Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:24:45.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Long-term mating positively predicts both reproductive fitness and parental investment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2021

Janko Međedović Open the ORCID record for Janko Međedović [Opens in a new window]
Janko Međedović*
Affiliation:
Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research, Belgrade, Serbia
*
Corresponding author. Email: janko.medjedovic@fmk.edu.rs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Empirical data on the relations between mating and reproductive success are rare for humans, especially for industrial and post-industrial populations. Existing data show that mating (and especially long-term mating) can be beneficial for fitness, especially that of males. This finding is in line with the hypothesis of sexual selection operating in human populations. The present research expands on previous studies by: 1) analysing additional fitness indicators, including having children with different partners; 2) including parental investment in the analysis as another important marker of sexual selection; 3) analysing several mediators between mating, reproductive fitness and parental investment, i.e. age of first and last reproduction and desired number of children. The data were obtained in 2019 from a sample of parents living in Serbia (N=497). The findings showed that long-term mating (duration of longest partner relationship) was positively related to parental investment and number of offspring and grand-offspring. Furthermore, the link between long-term mating and reproductive success was completely mediated by the age of first reproduction and desired number of children. Short-term mating (number of sexual partners) was marginally positively related to the number of children participants had with different partners and negatively related to parental investment. No sex differences in the link between mating, fitness and parental investment were detected. In general, the signatures of sexual selection were weak in the present data, but those that were detected were in line with sexual selection theory. The present findings provide a deeper insight into the adaptive function of mating and also the mechanism of how mating is beneficial for fitness.

Keywords

MatingFitnessParental investment
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 54 , Issue 5 , September 2022 , pp. 912 - 923
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Arnold, SJ and Duvall, D (1994) Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. The American Naturalist 143, 317–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2, 349–368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beall, AT and Schaller, M (2014) Affective implications of the mating/parenting trade-off: short-term mating motives and desirability as a short-term mate predict less intense tenderness responses to infants. Personality and Individual Differences 68, 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blurton Jones, N (2016) Demography and Evolutionary Ecology of Hadza Hunter-Gatherers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Borgerhoff Mulder, M (2000) Optimizing offspring: the quantity–quality tradeoff in agropastoral Kipsigis. Evolution and Human Behavior 21, 391–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borgerhoff Mulder, M (in press) Bateman’s principles & the study of evolutionary demography. In Burger, O, Lee, R and Sear, R (eds) Human Evolutionary Demography. URL: https://osf.io/64js5/ Google Scholar
Borgerhoff Mulder, M (2017) Review of demography and evolutionary ecology of Hadza hunter-gatherers by Nicholas Blurton Jones. Human Nature 28, 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgerhoff Mulder, M and Ross, CT (2019) Unpacking mating success and testing Bateman’s principles in a human population. Proceedings of the Royal Society London. B. Biological Sciences 286, 20191516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, GR, Laland, KN and Borgerhoff Mulder, M (2009) Bateman’s principles and human sex roles. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24, 297–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, DM (2006) Strategies of human mating. Psihologijske teme 15, 239–260.Google Scholar
Buss, DM and Schmitt, DP (2019) Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of Psychology 70, 77–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cherkas, LF, Oelsner, EC, Mak, YT, Valdes, A and Spector, TD (2004) Genetic influences on female infidelity and number of sexual partners in humans: a linkage and association study of the role of the vasopressin receptor gene (AVPR1A). Twin Research and Human Genetics 7, 649–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutton-Brock, TH (1989) Review lecture: mammalian mating systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. B. Biological Sciences 236, 339–372.Google Scholar
Courtiol, A, Pettay, JE, Jokela, M, Rotkirch, A and Lummaa, V (2012) Natural and sexual selection in a monogamous historical human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 8044–8049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C (1871) The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Murray, London.Google Scholar
Fieder, M and Huber, S (2007) The effects of sex and childlessness on the association between status and reproductive output in modern society. Evolution and Human Behavior 28, 392–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gangestad, S W and Simpson, JA (2000) The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23, 573–587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillespie, DO, Russell, AF and Lummaa, V (2008) When fecundity does not equal fitness: evidence of an offspring quantity versus quality trade-off in pre-industrial humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275, 713–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtzman, NS and Senne, AL (2014) Fast and slow sexual strategies are not opposites: implications for personality and psychopathology. Psychological Inquiry 25, 337–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopcroft, RL (2006) Sex, status, and reproductive success in the contemporary United States. Evolution and Human Behavior 27, 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopcroft, RL (2015) Sex differences in the relationship between status and number of offspring in the contemporary US. Evolution and Human Behavior 36, 146–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopcroft, RL (2021) High income men have high value as long-term mates in the US: personal income and the probability of marriage, divorce, and childbearing in the US. Evolution and Human Behavior, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2021.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, S, Bookstein, FL & Fieder, M (2010) Socioeconomic status, education, and reproduction in modern women: an evolutionary perspective. American Journal of Human Biology 22, 578–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, JJ and Kirkpatrick, LA (2007) The structure and measurement of human mating strategies: toward a multidimensional model of sociosexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior 28, 382–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennions, MD and Kokko, H (2010) Sexual selection. In Westneat, DF and Fox, CW (eds) Evolutionary Behavioral Ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 343–364.Google Scholar
Jokela, M, Rotkirch, A, Rickard, IJ, Pettay, J and Lummaa, V (2010) Serial monogamy increases reproductive success in men but not in women. Behavioral Ecology 21, 906–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, KM, Blomberg, SP, Duffy, DL, Heath, AC, Owens, IP and Martin, NG (2001) Natural selection and quantitative genetics of life-history traits in western women: a twin study. Evolution 55, 423–435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lack, D (1947) The significance of clutch-size. Ibis 89, 302–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marlowe, F (2000) Paternal investment and the human mating system. Behavioural Processes 51, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Međedović, J (2019) Harsh environment facilitates psychopathy’s involvement in mating–parenting trade-off. Personality and Individual Differences 139, 235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Međedović, J (2020a) Reproductive ecology of short and long-term mating: implications for sexual selection and life history theory. Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6zcnm CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Međedović, J (2020b) Examining the link between religiousness and fitness in a behavioural ecological framework. Journal of Biosocial Science 52, 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Međedović, J (2021) Human life histories as dynamic networks: using Network Analysis to conceptualize and analyze life history data. Evolutionary Psychological Science 7, 76–90.Google Scholar
Međedović, J and Petrović, B (2019) Quantity–quality trade-offs may partially explain inter-individual variation in psychopathy. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology 5, 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, WB, Rodgers, JL and Pasta, DJ (2010) Fertility motivations of youth predict later fertility outcomes: a prospective analysis of national longitudinal survey of youth data. Biodemography and Social Biology 56, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moorad, JA (2013) A demographic transition altered the strength of selection for fitness and age-specific survival and fertility in a 19th century American population. Evolution 67, 1622–1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neel, R, Kenrick, DT, White, AE and Neuberg, SL (2016) Individual differences in fundamental social motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 110, 887–907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nettle, D and Pollet, TV (2008) Natural selection on male wealth in humans. The American Naturalist 172, 658–666.Google ScholarPubMed
Sanjak, JS, Sidorenko, J, Robinson, MR, Thornton, KR and Visscher, PM (2018) Evidence of directional and stabilizing selection in contemporary humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 151–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitt, DP (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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sear, R and Mace, R (2008) Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution and Human Behavior 29, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, JA and Gangestad, SW (1991) Individual differences in sociosexuality: evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60, 870–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trivers, R (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B (ed.) Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago, pp. 136–179.Google Scholar
Tropf, FC, Stulp, G, Barban, N, Visscher, PM, Yang, J, Snieder, H and Mills, MC (2015) Human fertility, molecular genetics, and natural selection in modern societies. PloS One 10, e0126821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turkheimer, E (2000) Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9, 160–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentova, JV, Junior, FPM, Štěrbová, Z, Varella, MAC and Fisher, ML (2019) The association between Dark Triad traits and sociosexuality with mating and parenting efforts: a cross-cultural study. Personality and Individual Differences 154, 109613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zietsch, BP, Westberg, L, Santtila, P and Jern, P (2015) Genetic analysis of human extrapair mating: heritability, between-sex correlation, and receptor genes for vasopressin and oxytocin. Evolution and Human Behavior 36, 130–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar