takeuchi, Y., Iwasa, Y., & Sato, K. (Eds.), Mathematics for ecology and environmental sciences (pp. 21–49). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Cassar, A. (2007). Coordination and cooperation in local, random and small world networks: Experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 58(2), 209–230.Google Scholar
Castronova, E. (2006). On the research value of large games: Natural experiments in Norrath and Camelot. Games and Culture, 1(2), 163–186.Google Scholar
Dal Bó, P., & Fréchette, G. R. (2011). The evolution of cooperation in infinitely repeated games: Experimental evidence. American Economic Review, 101(1), 411–429.Google Scholar
Duffy, J., & Ochs, J. (2009). Cooperative behavior and the frequency of social interaction. Games and Economic Behavior, 66(2), 785–812.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 100–110.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (2018). The anatomy of friendship. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(1), 32–51.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. (1987). Cheap talk, coordination, and entry. The RAND Journal of Economics, 18(1), 34–39.Google Scholar
Fehl, K., van der Post, D. J., & Semmann, D. (2011). Co-evolution of behaviour and social network structure promotes human cooperation. Ecology Letters, 14(6), 546–551.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425(23), 785–791.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, D., Rand, D. G., & Dreber, A. (2012). Slow to anger and fast to forgive: Cooperation in an uncertain world. American Economic Review, 102, 720–749.Google Scholar
Gächter, S., Kessler-Esther, E., and Königstein, M. (2010). Do incentives destroy voluntary cooperation? Working Paper.Google Scholar
Grujić, J., Fosco, C., Araujo, L., Cuesta, J., & Sánchez, A. (2010). Social experiments in the mesoscale: Humans playing a spatial prisoner’s dilemma. PLoS One, 5(11), e13749.Google Scholar
Grujić, J., Röhl, T., Semmann, D., Milinski, M., & Traulsen, A. (2012). Consistent strategy updating in spatial and non-spatial behavioral experiments does not promote cooperation in social networks. PLoS One, 7(11), e47718.Google Scholar
Ichinose, G., & Arita, T. (2008). The role of migration and founder effect for the evolution of cooperation in a multilevel selection context. Ecological Modelling, 210(3), 221–230.Google Scholar
Keser, C., and Van Winden, F. (2000). Conditional cooperation and voluntary contributions to public goods. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 102(1), 23–39.Google Scholar
Leimar, O., & Hammerstein, P. (2001). Evolution of cooperation through indirect reciprocity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268(1468), 745–753.Google Scholar
Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–174.Google Scholar
Lindgren, K. (1991). Evolutionary phenomena in simple dynamics. In Artificial Life II Conference (pp. 295–312).Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1994). Must reliable signals always be costly? Animal Behaviour, 47(5), 1115–1120.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmáry, E. (2000). The origins of life: From the birth of life to the origin of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Milinski, M., Semmann, D., Bakker, T. C. M., & Krambeck, H.-J. (2001). Cooperation through indirect reciprocity: Image scoring or standing strategy? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268(1484), 2495–2501.Google Scholar
Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H. J. (2002). Reputation helps solve the “tragedy of the commons”. Nature, 415(6870), 424–426.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 1560–1563.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1993). A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the prisoner’s dilemma game. Nature, 364(6432), 56–58.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998a). Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring. Nature, 393(6685), 573–577.Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1998b). The dynamics of indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 194(4), 561–574.Google Scholar
Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E., & Nowak, M. A. (2006). A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature, 441(7092), 502–505.Google Scholar
Ohtsuki, H., & Iwasa, Y. (2004). How should we define goodness? Reputation dynamics in indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 231(1), 107–120.Google Scholar
Ohtsuki, H., and Iwasa, Y. (2006). The leading eight: Social norms that can maintain cooperation by indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 239(4), 435–444.Google Scholar
Pacheco, J. M., Santos, F. C., & Chalub, F. A. C. C. (2006). Sternjudging: A simple, successful norm which promotes cooperation under indirect reciprocity. PLoS Computational Biology, 2(12), e178.Google Scholar
Panchanathan, K., & Boyd, R. (2003). A tale of two defectors: The importance of standing for evolution of indirect reciprocity. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 224(1), 115–126.Google Scholar
Pepper, J. W. (2007). Simple models of assortment through environmental feedback. Artificial Life, 13(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Pepper, J. W., & Smuts, B. B. (2002). A mechanism for the evolution of altruism among nonkin: Positive assortment through environmental feedback. The American Naturalist, 160(2), 205–213.Google Scholar
Perc, M., & Szolnoki, A. (2010). Coevolutionary games: A mini review. BioSystems, 99(2), 109–125.Google Scholar
Rand, D. G., Arbesman, S., & Christakis, N. (2011). Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(48), 19193–19198.Google Scholar
Rand, D. G., & Nowak, M. A. (2013). Human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 413–425.Google Scholar
Santos, F., Pacheco, J., and Lenaerts, T. (2006). Cooperation prevails when individuals adjust their social ties. PLoS Computational Biology, 2(10), e140.Google Scholar
Suri, S., & Watts, D. J. (2011). Cooperation and contagion in web-based, networked public goods experiments. PLoS One, 6(3), e16836.Google Scholar
Szell, M., Sinatra, R., Petri, G., Thurner, S., & Latora, V. (2012). Understanding mobility in a social petri dish. Scientific Reports, 2, 457.Google Scholar
Szell, M., & Thurner, S. (2010). Measuring social dynamics in a massive multiplayer online game. Social Networks, 32(4), 313–329.Google Scholar
Szell, M., & Thurner, S. (2013). How women organize social networks different from men. Scientific Reports, 3, 1214.Google Scholar
Takano, M., Wada, K., & Fukuda, I. (2015). Environmentally driven migration in a social network game. Scientific Reports, 5, 12481.Google Scholar
Takano, M., Wada, K., & Fukuda, I. (2016a). Lightweight interactions for reciprocal cooperation in a social network game. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Informatics (SocInfo) (pp. 125–137).Google Scholar
Takano, M., Wada, K., & Fukuda, I. (2016b). Reciprocal altruism-based cooperation in a social network game. New Generation Computing, 34(3), 257–271.Google Scholar
Tanimoto, J., & Sagara, H. (2007). Relationship between dilemma occurrence and the existence of a weakly dominant strategy in a two-player symmetric game. BioSystems, 90(1), 105–114.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–37.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Suri, S., & Watts, D. J. (2012). Cooperation and assortativity with dynamic partner updating. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(36), 14363–14368.Google Scholar
Watts, D. J. (2011). Everything is obvious*: *Once you know the answer. New York, NY: Crown Business.Google Scholar
Wedekind, C., & Milinski, M. (2000). Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science, 288(5467), 850–852.Google Scholar

References

Banai, B., & Pavela, I. (2015). Two-dimensional structure of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory and its personality correlates. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1–7.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, A. (2016a). Governing behavior: How nerve cell dictatorships and democracies control everything we do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, A. (2016b). Is your nervous system a democracy or a dictatorship when controlling your behavior? The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/is-your-nervous-system-a-democracy-or-a-dictatorship-when-controlling-your-behavior-61888Google Scholar
Bielby, J., Mace, G. M., Bininda-Emonds, O. R., Cardillo, M., Gittleman, J. L., Jones, K. E., … & Purvis, A. (2007). The fast–slow continuum in mammalian life history: An empirical reevaluation. The American Naturalist, 169(6), 748–757.Google Scholar
Brumbach, B. H., Figueredo, A. J., & Ellis, B. J. (2009). Effects of harsh and unpredictable environments in adolescence on development of life history strategies. Human Nature, 20(1), 25–51.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. (2016). Mammal societies. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Copping, L. T., Campbell, A., & Muncer, S. (2014). Psychometrics and life history strategy: The structure and validity of the high K strategy scale. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 200–222.Google Scholar
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-F.FI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Deary, I. J., Johnson, W., & Houlihan, L. M. (2009). Genetic foundations of human intelligence. Human Genetics, 126(1), 215–232.Google Scholar
Deary, I .J., Lawn, M., & Bartholomew, D. J. (2008). A conversation between Charles Spearman, Godfrey Thomson, and Edward L. Thorndike: The International Examinations Inquiry Meetings 1931–1938. History of Psychology, 11(3), 163.Google Scholar
Del Giudice, M. (2014). An evolutionary life history framework for psychopathology. Psychological Inquiry, 25(3–4), 261–300.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck personality questionnaire. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Fernandes, H. B. F., Woodley, M. A., Hutz, C. S., & Figueredo, A. J. (2016). The strength of associations among sexual strategy traits: Variations as a function of life history speed. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 275–283.Google Scholar
Fernandes, H. B. F., Woodley, M. A., Hutz, C. S., & Kruger, D. J. (2013). Strategic differentiation-integration effort in the context of sexual strategies: A cross-national perspective. Oral presentation, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Miami, FL.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J. (2007). The Arizona Life History Battery. Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/email.arizona.edu/ajf/the-arizona-life-history-battery-alhbGoogle Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Cabeza de Baca, T., Garcia, R. A., Gable, J. C., & Weise, D. (2013). Revisiting mediation in the social and behavioral sciences. Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 4(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. M., Kauffman, I. A., Weil, E., & Gladden, P. R. (2012). The interplay of behavioral dispositions and cognitive abilities: Sociosexual orientation, emotional intelligence, executive functions, and life history strategy. Temas em Psicologia, 20(1), 81–100.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Gladden, P. R., Sisco, M. M., Patch, E. A., & Jones, D. N. (2015). The unholy trinity: The Dark Triad, sexual coercion, and Brunswik-Symmetry. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(2), 435–454.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Jacobs, W. J., Gladden, P. R., Bianchi, J., Patch, E. A., Beck, C. J. A., … & Li, N. P. (2018). Intimate partner violence, interpersonal aggression, and life history strategy. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 12(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., & Rushton, J. P. (2009). Evidence for shared genetic dominance between the general factor of personality, mental and physical health, and life history traits. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 12(6), 555–563.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., & Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M. (2021). The moderating influence of the general life history strategy factor upon the relation between short-term and long-term mating orientations is mediated by a strategic differentiation-integration factor. Academia Letters, 2, 3433.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., & Schneider, S. M. R. (2004). The heritability of life history strategy: The K-factor, covitality, and personality. Social Biology, 51, 121–143.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., & Schneider, S. M. R. (2007). The K-factor, covitality, and personality: A psychometric test of life history theory. Human Nature, 18(1), 47–73.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Sefcek, J. A., Kirsner, B. R., & Jacobs, W. J. (2005). The K-Factor: Individual differences in life history strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(8), 1349–1360.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Woodley, M. A., Brown, S. D., & Ross, K. C. (2013). Multiple successful tests of the strategic differentiation-integration effort (SD-IE) hypothesis. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 7(4), 361–383.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Woodley of Menie, M. A., & Jacobs, W. J. (2015). The evolutionary psychology of the General Factor of Personality: A hierarchical life history model. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology, 2nd ed. (pp. 943–967). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69–96.Google Scholar
Garcia, R. A., Cabeza de Baca, T., Black, C. J., Sotomayor-Peterson, M., Smith-Castro, V., & Figueredo, A. J. (2016). Measures of domain-specific resource allocations in life history strategy: Indicators of a latent common factor or ordered developmental sequence? Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 7(1), 23–51.Google Scholar
Gorsuch, R. L. (2005). Continuous parameter estimation model: Expanding the standard statistical paradigm. Journal of the Science Faculty of Chiang Mai University, 32, 11–21.Google Scholar
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Hilton, N. Z., Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (2007). Coercive and precocious sexuality as a fundamental aspect of psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Herculano‐Houzel, S. (2019). Longevity and sexual maturity vary across species with number of cortical neurons, and humans are no exception. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 527(10), 1689–1705.Google Scholar
Hertler, S. C., Figueredo, A. J., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M., & Fernandes, H. B. (2018). Life history evolution: A biological meta-theory for the social sciences. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Isler, K., & van Schaik, C. P. (2006). Metabolic costs of brain size evolution. Biology Letters, 2(4), 557–560.Google Scholar
Isler, K., & van Schaik, C. P. (2009). Why are there so few smart mammals (but so many smart birds)? Biology Letters, 5(1), 125–129.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 382–391.Google Scholar
Jeschke, J. M., & Kokko, H. (2009). The roles of body size and phylogeny in fast and slow life histories. Evolutionary Ecology, 23(6), 867–878.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., and Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.Google Scholar
Kaplan, H. S., & Gangestad, S. W. (2005). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In Buss, D. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 68–95). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, A., & Nebe, S. (2021). Working memory, fluid reasoning, and complex problem solving: Different results explained by the Brunswik Symmetry. Journal of Intelligence, 9(1), 5.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, A., Spengler, M., Schubert, A.-L., Steinmayr, R., & Ziegler, M. (2018). The relation of personality and intelligence: What can the Brunswik Symmetry principle tell us? Journal of Intelligence, 6(3), 30.Google Scholar
Lukas, D., & Clutton-Brock, T. (2014). Evolution of social monogamy in primates is not consistently associated with male infanticide. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(17), E1674.Google Scholar
Lukas, D., & Huchard, E. (2014). The evolution of infanticide by males in mammalian societies. Science, 346(6211), 841–844.Google Scholar
MacLean, E. L., & Nunn, C. L. (2017). Phylogenetic approaches for research in comparative cognition. In Call, J., Burghardt, G. M., Pepperberg, I. M., Snowdon, C. T., & Zentall, T. (Eds.), APA handbook of comparative psychology: Basic concepts, methods, neural substrate, and behavior (pp. 201–216). New York, NY: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Manson, J. H., Chua, K. J., & Lukaszewski, A. W. (2020). The structure of the Mini-K and K-SF-42. Human Nature, 31, 322–340.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Minkov, M., & Bond, M. H. (2015). Genetic polymorphisms predict national differences in life history strategy and time orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 204–215.Google Scholar
Monroe, P. (Ed.). (1931). Conference on examinations. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Navarrete, A., van Schaik, C. P., & Isler, K. (2011). Energetics and the evolution of human brain size. Nature, 480(7375), 91–93.Google Scholar
Nunn, C. L. (2011). The comparative approach in evolutionary anthropology and biology. Chicago, IL. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nunn, C., & van Schaik, C. (2000). Social evolution in primates: The relative roles of ecology and intersexual conflict. In van Schaik, C. & Janson, C. (Eds.), Infanticide by males and its implications (pp. 388–420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Opie, C., Atkinson, Q. D., Dunbar, R. I., & Shultz, S. (2013). Male infanticide leads to social monogamy in primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(33), 13328–13332.Google Scholar
Opie, C., Atkinson, Q. D., Dunbar, R. I., & Shultz, S. (2014). Reply to Lukas and Clutton-Brock: Infanticide still drives primate monogamy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(17), E1675.Google Scholar
Richardson, G. B., Sanning, B. K., Lai, M. H. C., Copping, L. T., Hardesty, P. H., & Kruger, D. J. (2017). On the psychometric study of human life history strategies: State of the science and evidence of two independent dimensions. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(1), 1474704916666840.Google Scholar
Ricklefs, R. E., & Wikelski, M. (2002) The physiology/life-history nexus. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17, 462–468.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, 870–883.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., Wilson, C. L., & Winterheld, H. A. (2004). Sociosexuality and romantic relationships. In Harvey, J. H., Wenzel, A., & Sprecher, S. (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 87–112). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
Spearman, C. (1904). “General Intelligence” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.Google Scholar
Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Tielbeek, J. J., Barnes, J. C., Popma, A., Polderman, T. J. C., Lee, J. J., Perry, J. R. B., … & Boutwell, B. B. (2018). Exploring the genetic correlations of antisocial behaviour and life history traits. British Journal of Psychology: Open, 4, 467–470.Google Scholar
van Doorn, W. G., & van Meeteren, U. (2003). Flower opening and closure: A review. Journal of Experimental Botany, 54(389), 1801–1812.Google Scholar
van Noordwijk, M., & van Schaik, C. (2000). Reproductive patterns in eutherian mammals: Adaptations against infanticide? In van Schaik, C. & Janson, C. (Eds.), Infanticide by males and its implications (pp. 322–360). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Schaik, C. (2000). Vulnerability to infanticide by males: Patterns among mammals. In van Schaik, C. & Janson, C. (Eds.), Infanticide by males and its implications (pp. 61–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Schaik, C. P. (2016). The primate origins of human nature. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
van Schaik, C. P., & Isler, K. (2012). Life-history evolution. In Mitani, J. C., Call, J., Kappeler, P. M., Palombit, R., & Silk, J. B. (Eds.), The evolution of primate societies (pp. 220–244). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D., & Bryan, A. (2007). Sociosexual attitudes and behaviors: Why two factors are better than one. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 917–922.Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wikelski, M., Spinney, L., Schelsky, W., Scheuerlein, A., & Gwinner, E. (2003). Slow pace of life in tropical sedentary birds: A common-garden experiment on four stonechat populations from different latitudes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270, 2383–2388.Google Scholar
Wittmann, W. W. (1990). Brunswik symmetry and the conception of the five data boxes: A framework concept for comprehensive evaluation research. Journal for Educational Psychology, 4(4), 241–251.Google Scholar
Wittmann, W. W. (1991). Meta-analysis and Brunswik symmetry. In Albrecht, G., Otto, H.-U., Karstedt-Henke, S., & Böllert, K. (Eds.), Prevention and intervention in childhood and adolescence, 11. Social prevention and the social sciences: Theoretical controversies, research problems, and evaluation strategies (p. 381–393). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wittmann, W. W., & Süß, H.-M. (1999). Investigating the paths between working memory, intelligence, knowledge, and complex problem-solving performances via Brunswik symmetry. In Ackerman, P. L., Kyllonen, P. C., & Roberts, R. D. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences (p.p. 77–108). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Woodley, M. A., & Figueredo, A. J. (2013). Historical variability in heritable general intelligence: Its evolutionary origins and socio-cultural consequences. Buckingham: University of Buckingham Press.Google Scholar
Woodley, M. A., Figueredo, A. J., Brown, S. D., & Ross, K. C. (2013). Four successful tests of the cognitive differentiation-integration effort hypothesis. Intelligence, 41(6), 832–842.Google Scholar
Woodley of Menie, M. A., Figueredo, A. J., Cabeza de Baca, T., Fernandes, H. B. F., Madison, G., Wolf, P. S. A., & Black, C. J. (2015). Strategic differentiation and integration of genomic-level heritabilities facilitate individual differences in preparedness and plasticity of human life history. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(422), 1–10.Google Scholar
Woodley of Menie, M. A., Figueredo, A. J., Sarraf, M. A., Hertler, S., Fernandes, H. B. F., & Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M. (2017). The rhythm of the west: A biohistory of the modern era, AD 1600 to present. Washington, DC: Council for Social and Economic Studies.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models for personality: The big three, the big five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 757–768.Google Scholar

References

Anderson, K. (2006). How well does paternity confidence match actual paternity? Evidence from worldwide nonpaternity rates. Current Anthropology, 47, 513–520.Google Scholar
Angulo, J., & García, M. (2005). Sex in stone: Sexuality, reproduction, and eroticism in the Paleolithic epoch. Madrid: Luzán.Google Scholar
Arden, R., Gottfredson, L. S., Miller, G. F., & Pierce, A. (2009). Intelligence and semen quality are positively correlated. Intelligence, 37, 277–282.Google Scholar
Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2006). The heat of the moment: The effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 87–98.Google Scholar
Arnocky, S., Sunderani, S., Gomes, W., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Anticipated partner infidelity and men’s intimate partner violence: The mediating role of anxiety. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 9, 186.Google Scholar
Auger, J., Kunstmann, J. M., Czyglik, F., & Jouannet, P. (1995). Decline in semen quality among fertile men in Paris during the past 20 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 332, 281–285.Google Scholar
Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1988). “Kamikaze” sperm in mammals? Animal Behaviour, 36, 936–939.Google Scholar
Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1993a). Human sperm competition: Ejaculate adjustment by males and the function of masturbation. Animal Behaviour, 46, 861–885.Google Scholar
Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1993b). Human sperm competition: Ejaculate manipulation by females and a function for the female orgasm. Animal Behaviour, 46, 887–909.Google Scholar
Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1995). Human sperm competition: Copulation, masturbation and infidelity. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Baker, R. R., & Shackelford, T. K. (2018). A comparison of paternity data and relative testes size as measures of level of sperm competition in the Hominoidea. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 165, 421–443.Google Scholar
Barash, D. P. (1977). Sociobiology of rape in mallards (Anas platyrhynchos): Responses of the mated male. Science, 197, 788–789.Google Scholar
Bellis, M. A., Hughes, K., Hughes, S., & Ashton, J. R. (2005). Measuring paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 59, 749–754.Google Scholar
Bostofte, E., Serup, J., & Rebbe, H. (1983). Has the fertility of Danish men declined through the years in terms of semen quality? A comparison of semen qualities between 1952 and 1972. International Journal of Fertility, 28, 91–95.Google Scholar
Brewis, A., & Meyer, M. (2005). Demographic evidence that human ovulation is undetectable (at least in pair bonds). Current Anthropology, 46, 465–471.Google Scholar
Camilleri, J. A., & Quinsey, V. L. (2009). Testing the cuckoldry risk hypothesis of partner sexual coercion in community and forensic samples. Evolutionary Psychology, 7, 164–178.Google Scholar
Candolin, U., & Reynolds, J. D. (2002). Adjustments of ejaculation rates in response to risk of sperm competition in a fish, the bitterling (Rhodeus sericeus). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269, 1549–1553.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, 27–32.Google Scholar
Cheng, K. M., Burns, J. T., & McKinney, F. (1983). Forced copulation in captive mallards III: Sperm competition. The Auk, 100, 302–310.Google Scholar
Clark, N. L., & Swanson, W. J. (2005). Pervasive adaptive evolution in primate seminal proteins. PLoS Genetics, 1, e35.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1973). Crossovers, sperm redundancy, and their close association. Heredity, 31, 408–413.Google Scholar
Cornwallis, C. K., & O’Connor, E. A. (2009). Sperm: Seminal fluid interactions and the adjustment of sperm quality in relation to female attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 276, 3467–3475.Google Scholar
DeLecce, T., Barbaro, N., Mohamedally, D., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Husband’s reaction to his wife’s sexual rejection is predicted by the time she spends with her male friends, but not her male coworkers. Evolutionary Psychology, 15, 1–5.Google Scholar
DeLecce, T., Fink, B., Shackelford, T., & Abed, M. G. (2020). No evidence for a relationship between intelligence and ejaculate quality. Evolutionary Psychology, 18(3), 1474704920960450.Google Scholar
DeLecce, T., Shackelford, T. K., Fink, B., & Abed, M. G. (2020). No evidence for a trade-off between competitive traits and ejaculate quality in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 18, 1474704920942557.Google Scholar
DeLecce, T., Shackelford, T. K., Zeigler-Hill, , Fink, B., & Abed, M. G. (in press). Mate retention behaviors and ejaculate quality in humans. Archives of Sexual Behavior.Google Scholar
Dorus, S., Evans, P. D., Wyckoff, G. J., Choi, S. S., & Lahn, B. T. (2004). Rate of molecular evolution of the seminal protein gene SEMG2 correlates with levels of female promiscuity. Nature Genetics, 36, 1326–1329.Google Scholar
Finkelhor, D., & Yllo, K. (1985). License to rape: Sexual abuse of wives. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
Foo, Y. Z., Simmons, L. W., Peters, M., & Rhodes, G. (2018). Perceived physical strength in men is attractive to women but may come at a cost to ejaculate quality. Animal Behavior, 142, 191–197.Google Scholar
Frieze, I. H. (1983). Investigating the causes and consequences of marital rape. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 8, 532–553.Google Scholar
Gage, A. J., & Hutchinson, P. L. (2006). Power, control, and intimate partner sexual violence in Haiti. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 11–24.Google Scholar
Gage, A. R., & Barnard, C. J. (1996). Male crickets increase sperm number in relation to competition and female size. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 38, 349–353.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G. Jr., & Burch, R. L. (2004). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 12–23.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G., Burch, R. L., & Mitchell, T. J. B. (2006). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy: Multiple mating, self-semen displacement, and timing of in-pair copulations. Human Nature, 17, 253–264.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G. Jr., Burch, R. L., & Petricone, L. R. (2012). Sexual conflict, infidelity, and vaginal/semen chemistry. In Shackelford, T. K. & Goetz, A. T. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sexual conflict in humans (pp. 217–231). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gallup, G. G. Jr., Burch, R. L., Zappieri, M. L., Parvez, R. A., Stockwell, M. L., & Davis, J. A. (2003). The human penis as a semen displacement device. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 277–289.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2005). Women’s sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle depend on primary partner developmental instability. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 272, 2023–2027.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, 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, 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, 119–123.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., Platek, S. M., Starratt, V. G., & McKibbin, W. F. (2007). Sperm competition in humans: Implications for male sexual psychology, physiology, anatomy, and behavior. Annual Review of Sex Research, 18, 1–22.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
Gottschall, J. (2004). Explaining wartime rape. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 129–136.Google Scholar
Gottschall, J. A., & Gottschall, T. A. (2003). Are per-incident rape-pregnancy rates higher than per-incident consensual pregnancy rates? Human Nature, 14, 1–20.Google Scholar
Guadamuz, T. E., Kunawararak, P., Beyrer, C., Pumpaisanchai, J., Wei, C., & Celentano, D. D. (2010). HIV prevalence, sexual and behavioral correlates among Shan, Hill tribe, and Thai male sex workers in Northern Thailand. AIDS Care, 22, 597–605.Google Scholar
Guéguen, N. (2012). Gait and menstrual cycle: Ovulating women use sexier gaits and walk slowly ahead of men. Gait & Posture, 35, 621–624.Google Scholar
Gunns, R. E., Johnston, L., & Hudson, S. M. (2002). Victim selection and kinematics: A point-light investigation of vulnerability to attack. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26, 129–158.Google Scholar
Hald, G. M. (2006). Gender differences in pornography consumption among young heterosexual Danish adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 577–585.Google Scholar
Halpern, J., & Sherman, M. A. (1979). Afterplay: A key to intimacy. New York, NY: Pocket Books.Google Scholar
Harcourt, A. H. (1989). Deformed sperm are probably not adaptive. Animal Behaviour, 37, 863–865.Google Scholar
Haselton, M. G., & Gildersleeve, K. (2011). Can men detect ovulation? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 87–92.Google Scholar
Haselton, M. G., Mortezaie, M., Pillsworth, E. G., Bleske-Rechek, A., & Frederick, D. A. (2007). Ovulatory shifts in human female ornamentation: Near ovulation, women dress to impress. Hormones and Behavior, 51, 40–45.Google Scholar
Hewlett, B. S., & Hewlett, B. L. (2010). Sex and searching for children among Aka foragers and Ngandu farmers of Central Africa. African Study Monographs, 31, 107–125.Google Scholar
Holman, L., & Snook, R. R. (2006). Spermicide, cryptic female choice and the evolution of sperm form and function. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 19, 1660–1670.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
Iwawaki, S., & Wilson, G. D. (1983). Sex fantasies in Japan. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 543–545.Google Scholar
Jeffery, A. J., Pham, M. N., Shackelford, T. K., & Fink, B. (2016). Does human ejaculate quality relate to phenotypic traits? American Journal of Human Biology, 38, 318–329.Google Scholar
Kaighobadi, F., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Female attractiveness mediates the relationship between in-pair copulation frequency and men’s mate retention behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 293–295.Google Scholar
Kilgallon, S. J., & Simmons, L. W. (2005). Image content influences men’s semen quality. Biology Letters, 1, 253–255.Google Scholar
Klusmann, D. (2002). Sexual motivation and the duration of partnership. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 31, 275–287.Google Scholar
Klusmann, D. (2006). Sperm competition and female procurement of male resources. Human Nature, 17, 283–300.Google Scholar
Krejčová, L., Kuba, R., Flegr, J., & Klapilová, K. (2020). Kamasutra in practice: The use of sexual positions in the Czech population and their association with female coital orgasm potential. Sexual Medicine, 8, 767–776.Google Scholar
Kura, T., & Nakashima, Y. (2000). Conditions for the evolution of soldier sperm classes. Evolution, 54, 72–80.Google Scholar
Larmuseau, M. H., Matthijs, K., & Wenseleers, T. (2016). Cuckolded fathers rare in human populations. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31, 327–329.Google Scholar
Lee, S. (1988). Sperm preparation for assisted conception. Conceive, 12, 4–5.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
Locatello, L., Rasotto, M. B., Evans, J. P., & Pilastro, A. (2006). Colourful male guppies produce faster and more viable sperm. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 19, 1595–1602.Google Scholar
Lorch, P. D., Wilkinson, G. S., & Reillo, P. R. (1993). Copulation duration and sperm precedence in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis whitei (Diptera: Diopsidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 32, 303–311.Google Scholar
Lurie, P., Fernandes, M. E. L., Hughes, V., Arevalo, E. I., Hudes, E. S., Reingold, A., & Hearst, N. (1995). Socioeconomic status and risk of HIV-1, syphilis and hepatitis B infection among sex workers in São Paulo State, Brazil. AIDS, 9, 31–37.Google Scholar
Malamuth, N. M. (1996). Sexually explicit media, gender differences and evolutionary theory. Journal of Communication, 46, 8–31.Google Scholar
Manning, J. T., Scutt, D., Wilson, J., & Lewis-Jones, D. I. (1998). The ratio of 2nd to 4th digit length: A predictor of sperm numbers and concentration of testosterone luteinizing hormone and oestrogen. Human Reproduction, 13, 3000–3004.Google Scholar
Maruthupandian, J., & Marimuthu, G. (2013). Cunnilingus apparently increases duration of copulation in the Indian flying fox, Pteropus giganteus. PLoS One, 8, e59743.Google Scholar
Mauras, N., Bell, J., Snow, B. G., & Winslow, K. L. (2005). Sperm analysis in growth hormone-deficient adolescents previously treated with an aromatase inhibitor: Comparison with normal controls. Fertility and Sterility, 84, 239–242.Google Scholar
McCallum, C. (1994). Ritual and the origin of sexuality in the Alto Xingu. In Harvey, P. & Gow, P. (Eds.), Sex and violence: Issues in representation and experience (pp. 90–114). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
McKibbin, W. F., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2013). Human sperm competition in postindustrial ecologies: Sperm competition cues predict adult DVD sales. Behavioral Ecology, 24, 819–823.Google Scholar
McKibbin, W. F., Starratt, V. G., Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (2011). Perceived risk of female infidelity moderates the relationship between objective risk of female infidelity and sexual coercion in humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 125, 370–373.Google Scholar
Mineau, P., & Cooke, F. (1979). Rape in the lesser snow goose. Behaviour, 70, 280–291.Google Scholar
Moore, H. D. M., Martin, M., & Birkhead, T. R. (1999). No evidence for killer sperm or other selective interactions between human spermatozoa in ejaculates of different males in vitro. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 266, 2343–2350.Google Scholar
Mosher, D. L. (1988). Pornography defined: Sexual involvement theory, narrative context, and goodness-of-fit. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 1, 67–85.Google Scholar
Mougeot, F., Arroyo, B. E., & Bretagnolle, V. (2001). Decoy presentations as a means to manipulate the risk of extrapair copulation: An experimental test of paternity assurance strategies in a semi-colonial raptor, the Montagu’s Harrier Circus pygargus. Behavioural Ecology, 12, 1–7.Google Scholar
Nicholls, E. H., Burke, T., & Birkhead, T. R. (2001). Ejaculate allocation by male sand martins, Riparia riparia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268, 1265–1270.Google Scholar
Nishimura, K., Utsumi, K., Okano, T., & Iritani, A. (1991). Separation of mounting-inducing pheromones of vaginal mucus from estrual heifers. Journal of Animal Science, 69, 3343–3347.Google Scholar
O’Donohue, W., & Plaud, J. J. (1991). The long-term habituation of sexual arousal in the human male. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 22, 87–96.Google Scholar
Ono, T., Siva‐Jothy, M. T., & Kato, A. K. I. (1989). Removal and subsequent ingestion of rivals’ semen during copulation in a tree cricket. Physiological Entomology, 14, 195–202.Google Scholar
Palagi, E., Telara, S., & Tarli, S. B. (2003). Sniffing behavior in Lemur catta: Seasonality, sex, and rank. International Journal of Primatology, 24, 335–350.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. (1990). Sperm competition games: Raffles and roles. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 242, 120–126.Google Scholar
Pham, M. N., Barbaro, N., Holub, A., Holden, C. J., Mogilski, J. K., Lopes, G. S., … Welling, L. L. M. (2018). Do men produce higher-quality ejaculates when primed with thoughts of partner infidelity? Evolutionary Psychology, 16, 1–7.Google 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. (2013a). 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. (2013b). Oral sex as infidelity-detection. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 792–795.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
Pizzari, T., Cornwallis, C. K., Løvlie, H., Jakobsson, S., & Birkhead, T. R. (2003). Sophisticated sperm allocation in male fowl. Nature, 426, 70–74.Google Scholar
Pound, N. (2002). Male interest in visual cues of sperm competition risk. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 443–466.Google Scholar
Price, J. H., & Miller, P. A. (1984). Sexual fantasies of Black and of White college students. Psychological Reports, 54, 1007–1014.Google Scholar
Ramm, S. A., Parker, G. A., & Stockley, P. (2005). Sperm competition and the evolution of male reproductive anatomy in rodents. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 272, 949–955.Google Scholar
Russell, D. E. H. (1982). Rape in marriage. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sadler, A. G., Booth, B. M., & Doebbeling, B. N. (2005). Gang and multiple rapes during military service: Health consequences and health care. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, 60, 33–41.Google Scholar
Sanday, P. R. (1981). The socio‐cultural context of rape: A cross‐cultural study. Journal of Social Issues, 37, 5–27.Google Scholar
Sanday, P. (2007). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on campus. New York, NY: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Scelza, B. A., Prall, S. P., Swinford, N., Gopalan, S., Atkinson, E. G., McElreath, R., … Henn, B. M. (2020). High rate of extrapair paternity in a human population demonstrates diversity in human reproductive strategies. Science Advances, 6, eaay6195.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., & Goetz, A. T. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of sexual conflict in humans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., Guta, F. E., & Schmitt, D. P. (2006). Mate guarding and frequent in-pair copulation in humans. Human Nature, 17, 239–252.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., LaMunyon, C. W., Quintus, B. J., & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (2004). Sex differences in sexual psychology produce sex-similar preferences for a short-term mate. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33, 405–412.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, 214–220.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
Sheldon, B. C. (1994). Male phenotype fertility and the pursuit of extra-pair copulations by female birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 257, 25–30.Google Scholar
Short, R. V. (1981). Sexual selection in man and the apes. In Graham, C. E. (Ed.), Reproductive biology of the great apes (pp. 319–341). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, L. W., & Emlen, D. J. (2006). Evolutionary trade-off between weapons and testes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 16349–16351.Google Scholar
Simmons, L. W., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (2012). Sperm wars and the evolution of male fertility. Reproduction, 144, 519–534.Google Scholar
Simmons, L. W., Lüpold, S., & Fitzpatrick, J. L. (2017). Evolutionary trade-off between secondary sexual traits and ejaculates. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32, 964–976.Google Scholar
Simmons, L. W., Peters, M. P., & Rhodes, G. (2011). Low pitched voices are perceived as masculine and attractive but do they predict semen quality in men? PLoS One, 6, e29271.Google Scholar
Smith, R. L. (1984). Human sperm competition. In Smith, R. L. (Ed.), Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems (pp. 601–659). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Soini, P. (1987). Sociosexual behavior of a free‐ranging Cebuella pygmaea (Callitrichidae, platyrrhini) troop during postpartum estrus of its reproductive female. American Journal of Primatology, 13, 223–230.Google Scholar
Soler, C., Kekalainen, J., Nunez, M., Sancho, M., Alvarez, J. G., Nunez, J., … Gutierrez, R. (2014). Male facial attractiveness and masculinity may provide sex- and culture-independent cues to semen quality. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 27, 1930–1938.Google Scholar
Somjee, U., Miller, C., Tatarnic, N. J., & Simmons, L. W. (2018). Experimental manipulation reveals a trade-off between weapons and testes. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 31, 57–65.Google Scholar
Starratt, V. G., Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., McKibbin, W. F., & Stewart-Williams, S. (2008). Men’s partner-directed insults and sexual coercion in intimate relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 315–323.Google Scholar
Starratt, V. G., McKibbin, W. F., & Shackelford, T. K. (2013). Experimental activation of anti-cuckoldry mechanisms responsive to female sexual infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 59–62.Google Scholar
Tan, M., Jones, G., Zhu, G., Ye, J., Hong, T., Zhou, S., … Zhang, L. (2009). Fellatio by fruit bats prolongs copulation time. PLoS One, 4, e7595.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R. (2006). Forward: Human sperm competition and women’s dual sexuality. In Shackelford, T. K. & Pound, N. (Eds.), Sperm competition in humans: Classic and contemporary readings (pp. v–xix). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Ullman, S. E. (1999). A comparison of gang and individual rape incidents. Violence and Victims, 14, 123–133.Google Scholar
Voracek, M., Haubner, T., & Fisher, M. L. (2008). Recent decline in nonpaternity rates: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Psychological Reports, 103, 799–811.Google Scholar
Wedell, N., Gage, M. J., & Parker, G. A. (2002). Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17, 313–320.Google Scholar
Wilson, N., Tubman, S. C., Eady, P. E., & Robertson, G. W. (1997). Female genotype affects male success in sperm competition. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 264, 1491–1495.Google Scholar
Wolf, M., Musch, J., Enczmann, J., & Fischer, J. (2012). Estimating the prevalence of nonpaternity in Germany. Human Nature, 23, 208–217.Google Scholar
Wood, K. (2005). Contextualizing group rape in post‐apartheid South Africa. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 7, 303–317.Google Scholar
Wren, B. G. (1985). Handbook of obstetrics and gynaecology. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Zavos, P. M. (1985). Seminal parameters of ejaculates collected from oligospermic and normospermic patients via masturbation and at intercourse with the use of a Silastic seminal fluid collection device. Fertility and Sterility, 44, 517–520.Google Scholar
Zavos, P. M., & Goodpasture, J. C. (1989). Clinical improvements of specific seminal deficiencies via intercourse with a seminal collection device versus masturbation. Fertility and Sterility, 51, 190–193.Google Scholar
Zemedkun, M. F. (2020). Cocktail parties and semen quality: Effects of auditory cues on semen parameters. Senior Independent Study Theses. Paper 9023.Google Scholar

References

Ala-Honkola, O., & Manier, M. K. (2016). Multiple mechanisms of cryptic female choice act on intraspecific male variation in Drosophila simulans. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 70(4), 519–532.Google Scholar
Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Arnqvist, G., Edvardsson, M., Friberg, U., & Nilsson, T. (2000). Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(19), 10460–10464.Google Scholar
Arnqvist, G., & Rowe, L. (2002). Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature, 415(6873), 787–789.Google Scholar
Arnqvist, G., & Rowe, L. (2005). Sexual conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Barson, N. J., Aykanat, T., Hindar, K., Baranski, M., Bolstad, G. H., Fiske, P., … Primmer, C. R. (2015). Sex-dependent dominance at a single locus maintains variation in age at maturity in salmon. Nature, 528(7582), 405–408.Google Scholar
Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349–368.Google Scholar
Birkhead, T. R., & Møller, A. P. (1998). Sperm competition and sexual selection. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Birkhead, T. R., & Pizzari, T. (2002). Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3(4), 262–273.Google Scholar
Bonduriansky, R., & Chenoweth, S. F. (2009). Intralocus sexual conflict. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(5), 280–288.Google Scholar
Boughman, J. W. (2001). Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature, 411(6840), 944–948.Google Scholar
Buzatto, B. A., & Clark, H. L. (2020). Selection for male weapons boosts female fecundity, eliminating sexual conflict in the bulb mite. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 7.Google Scholar
Carvalho, A. P. S., Mota, L. L., & Kawahara, A. Y. (2019). Intersexual “arms race” and the evolution of the sphragis in Pteronymia butterflies. Insect Systematics and Diversity, 3(1), 13.Google Scholar
Cassini, M. H. (2021). Sexual aggression in mammals. Mammal Review. doi: 10.1111/mam.12228Google Scholar
Chapman, T. (2001). Seminal fluid-mediated fitness traits in Drosophila. Heredity, 87, 511–521.Google Scholar
Chapman, T. (2006). Evolutionary conflicts of interest between males and females. Current Biology, 16(17), R744–R754.Google Scholar
Chapman, T., Arnqvist, G., Bangham, J., & Rowe, L. (2003). Sexual conflict. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(1), 41–47.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991). The evolution of parental care. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cluttonbrock, T. H., & Parker, G. A. (1995). Sexual coercion in animal societies. Animal Behaviour, 49(5), 1345–1365.Google Scholar
Connallon, T., & Matthews, G. (2019). Cross-sex genetic correlations for fitness and fitness components: Connecting theoretical predictions to empirical patterns. Evolution Letters, 3(3), 254–262.Google Scholar
Cornwallis, C. K., & Uller, T. (2010). Towards an evolutionary ecology of sexual traits. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(3), 145–152.Google Scholar
Cox, R. M., & Calsbeek, R. (2009). Sexually antagonistic selection, sexual dimorphism, and the resolution of intralocus sexual conflict. The American Naturalist, 173(2), 176–187.Google Scholar
Coyne, J. A., & Orr, H. A. (2004). Speciation. Sunderland, MA.: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.Google Scholar
Davies, N. B. (1992). Dunnock behaviour and social evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
den Boer, S. P. A., Baer, B., & Boomsma, J. J. (2010). Seminal fluid mediates ejaculate competition in social insects. Science, 327(5972), 1506–1509.Google Scholar
Eady, P. E., Hamilton, L., & Lyons, R. E. (2007). Copulation, genital damage and early death in Callosobruchus maculatus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 274(1607), 247–252.Google Scholar
Eberhard, W. G. (1996). Female control: Sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ellegren, H., & Parsch, J. (2007). The evolution of sex-biased genes and sex-biased gene expression. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8(9), 689–698.Google Scholar
Emlen, S. T., & Oring, L. W. (1977). Ecology, sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. Science, 197, 215–223.Google Scholar
Endler, J. A., & Basolo, A. L. (1998). Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 13(10), 415–420.Google Scholar
Firman, R. C. (2018). Postmating sexual conflict and female control over fertilization during gamete interaction. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1422(1), 48–64.Google Scholar
Firman, R. C., Gasparini, C., Manier, M. K., & Pizzari, T. (2017). Postmating female control: 20 years of cryptic female choice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32(5), 368–382.Google Scholar
Friesen, C. R., Uhrig, E. J., Mason, R. T., & Brennan, P. L. R. (2016). Female behaviour and the interaction of male and female genital traits mediate sperm transfer during mating. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 29(5), 952–964.Google Scholar
Fromhage, L., & Jennions, M. D. (2016). Coevolution of parental investment and sexually selected traits drives sex-role divergence. Nature Communications, 7, 11.Google Scholar
Garcia-Roa, R., Garcia-Gonzalez, F., Noble, D. W. A., & Carazo, P. (2020). Temperature as a modulator of sexual selection. Biological Reviews, 95(6), 1607–1629.Google Scholar
Gavrilets, S. (2000). Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature, 403(6772), 886–889.Google Scholar
Gavrilets, S. (2014). Is sexual conflict an “engine of speciation”? Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 6(12), 13.Google Scholar
Gavrilets, S., & Waxman, D. (2002). Sympatric speciation by sexual conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(16), 10533–10538.Google Scholar
Gioti, A., Wigby, S., Wertheim, B., Schuster, E., Martinez, P., Pennington, C. J., … Chapman, T. (2012). Sex peptide of Drosophila melanogaster males is a global regulator of reproductive processes in females. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 279(1746), 4423–4432.Google Scholar
Gosling, L. M. (1986). Selective abortion of entire litters in the coypu: Adaptive control of offspring production in relation to quality and sex. The American Naturalist, 127(6), 772–795.Google Scholar
Gross, M. R. (1985). Disruptive selection for alternative life histories in salmon. Nature, 313(5997), 47–48.Google Scholar
Gross, M. R. (1996). Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: Diversity within sexes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 11, 92–98.Google Scholar
Gwynne, D. T. (1984). Courtship feeding increases female reproductive success in bush crickets. Nature, 307(5949), 361–363.Google Scholar
Gwynne, D. T. (1991). Sexual competition among females: What causes courtship role reversal. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 6(4), 118–121.Google Scholar
Hansson, B., Bensch, S., & Hasselquist, D. (1997). Infanticide in great reed warblers: Secondary females destroy eggs of primary females. Animal Behaviour, 54, 297–304.Google Scholar
Harano, T., & Kutsukake, N. (2018). The evolution of male infanticide in relation to sexual selection in mammalian carnivores. Evolutionary Ecology, 32(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
Harano, T., Okada, K., Nakayama, S., Miyatake, T., & Hosken, D. J. (2010). Intralocus sexual conflict unresolved by sex-limited trait expression. Current Biology, 20(22), 2036–2039.Google Scholar
Hayashi, T. I., Vose, M., & Gavrilets, S. (2007). Genetic differentiation by sexual conflict. Evolution, 61(3), 516–529.Google Scholar
Henshaw, J. M., Fromhage, L., & Jones, A. G. (2019). Sex roles and the evolution of parental care specialization. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 286(1909), 10.Google Scholar
Holland, B., & Rice, W. R. (1998). Perspective: Chase-away sexual selection – antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution, 52, 1–7.Google Scholar
Holman, L., & Snook, R. R. (2008). A sterile sperm caste protects brother fertile sperm from female-mediated death in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Current Biology, 18(4), 292–296.Google Scholar
Hosken, D. J., Archer, C. R., & Mank, J. E. (2019). Sexual conflict. Current Biology, 29(11), R451–R455.Google Scholar
Houde, A. E. (1997). Sex, color, and mate choice in guppies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. B. (1979). Infanticide among animals: Review, classification, and examination of the implications for the reproductive strategies of females. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1(1), 13–40.Google Scholar
Iglesias-Carrasco, M., Jennions, M. D., Ho, S. Y. W., & Duchene, D. A. (2019). Sexual selection, body mass and molecular evolution interact to predict diversification in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 286(1899), 7.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
Jormalainen, V., Merilaita, S., & Riihimaki, J. (2001). Costs of intersexual conflict in the isopod Idotea baltica. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14(5), 763–772.Google Scholar
Koene, J. M., & Schulenburg, H. (2005). Shooting darts: Co-evolution and counter-adaptation in hermaphroditic snails. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 5, 13.Google Scholar
Kokko, H., & Jennions, M. D. (2008). Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21(4), 919–948.Google Scholar
Kubli, E., & Bopp, D. (2012). Sexual behavior: How sex peptide flips the postmating switch of female flies. Current Biology, 22(13), R520–R522.Google Scholar
Laaksonen, T., Adamczyk, F., Ahola, M., Mostl, E., & Lessells, C. M. (2011). Yolk hormones and sexual conflict over parental investment in the pied flycatcher. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(2), 257–264.Google Scholar
Lange, R., Reinhardt, K., Michiels, N. K., & Anthes, N. (2013). Functions, diversity, and evolution of traumatic mating. Biological Reviews, 88(3), 585–601.Google Scholar
Lessells, C. M. (2006). The evolutionary outcome of sexual conflict. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361(1466), 301–317.Google Scholar
Lessells, C. M. (2012). Sexual conflict. In Royle, N. J., Smiseth, P. T., & Kölliker, M. (Eds.), The evolution of parental care (pp. 150–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, O. Y., & Hosken, D. J. (2003). The evolution of reproductive isolation through sexual conflict. Nature, 423(6943), 979–982.Google Scholar
Miller, C. W., & Svensson, E. I. (2014). Sexual selection in complex environments. In Berenbaum, M. R. (Ed.), Annual Review of Entomology (Vol. 59, pp. 427–445). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.Google Scholar
Mitra, S., Landel, H., & Pruett-Jones, S. J. (1996). Species richness covaries with mating system in birds. Auk, 113, 544–551.Google Scholar
Muller, W., Lessells, C. M., Korsten, P., & von Engelhardt, N. (2007). Manipulative signals in family conflict? On the function of maternal yolk hormones in birds. The American Naturalist, 169(4), E84–E96.Google Scholar
Packer, C., & Pusey, A. E. (1983). Adaptations of female lions to infanticide by incoming males. The American Naturalist, 121(5), 716–728.Google Scholar
Paquet, M., & Smiseth, P. T. (2017). Females manipulate behavior of caring males via prenatal maternal effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(26), 6800–6805.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. (1979). Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In Blum, M. S. & Blum, N. A. (Eds.), Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects (pp. 123–166). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. (1984). Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating strategies. In Smith, R. L. (Ed.), Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems (pp. 1–60). London: Academic Press.Google 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
Parker, G. A. (2020). Conceptual developments in sperm competition: A very brief synopsis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1813), 10.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A., & Partridge, L. (1998). Sexual conflict and speciation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 353(1366), 261–274.Google Scholar
Peretti, A. V., & Eberhard, W. G. (2010). Cryptic female choice via sperm dumping favours male copulatory courtship in a spider. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 23(2), 271–281.Google Scholar
Perry, J. C., Garroway, C. J., & Rowe, L. (2017). The role of ecology, neutral processes and antagonistic coevolution in an apparent sexual arms race. Ecology Letters, 20(9), 1107–1117.Google Scholar
Perry, J. C., & Rowe, L. (2018). Sexual conflict in its ecological setting. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1757), 10.Google Scholar
Pilastro, A., Mandelli, M., Gasparini, C., Dadda, M., & Bisazza, A. (2007). Copulation duration, insemination efficiency and male attractiveness in guppies. Animal Behaviour, 74, 321–328.Google Scholar
Poiani, A. (2006). Complexity of seminal fluid: A review. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 60(3), 289–310.Google Scholar
Price, D. K., & Burley, N. T. (1994). Constraints on the evolution of attractive traits: Selection in male and female zebra finches. The American Naturalist, 144(6), 908–934.Google Scholar
Queller, D. C. (1997). Why do females care more than males? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 264(1388), 1555–1557.Google Scholar
Rice, W. R. (1984). Sex-chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution, 38(4), 735–742.Google Scholar
Rice, W. R., & Chippindale, A. K. (2001). Intersexual ontogenetic conflict. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14(5), 685–693.Google Scholar
Rodd, F. H., Hughes, K. A., Grether, G. F., & Baril, C. T. (2002). A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: Are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269(1490), 475–481.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, G. G. (2017). Mate choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ruzicka, F., Dutoit, L., Czuppon, P., Jordan, C. Y., Li, X. Y., Olito, C., … Connallon, T. (2020). The search for sexually antagonistic genes: Practical insights from studies of local adaptation and statistical genomics. Evolution Letters, 4(5), 398–415.Google Scholar
Sandell, M. I., Smith, H. G., & Bruun, M. (1996). Paternal care in the European starling, Sturnus vulgaris: Nestling provisioning. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 39(5), 301–309.Google Scholar
Schluter, D. (2000). The ecology of adaptive radiation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, J. M., & Lubin, Y. (1996). Infanticidal male eresid spiders. Nature, 381(6584), 655–656.Google Scholar
Shuster, S. M., & Wade, M. J. (2003). Mating systems and strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.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(1813), 7.Google Scholar
Simmons, L. W., & Wedell, N. (2020). Fifty years of sperm competition: The structure of a scientific revolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1813), 7.Google Scholar
Snook, R. R. (2005). Sperm in competition: Not playing by the numbers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(1), 46–53.Google Scholar
Svensson, E. I., McAdam, A. G., & Sinervo, B. (2009). Intralocus sexual conflict over immune defense, gender load, and sex-specific signaling in a natural lizard population. Evolution, 63(12), 3124–3135.Google Scholar
Tregenza, T., & Wedell, N. (1998). Benefits of multiple mates in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Evolution, 52(6), 1726–1730.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
van Doorn, G. S. (2009). Intralocus sexual conflict. In Schlichting, C. D. & Mousseau, T. A. (Eds.), Year in evolutionary biology 2009 (Vol. 1168, pp. 52–71). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wedell, N., Tregenza, T., & Simmons, L. W. (2008). Nuptial gifts fail to resolve a sexual conflict in an insect. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 8, 7.Google Scholar
Westneat, D. F., & Sherman, P. W. (1997). Density and extra-pair fertilizations in birds: A comparative analysis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 41(4), 205–215.Google Scholar
Wigby, S., & Chapman, T. (2004). Sperm competition. Current Biology, 14(3), R100–R103.Google Scholar
Yun, L., Chen, P. J., Singh, A., Agrawal, A. F., & Rundle, H. D. (2017). The physical environment mediates male harm and its effect on selection in females. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 284(1858), 8.Google Scholar

References

Abramson, C. I., & Chicas-Mosier, A. M. (2016). Learning in plants: Lessons from Mimosa pudica. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 417.Google Scholar
Adelman, B. E. (2018). On the conditioning of plants: A review of experimental evidence. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41, 431–446.Google Scholar
Akins, C. K. (2004). The role of Pavlovian conditioning in sexual behavior: A comparative analysis of human and nonhuman animals. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 17, 241–262.Google Scholar
Alvarez, B., Morís, J., Luque, D., & Loy, I. (2014). Extinction, spontaneous recovery and reinstatement in the garden snail, Helix aspersa. Animal Behaviour, 92, 75–83.Google Scholar
Ardiel, E. L., & Rankin, C. H. (2010). An elegant mind: Learning and memory in Caenorhabditis elegans. Learning & Memory, 17, 191–201.Google Scholar
Armus, H. L., Montgomery, A. R., & Jellison, J. L. (2006). Discrimination learning in paramecia (P. caudatum). Psychological Record, 56, 489–498.Google Scholar
Bailey, C. H., & Chen, M. (1988). Long-term memory in Aplysia modulates the total number of varicosities of single identified sensory neurons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 85, 2373–2377.Google Scholar
Balaban, P. M. (2002). Cellular mechanisms of behavioral plasticity in the terrestrial snail. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 26, 597–630.Google Scholar
Benini, R., Oliveira, L. A., Gomes-de-Souza, L., & Crestani, C. C. (2019). Habituation of the cardiovascular responses to restraint stress in male rats: Influence of length, frequency and number of aversive sessions. Stress, 22, 151–161.Google Scholar
Beran, M. J., Parrish, A. E., Perdue, B. M., & Washburn, D. A. (2014). Comparative cognition: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27, 3–30.Google Scholar
Best, J., Berghmans, S., Hunt, J., Clarke, S. C., Fleming, A., Goldsmith, P., & Roach, A. G. (2008). Non-associative learning in larval zebrafish. Neuropsychopharmacology, 33, 1206–1215.Google Scholar
Bicker, G., & Hähnlein, I. (1994). Long-term habituation of an appetitive reflex in the honeybee. Neuroreport, 30, 54–56.Google Scholar
Bitterman, M. E. (1960). Toward a comparative psychology of learning. American Psychologist, 15, 704–712.Google Scholar
Bitterman, M. E. (1969). Thorndike and the problem of animal intelligence. American Psychologist, 24, 444–453.Google Scholar
Bitterman, M. E. (1975). The comparative analysis of learning: Are the laws of learning the same in all animals? Science, 188, 699–709.Google Scholar
Bitterman, M. E. (1987). Evidence of divergence in vertebrate learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 659–660.Google Scholar
Blumstein, D. T. (2016). Habituation and sensitization: New thoughts about old ideas. Animal Behaviour, 120, 255–262.Google Scholar
Boesch, C. (2007). What makes us human (Homo sapiens)? The challenge of cognitive cross-species comparison. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 227–240.Google Scholar
Boisseau, R. P., Vogel, D., & Dussutour, A. (2016). Habituation in non-neural organisms: Evidence from slime moulds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283, 20160446.Google Scholar
Boussard, A., Delescluse, J., Pérez-Escudero, A., & Dussutour, A. (2019). Memory inception and preservation in slime moulds: The quest for a common mechanism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 374, 20180368.Google Scholar
Braun, G., & Bicker, G. (1992). Habituation of an appetitive reflex in the honeybee. Journal of Neurophysiology, 67, 588–598.Google Scholar
Brom, M., Both, S., Laan, E., Everaerd, W., & Spinhoven, P. (2014). The role of conditioning, learning and dopamine in sexual behavior: A narrative review of animal and human studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 38, 38–59.Google Scholar
Bronfman, Z. Z., Ginsburg, S., & Jablonka, E. (2016). The transition to minimal consciousness through the evolution of associative learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1954.Google Scholar
Cao, J., Cole, I. B., & Murch, S. J. (2006). Neurotransmitters, neuroregulators and neurotoxins in the life of plants. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 86, 1183–1188.Google Scholar
Cook, A. (1971). Habituation in a freshwater snail (Limnaea stagnalis). Animal Behaviour, 19, 463–474.Google Scholar
Cook, M., & Mineka, S. (1990). Selective associations in the observational conditioning of fear in monkeys. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 372–389.Google Scholar
Coombs, C. H. (1938). Adaptation of the galvanic response to auditory stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22, 244–268.Google Scholar
Daniel, M. J., Koffinas, L., & Hughes, K. A. (2019). Habituation underpins preference for mates with novel phenotypes in the guppy. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 286, 20190435.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. R. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. R. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. New York, NY: Appleton.Google Scholar
Davis, W. J., & Mpitsos, G. J. (1971). Behavioral choice and habituation in the marine mollusk Pleurobranchaea californica MacFarland (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia). Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie, 75, 207–232.Google Scholar
Dawson, S. J., Suschinsky, K. D., & Lalumière, M. L. (2013). Habituation of sexual responses in men and women: A test of the preparation hypothesis of women’s genital responses. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10, 990–1000.Google Scholar
De Houwer, J., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Moors, A. (2013). What is learning? On the nature and merits of a functional definition of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 631–642.Google Scholar
De la Fuente, I. M., Bringas, C., Malaina, I., Fedetz, M., Carrasco-Pujante, J., Morales, M., … Boyano, M. D. (2019). Evidence of conditioned behavior in amoebae. Nature Communications, 10, 3690.Google Scholar
De Luca, M. A. (2014). Habituation of the responsiveness of mesolimbic and mesocortical dopamine transmission to taste stimuli. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 8, 21.Google Scholar
Domjan, M. (2005). Pavlovian conditioning: A functional perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 179–206.Google Scholar
Domjan, M. (2017). The essentials of conditioning and learning, 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Domjan, M., Cusato, B., & Krause, M. (2004). Learning with arbitrary vs. ecological conditioned stimuli: Evidence from sexual conditioning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 232–246.Google Scholar
Domjan, M., & Gutiérrez, G. (2019). The behavior system for sexual learning. Behavioural Processes, 162, 184–196.Google Scholar
Dong, S., & Clayton, D. F. (2009). Habituation in songbirds. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 92, 183–188.Google Scholar
Dunlap, A., & Stephens, D. W. (2009). Components of change in the evolution of learning and unlearned preference. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 276, 3201–3208.Google Scholar
Escobar, M., Arcediano, F., & Miller, R. R. (2003). Latent inhibition in human adults without masking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1028–1040.Google Scholar
Escobar, M., Dunaway, E. P., & Gennaro, K. (2014). Conditioned avoidance responses survive contingency degradation in the garden slug, Lehmannia valentiana. Learning & Behavior, 42, 305–312.Google Scholar
Esdin, J., Pearce, K., & Glanzman, D. L. (2010). Long-term habituation of the gill-withdrawal reflex in Aplysia requires gene transcription, calcineurin and l-type voltage-gated calcium channels. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 181.Google Scholar
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Frost, W. N., Brandon, C. L., & Van Zil, C. (2006). Long-term habituation in the marine mollusk Tritonia diomedea. Biological Bulletin, 210, 230–237.Google Scholar
Gagliano, M., Renton, M., Depczynski, M., & Mancuso, S. (2014). Experience teaches plants to learn faster and forget slower in environments where it matters. Oecologia, 175, 63–72.Google Scholar
Gagliano, M., Vyazovskiy, V. V., Borbély, A. A., Grimonprez, M., & Depczynski, M. (2016). Learning by association in plants. Scientific Reports, 6, 38427.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, S., & Jablonka, E. (2010). The evolution of associative learning: A factor in the Cambrian explosion. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 266, 11–20.Google Scholar
Glanzman, D. L. (2009). Habituation in Aplysia: The Cheshire cat of neurobiology. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 92, 147–154.Google Scholar
Griffin, D. R. (1978). Prospects for a cognitive ethology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 527–538.Google Scholar
Groves, P. M., & Thompson, R. F. (1970). Habituation: A dual-process theory. Psychological Review, 77, 419–450.Google Scholar
Grunwald, D. J., & Eisen, J. S. (2002). Headwaters of the zebrafish: Emergence of a new model vertebrate. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3, 717–724.Google Scholar
Hancock, P. A. (2013). In search of vigilance: The problem of iatrogenically created psychological phenomena. American Psychologist, 68, 97–109.Google Scholar
Harris, J. D. (1943). Habituatory response decrement in the intact organism. Psychological Bulletin, 40, 385–422.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. D., & Byrne, J. H. (2015). Associative learning in invertebrates. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 7, a021709.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. D., Greene, W., & Kandel, E. R. (1998). Classical conditioning, differential conditioning, and second-order conditioning of the Aplysia gill-withdrawal reflex in a simplified mantle organ preparation. Behavioral Neuroscience, 112, 636–645.Google Scholar
Helton, W. S., & Russell, P. N. (2015). Rest is best: The role of rest and task interruptions on vigilance. Cognition, 134, 165–173.Google Scholar
Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernandez-Lloredo, M. V., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science, 317, 1360–1366.Google Scholar
Hollis, K. L. (1997). Contemporary research on Pavlovian conditioning: A “new” functional analysis. American Psychologist, 52, 956–965.Google Scholar
Hollis, K. L., & Guillette, L. M. (2015). What associative learning in insects tells us about the evolution of learned behavior. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 28. doi: 10.46867/ijcp.2015.28.01.07Google Scholar
Hughes, S. M., Aung, T., Harrison, M. A., LaFayette, J. N., & Gallup, J. J. Jr. (2020). Experimental evidence for sex differences in sexual variety preferences: Support for the Coolidge effect in humans. Archives of Sexual Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10508–020-01730-xGoogle Scholar
Humphrey, B., Helton, W. S., Bedoya, C., Dolev, Y., & Nelson, X. J. (2018). Psychophysical investigation of vigilance decrement in jumping spiders: Overstimulation or understimulation? Animal Cognition, 21, 787–794.Google Scholar
Humphrey, G. (1933). The nature of learning in its relation to the living system. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Innis, N. K., & Staddon, J. E. R. (1989). What should comparative psychology compare? International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2, 145–156.Google Scholar
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Jennings, H. S. (1902). Studies on reactions to stimuli in unicellular organisms. IX. On the behavior of fixed infusoria (Stentor and Vorticella) with special reference to the modifiability of protozoan reactions. American Journal of Physiology, 8, 23–60.Google Scholar
Jordan, W. P., Strasser, H. C., & McHale, L. (2000). Contextual control of long-term habituation in rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 26, 323–339.Google Scholar
Liedtke, J., & Schneider, J. M. (2014). Association and reversal learning abilities in a jumping spider. Behavioural Processes, 103, 192–198.Google Scholar
Lloyd, D. R., Medina, D. J., Hawk, L. W., Fosco, W. D., & Richards, J. B. (2014). Habituation of reinforcer effectiveness. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 7, 107.Google Scholar
LoBue, V., Rakison, D. H., & DeLoache, J S. (2010). Threat perception across the life span: Evidence for multiple converging pathways. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 375–379.Google Scholar
Lorenz, K. (1971). Comparative studies of the motor patterns of Anatinae. In Lorenz, K. (Ed.), Studies in animal and human behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 14–114). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lubow, R. E., & Moore, A. U. (1959). Latent inhibition: The effect of nonreinforced pre-exposure to the conditional stimulus. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 52, 415–419.Google Scholar
Melrose, A., Nelson, X. J., Dolev, Y., & Helton, W. S. (2019). Vigilance all the way down: Vigilance decrement in jumping spiders resembles that of humans. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 1530–1538.Google Scholar
Mineka, S., & Zinbarg, R. (2006). A contemporary learning theory perspective on the etiology of anxiety disorders: It’s not what you thought it was. American Psychologist, 61, 10–26.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. L. (1894). An introduction to comparative psychology. New York, NY: Scribner.Google Scholar
Morton, H., & Gorzalka, B. B. ( 2014). Role of partner novelty in sexual functioning: A review. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 41, 593–609.Google Scholar
Nelson, X. J., Helton, W. S., & Melrose, A. (2019). The effect of stimulus encounter rate on response decrement in jumping spiders. Behavioural Processes, 159, 57–59.Google Scholar
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Penn, D. C., Holyoak, K. J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2008). Darwin’s mistake: Explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. Behavioural Brain Sciences, 31, 109–130.Google Scholar
Pilz, P. K. D., Carl, T. D., & Plappert, C. F. (2004). Habituation of the acoustic and the tactile startle responses in mice: Two independent sensory processes. Behavioral Neuroscience, 118, 975–983.Google Scholar
Pinsker, H., Kupfermann, I., Vincent, C., & Kandel, E. (1970). Habituation and dishabituation of the gill-withdrawal reflex in Aplysia. Science, 167, 1740–1742.Google Scholar
Porter, J. M. (1938). Adaptation of the galvanic skin response. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 553–557.Google Scholar
Powell, E. J., Escobar, M., & Kimble, W. (2013). Delaying interference training has equivalent effects in various Pavlovian interference paradigms. Learning & Memory, 20, 241–244.Google Scholar
Prados, J., Alvarez, B., Acebes, F., Loy, I., Sansa, J., & Moreno-Fernández, M. M. (2013). Blocking in rats, humans and snails using a within-subjects design. Behavioural Processes, 100, 23–31.Google Scholar
Premack, D. (2007). Human and animal cognition: Continuity and discontinuity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 13861–13867.Google Scholar
Premack, D. (2010). Why humans are unique: Three theories. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 5, 22–32.Google Scholar
Randlett, O., Haesemeyer, M., Forkin, G., Shoenhard, H., Schier, A. F., Engert, F., & Granato, M. (2019). Distributed plasticity drives visual habituation learning in larval zebrafish. Current Biology, 29, 1337–1345.Google Scholar
Rankin, C. H., Abrams, T., Barry, R. J., Bhatnagar, S., Clayton, D. F., Colombo, J., … Thompson, R. F. (2009). Habituation revisited: An updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 92, 135–138.Google Scholar
Rankin, C. H., & Broster, B. S. (1992). Factors affecting habituation and recovery from habituation in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Behavioral Neuroscience, 106, 239–249.Google Scholar
Rankin, C. H., Gannon, T., & Wicks, S. R. (2000). Developmental analysis of habituation in the nematode C. elegans. Developmental Psychobiology, 36, 261–270.Google Scholar
Ridgway, S., Keogh, M., Carder, D., Finneran, J., Kamolnick, T., Todd, M., & Goldblatt, A. (2009). Dolphins maintain cognitive performance during 72 to 120 hours of continuous auditory vigilance. Journal of Experimental Biology, 212, 1519–1527.Google Scholar
Romanes, G. J. (1883). Mental evolution in animals. London: Kegan Paul Trench & Co.Google Scholar
Rose, J. K., & Rankin, C. H. (2001). Analyses of habituation in Caenorhabditis elegans. Learning & Memory, 8, 63–69.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A., & Koller, D. (1986). Diurnal phototropism in solar tracking leaves of Lavatera cretica. Plant Physiology, 80, 778–781.Google Scholar
Searcy, W. A. (1992). Song repertoire and mate choice in birds. American Zoologist, 32, 71–80.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York, NY: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Staddon, J. E. R., & Higa, J. J. (1996). Multiple time scales in simple habituation. Psychological Review, 103, 720–733.Google Scholar
Suckling, D. M., Stringer, L. D., Jiménez-Pérez, A., Walter, G. M., Sullivan, N., & El-Sayed, A. M. (2018). With or without pheromone habituation: Possible differences between insect orders? Pest Management Science, 74, 1259–1264.Google Scholar
Tan, C. K., Løvlie, H., Greenway, E., Goodwin, S. F., Pizzari, T., & Wigby, S. (2013). Sex-specific responses to sexual familiarity, and the role of olfaction in Drosophila. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 280, 20131691.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. F. (2009). Habituation: A history. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 92, 127–134.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. F., & Spencer, W. A. (1966). Habituation: A model phenomenon for the study of neuronal substrates of behavior. Psychological Review, 73, 16–43.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2015). A resource-control account of sustained attention: Evidence from mind-wandering and vigilance paradigms. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 82–96.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence: Experimental studies. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. American Journal of Psychology, 39, 212–222.Google Scholar
Tokarz, R. R. (1992). Male mating preference for unfamiliar females in the lizard, Anolis sagrei. Animal Behaviour, 44, 843–849.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (1997). Primate cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Typlt, M., Mirkowski, M., Azzopardi, E., Ruth, P., Pilz, P. K., & Schmid, S. (2013). Habituation of reflexive and motivated behavior in mice with deficient BK channel function. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 7, 79.Google Scholar
Uchida, K., Suzuki, K. K., Shimamoto, T., Yanagawa, H., & Koizumi, I. (2019). Decreased vigilance or habituation to humans? Mechanisms on increased boldness in urban animals. Behavioral Ecology, 30, 1583–1590.Google Scholar
Vogel, D., & Dussutour, A. (2016). Direct transfer of learned behaviour via cell fusion in non-neural organisms. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 283, 20162382.Google Scholar
Wasserman, E. A. (1993a). Comparative cognition: Beginning the second century of the study of animal intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 211–228.Google Scholar
Wasserman, E. A. (1993b). Comparative cognition: Toward a general understanding of cognition in behavior. Psychological Science, 4, 156–161.Google Scholar
Werka, T., Walasek, G., & Świrszcz, K. (2004). Effects of stimulus modality on the shuttle activity in rats. Behavioural Brain Research, 151, 327–329.Google Scholar
Wilson, C., & Groves, P. M. (1972). Measurement of acoustic startle response in mice. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 4, 13–14.Google Scholar
Wood, D. C. (1970). Parametric studies of the response decrement produced by mechanical stimuli in the protozoan, Stentor coeruleus. Journal of Neurobiology, 1, 345–360.Google Scholar
Wright, A. A. (2010). Functional relationships for determining similarities and differences in comparative cognition. Behavioural Processes, 85, 246–251.Google Scholar
Yerkes, R. M. (1905). Animal psychology and criteria of the psychic. Journal of Philosophy Psychology and Scientific Methods, 2, 141–149.Google Scholar

References

Berry, J. W. (1996). On the unity of the field: Variations and communalities in understanding human behavior in cultural context. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 30, 89–98.Google Scholar
Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (2011). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Best, D., & Williams, J. (1997). Social behavior and applications; sex, gender, and culture. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3, 163–212.Google Scholar
Blake, K. R., Fourati, M., & Brooks, R. C. (2018). Who suppresses female sexuality? An examination of support for Islamic veiling in a secular Muslim democracy as a function of sex and offspring sex. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39, 632–638.Google Scholar
Boas, F. (1927). Primitive art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2003a). Sexual strategies: A journey into controversy. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 217–224.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2003b). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating, rev. ed. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2017). Sexual conflict in human mating. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 307–313.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., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., & LeBlanc, G. J. (2000). Number of children desired and preferred spousal age difference: Context‐specific mate preference patterns across 37 cultures. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 323–331.Google Scholar
Butovskaya, M. L., Windhager, S., Karelin, D., Mezentseva, A., Schaefer, K., & Fink, B. (2018). Associations of physical strength with facial shape in an African pastoralist society, the Maasai of Northern Tanzania. PLoS One, 13(5), e0197738.Google Scholar
Chang, L., Wang, Y., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2011). Chinese mate preferences: Cultural evolution and continuity across a quarter of a century. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 678–683.Google Scholar
Coetzee, V., Greeff, J. M., Stephen, I. D., & Perrett, D. I. (2014). Cross-cultural agreement in facial attractiveness preferences: The role of ethnicity and gender. PLoS One, 9(7), e99629.Google Scholar
Conroy-Beam, D., Roney, J. R., Lukaszewski, A. W., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., … Alm, C. (2019). Assortative mating and the evolution of desirability covariation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(5), 479–491.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.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
Dillon, L. M., Nowak, N., Weisfeld, G. E., Weisfeld, C. C., Shattuck, K. S., Imamoğlu, O. E., … Shen, J. (2015). Sources of marital conflict in five cultures. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Dobrowolska, M., Groyecka-Bernard, A., Sorokowski, P., Randall, A. K., Hilpert, P., Ahmadi, K., … Błażejewska, M. (2020). Global perspective on marital satisfaction. Sustainability, 12(21), 8817.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2017). Sex differences in jealousy: A 25-year retrospective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 259–302.Google Scholar
Fehr, B. (1993). How do I love thee? Let me consult my prototype. In Duck, S. (Ed.), Individuals in relationships (pp. 87–120). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Feybesse, C., & Hatfield, E. (2019). Passionate love. In Sternberg, R. J. & Sternberg, K. (Eds.), The new psychology of love, 2nd ed. (pp. 183–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Andre, S., Mines, J. S., Weege, B., Shackelford, T. K., & Butovskaya, M. (2016a). Sex difference in attractiveness perceptions of strong and weak male walkers. American Journal of Human Biology 28, 913–917.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Butovskaya, M. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2019). Assessment of physical strength from gait: Data from the Maasai of Tanzania. Biology Letters, 15(3), 20180803.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Butovskaya, M., Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., & Matts, P. J. (2017a). Visual perception of British Women’s skin color distribution in two nonindustrialized societies, the Maasai and the Tsimane. Evolutionary Psychology, 15(3), 1474704917718957.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Hufschmidt, C., Hirn, T., Will, S., McKelvey, G., & Lankhof, J. (2016b). Age, health and attractiveness perception of virtual (rendered) human hair. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1893.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Neave, N., Brewer, G., & Pawlowski, B. (2007). Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in stature (SDS): Further evidence for an adjustment in relation to own height. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(8), 2249–2257.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Wübker, M., Ostner, J., Butovskaya, M. L., Mezentseva, A., Muñoz-Reyes, J. A., … Shackelford, T. K. (2017b). Cross-cultural investigation of male gait perception in relation to physical strength and speed. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1427.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Frejka, T., & Westoff, C. F. (2008). Religion, religiousness and fertility in the US and in Europe. European Journal of Population, 24, 5–31.Google Scholar
Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., … Aycan, Z. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104.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
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2010). Culture, attachment style, and romantic relationships. In Erdman, P. & Ng, K.-M. (Eds.), Attachment: Expanding the cultural connections (pp. 227–242). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1998). The passionate love scale. In Davis, C. M., Yarber, W. L., Bauserman, R., Schreer, G., & Davis, S. L. (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 449–451). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The love attitudes scale: Short form. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(2), 147–159.Google Scholar
Hoelter, L. F., Axinn, W. G., & Ghimire, D. J. (2004). Social change, premarital nonfamily experiences, and marital dynamics. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), 1131–1151.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Jones, D., Brace, C. L., Jankowiak, W., Laland, K. N., Musselman, L. E., Langlois, J. H., … Symons, D. (1995). Sexual selection, physical attractiveness, and facial neoteny: Cross-cultural evidence and implications [and comments and reply]. Current Anthropology, 36(5), 723–748.Google Scholar
Kagitgibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In Berry, J. W., Segall, M. H., & Kagitibasi, C. (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Social behavior and applications (Vol. 3, pp. 1–49). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Karandashev, V. (2019). Cross-cultural perspectives on the experience and expression of love. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Levenson, R. W., Soto, J., & Pole, N. (2007). Emotion, biology, and culture. In Kitayama, S. & Cohen, D. (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 780–796). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Levine, R., Sato, S., Hashimoto, T., & Verma, J. (1995). Love and marriage in eleven cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26, 554–571.Google Scholar
Lewis, H. (2001). Boas, Darwin, science, and anthropology. Current Anthropology, 42(3), 381–394.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(6), 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
Lonner, W. J. (2000). On the growth and continuing importance of cross-cultural psychology. Eye on Psi Chi, 4(3), 22–26.Google Scholar
Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2004). Unemployment alters the set point for life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15(1), 8–13.Google Scholar
Lukaszewski, A. W., & Roney, J. R. (2010). Kind toward whom? Mate preferences for personality traits are target specific. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 29–38.Google Scholar
Marlowe, F., Apicella, C., & Reed, D. (2005). Men’s preferences for women’s profile waist-to-hip ratio in two societies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 6(26), 458–468.Google Scholar
Matts, P. J., & Fink, B. (2010). Chronic sun damage and the perception of age, health and attractiveness. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 9(4), 421–431.Google Scholar
Matts, P. J., Fink, B., Grammer, K., & Burquest, M. (2007). Colour homogeneity and visual perception of age, health and attractiveness of female facial skin. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 57, 977–984.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. (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 87–129). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Miller, G. F. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Mir, M. S., Wani, M. A., & Sankar, R. (2016). Marital adjustment among love marriage and arranged marriage couples. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 3(3), 51–56.Google Scholar
Moon, J. W. (2021). Why are world religions so concerned with sexual behavior? Current Opinion in Psychology, 40, 15–19.Google Scholar
Murdock, G. P., & White, D. R. (1969). Standard cross-cultural sample. Ethnology, 8, 329–369.Google Scholar
Pawlowski, B. (2003). Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in height as a strategy for increasing the pool of potential partners in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270, 709–712.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., & Kingstone, A. (2020). Sex difference on the importance of veiling: A cross-cultural investigation. Cross-Cultural Research, 54, 486–501.Google Scholar
Pelto, P. J. (1968). The differences between “tight” and “loose” societies. Trans-action, 5(5), 37–40.Google Scholar
Phelps, S. M., Rand, A. D., & Ryan, M. J. (2006). A cognitive framework for mate choice and species recognition. The American Naturalist, 167, 28–42.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
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
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 265.Google Scholar
Russell, R. J. H., & Wells, P. A. (1993). Marriage and relationship questionnaire: MARQ handbook. Kent: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Sanford, K. (2007). The couples emotion rating form: Psychometric properties and theoretical associations. Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 411–421.Google Scholar
Saroglou, V. (2019). Religion and related morality across cultures. In Matsumoto, D. & Hwang, H. C. (Eds.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 724–785). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scelza, B. A., Prall, S. P., Blumenfield, T., Crittenden, A. N., Gurven, M., Kline, M., … Shenk, M. K. (2020). Patterns of paternal investment predict cross-cultural variation in jealous response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(1), 20–26.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, 85–104.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P. (2008). Attachment matters: Patterns of romantic attachment across gender, geography, and cultural forms. In Forgas, J. P. & Fitness, J. (Eds.), Social relationships: Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes (pp. 75–100). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allensworth, M., Allik, J., Ault, L., Austers, I., … Zupaneie, A. (2004). Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions: Are models of self and of other pancultural constructs. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 367–402.Google Scholar
Schumm, W. R., and Bugaighis, M. A. (1986). Marital quality over the marital career: Alternative explanations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 165–168.Google Scholar
Schumm, W. R., Nichols, C. W., Schectman, K. L., & Grigsby, C. C. (1983). Characteristics of responses to the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale by a sample of 84 married mothers. Psychology Reports, 53, 567–572.Google Scholar
Schützwohl, A. (2007). Decision strategies in continuous ratings of jealousy feelings elicited by sexual and emotional infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(4), 815–828.Google Scholar
Schwarz, S., & Hassebrauck, M. (2012). Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences. Human Nature, 23, 447–466.Google Scholar
Segall, M. H., Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. W. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly discipline: On the flowering of culture in behavioral research. American Psychologist, 53(10), 1101.Google Scholar
Shachar, R. (1991). His and her marital satisfaction: The double standard. Sex Roles, 25(7–8), 451–467.Google Scholar
Shaver, P. R., Wu, S., & Schwartz, J. C. (1992). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in emotion and its representation. In Clark, M. S. (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 175–212). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Shek, D. T., and Tsang, S. K. (1993). The Chinese version of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale: Some psychometric and normative data. International Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 21, 205–214.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.Google Scholar
Slone, D. J. (2008). The attraction of religion: A sexual selectionist account. In Bulbulia, J., Sosis, R., Harris, E., Genet, R., Genet, C., & Wyman, K. (Eds.), The evolution of religion: Studies, theories, and critiques (pp. 181–187). Santa Margarita, CA: Collins Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., & Butovskaya, M. L. (2012). Height preferences in humans may not be universal: Evidence from the Datoga people of Tanzania. Body Image, 9(4), 510–516.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., & Pawlowski, B. (2008). Adaptive preferences for leg length in a potential partner. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(2), 86–91.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., Randall, A. K., Groyecka, A., Frackowiak, T., Cantarero, K., Hilpert, P., … Bettache, K. (2017a). Marital satisfaction, sex, age, marriage duration, religion, number of children, economic status, education, and collectivistic values: Data from 33 countries. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1199.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Butovskaya, M., Karwowski, M., Groyecka, A., Wojciszke, B., & Pawłowski, B. (2017b) Love influences reproductive success in humans. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1922.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Butovskaya, M., Stulp, G., Huanca, T., & Fink, B. (2015). Body height preferences and actual dimorphism in stature between partners in two non-Western societies (Hadza and Tsimane’). Evolutionary Psychology, 13(2), 455–469.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Karwowski, M., Groyecka, A., Aavik, T., Akello, G., … Atama, C. S. (2021). Universality of the triangular theory of love: Adaptation and psychometric properties of the triangular love scale in 25 countries, Journal of Sex Research, 58(1), 106–115.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., Szmajke, A., Sorokowska, A., Borg Cunen, M., Fabrykant, M., Zarafshani, K., … Cetinkaya, H. (2011). Attractiveness of leg length: Report from 27 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(1), 131–139.Google Scholar
Souza, A. L., Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2016). Mate preferences in Brazil: Evolved desires and cultural evolution over three decades. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 45–49.Google Scholar
Stephen, I. D., Scott, I. M., Coetzee, V., Pound, N., Perrett, D. I., & Penton-Voak, I. S. (2012). Cross-cultural effects of color, but not morphological masculinity, on perceived attractiveness of men’s faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(4), 260–267.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(3), 313–335.Google Scholar
Stewart‐Williams, S., Butler, C. A., & Thomas, A. G. (2017). Sexual history and present attractiveness: People want a mate with a bit of a past, but not too much. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 1097–1105.Google Scholar
Stulp, G., Buunk, A. P., Pollet, T. V., Nettle, D., & Verhulst, S. (2013). Are human mating preferences with respect to height reflected in actual pairings? PLoS One, 8, e54186.Google Scholar
Swami, V., Einon, D., & Furnham, A. (2006). The leg-to-body ratio as a human aesthetic criterion. Body Image, 3(4), 317–323.Google Scholar
Swami, V., Einon, D., & Furnham, A. (2007). Cultural significance of leg‐to‐body ratio preferences? Evidence from Britain and rural Malaysia. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10(4), 265–269.Google Scholar
Swami, V., Rozmus-Wrzesinska, M., Voracek, M., Haubner, T., Danel, D., Pawłowski, B., … Shostak, A. (2008). The influence of skin tone, body weight, and hair colour on perceptions of women’s attractiveness and health: A cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4), 321–341.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Jonason, P. K., Blackburn, J. D., Kennair, L. E. O., Lowe, R., Malouff, J., … Li, N. P. (2020). Mate preference priorities in the East and West: A cross‐cultural test of the mate preference priority model. Journal of Personality, 88(3), 606–620.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C. (2004). The many dimensions of culture. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18(1), 88–93.Google Scholar
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2003). Parenthood and marital satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 574–583.Google Scholar
Valentova, J. V., Varella, M. A. C., Havlíček, J., & Kleisner, K. (2017). Positive association between vocal and facial attractiveness in women but not in men: A cross-cultural study. Behavioural Processes, 135, 95–100.Google Scholar
Van Slyke, J. A., & Szocik, K. (2020). Sexual selection and religion: Can the evolution of religion be explained in terms of mating strategies? Archives of Psychology and Religion, 42(1), 123–141.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
Weisfeld, C. C., Dillon, L. M., Nowak, N. T., Mims, K. R., Weisfeld, G. E., Imamoğlu, E. O., … Shen, J. (2011a). Sex differences and similarities in married couples: Patterns across and within cultures. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1165–1172.Google Scholar
Weisfeld, G. E., Nowak, N. T., Lucas, T., Weisfeld, C. C., Imamoğlu, E. O., Butovskaya, M., … Parkhill, M. R. (2011b). Do women seek humorousness in men because it signals intelligence? A cross-cultural test. Humor, 24, 435–462.Google Scholar
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Sex and psyche: Gender and self viewed cross-culturally. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Zhang, L. (2008). Religious affiliation, religiosity, and male and female fertility. Demographic Research, 18, 233–262.Google Scholar

References

Acevedo, B. P., Poulin, M. J., Collins, N. L., & Brown, L. L. (2020). After the honeymoon: Neural and genetic correlates of romantic love in newlywed marriages. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 634.Google Scholar
Arslan, R. C., & Penke, L. (2015). Evolutionary genetics. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 1047–1066). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bagshaw, A. T. M., Horwood, L. J., Liu, Y., Fergusson, D. M., Sullivan, P. F., & Kennedy, M. A. (2013). No effect of genome-wide copy number variation on measures of intelligence in a New Zealand birth cohort. PLoS One, 8, e55208.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. M., Vasey, P. L., Diamond, L. M., Breedlove, S. M., Vilain, E., & Epprecht, M. (2016). Sexual orientation, controversy, and science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17, 45–101.Google Scholar
Barbaro, N., & Penke, L. (2020). Behavior genetics. In SAGE handbook of evolutionary psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 336–354). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Barbaro, N., Shackelford, T. K., Holub, A. M., Jeffery, A. J., Lopes, G. S., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2018). Life history correlates of human (Homo sapiens) ejaculate quality. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 133, 294–300.Google Scholar
Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bateson, P., & Gluckman, P. (2011). Plasticity, robustness, development and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baud, A., Mulligan, M. K., Casale, F. P., Ingels, J. F., Bohl, C. J., Callebert, J., … Stegle, O. (2017). Genetic variation in the social environment contributes to health and disease. PLoS Genetics, 13, e1006498.Google Scholar
Bode, A., & Kushnick, G. (2021). Proximate and ultimate perspectives on romantic love. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 573123.Google Scholar
Camperio Ciani, A., Battaglia, U., Cesare, L., Camperio Ciani, G., & Capiluppi, C. (2018). Possible balancing selection in human female homosexuality. Human Nature, 29, 14–32.Google Scholar
Chabris, C. F., Hebert, B. M., Benjamin, D. J., Beauchamp, J., Cesarini, D., van der Loos, M., … Laibson, D. (2012). Most reported genetic associations with general intelligence are probably false positives. Psychological Science, 23, 1314–1323.Google Scholar
Conroy-Beam, D., Roney, J. R., Lukaszewski, A. W., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., … Zupančič, M. (2019). Assortative mating and the evolution of desirability covariation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40, 479–491.Google Scholar
Cornwallis, C. K., & Uller, T. (2010). Towards an evolutionary ecology of sexual traits. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25, 145–152.Google Scholar
Crespi, B. (2020). Evolutionary and genetic insights for clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology Review, 78, 101857.Google Scholar
D’Onofrio, B. M., Rickert, M. E., Frans, E., Kuja-Halkola, R., Almqvist, C., Sjölander, A., … Lichtenstein, P. (2014). Paternal age at childbearing and offspring psychiatric and academic morbidity. JAMA Psychiatry, 71, 432–438.Google Scholar
Daniele, V. (2021). Socioeconomic inequality and regional disparities in educational achievement: The role of relative poverty. Intelligence, 84, 101515.Google Scholar
Del Giudice, M. (2020). Rethinking the fast–slow continuum of individual differences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41, 536–549.Google Scholar
Diekhof, E. K., Richter, A., Brodmann, K., & Gruber, O. (2021). Dopamine multilocus genetic profiles predict sex differences in reactivity of the human reward system. Brain Structure and Function, 226, 1099–1114.Google Scholar
Domingue, B. W., & Belsky, D. W. (2017). The social genome: Current findings and implications for the study of human genetics. PLoS Genetics, 13, e1006615.Google Scholar
Domingue, B. W., Belsky, D. W., Fletcher, J. M., Conley, D., Boardman, J. D., & Harris, K. M. (2018). The social genome of friends and schoolmates in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 702–707.Google Scholar
Eaves, L. J., Neale, M. C., & Maes, H. (1996). Multivariate multipoint linkage analysis of quantitative trait loci. Behavior Genetics, 26, 519–525.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Abrams, L. S., Masten, A. S., Sternberg, R. J., Tottenham, N., & Frankenhuis, W. E. (2020). Hidden talents in harsh environments. Development and Psychopathology. doi: 10.1017/S0954579420000887Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., & Del Giudice, M. (2018). Developmental adaptation to stress: An evolutionary perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 111–139.Google Scholar
Ellison, P. T. (2017). Endocrinology, energetics, and human life history: A synthetic model. Hormones and Behavior, 91, 97–106.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960). Introduction to quantitative genetics. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Sefcek, J. A., Vasquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., King, J. E., & Jacobs, W. J. (2005). Evolutionary personality psychology. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 851–877). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Vasquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., & Schneider, S. M. R. (2004). The heritability of life history strategy: The K‐factor, covitality, and personality. Social Biology, 51, 121–143.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frankenhuis, W. E., & Panchanathan, K. (2011). Individual differences in developmental plasticity may result from stochastic sampling. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 336–347.Google Scholar
Froggatt, P., & Nevin, N. C. (1971). The “law of ancestral heredity” and the Mendelian-ancestrian controversy in England, 1889–1906. Journal of Medical Genetics, 8, 1–36.Google Scholar
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Galton, F. (1875). The history of twins, as a criterion of the relative powers of nature and nurture. Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 5, 391–406.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W. (2010). Evolutionary biology looks at behavior genetics. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 289–295.Google Scholar
Ganna, A., Verweij, K. J. H., Nivard, M. G., Maier, R., Wedow, R., Busch, A. S., … Zietsch, B. P. (2019). Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior. Science, 365, eaat7693.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. (1937). The effect of variation of fitness. The American Naturalist, 71, 337–349.Google Scholar
Heyes, C. (2012). New thinking: The evolution of human cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367, 2091–2096.Google Scholar
Hill, W. D., Arslan, R. C., Xia, C., Luciano, M., Amador, C., Navarro, P., … Penke, L. (2018). Genomic analysis of family data reveals additional genetic effects on intelligence and personality. Molecular Psychiatry, 23, 2347–2362.Google Scholar
Hopkins, W. D., Russell, J. L., & Schaeffer, J. (2014). Chimpanzee intelligence is heritable. Current Biology, 24, 1649–1652.Google Scholar
Houle, D. (2000). Is there a g factor for fitness. In Bock, G. R., Goode, J. A., & Webb, K. (Eds.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 149–170). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Keller, M. C. (2008). The role of mutations in human mating. In Geher, G. & Miller, G. F. (Eds.), Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (pp. 173–192). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Krams, I., Luoto, S., Rubika, A., Krama, T., Elferts, D., Krams, R., … Rantala, M. J. (2019). A head start for life history development? Family income mediates associations between height and immune response in men. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 168, 421–427.Google Scholar
Kringelbach, M. L., & Berridge, K. C. (2010). Pleasures of the brain. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. J., Wedow, R., Okbay, A., Kong, E., Maghzian, O., Zacher, M., … Turley, P. (2018). Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nature Genetics, 50, 1112–1121.Google Scholar
LeVay, S. (1994). The sexual brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. M. G., Conroy-Beam, D., Asao, K., & Buss, D. M. (2017). Evolutionary psychology: A how-to guide. American Psychologist, 72, 353–373.Google Scholar
Liew, S. H. M., Elsner, H., Spector, T. D., & Hammond, C. J. (2005). The first “classical” twin study? Analysis of refractive error using monozygotic and dizygotic twins published in 1922. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 3, 198–200.Google Scholar
Linksvayer, T. A. (2007). Ant species differences determined by epistasis between brood and worker genomes. PLoS One, 2, e994.Google Scholar
Luoto, S. (2019a). An updated theoretical framework for human sexual selection: From ecology, genetics, and life history to extended phenotypes. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 5, 48–102.Google Scholar
Luoto, S. (2019b). Response to commentaries: Life history genetics, fluid intelligence, and extended phenotypes. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 5, 112–115.Google Scholar
Luoto, S. (2020). Did prosociality drive the evolution of homosexuality? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49, 2239–2244.Google Scholar
Luoto, S., Krams, I., & Rantala, M. J. (2019a). A life history approach to the female sexual orientation spectrum: Evolution, development, causal mechanisms, and health. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 1273–1308.Google Scholar
Luoto, S., Krams, I., & Rantala, M. J. (2019b). Response to commentaries: Life history evolution, causal mechanisms, and female sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 1335–1347.Google Scholar
Luoto, S., & Varella, M. A. C. (2021). Pandemic leadership: Sex differences and their evolutionary-developmental origins. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 633862.Google Scholar
Mahner, M., & Kary, M. (1997). What exactly are genomes, genotypes and phenotypes? And what about phenomes? Journal of Theoretical Biology, 186, 55–63.Google Scholar
Marciniak, S., & Perry, G. H. (2017). Harnessing ancient genomes to study the history of human adaptation. Nature Reviews Genetics, 18, 659–674.Google Scholar
Miller, G. F. (2000). Sexual selection for indicators of intelligence. In Bock, G. R., Goode, J. A., & Webb, K. (Eds.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 260–275). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Minkov, M., & Bond, M. H. (2015). Genetic polymorphisms predict national differences in life history strategy and time orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 204–215.Google Scholar
Moorjani, P., Gao, Z., & Przeworski, M. (2016). Human germline mutation and the erratic evolutionary clock. PLoS Biology, 14, e2000744.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J. (1950). Our load of mutations. American Journal of Human Genetics, 2, 111–176.Google Scholar
Neale, M. C., & Cardon, L. R. (1992). Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Nila, S., Barthes, J., Crochet, P. A., Suryobroto, B., & Raymond, M. (2018). Kin selection and male homosexual preference in Indonesia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 2455–2465.Google Scholar
Nishi, A., Alexander, M., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2020). Assortative mating at loci under recent natural selection in humans. BioSystems, 187, 104040.Google Scholar
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pearce, E., Wlodarski, R., Machin, A., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2019). Genetic influences on social relationships: Sex differences in the mediating role of personality and social cognition. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 5, 331–351.Google Scholar
Penke, L., & Jokela, M. (2016). The evolutionary genetics of personality revisited. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 104–109.Google Scholar
Plomin, R., & Deary, I. J. (2015). Genetics and intelligence differences: Five special findings. Molecular Psychiatry, 20, 98–108.Google Scholar
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2016). Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 3–23.Google Scholar
Polderman, T. J. C., Benyamin, B., De Leeuw, C. A., Sullivan, P. F., Van Bochoven, A., Visscher, P. M., & Posthuma, D. (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics, 47, 702–709.Google Scholar
Proulx, S. R., & Østman, B. (2016). Natural selection, introduction to. Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Biology, 3, 100–103.Google Scholar
Rahman, Q., & Wilson, G. D. (2003). Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1337–1382.Google Scholar
Rantala, M. J., Luoto, S., Borráz-León, J. I., & Krams, I. (2021). Bipolar disorder: An evolutionary psychoneuroimmunological approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 122, 28–37.Google Scholar
Rantala, M. J., Luoto, S., Krama, T., & Krams, I. (2019). Eating disorders: An evolutionary psychoneuroimmunological approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2200.Google Scholar
Rees, J. S., Castellano, S., & Andrés, A. M. (2020). The genomics of human local adaptation. Trends in Genetics, 36, 415–428.Google Scholar
Rietveld, C. A., Medland, S. E., Derringer, J., Yang, J., Esko, T., Martin, N. W., … Koellinger, P. D. (2013). GWAS of 126,559 individuals identifies genetic variants associated with educational attainment. Science, 340, 1467–1471.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. R., Kleinman, A., Graff, M., Vinkhuyzen, A. A. E., Couper, D., Miller, M. B., … Nolte, I. M. (2017). Genetic evidence of assortative mating in humans. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0016.Google Scholar
Safran, R. J., Scordato, E. S. C., Symes, L. B., Rodríguez, R. L., & Mendelson, T. C. (2013). Contributions of natural and sexual selection to the evolution of premating reproductive isolation: A research agenda. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28, 643–650.Google Scholar
Segal, N. L. (2008). Born together – reared apart: The landmark Minnesota twin study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, N. L. (2013). Personality similarity in unrelated look-alike pairs: Addressing a twin study challenge. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 23–28.Google Scholar
Segal, N. L., & Macdonald, K. B. (1998). Behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology: Unified perspective on personality research. Human Biology, 70, 159–184.Google Scholar
Slatkin, M. (2008). Linkage disequilibrium: Understanding the evolutionary past and mapping the medical future. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9, 477–485.Google Scholar
Stoltzfus, A., & Cable, K. (2014). Mendelian-mutationism: The forgotten evolutionary synthesis. Journal of the History of Biology, 47, 501–546.Google Scholar
Struik, D., Sanna, F., & Fattore, L. (2018). The modulating role of sex and anabolic-androgenic steroid hormones in cannabinoid sensitivity. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 12, 249.Google Scholar
Stulp, G., & Barrett, L. (2016). Evolutionary perspectives on human height variation. Biological Reviews, 91, 206–234.Google Scholar
Swift-Gallant, A. (2019). Individual differences in the biological basis of androphilia in mice and men. Hormones and Behavior, 111, 23–30.Google Scholar
Swift-Gallant, A., Coome, L. A., Aitken, M., Ashley Monks, D., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2019). Evidence for distinct biodevelopmental influences on male sexual orientation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 12787–12792.Google Scholar
Syme, K. L., & Hagen, E. H. (2020). Mental health is biological health: Why tackling “diseases of the mind” is an imperative for biological anthropology in the 21st century. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 171, 87–117.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift Für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.Google Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of genetics and adaptation. Journal of Personality, 58, 17–67.Google Scholar
Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Bates, T. C. (2016). Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychological Science, 27, 138–149.Google Scholar
Uchiyama, R., Spicer, R., & Muthukrishna, M. (2021). Cultural evolution of genetic heritability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X21000893Google Scholar
van der Zee, M. D., Helmer, Q., Boomsma, D. I., Dolan, C. V., & de Geus, E. J. C. (2020). An extended twin-pedigree study of different classes of voluntary exercise behavior. Behavior Genetics, 50, 94–104.Google Scholar
van Doorn, G. S., Edelaar, P., & Weissing, F. J. (2009). On the origin of species by natural and sexual selection. Science, 326, 1704–1707.Google Scholar
Varella, M. A. C., Luoto, S., Silva Soares, R. B. da, & Valentova, J. V. (2021). COVID-19 pandemic on fire: Evolved propensities for nocturnal activities as a liability against epidemiological control. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 646711.Google Scholar
Wiley, R. H. (2021). Natural selection. In Shackelford, T. K & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2095-1Google Scholar
Wilson, D. S. (1998). Adaptive individual differences within single populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 353, 199–205.Google Scholar
Winther, R. G. (2000). Darwin on variation and heredity. Journal of the History of Biology, 33, 425–455.Google Scholar
Woodley, M. A. (2011). The cognitive differentiation-integration effort hypothesis: A synthesis between the fitness indicator and life history models of human intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 15, 228–245.Google Scholar
Woodley of Menie, M. A., Fernandes, H. B. F., & Hopkins, W. D. (2015). The more g-loaded, the more heritable, evolvable, and phenotypically variable: Homology with humans in chimpanzee cognitive abilities. Intelligence, 50, 159–163.Google Scholar
Woodley of Menie, M. A., Kanazawa, S., Pallesen, J., & Sarraf, M. A. (2020). Paternal age is negatively associated with religious behavior in a post-60s but not a pre-60s US birth cohort: Evidence for the Social Epistasis Amplification Model. Journal of Religion and Health, 59, 2733–2752.Google Scholar
Woodley of Menie, M. A., Luoto, S., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M., & Sarraf, M. (2021a). Life history is a major source of adaptive individual and species differences: A critical commentary on Zietsch and Sidari (2020). Evolutionary Psychological Science, 7, 213–231.Google Scholar
Woodley of Menie, M. A., Pallesen, J., & Sarraf, M. A. (2018). Evidence for the Scarr–Rowe effect on genetic expressivity in a large US sample. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 21, 495–501.Google Scholar
Woodley of Menie, M. A., Pawlik, P., Webb, M. T., Bruce, K. D., & Devlin, P. F. (2019). Circadian leaf movements facilitate overtopping of neighbors. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 146, 104–111.Google Scholar
Woodley of Menie, M. A., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M., Dunkel, C., & Sarraf, M. A. (2021b). Evidence for the Scarr–Rowe effect on genetic expressivity in the Health and Retirement Study. Twin Research & Human Genetics, 24, 110–115.Google Scholar
Woodley of Menie, M. A., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M., & Sarraf, M. A. (2021c). Estimating the additive heritability of historiometric eminence in a super-pedigree comprised of four prominent families. Twin Research & Human Genetics, 24, 191–199.Google Scholar
Woodley of Menie, M. A., & Sarraf, M. A. (2021). Controversies in evolutionary psychology. In Shackelford, T. K. & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of evolutionary psychological science. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2175-1Google Scholar
Xia, C., Canela-Xandri, O., Rawlik, K., & Tenesa, A. (2021). Evidence of horizontal indirect genetic effects in humans. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 399–406.Google Scholar
Yang, J., Lee, S. H., Goddard, M. E., & Visscher, P. M. (2011). GCTA: A tool for genome-wide complex trait analysis. American Journal of Human Genetics, 88, 76–82.Google Scholar
Young, E. S., Frankenhuis, W. E., & Ellis, B. J. (2020). Theory and measurement of environmental unpredictability. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41, 550–556.Google Scholar
Zietsch, B. P., de Candia, T. R., & Keller, M. C. (2015). Evolutionary behavioral genetics. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 2, 73–80.Google Scholar
Zietsch, B. P., Sidari, M. J., Murphy, S. C., Sherlock, J. M., & Lee, A. J. (2021). For the good of evolutionary psychology, let’s reunite proximate and ultimate explanations. Evolution and Human Behavior, 42, 76–78.Google Scholar

References

Abed, R. T. (1998). The sexual competition hypothesis for eating disorders. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 71(4), 525–547.Google Scholar
Ahnesjö, I., Brealey, J. C., Günter, K. P., Martinossi-Allibert, I., Morinay, J., Siljestam, M., … & Vasconcelos, P. (2020). Considering gender-biased assumptions in evolutionary biology. Evolutionary Biology, 47(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
Anglin, S. M., Amaral, M. C., & Edlund, J. E. (2010). Keep the mate or keep the child? Examining sex differences in abortion decisions. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 374–379.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (1997). Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 960.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. M., Vasey, P. L., Diamond, L. M., Breedlove, S. M., Vilain, E., & Epprecht, M. (2016). Sexual orientation, controversy, and science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(2), 45–101.Google Scholar
Balzarini, R. N., Campbell, L., Kohut, T., Holmes, B. M., Lehmiller, J. J., Harman, J. J., & Atkins, N. (2017). Perceptions of primary and secondary relationships in polyamory. PLoS One, 12(5), e0177841.Google Scholar
Baranowski, A. M., & Hecht, H. (2015). Gender differences and similarities in receptivity to sexual invitations: Effects of location and risk perception. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(8), 2257–2265.Google Scholar
Barrett, H. C., Frederick, D. A., Haselton, M. G., & Kurzban, R. (2006). Can manipulations of cognitive load be used to test evolutionary hypotheses? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 513–518.Google Scholar
Baschnagel, J. S., & Edlund, J. E. (2016). Affective modification of the startle eyeblink response during sexual and emotional infidelity scripts. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2(2), 114–122.Google Scholar
Bassett, J., Pearcey, S., & Dabbs, J. M. Jr. (2001). Jealousy and partner preference among butch and femme lesbians. Psychology, Evolution, and Gender, 3(2), 155–165.Google Scholar
Blurton Jones, N. G., Marlowe, F. W., Hawkes, K., & O’Connell, J. F. (2000). Paternal investment and hunter-gatherer divorce rates. In Cronk, L., Chagnon, N., & Irons, W. (Eds.), Adaptation and human behavior: An anthropological perspective (pp. 69–90). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brown, N. R., & Sinclair, R. C. (1999). Estimating number of lifetime sexual partners: Men and women do it differently. Journal of Sex Research, 36(3), 292–297.Google Scholar
Buller, D. J. (2006). Adapting minds: Evolutionary psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Burch, K. (2020, December 14). What to know about platonic co-parenting – and how to make it work. Insider. Retrieved from www.insider.com/what-is-platonic-co-parenting-and-how-does-it-work-2020-12Google Scholar
Burch, R. L. (2020). More than just a pretty face: The overlooked contributions of women in evolutionary psychology textbooks. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 14(1), 100.Google Scholar
Burkett, B. N., & Cosmides, L. (2006). What is intolerable in a mate. In Annual Meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Philadelphia, PA.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.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1985). Human mate selection: Opposites are sometimes said to attract, but in fact we are likely to marry someone who is similar to us in almost every variable. American Scientist, 73(1), 47–51.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. (1994). The strategies of human mating. American Scientist, 82(3), 238–249.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2018). Sexual and emotional infidelity: Evolved gender differences in jealousy prove robust and replicable. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 155–160.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Asherian, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., … & Yang, K. S. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21(1), 5–47.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. (1997). Susceptibility to infidelity in the first year of marriage. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(2), 193–221.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 134–146.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
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 491–503.Google Scholar
Buunk, B. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. Psychological Science, 7(6), 359–363.Google Scholar
Castro, F. N., Hattori, W. T., & de Araújo Lopes, F. (2012). Relationship maintenance or preference satisfaction? Male and female strategies in romantic partner choice. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 6(2), 217.Google Scholar
Chan, Y.-M., Hannema, S. E., Achermann, J. C., & Hughes, I. A. (2019). Disorders of sexual development. In Melmed, S., Auchus, R., Goldfine, A. B., Koenig, R. J., & Rosen, C. J. (Eds.), Williams textbook of endocrinology. New York, NY: Elsevier.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
Conley, T. D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 309–329.Google Scholar
Conley, T. D., Matsick, J. L., Moors, A. C., & Ziegler, A. (2017). Investigation of consensually nonmonogamous relationships: Theories, methods, and new directions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 205–232.Google Scholar
Cooper, K., Russell, A., Mandy, W., & Butler, C. (2020). The phenomenology of gender dysphoria in adults: A systematic review and meta-synthesis. Clinical Psychology Review, 80, 101875.Google Scholar
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1981). Abuse and neglect of children in evolutionary perspective. Natural Selection and Social Behavior, 405–416.Google Scholar
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Evolutionary social psychology and family homicide. Science, 242(4878), 519–524.Google Scholar
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. I. (1996). Violence against stepchildren. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5(3), 77–80.Google Scholar
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (2008). Is the “Cinderella effect” controversial? A case study of evolution-minded research and critiques thereof. In Crawford, C. & Krebs, D. (Eds.), Foundations of evolutionary psychology (pp. 383–400). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Deacon, T. (1997). The symbolic species: The coevolution of language and the human brain. Hammondsworth: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2010). Women’s preferences for masculinity in male faces are predicted by pathogen disgust, but not by moral or sexual disgust. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(1), 69–74.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), 1103–1116.Google Scholar
DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy? Questioning the “fitness” of the model. Psychological Science, 7, 367–372.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. E., Buller, D. J., Sagarin, B. J., Heider, J. D., Scherer, C. R., Farc, M. M., & Ojedokun, O. (2019). Male sexual jealousy: Lost paternity opportunities? Psychological Reports, 122(2), 575–592.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. E., Clark, D. Q., Kalmus, A, & Sausville, A. (2021). Receptivity to casual sexual requests. Journal of Social Psychology, 161(6), 779–784.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. E., Heider, J. D., Nichols, A. L., McCarthy, R. J., Wood, S. E., Scherer, C. R., ... & Walker, R. (2018). Sex differences in jealousy: The (lack of) influence of researcher theoretical perspective. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(5), 515–520.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. E., Heider, J. D., Scherer, C. R., Farc, M. M., & Sagarin, B. J. (2006). Sex differences in jealousy in response to actual infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 462–470.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2009). Sex differences in jealousy: Misinterpretation of nonsignificant results as refuting the theory. Personal Relationships, 16(1), 67–78.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2010). Mate value and mate preferences: An investigation into decisions made with and without constraints. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 835–839.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2014). The mate value scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 64(1), 72–77.Google Scholar
Faer, L. M., Hendriks, A., Abed, R. T., & Figueredo, A. J. (2005). The evolutionary psychology of eating disorders: Female competition for mates or for status? Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 78(3), 397–417.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., & Fernández, A. M. (2017). The influence of women’s mate value on intrasexual competition. In Fisher, M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of women and competition (pp. 281–299). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frederick, D. A., & Fales, M. R. (2016). Upset over sexual versus emotional infidelity among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(1), 175–191.Google Scholar
Gahan, L. (2019). Separation and post‐separation parenting within lesbian and gay co‐parenting (guild parented) families. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 40(1), 98–113.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Scheyd, G. J. (2005). The evolution of human physical attractiveness. Annual Reviews in Anthropology, 34, 523–548.Google Scholar
Garcia, J. R., & Reiber, C. (2008). Hook-up behavior: A biopsychosocial perspective. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(4), 192.Google Scholar
Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1992). Justifications for extramarital relationships: The association between attitudes, behaviors, and gender. Journal of Sex Research, 29(3), 361–387.Google Scholar
Golden, M., & Toohey, P. (Eds.). (2003). Sex and difference in Ancient Greece and Rome. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
Hadley, C. (2004). The costs and benefits of kin. Human Nature, 15(4), 377–395.Google Scholar
Hagen, E. H. (1999). The functions of postpartum depression. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(5), 325–359.Google Scholar
Hall, J. A., Park, N., Song, H., & Cody, M. J. (2010). Strategic misrepresentation in online dating: The effects of gender, self-monitoring, and personality traits. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(1), 117–135.Google Scholar
Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(2), 102–128.Google Scholar
Harvey-Jenner, C. (2016, February 22). This Reddit user thinks her fiancé might be committing incest. Cosmopolitan Magazine. Retrieved from www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love-sex/relationships/news/a41428/reddit-user-dilemma-fiance-incestuousGoogle Scholar
Hayes, A. F. (1995). Age preferences for same- and opposite-sex partners. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(2), 125–133.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.Google Scholar
Hewlett, B. S. (1991). Demography and childcare in preindustrial societies. Journal of Anthropological Research, 47(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M. (1996). Ache life history. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hill, S. E., Rodeheffer, C. D., Griskevicius, V., Durante, K., & White, A. E. (2012). Boosting beauty in an economic decline: Mating, spending, and the lipstick effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 275.Google Scholar
Horne, R. M., Johnson, M. D., Galambos, N. L., & Krahn, H. J. (2018). Time, money, or gender? Predictors of the division of household labour across life stages. Sex Roles, 78(11–12), 731–743.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. (2009). Mothers and others. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 173–178.Google Scholar
Joel, S., Gordon, A. M., Impett, E. A., MacDonald, G., & Keltner, D. (2013). The things you do for me: Perceptions of a romantic partner’s investments promote gratitude and commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(10), 1333–1345.Google Scholar
Johnston, V. S., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B., & Grammer, K. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: Evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(4), 251–267.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Gutierrez, S. E., & Goldberg, L. L. (1989). Influence of popular erotica on judgments of strangers and mates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 159–167.Google Scholar
Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Zierk, K. L., & Krones, J. M. (1994). Evolution and social cognition: Contrast effects as a function of sex, dominance, and physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(2), 210–217.Google Scholar
Kesner, J. E., & McKenry, P. C. (2001). Single parenthood and social competence in children of color. Families in Society, 82(2), 136–144.Google Scholar
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.Google Scholar
La Cerra, M. M. (1994). Evolved mate preferences in women: Psychological adaptations for assessing a man’s willingness to invest in offspring. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Santa Barbara, CA: Department of Psychology, University of California.Google Scholar
Lee, R. B. (1979). The !Kung San: Men, women, and working in a foraging society. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, R., & DeVore, I. (Eds.). (1968). Man the hunter. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Lieberman, D., & Lobel, T. (2012). Kinship on the Kibbutz: Coresidence duration predicts altruism, personal sexual aversions and moral attitudes among communally reared peers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(1), 26–34.Google Scholar
Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2014). Sex differences in attraction to familiar and unfamiliar opposite-sex faces: Men prefer novelty and women prefer familiarity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(5), 973–981.Google Scholar
Mann, J. (1992). Nurturance or negligence: Maternal psychology and behavioral preference among preterm twins. In Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 367–390). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
March, E., Grieve, R., & Marx, E. (2015). Sex, sexual orientation, and the necessity of physical attractiveness and social level in long-term and short-term mates. Journal of Relationships Research, 6. doi: 10.1017/jrr.2014.12Google Scholar
Miller, G., Tybur, J. M., & Jordan, B. D. (2007). Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers: Economic evidence for human estrus? Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 375–381.Google Scholar
Mishra, S., Clark, A., & Daly, M. (2007). One woman’s behavior affects the attractiveness of others. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(2), 145–149.Google Scholar
Mogilski, J. K., Memering, S. L., Welling, L. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Monogamy versus consensual non-monogamy: Alternative approaches to pursuing a strategically pluralistic mating strategy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 407–417.Google Scholar
Mogilski, J. K., Reeve, S. D., Nicolas, S. C., Donaldson, S. H., Mitchell, V. E., & Welling, L. L. (2019). Jealousy, consent, and compersion within monogamous and consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(6), 1811–1828.Google Scholar
Nepomuceno, M. V., Saad, G., Stenstrom, E., Mendenhall, Z., & Iglesias, F. (2016). Testosterone & gift-giving: Mating confidence moderates the association between digit ratios (2D: 4D and rel2) and erotic gift-giving. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 27–30.Google Scholar
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 29–51.Google Scholar
Phelan, N., & Edlund, J. E. (2016). How disgust affects romantic attraction: The influence of moods on judgments of attractiveness. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2(1), 16–23.Google Scholar
Prokosch, M. D., Coss, R. G., Scheib, J. E., & Blozis, S. A. (2009). Intelligence and mate choice: Intelligent men are always appealing. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(1), 11–20.Google Scholar
Puts, D. A., Pope, L. E., Hill, A. K., Cárdenas, R. A., Welling, L. L. M., Wheatley, J. R., & Breedlove, S. M. (2015). Fulfilling desire: Evidence for negative feedback between men’s testosterone, sociosexual psychology, and sexual partner number. Hormones and Behavior, 70, 14–21.Google Scholar
Reich, J. E. (2016, February 21). Redditor wants to know if we think her fiancée is doing incest. Jezebel. Retrieved from https://jezebel.com/redditor-wants-to-know-if-we-think-her-fiance-is-doing-1760444524Google Scholar
Rippon, G. (2019). The gendered brain: The new neuroscience that shatters the myth of the female brain. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Rossano, M. J. (2003). Evolutionary psychology. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sagarin, B. J., Martin, A. L., Coutinho, S. A., Edlund, J. E., Patel, L., Zengel, B., & Skowronski, J. J. (2012). Sex differences in jealousy: A meta-analytic examination. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 595–614.Google Scholar
Saini, A. (2017). Inferior: How science got women wrong and the new research that’s rewriting the story. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, C., Crawford, C., Dane, L., & Zuberbier, O. (2008). Ancestral mechanisms in modern environments. Human Nature, 19(1), 103–117.Google Scholar
Salvatore, J. F., Meltzer, A. L., March, D. S., & Gaertner, L. (2017). Strangers with benefits: Attraction to outgroup men increases as fertility increases across the menstrual cycle. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(2), 204–217.Google Scholar
Scandurra, C., Mezza, F., Maldonato, N. M., Bottone, M., Bochicchio, V., Valerio, P., & Vitelli, R. (2019). Health of non-binary and genderqueer people: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01453.Google Scholar
Schaefer, K., Fink, B., Grammer, K., Mitteroecker, P., Gunz, P., & Bookstein, F. L. (2006). Female appearance: Facial and bodily attractiveness as shape. Psychology Science, 48(2), 187–204.Google Scholar
Scheib, J. E. (1994). Sperm donor selection and the psychology of female mate choice. Ethology and Sociobiology, 15(3), 113–129.Google Scholar
Scherer, C. R., Akers, E. G., & Kolbe, K. L. (2013). Bisexuals and the sex differences in jealousy hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(8), 1064–1071.Google Scholar
Schützwohl, A., Fuchs, A., McKibbin, W. F., & Shackelford, T. K. (2009). How willing are you to accept sexual requests from slightly unattractive to exceptionally attractive imagined requestors? Human Nature, 20(3), 282–293.Google Scholar
Sear, R., & Mace, R. (2008). Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 1–18.Google Scholar
Sefcek, J. A., Brumbach, B. H., Vásquez, G., & Miller, G. F. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of human mate choice: How ecology, genes, fertility, and fashion influence our mating behavior. Kauth, MR. Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality Part 1 [Special Issue]. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18(2–3).Google Scholar
Sheets, V. L., Fredendall, L. L., & Claypool, H. M. (1997). Jealousy evocation, partner reassurance, and relationship stability: An exploration of the potential benefits of jealousy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 18(6), 387–402.Google Scholar
Shimoda, R., Campbell, A., & Barton, R. A. (2018). Women’s emotional and sexual attraction to men across the menstrual cycle. Behavioral Ecology, 29(1), 51–59.Google Scholar
Shostak, M. (1981). Nisa: The life and words of a !Kung woman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Singh, D., & Randall, P. K. (2007). Beauty is in the e,ye of the plastic surgeon: Waist–hip ratio (WHR) and women’s attractiveness. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(2), 329–340.Google Scholar
Singh, D., Vidaurri, M., Zambarano, R. J., & Dabbs, J. M. Jr. (1999). Lesbian erotic role identification: Behavioral, morphological, and hormonal correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 1035.Google Scholar
Sokol-Chang, R., Burch, R. L., & Fisher, M. L. (2017). Cooperative versus competitive mothers. In Fisher, M. L. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of women and competition (pp. 505–528). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stobber, I. (2016, Feruary 22). Nightmare Reddit incest wedding thread. Ask Men. Retrieved from www.askmen.com/dating/dating_advice/nightmare-reddit-incest-wedding-thread.htmlGoogle Scholar
Stone, E. A., Goetz, A. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2005). Sex differences and similarities in preferred mating arrangements. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 7(3), 269–276.Google Scholar
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tate, C. (2011). The “problem of number” revisited: The relative contributions of psychosocial, experiential, and evolutionary factors to the desired number of sexual partners. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 64(9–10), 644–657.Google Scholar
Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(8), 1023–1036.Google Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.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. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Turner, S. L., & McAndrew, F. T. (2006). A laboratory simulation of parental investment decisions: The role of future reproductive opportunities and quality of offspring in determining levels of parental investment. Evolutionary Psychology, 4(1), 197–207.Google Scholar
US Census Bureau. (2020). Historical living arrangements of children under 18 years old: 1960 to present. Retrieved from www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/families/children.htmlGoogle Scholar
Volk, T., & Atkinson, J. (2008). Is child death the crucible of human evolution? Journal of Social, Evolutionary, & Cultural Psychology, 2, 247–260.Google Scholar
Voracek, M., Hofhansl, A., & Fisher, M. L. (2005). Clark and Hatfield’s evidence of women’s low receptivity to male strangers’ sexual offers revisited. Psychological Reports, 97(1), 11–20.Google Scholar
Walch, S. E., Bernal, D. R., Gibson, L., Murray, L., Thien, S., & Steinnecker, K. (2020). Systematic review of the content and methods of empirical psychological research on LGBTQ and SGM populations in the new millennium. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 7(4), 433–454.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(4), 408–423.Google Scholar
Weatherhead, P. J., & Robertson, R. J. (1979). Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: “The sexy son hypothesis”. The American Naturalist, 113(2), 201–208.Google Scholar
Wentland, J. J., & Reissing, E. D. (2011). Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of casual sexual relationships. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20(3), 75–91.Google Scholar
Whyte, S., & Torgler, B. (2015). Selection criteria in the search for a sperm donor: Behavioural traits versus physical appearance. Journal of Bioeconomics, 17(2), 151–171.Google Scholar
Whyte, S., Torgler, B., & Harrison, K. L. (2016). What women want in their sperm donor: A study of more than 1000 women’s sperm donor selections. Economics & Human Biology, 23, 1–9.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. D., Cousins, J. M., & Fink, B. (2006). The CQ as a predictor of speed-date outcomes. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 21(2), 163–169.Google Scholar
Wincenciak, J., Fincher, C. L., Fisher, C. I., Hahn, A. C., Jones, B. C., & DeBruine, L. M. (2015). Mate choice, mate preference, and biological markets: The relationship between partner choice and health preference is modulated by women’s own attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(4), 274–278.Google Scholar
World Economic Forum. (2020). Global Gender Gap Report 2020. Retrieved from www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wood, B. M., & Marlowe, F. W. (2013). Household and kin provisioning by Hadza men. Human Nature, 24(3), 280–317.Google Scholar
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699–727.Google Scholar
Zeifman, D. M., & Ma, J. E. (2013). Experimental examination of women’s selection criteria for sperm donors versus life partners. Personal Relationships, 20(2), 311–327.Google Scholar
Zengel, B., Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2013). Sex differences in jealousy in response to infidelity: Evaluation of demographic moderators in a national random sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(1), 47–51.Google Scholar
Zentner, M., & Eagly, A. H. (2015). A sociocultural framework for understanding partner preferences of women and men: Integration of concepts and evidence. European Review of Social Psychology, 26(1), 328–373.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. doi:10.1177/1474704919852921Google Scholar

References

Adajian, T. (2005). On the prototype theory of concepts and the definition of art. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 63(3), 231–236.Google Scholar
Alger, I., Hooper, P. L., Cox, D., Stieglitz, J., & Kaplan, H. S. (2020). Paternal provisioning results from ecological change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(20), 10746–10754.Google Scholar
Alvergne, A., Faurie, C., & Raymond, M. (2008). Developmental plasticity of human reproductive development: Effects of early family environment in modern-day France. Physiology and Behavior, 95, 625–632.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. G. (2015). Father absence, childhood stress, and reproductive maturation in South Africa. Human Nature, 26(4), 401–425.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. M., Kirk, K. M., Zhu, G., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Do individual differences in sociosexuality represent genetic or environmentally contingent strategies? Evidence from the Australian twin registry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 537–545.Google Scholar
Baker, L. A., Bezdjian, S., & Raine, A. (2006). Behavioral genetics: The science of antisocial behavior. Law and Contemporary Problems, 69(1–2), 7–46.Google Scholar
Baker, M. D. Jr., & Maner, J. K. (2008). Risk-taking as a situationally sensitive male mating strategy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6), 391–395.Google Scholar
Banai, B., & Pavela, I. (2015). Two-dimensional structure of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory and its personality correlates. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1–7.Google Scholar
Barbaro, N., Boutwell, B. B., Barnes, J. C., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Genetic confounding of the relationship between father absence and age at menarche. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(3), 357–365.Google Scholar
Belsky, J. (2012). The development of human reproductive strategies: Progress and prospects. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 310–316.Google Scholar
Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62(4), 647–670.Google Scholar
Betzig, L. (1992). Roman polygyny. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13(5–6), 309–349.Google Scholar
Borgerhoff-Mulder, M. (1988). Kipsigis bridewealth payments. In Betzig, L., Borgerhoff-Mulder, M., & Turke, P. W. (Eds.), Human reproductive behaviour (pp. 65–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, G., & Archer, J. (2007). What do people infer from facial attractiveness? Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5(1), 39–49.Google Scholar
Brumbach, B. H., Figueredo, A. J., & Ellis, B. J. (2009). Effects of harsh and unpredictable environments in adolescence on development of life history strategies: A longitudinal test of an evolutionary model. Human Nature, 20, 25–51.Google Scholar
Brumbach, B. H., Walsh, M., & Figueredo, A. J. (2007). Sexual restrictedness in adolescence: A life history perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(3), 481–488.Google Scholar
Burriss, R. P., Welling, L. L., & Puts, D. A. (2011). Mate-preference drives mate-choice: Men’s self-rated masculinity predicts their female partner’s preference for masculinity. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(8), 1023–1027.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2002). Human mating strategies. Samdunfsokonemen, 4, 48–58.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 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
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2008). Attractive women want it all: Good genes, economic investment, parenting proclivities, and emotional commitment. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(1), 134–146.Google Scholar
Chisholm, J. S. (1999). Death, hope and sex: Steps to an evolutionary ecology of mind and morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. P. (2006). Are the correlates of sociosexuality different for men and women? Personality and Individual Differences, 41(7), 1321–1327.Google Scholar
Conroy-Beam, D., & Buss, D. M. (2019). Why is age so important in human mating? Evolved age preferences and their influences on multiple mating behaviors. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 13(2), 127–157.Google Scholar
Copping, L. T., Campbell, A., & Muncer, S. (2014). Psychometrics and life history strategy: The structure and validity of the High K Strategy Scale. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 200–222.Google Scholar
de Sousa Campos, L., Otta, E., & de Oliveira Siqueira, J. (2002). Sex differences in mate selection strategies: Content analyses and responses to personal advertisements in Brazil. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(5), 395–406.Google Scholar
Deary, I. J., Johnson, W., & Houlihan, L. M. (2009). Genetic foundations of human intelligence. Human Genetics, 126(1), 215–232.Google Scholar
Deary, I .J., Lawn, M., & Bartholomew, D. J. (2008). A conversation between Charles Spearman, Godfrey Thomson, and Edward L. Thorndike: The International Examinations Inquiry Meetings 1931–1938. History of Psychology, 11(3), 163.Google Scholar
DelPriore, D. J., Schlomer, G. L., & Ellis, B. J. (2017). Impact of fathers on parental monitoring of daughters and their affiliation with sexually promiscuous peers: A genetically and environmentally controlled sibling study. Developmental Psychology, 53(7), 1330.Google Scholar
Draper, P., & Harpending, H. (1982). Father absence and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Anthropological Research, 38(3), 255–273.Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M., & Waynforth, D. (1995). Conditional mate choice strategies in humans: Evidence from “Lonely Hearts” advertisements. Behaviour, 132(9–10), 755–779.Google Scholar
Edlund, J. E., & Sagarin, B. J. (2010). Mate value and mate preferences: An investigation into decisions made with and without constraints. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(8), 835–839.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Fergusson, D. M., John Horwood, L., Pettit, G. S., & Woodward, L. (2003). Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Development, 74(3), 801–821.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Del Giudice, M., Dishion, T. J., Figueredo, A. J., Gray, P., Griskevicius, V., … & Wilson, D. S. (2012). The evolutionary basis of risky adolescent behavior: Implications for science, policy, and practice. Developmental Psychology, 48(3), 598–623.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer, G. L. (2009). Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk: The impact of harsh versus unpredictable environments on the evolution and development of life history strategies. Human Nature, 20, 204–268.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(2), 215–222.Google Scholar
Fernandes, H. B. F., Woodley, M. A., Hutz, C. S., & Figueredo, A. J. (2016). The strength of associations among sexual strategy traits: Variations as a function of life history speed. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 275–283.Google Scholar
Fernandes, H. B. F., Woodley, M. A., Hutz, C. S., & Kruger, D. J. (2013). Strategic differentiation-integration effort in the context of sexual strategies: A cross-national perspective. Oral presentation. Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Miami, FL.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Cabeza de Baca, T., Black, C. J., Garcia, R. A., Fernandes, H. B. F., Wolf, P. S. A., & Woodley of Menie, M. A. (2015). Methodologically sound: Evaluating the psychometric approach to the assessment of human life history [Reply to Copping, Campbell, and Muncer, 2014]. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(2), 299–338.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. M., Kauffman, I. A., Weil, E., & Gladden, P. R. (2012). The interplay of behavioral dispositions and cognitive abilities: Sociosexual orientation, emotional intelligence, executive functions, and life history strategy. Temas em Psicologia, 20(1), 81–100.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Gladden, P. R., Sisco, M. M., Patch, E. A., & Jones, D. N. (2015). The unholy trinity: The Dark Triad, sexual coercion, and Brunswik-Symmetry. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(2), 435–454.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Hammond, K. R., & McKiernan, E. C. (2006). A Brunswikian evolutionary developmental theory of preparedness and plasticity. Intelligence, 34(2), 211–227.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., & Jacobs, W. J. (2010). Aggression, risk-taking, and alternative life history strategies: The behavioral ecology of social deviance. In Frias-Armenta, M. & Corral-Verdugo, V. (Eds.), Bio-psycho-social perspectives on interpersonal violence (pp. 3–28). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Jacobs, W. J., Gladden, P. R., Bianchi, J., Patch, E. A., Phillip, K. S.,… Li, N. P. (2018). Intimate partner violence, interpersonal aggression, and life history strategy. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 12(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., & Rushton, J. P. (2009). Evidence for shared genetic dominance between the general factor of personality, mental and physical health, and life history traits. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 12(6), 555–563.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Sefcek, J. A., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., King, J. E., & Jacobs, W. J. (2005). Evolutionary personality psychology. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 851–877). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Woodley, M. A., Brown, S. D., & Ross, K. C. (2013). Multiple successful tests of the strategic differentiation-integration effort (SD-IE) hypothesis. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 7(4), 361–383.Google Scholar
Figueredo, A. J., Woodley of Menie, M. A., & Jacobs, W. J. (2015). The evolutionary psychology of the general factor of personality: A hierarchical life history model. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology, 2nd ed. (pp. 943–967). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58, 69–96.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1997). Human sexual selection and developmental stability. In Simpson, J. A. & Kenrick, D. T. (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 169–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Garcia, R. A., Cabeza de Baca, T., Black, C. J., Sotomayor-Peterson, M., Smith-Castro, V., & Figueredo, A. J. (2016). Measures of domain-specific resource allocations in life history strategy: Indicators of a latent common factor or ordered developmental sequence? Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 7(1), 23–51.Google Scholar
Gaydosh, L., Belsky, D. W., Domingue, B. W., Boardman, J. D., & Harris, K. M. (2017). Father absence and accelerated reproductive development. BioRxiv. doi: 10.1101/123711Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Giosan, C. (2006). High-K strategy scale: A measure of the high-K independent criterion of fitness. Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 394–405.Google Scholar
Gorsuch, R. L. (2005). Continuous parameter estimation model: Expanding the standard statistical paradigm. Journal of the Science Faculty of Chiang Mai University, 32, 11–21.Google Scholar
Grammer, K. (1992). Variations on a theme: Age dependent mate selection in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15(1), 100–102.Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & Tybur, J. M. (2011). Environmental contingency in life history strategies: The influence of mortality and socioeconomic status on reproductive timing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 241–254.Google Scholar
Guttentag, M., & Secord, P. F. (1983). Too many women? The sex ratio question. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Hilton, N. Z., Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (2007). Coercive and precocious sexuality as a fundamental aspect of psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Hawkes, K., & Paine, R. R. (2006). The evolution of life histories. Santa Fe, CA: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M. (2017). Ache life history: The ecology and demography of a foraging people. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, M. (2005). Homicide by men in Japan, and its relationship to age, resources and risk taking. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(4), 332–343.Google Scholar
Hughes, S. M., & Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2003). Sex differences in morphological predictors of sexual behavior: Shoulder to hip and waist to hip ratios. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 173–178.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 382–391.Google Scholar
Johansson, A., Santtila, P., Harlaar, N., von der Pahlen, B., Witting, K., Ålgars, M., … & Sandnabba, N. K. (2008). Genetic effects on male sexual coercion. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 34(2), 190–202.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., Luévano, V. X., & Adams, H. M. (2012). How the Dark Triad traits predict relationship choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 180–184.Google Scholar
Jonason, P. K., Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., & Harbeson, C. L. (2011). Mate-selection and the Dark Triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy and creating a volatile environment. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 759–763.Google Scholar
Kaplan, H. S., & Gangestad, S. W. (2005). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 68–95). Chichester: Wiley.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
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Ellis, B. J. (2006). The adaptive functions of self-evaluative psychological mechanisms. In Kernis, M. H. (Ed.), Self-esteem issues and answers: A sourcebook of current perspectives (pp. 334–339). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kraemer, S. (2000). The fragile male. British Medical Journal, 321(7276), 1609–1612.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M., & Jobling, I. (2003). Proper and dark heroes as DADS and CADS. Human Nature, 14, 305–317.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., & Nesse, R. M. (2004). Sexual selection and the male:female mortality ratio. Evolutionary Psychology, 2(1), 66–85.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., & Nesse, R. M. (2006). An evolutionary life-history framework for understanding sex differences in human mortality rates. Human Nature, 17(1), 74–97.Google Scholar
Lalumiere, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1996). Sexual deviance, antisociality, mating effort, and the use of sexually coercive behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(1), 33–48.Google Scholar
Landolt, M. A., Lalumière, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1995). Sex differences in intra-sex variations in human mating tactics: An evolutionary approach. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(1), 3–23.Google Scholar
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., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2002). Evolution and individual differences in the perception of attractiveness: How cyclic hormonal changes and self-perceived attractiveness influence female preferences for male faces. In Rhodes, G. & Zebrowitz, L. A. (Eds.), Advances in visual cognition, Vol. 1. Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (pp. 59–90). New York, NY: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Malamuth, N. M. (1996). The confluence model of sexual aggression: Feminist and evolutionary perspectives. In Buss, D. M. & Malamuth, N. M. (Eds.), Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives (pp. 269–295). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Malamuth, N. M. (1998). The confluence model as an organizing framework for research on sexually aggressive men: Risk moderators, imagined aggression, and pornography consumption. In Green, R. G. & Donnerstein, E. (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for social policy (pp. 229–245). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Manson, J. H., Chua, K. J., & Lukaszewski, A. W. (2020). The structure of the Mini-K and K-SF-42. Human Nature, 31, 322–340.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J., & Price, G. R. (1973). The logic of animal conflict. Nature, 246(5427), 15–18.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Michalski, R. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2002). Birth order and sexual strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(4), 661–667.Google Scholar
Mikach, S. M., & Bailey, J. M. (1999). What distinguishes women with unusually high numbers of sex partners? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(3), 141–150.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(3), 214–218.Google Scholar
Monroe, P. (Ed.). (1931). Conference on examinations. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Moss, J. H., & Maner, J. K. (2016). Biased sex ratios influence fundamental aspects of human mating. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(1), 72–80.Google Scholar
Mustanski, B. S., Viken, R. J., Kaprio, J., Pulkkinen, L., & Rose, R. J. (2004). Genetic and environmental influences on pubertal development: Longitudinal data from Finnish twins at ages 11 and 14. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1188–1198.Google Scholar
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 29–51.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–563.Google Scholar
Pawlowski, B., & Dunbar, R. I. (1999). Withholding age as putative deception in mate search tactics. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(1), 53–69.Google Scholar
Pedersen, F. A. (1991). Secular trends in human sex ratios. Human Nature, 2(3), 271–291.Google Scholar
Perusse, D. (1993). Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: Testing the relationship at the proximate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 267–322.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
Quinlan, R. J. (2010). Extrinsic mortality effects on reproductive strategies in a Caribbean community. Human Nature, 21(2), 124–139.Google Scholar
Reeve, S. D., Kelly, K. M., & Welling, L. L. (2017). The effect of mate value feedback on women’s mating aspirations and mate preference. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 77–82.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
Rogers, R. G., Hummer, R. A., & Nam, C. B. (2000). Living and dying in the USA: Behavioral, health, and social differentials of adult mortality. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 328–350.Google Scholar
Salmon, C. A. (1999). On the impact of sex and birth order on contact with kin. Human Nature, 10(2), 183–197.Google Scholar
Salmon, C. (2003). Birth order and relationships. Human Nature, 14(1), 73–88.Google Scholar
Salmon, C. A., & Daly, M. (1998). Birth order and familial sentiment: Middleborns are different. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19(5), 299–312.Google Scholar
Salmon, C., Townsend, J. M., & Hehman, J. (2016). Casual sex and college students: Sex differences and the impact of father absence. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2(4), 254–261.Google Scholar
Schacht, R., & Borgerhoff-Mulder, M. (2015). Sex ratio effects on reproductive strategies in humans. Royal Society Open Science, 2(1), 140402.Google Scholar
Schermer, J. A., & Jones, D. N. (2020). The behavioral genetics of the dark triad core versus unique trait components: A pilot study. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109701.Google Scholar
Schlomer, G. L., & Cho, H. J. (2017). Genetic and environmental contributions to age at menarche: Interactive effects of father absence and LIN28B. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(6), 761–769.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), 85–104.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), 247–275.Google Scholar
Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allik, J., Alves, I. C. B., Anderson, C. A., Angelini, A. L., … & Kökény, T. (2017). Narcissism and the strategic pursuit of short-term mating: Universal links across 11 world regions of the International Sexuality Description Project-2. Psihologijske Teme, 26(1), 89–137.Google Scholar
Semenyna, S. W., Belu, C. F., Vasey, P. L., & Honey, P. L. (2018). Not straight and not straightforward: The relationships between sexual orientation, sociosexuality, and dark triad traits in women. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 4(1), 24–37.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, 870–883.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., Wilson, C. L., & Winterheld, H. A. (2004). Sociosexuality and romantic relationships. In Harvey, J. H., Wenzel, A., & Sprecher, S. (Eds.), The handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 87–112). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
Stone, E. A., Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (2007). Sex ratio and mate preferences: A cross‐cultural investigation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(2), 288–296.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F. J. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Szepsenwol, O., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Young, E. S., Fleck, C., & Jones, R. E. (2017). The effect of predictable early childhood environments on sociosexuality in early adulthood. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 11(2), 131–145.Google Scholar
Tadinac, M., & Hromatko, I. (2007). Own mate value and relative importance of a potential mate’s qualities. Studia Psychologica, 49(3), 251–264.Google Scholar
Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(38), 15011–15016.Google Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of genetics and adaptation. Journal of Personality, 58, 17–67.Google Scholar
Van Straaten, I., Engels, R. C., Finkenauer, C., & Holland, R. W. (2009). Meeting your match: How attractiveness similarity affects approach behavior in mixed-sex dyads. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 685–697.Google Scholar
vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic investigation of the Dark Triad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual Differences, 44(2), 445–452.Google Scholar
Voland, E., & Engel, C. (1990). Female choice in humans: A conditional mate selection strategy of the Krummhörn women (Germany, 1720–1874). Ethology, 84(2), 144–154.Google Scholar
von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2011). Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 278(1715), 2223–2232.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Qu, Y., Hou, B., & Tian, Q. (2019). What makes her a material girl? The influence of childhood economic background and sex ratio on female preference for male resource availability. Evolutionary Psychology, 17(1), 1474704919833720.Google Scholar
Wang, Y., Wang, S., & Hou, B. (2020). The influence of sex ratio and childhood harshness on male short-term mating preference. Personality and Individual Differences, 164, 110100.Google Scholar
Watkins, C. D., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Feinberg, D. R. (2012). Cues to the sex ratio of the local population influence women’s preferences for facial symmetry. Animal Behaviour, 83(2), 545–553.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D., & Bryan, A. (2007). Sociosexual attitudes and behaviors: Why two factors are better than one. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 917–922.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D., Graber, J. A., Gesselman, A. N., Crosier, B. S., & Schember, T. O. (2014). A life history theory of father absence and menarche: A meta-analysis. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(2), 273–394.Google Scholar
West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Westerlund, M., Santtila, P., Johansson, A., Varjonen, M., Witting, K., Jern, P., … Sandnabba, N. K. (2010). Does unrestricted sociosexual behaviour have a shared genetic basis with sexual coercion? Psychology, Crime & Law, 16(1–2), 5–23.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1985). Competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6(1), 59–73.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1993). Lethal confrontational violence among young men. In Bell, N. J. & Bell, R. W. (Eds.), Adolescent risk taking (pp. 84–106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1997). Life expectancy, economic inequality, homicide, and reproductive timing in Chicago neighbourhoods. British Medical Journal, 314, 1271–1274.Google Scholar
Wittmann, W. W. (1988). Multivariate reliability theory: Principles of symmetry and successful validation strategies. In Nesselroade, J. R. & Cattell, R. B. (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (pp. 505–560). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Wittmann, W. W. (1990). Brunswik symmetry and the conception of the five data boxes: A framework concept for comprehensive evaluation research. Journal for Educational Psychology, 4(4), 241–251.Google Scholar
Wittmann, W. W. (1991). Meta-analysis and Brunswik symmetry. In Albrecht, G., Otto, H.-U., Karstedt-Henke, S., & Böllert, K. (Eds.), Prevention and intervention in childhood and adolescence, 11. Social prevention and the social sciences: Theoretical controversies, research problems, and evaluation strategies (pp. 381–393). Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wittmann, W. W., & Süß, H.-M. (1999). Investigating the paths between working memory, intelligence, knowledge, and complex problem-solving performances via Brunswik symmetry. In Ackerman, P. L., Kyllonen, P. C., & Roberts, R. D. (Eds.), Learning and individual differences (pp. 77–108). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Yost, M. R., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2006). Gender differences in the enactment of sociosexuality: An examination of implicit social motives, sexual fantasies, coercive sexual attitudes, and aggressive sexual behavior. Journal of Sex Research, 43(2), 163–173.Google Scholar

References

Arnocky, S., & Vaillancourt, T. (2012). A multi-informant longitudinal study on the relationship between aggression, peer victimization, and dating status in adolescence. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(2), 253–270.Google Scholar
Asendorpf, J. B., & Penke, L. (2005). A mature evolutionary psychology demands careful conclusions about sex differences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 275–276.Google Scholar
Baker, R. R., & Bellis, M. A. (1993). Human sperm competition: Ejaculate adjustment by males and the function of masturbation. Animal Behaviour, 46, 861–885.Google Scholar
Barrada, J. R., Castro, Á., Correa, A. B., & Ruiz-Gómez, P. (2018). The tridimensional structure of sociosexuality: Spanish validation of the Revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 44(2), 149–158.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
Blount, B. G. (1990). Issues in bonobo (Pan paniscus) sexual behavior. American Anthropologist, 92(3), 702–714.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1988a). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54, 616–628.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1988b). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 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. (2018). Sexual and emotional infidelity: Evolved gender differences in jealousy prove robust and replicable. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 155–160.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
Buunk, B. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. Psychological Science, 7(6), 359–363.Google Scholar
Cornelissen, P. L., Hancock, P. J., Kiviniemi, V., George, H. R., & Tovée, M. J. (2009). Patterns of eye movements when male and female observers judge female attractiveness, body fat and waist-to-hip ratio. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(6), 417–428.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Del Giudice, M. (2011). Sex differences in romantic attachment: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(2), 193–214.Google Scholar
Del Zotto, M., & Pegna, A. J. (2017). Electrophysiological evidence of perceived sexual attractiveness for human female bodies varying in waist-to-hip ratio. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 17(3), 577–591.Google Scholar
DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. (1996). Evolutionary origins of sex differences in jealousy? Questioning the “fitness” of the model. Psychological Science, 7(6), 367–372.Google Scholar
Discovery Communications, Inc. (2009). The Science of Sex Appeal [Film]. The Incubator.Google Scholar
Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. P. (1974). Some evidence for heightened sexual attraction under conditions of height anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 510–517.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., McFadyen-Ketchum, S., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1999). Quality of early family relationships and individual differences in the timing of pubertal maturation in girls: A longitudinal test of an evolutionary model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 387.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, A., Hodges, J. K., Niemitz, C., & Heistermann, M. (2005). Female sexual behavior, but not sex skin swelling, reliably indicates the timing of the fertile phase in wild long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). Hormones and Behavior, 47(2), 195–204.Google Scholar
Fink, B., Neave, N., Manning, J. T., & Grammer, K. (2006). Facial symmetry and judgements of attractiveness, health and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(3), 491–499.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, C. J., Horgan, T. G., & Himes, S. M. (2016). Shaping men’s memory: The effects of a female’s waist-to-hip ratio on men’s memory for her appearance and biographical information. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 510–516.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, C. J., Kruger, D. J., Loeffler, C., Shackelford, T. K., & Weekes-Shackelford, V. (2013, May). Short-term sex ratio manipulations affect men’s self-reported and perceived life history strategies. Oral presentation. Northeastern Evolutionary Psychology Society, Annville, PA.Google Scholar
Fox, E. A. (2002). Female tactics to reduce sexual harassment in the Sumatran orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus abelii). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 52(2), 93–101.Google Scholar
Furnham, A., Swami, V., & Shah, K. (2006). Body weight, waist-to-hip ratio and breast size correlates of ratings of attractiveness and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(3), 443–454.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
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Ackerman, J. M., Delton, A. W., Robertson, T. E., & White, A. E. (2012). The financial consequences of too many men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 69.Google Scholar
Guitar, A. E., Geher, G., Kruger, D. J., Garcia, J. R., Fisher, M. L., & Fitzgerald, C. J. (2016). Defining and distinguishing sexual and emotional infidelity. Current Psychology. doi: 10.1007/s12144-016-9432-4Google Scholar
Haley, M. P., Deutsch, C. J., & Le Boeuf, B. J. (1994). Size, dominance and copulatory success in male northern elephant seals, Mirounga angustirostris. Animal Behaviour, 48(6), 1249–1260.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
Henss, R. (1995). Waist-to-hip ratio and attractiveness: Replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(4), 479–488.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2007). The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: Toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 382–391.Google Scholar
Jamieson, A. (2016). Smell dating: Sniffing out potential lovers (and their sweaty t-shirts). Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/apr/27/smell-dating-does-sniffing-out-potential-loversGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Little, A. C. (2007). The role of symmetry in attraction to average faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 69(8), 1273–1277.Google Scholar
Kaighobadi, F., Shackelford, T. K., & Weekes-Shackelford, V. A. (2012). Do women pretend orgasm to retain a mate? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(5), 1121–1125.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
Komori, M., Kawamura, S., & Ishihara, S. (2009). Averageness or symmetry: Which is more important for facial attractiveness? Acta Psychologica, 131(2), 136–142.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(5), 989–997.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M. L., Edelstein, R., Chopik, W. J., Fitzgerald, C., & Strout, S. L. (2013). Was that cheating? Perceptions vary by sex, attachment anxiety, and behavior. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 159–171.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M., & Fitzgerald, C. J. (2015). Factors influencing the intended likelihood of exposing sexual infidelity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1697–1704.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., Fisher, M. L., Fitzgerald, C. J., Garcia, J. R., Geher, G., & Guitar, A. E. (2015). Sexual and emotional aspects are distinct components of infidelity and unique predictors of anticipated distress. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1, 44–51.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., & Fitzgerald, C. J. (2011a). Sexual conflict and the operational sex ratio. In Shackelford, T. K. & Goetz, A. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of sexual conflict in humans (pp. 283–294). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., & Fitzgerald, C. J. (2011b). Reproductive strategies and relationship preferences associated with prestigious and dominant men. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 365–369.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., Fitzgerald, C. J., & Peterson, T. (2010). Female scarcity reduces women’s marital ages and increases variance in men’s marital ages. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(3), 420–431.Google Scholar
Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2011). Exposure to visual cues of pathogen contagion changes preferences for masculinity and symmetry in opposite-sex faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 278(1714), 2032–2039.Google Scholar
Lopes, G. S., Shackelford, T. K., Santos, W. S., Farias, M. G., & Segundo, D. S. (2016). Mate Retention Inventory-Short Form (MRI-SF): Adaptation to the Brazilian context. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 36–40.Google Scholar
Meskó, N., Láng, A., & Kocsor, F. (2014). The Hungarian version of Sociosexual Orientation Inventory Revised (SOI-R): Sex and age differences. Interpersona, 8(1), 85–99.Google Scholar
Miller, S. L., and Maner, J. K. (2010). Scent of a woman: Testosterone responses to olfactory ovulation cues. Psychological Science, 21, 276–283.Google Scholar
Moore, M. M., & Butler, D. L. (1989). Predictive aspects of nonverbal courtship behavior in women. Semiotica, 76(3–4), 205–216.Google Scholar
Moss, J. H., & Maner, J. K. (2016). Biased sex ratios influence fundamental aspects of human mating. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(1), 72–80.Google Scholar
Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic apperception test manual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ohba, N. (2004). Flash communication systems of Japanese fireflies. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 44(3), 225–233.Google Scholar
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 29.Google Scholar
Pazhoohi, F., Macedo, A. F., Doyle, J. F., & Arantes, J. (2020). Waist-to-hip ratio as supernormal stimuli: Effect of contrapposto pose and viewing angle. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(3), 837–847.Google Scholar
Penke, L. (2006). Development of the revised Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI-R). Unpublished manuscript, Institute of Psychology, Humboldt University of Berlin.Google Scholar
Penke, L., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2008). Beyond global sociosexual orientations: A more differentiated look at sociosexuality and its effects on courtship and romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1113–1135.Google Scholar
Perilloux, C., Easton, J. A., & Buss, D. M. (2012). The misperception of sexual interest. Psychological Science, 23, 146–151.Google Scholar
Perrett, D. I., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S., Lee, K. J., Rowland, D. A., & Edwards, R. (1999). Symmetry and human facial attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 295–307.Google Scholar
Platek, S. M., & Singh, D. (2010) Optimal waist-to-hip ratios in women activate neural reward centers in men. PLoS One, 5(2), e9042.Google Scholar
Pusey, A. E., Pintea, L., Wilson, M. L., Kamenya, S., & Goodall, J. (2007). The contribution of long‐term research at Gombe National Park to chimpanzee conservation. Conservation Biology, 21(3), 623–634.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Palermo, R., Simmons, L. W., Peters, M., Lee, K., … Crawford, J. R. (2007). Perceived health contributes to the attractiveness of facial symmetry, averageness, and sexual dimorphism. Perception, 36(8), 1244–1252.Google Scholar
Roney, J. R., & Simmons, Z. L. (2012). Men smelling women: Null effects of exposure to ovulatory sweat on men’s testosterone. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(4), 703–713.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, 247–275.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., 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
Shackelford, T. K., Pound, N., & Goetz, A. T. (2005). Psychological and physiological adaptations to sperm competition in humans. Review of General Psychology, 9(3), 228–248.Google Scholar
Shin, J. E., Suh, E. M., & Jang, D. (2018). Mate value at a glance: Facial attractiveness reveals women’s waist-to-hip ratio and men’s household income. Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 128–130.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, 870–883.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. A., Wilson, C. L., & Winterheld, H. A. (2004). Sociosexuality and romantic relationships. In Harvey, J. H., Wenzel, A., & Sprecher, S. (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 87–111). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.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.Google Scholar
Singh, D., Dixson, B. J., Jessop, T. S., Morgan, B., & Dixson, A. F. (2010). Cross-cultural consensus for waist–hip ratio and women’s attractiveness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 176–181.Google Scholar
Singh, D., & Luis, S. (1995). Ethnic and gender consensus for the effect of waist-to-hip ratio on judgment of women’s attractiveness. Human Nature, 6(1), 51–65.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
Suschinsky, K. D., Lalumiere, M. L., & Chivers, M. L. (2009). Sex differences in patterns of genital sexual arousal: Measurement artifacts or true phenomena? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(4), 559–573.Google Scholar
Sutherland, C. A., Rhodes, G., & Young, A. W. (2017). Facial image manipulation: A tool for investigating social perception. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(5), 538–551.Google Scholar
Swedell, L., & Schreier, A. (2009). Male aggression toward females in hamadryas baboons: Conditioning. In Muller, M. N. & Wrangham, R. W. (Eds.), Sexual coercion in primates and humans: An evolutionary perspective on male aggression against females (pp. 244–268). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Townsend, J. M., Kline, J., & Wasserman, T. H. (1995). Low-investment copulation: Sex differences in motivations and emotional reactions. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 25–51.Google Scholar
Vingilis-Jaremko, L., & Maurer, D. (2013). The influence of symmetry on children’s judgments of facial attractiveness. Perception, 42(3), 302–320.Google Scholar
Voracek, M. (2005). Shortcomings of the Sociosexual Orientation Inventory: Can psychometrics inform evolutionary psychology? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 296–297.Google Scholar
Webster, G. D., & Bryan, A. (2007). Sociosexual attitudes and behaviors: Why two factors are better than one. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 917–922.Google Scholar
Wedekind, C., & Füri, S. (1997). Body odour preferences in men and women: Do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 264, 1471–1479.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

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.

  • Middle-Level Theories
  • 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/10.1017/9781108943529.009
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.

  • Middle-Level Theories
  • 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/10.1017/9781108943529.009
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.

  • Middle-Level Theories
  • 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/10.1017/9781108943529.009
Available formats
×