Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:21:55.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Promiscuity in an evolved pair-bonding system: Mating within and outside the Pleistocene box

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2005

Lynn Carol Miller ,
William C. Pedersen  and
Anila Putcha-Bhagavatula
Lynn Carol Miller*
Affiliation:
Annenberg School for Communication and the Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA90089-0281
William C. Pedersen*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach, CA90840-0901www.csulb.edu/~wpederse
Anila Putcha-Bhagavatula*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA90089-1061
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Across mammals, when fathers matter, as they did for hunter-gatherers, sex-similar pair-bonding mechanisms evolve. Attachment fertility theory can explain Schmitt's and other findings as resulting from a system of mechanisms affording pair-bonding in which promiscuous seeking is part. Departures from hunter-gatherer environments (e.g., early menarche, delayed marriage) can alter dating trajectories, thereby impacting mating outside of pair-bonds.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 290 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

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

Notes

1. Low SOI scores may include not only those who follow a more monogamous mating strategy (sect. 7.5) but those who are not interested in having any sexual partners (up to 5% of the males in some of our samples). Furthermore, the SOI contains items using very different metrics, and a standardized composite is not formed: Instead, a weighing formula is used without a clear conceptual basis. In addition, many of the items are open-ended variables (e.g., number of partners desired in the next five years) that are heavily skewed (Pedersen et al. 2002), making them unsuitable for parametric analyses. The median test employed by Schmitt is known to be problematic for testing median differences (Miller & Wilcox, in preparation). The Mann-Whitney U test tells us that there are distributional differences between men and women, but not whether those differences are at the median or deep into the tails: Newer methods allow us to assess this (Miller & Wilcox , in preparation). In short, conceptually and psychometrically these measures could be improved.

2. Harlow's research (discussed by Bowlby [1969/1982]) provides a model of how diversity in mating outcomes can result from departures from the adapted-for environment (e.g., absent or impaired maternal caregiving). Clearly Harlow's monkeys (and apes) that were removed from their mothers by humans and given cloth alternatives did not evolve a sensitivity to environmental cues that produced the differential mating and sexual outcomes experienced by these primates.

3. Ultimately, relative support for alternative evolutionary theories will rest on providing models of the underlying biochemically based evolved mechanisms (and their control parameters) – and how these operate and are effected. We are learning enough about the biochemical underpinnings and genetic processes here to specify in more detail (than is provided) some plausible mechanisms. For example, regulatory genes seem to have evolved to directly impact mating strategies in voles (e.g., more monogamous versus more promiscuous) by ensuring (or not) that there are sufficient oxytocin receptor sites in the dopamine reward pathways (Insel 1997). This genetic mechanism would enable (or not) the specific partner preference phase and later attachment stages (mentioned in Figure 1) that are necessary in affording pair-bond formation. But, these effects occur between species and occur in embryonic brain development (Insel 1997; Young et al. 1998) – requirements that do not fit with either DA or SPT.

4. Solely promiscuous species may not have mechanisms for partner preference formation, whereas pair-bonding species are likely to have evolved chemical and biological mechanisms to support most, if not all, of these mechanisms. Some species, especially among primates, may evolve partner preference mechanisms and perhaps some, but not enough other mechanisms, to support enduring pair-bonds. It's an intriguing possibility that species may differ along a continuum of mechanisms that together afford pair-bonding.

5. Bowlby (1968/1982) said that, “although regarded as distinct behavioral systems, attachment behavior and sexual behavior are believed to have unusually close linkages” (p. 230). The sexual circuitry system, which is heavily impacted by positive and negative emotions, dovetails well with these systems (Miller et al., in preparation). Sustained negative emotions and/or insufficient positive emotions may serve as cues that the relationship is unlikely to last and offspring production should be avoided because, in the absence of biparental care, such offspring would be far less likely to survive.