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-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T18:57:47.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Adaptive Problems in the Domain of Human Sexuality

from Part I - Foundations of Evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

By
Kelly Asao
Edited by
Todd K. Shackelford
Todd K. Shackelford
Affiliation:
Oakland University, Michigan
Get access

Summary

In order to understand the domain of human sexuality, this chapter first explores the adaptive problems that shaped human sexual psychology. Adaptive problems are challenges or opportunities that had an impact upon the reproductive success of our ancestors. These problems gave rise to selection pressure for natural selection to create solutions in the form of physical and psychological adaptations. There are two broad classes of adaptive problem that humans can face: environmental forces and conspecifics. The chapter provides a brief survey of adaptive problems faced by humans throughout our evolutionary history and gives evidence for adaptations designed to solve these specific problems. We begin with adaptive problems dealing with the environmental forces of parasites, homozygosity, and pathogens. We then move to adaptive problems involving other people, specifically the problems of mate choice, commitment, and infidelity. We end the chapter with a brief discussion of past limitations and a call for evolutionarily inspired research into the full spectrum of human sexuality.

Keywords

adaptive problemshuman sexualityenvironmentconspecifics
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Evolutionary Perspectives on Sexual Psychology , pp. 72 - 86
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

Ackerman, J. M., Griskevicius, V., & Li, N. P. (2011). Let’s get serious: Communicating commitment in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1079–1094.Google Scholar
Aeschlimann, P. B., Häberli, M. A., Reusch, T. B. H., Boehm, T., & Milinski, M. (2003). Female sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus use self-reference to optimize MHC allele number during mate selection. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 54(2), 119–126.Google Scholar
Andersson, M. (1982). Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature, 299(1982), 818–820.Google Scholar
Anjos-Duarte, C. S., Costa, A. M., & Joachim-Bravo, I. S. (2010). Influence of female age on variation of mate choice behavior in Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Insect Behavior, 24(1), 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnocky, S., Ribout, A., Mirza, R. S., & Knack, J. M. (2014). Perceived mate availability influences intrasexual competition, jealousy and mate-guarding behavior. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 45–64.Google Scholar
Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94(1), 327–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakker, T. C. M., & Pomiankowski, A. (1995). The genetic basis of female mate preferences. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 8(2), 129–171.CrossRefGoogle 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
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preference. Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2006). The evolution of love. In Sternberg, R. J. & Weis, K. (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 65–86). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2009). The great struggles of life: Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary psychology. The American Psychologist, 64(2), 140–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, D. M. (2014). Evolutionary criteria for considering an emotion “ basic”: Jealousy as an illustration. Emotion Review, 6(4), 4–6.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., & Haselton, M. (2005). The evolution of jealousy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(11), 506–507.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), 251–255.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), 346–361.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
Charlesworth, D., & Charlesworth, B. (1987). Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 18(1), 237–268.Google Scholar
Conroy-Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Pham, M. N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). How sexually dimorphic are human mate preferences? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1082–1093.Google Scholar
Cotton, S., Small, J., & Pomiankowski, A. (2006). Sexual selection and condition-dependent mate preferences. Current Biology, 16(17), 755–765.Google Scholar
Crnokrak, P., & Roff, D. A. (1999). Inbreeding depression in the wild. Heredity, 83(3), 260–270.Google Scholar
Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3(1), 11–27.Google Scholar
Delaney, K. J., Roberts, J. A., & Uetz, G. W. (2007). Male signaling behavior and sexual selection in a wolf spider (Araneae: Lycosidae): A test for dual functions. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62(1), 67–75.Google Scholar
Dolgin, E. S., Charlesworth, B., Baird, S. E., & Cutter, A. D. (2007). Inbreeding and outbreeding depression in Caenorhabditis nematodes. Evolution, 61(6), 1339–1352.Google Scholar
Fessler, D. M. T., & Navarrete, C. D. (2004). Third-party attitudes toward sibling incest: Evidence for Westermarck’s hypotheses. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(5), 277–294.Google Scholar
Fisher, H., Aron, A., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Romantic love: An fMRI study of a neural mechanism for mate choice. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 493(1), 58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsgren, E. (1997). Mate sampling in a population of sand gobies. Animal Behavior, 53, 267–276.Google Scholar
Frank, R. (1988). Passions within reason. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Galperin, A., & Haselton, M. (2010). Predictors of how often and when people fall in love. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(1), 5–28.Google Scholar
Gangestad, S. W., & Buss, D. M. (1993). Pathogen prevalence and human mate preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14(2), 89–96.Google Scholar
Goossens, B., Graziani, L., Waits, L. P., Farand, E., Magnolon, S., Coulon, J., … Allainé, D. (1998). Extra-pair paternity in the monogamous Alpine marmot revealed by nuclear DNA microsatellite analysis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 43(4–5), 281–288.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1980). Sex versus non-sex versus parasite. Oikos, 35(2), 282–290.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D., Axelrod, R., & Tanese, R. (1990). Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites (a review). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 87(9), 3566–3573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haselton, M. G., & Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Conditional expression of women’s desires and men’s mate guarding across the ovulatory cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 49(4), 509–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedrick, P. W., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2000). Inbreeding depression in conservation biology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics Systems, 31, 139–162.Google Scholar
Hurtado, A. M., & Hill, K. R. (1992). Paternal effect on offspring survivorship among Ache and Hiwi hunter-gatherers: Implications for modeling pair-bond stability. In Hewlett, B. S. (Ed.), Father–child relations (pp. 31–55). New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jennions, M. D., & Petrie, M. (1997). Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: A review of causes and consequences. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 72(2), 283–327.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
Kodric-Brown, A., & Nicoletto, P. F. (2001). Age and experience affect female choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). The American Naturalist, 157(3), 316–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Komdeur, J. (2001). Mate guarding in the Seychelles warbler is energetically costly and adjusted to paternity risk. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268(1481), 2103–2111.Google Scholar
Kuhle, B. X. (2011). Did you have sex with him? Do you love her? An in vivo test of sex differences in jealous interrogations. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(8), 1044–1047.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. M. G., Conroy-Beam, D., Asao, K., & Buss, D. M. (2017). Evolutionary psychology: A how-to guide. American Psychologist, 72(4), 353–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2003). Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 270(1517), 819–826.Google Scholar
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445(7129), 727–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lifjeld, J. T., Dunn, P. O., Robertson, R. J., & Boag, P. T. (1993). Extra-pair paternity in monogamous tree swallows. Animal Behaviour. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1993.1028CrossRefGoogle 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
Lively, C. M., Craddock, C., & Vrijenhoek, R. C. (1990). Red Queen hypothesis supported by parasitism in sexual and clonal fish. Nature, 344, 864–866.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster (n.d.). Parasite. In Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasiteGoogle Scholar
Milinski, T. C. M., & Bakker, M. (1990). Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature, 344, 330–333.Google Scholar
Moore, P. J., & Moore, A. J. (2001). Reproductive aging and mating: The ticking of the biological clock in female cockroaches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(16), 9171–9176.Google Scholar
Moritz, C., McCallum, H., Donnellan, S., & Roberts, J. D. (1991). Parasite loads in parthenogenetic and sexual lizards (Heteronotia binoei): Support for the Red Queen hypothesis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 244(1310), 145–149.Google Scholar
Morran, L. T., Schmidt, O. G., Gelarden, I. A., Parrish, R. C. II, & Lively, C. M. (2011). Running with the Red Queen: Host–parasite coevolution selects for biparental sex. Science, 333(6039), 216–218.Google Scholar
Rabajante, J. F., Tubay, J. M., Uehara, T., Morita, S., Ebert, D., & Yoshimura, J. (2015). Red Queen dynamics in multi-host and multi-parasite interaction system. Scientific Reports, 5, 1–7.Google Scholar
Reichard, U. (1995). Extra-pair copulations in a monogamous gibbon (Hylobates lar). Ethology, 100, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reusch, T. B. H., Häberli, M. A., Aeschlimann, P. B., & Milinski, M. (2001). Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature, 414(6861), 300–302.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 199–226.Google Scholar
Rhodes, G., Zebrowitz, L. A., Clark, A., Kalick, S. M., Hightower, A., & McKay, R. (2001). Do facial averageness and symmetry signal health? Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(1), 31–46.Google Scholar
Schützwohl, A., & Koch, S. (2004). Sex differences in jealousy: The recall of cues of sexual and emotional infidelity in personally more and less threatening context conditions. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(4), 249–257.Google Scholar
Searcy, W. A., & Andersson, M. (2012). Sexual selection and the evolution of song. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 17(1986), 507–533.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., Guta, F. E., & Schmitt, D. P. (2006). Mate guarding and frequent in-pair copulation in humans: Concurrent or compensatory anti-cuckoldry tactics? Human Nature, 17(3), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shackelford, T. K., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(2), 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepher, J. (1971). Self-imposed incest avoidance and exogamy in second generation kibbutz adults. Ph.D. dissertation. Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1993). Human facial beauty: Averageness, symmetry, and parasite resistance. Human Nature, 4(3), 237–269.Google Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11(4–5), 375–424.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 52–95). Chicago, IL: Aldine.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
Weeden, J., Cohen, A. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2008). Religious attendance as reproductive support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(5), 327–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weeden, J., & Kurzban, R. (2013). What predicts religiosity? A multinational analysis of reproductive and cooperative morals. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(6), 440–445.Google Scholar
Westermarck, E. (1981). The history of human marriage. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, A. P. (1995). Sexual attraction and childhood association. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Yamazaki, K., Boyse, E. A., Miké, V., Thaler, H. T., Mathieson, B. J., Abbott, J., … Thomas, L. (1976). Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 144(5), 1324–1335.Google Scholar
Zeki, S. (2007). The neurobiology of love. FEBS Letters, 581(14), 2575–2579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×