SECTION: MALE PATERNITY INSECURITY
From Drmills
MALE PATERNITY INSECURITY
"You can’t tell your friend you’ve been cuckolded; even if he doesn’t laugh at you, he may put the information to personal use. --Montaigne (quote from Winokur)
MALE PROBLEM: HOW TO AVOID BEING CUCKOLDED
"An ideal wife is one who remains faithful to you but tries to be just as charming as if she weren’t." --Sacha Guitry (quote from Winokur, 1989)
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS:
Insist on a courtship period before offering long term commitment
Guarding / Sequestering / Cloistering
Males are more likely than females to use mate retention tactics. Male effort in guarding a mate increases with the female’s reproductive value. Men with younger wives compared to men with older wives report that they put more effort into mate retention (e.g. concealing, guarding, intrasexual threats) (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992).
Alcock (1989) suggests two points of origins for prolonged mate gaurding in humans. The first was the loss of estrus in females at some point in human evolution. The second was the differences in food gathering responsibilities between the sexes. Throughout human history food gathering responsibilities have been divided so men take on the more physically strenuous responsibilities, which include hunting, while the women take on less physically challenging tasks, which include fruit and plant gathering. During a female’s time of estrus, a male would offer her gifts of high protein to increase her chances of fertiltiy (a gain for males). If the female could prolong her period of estrus, or somehow make it trickier to determine when she is fertile, perhaps she could prolong the gift giving of a male during mate guarding (a female gain). This would likely encourage prolonged mate-guarding.
In this way, extended periods of mate guarding can benefit both males and females. Females gain in resources provided by males, and males gain in securing copulations with a particular female and increasing his paternity security. This strategy may provide a fitness gain greater than that of trying to secure copulations with more than one female. Prolonged mate gaurding reduces the time spent trying to find an unguarded mate (Alcock, 1989)
Adrienne Paglinawan April 13, 2009 Dr Mills Evolutionary Psychology Individual Project
How to Avoid Being Cuckolded
One big issue in mating for males is paternity insecurity. Males have to deal with the chances of being cuckolded by females, which is when a woman deceives her male social partner into investing in offspring conceived with another man (Evolutionary Psychology, 2007). This is not a good situation to be in for a man considering they lose both their invested resources and reproductive opportunity. Because of females tendencies to perform these acts statistics have shown that 10% of children are not biologically related to their putative genetic fathers (Evolutionary Psychology, 2007). In Platek and Shakelfords (2006) book Female Infidelity and Paternal Uncertainty: Evolutionary Perspectives on Male Anti-Cuckoldry Tactics. They speak of the different solutions to avoid being cuckolded by women. In their book they talk about three different groups of strategies to help prevent cuckoldry. The first group is early prevention methods whereby the men are expected to engage in behaviors that will reduce the likelihood that their partners will be unfaithful in the first place. Another strategy is the intra-vaginal methods, which is when a man has failed at preventing his partner from being unfaithful and attempts to avert fertilization by another man that may result from extra-pair mating. The third strategy is a post-parturition paternity assessment method, which is done by assessing the likelihood of paternity of the child-post-parturition and adjusting investment accordingly (Evolutionary Psychology, 2007). The early prevention method was further researched by Shackelford and Goetz. They found that one of the early prevention methods used by males was violence against the women within partnered relationships. They found a link between males sexual jealousy and violence towards their partners. Some of the behaviors were monopolization of their partners time, manipulating their partner emotionally, and being physically possessive. Shackelford and Goetz also did further research on the strategy of intra-vaginal methods. They found that this method demands men to become aroused to situations that are unpleasant for them, for example the suspicion of their partners infidelity. Kokko (1999) found that there is a big chance that males will detect that they are being cuckolded. A man needs to figure out whether or not he is going to be cuckolded so that he can determine his paternal effort. If the female cuckolded the male, he will reduce his paternal effort and focus more on the importance of competition for additional matings. Kokko also found that one of the main solutions to avoid being cuckolded by a female is by mate guarding. Shackelford, Goetz, Guta, and Schmitt, (2006) found that two particular tactics that were used by males to prevent being cuckolded by females was mate guarding behavior and frequent in-pair copulation. Mate guarding behavior includes close following to your female partner and surveillance of the female. Some other behaviors include taking partner away from a social setting where other men are present, dropping by unexpectedly to check up on their partner, and insisting that their partner stay home rather than go out (Shackelford, 2006). It was also found that men’s mate guarding behaviors vary depending on how attractive their female mate is. The in-pair copulations consist of placing large numbers of sperm in competition with extra-pair copulation sperm for access to the ova.
References
Kokko, H. (1999). Cuckoldry and the stability of biparental care. Ecology Letters, 2(4)
247-255.
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.
Shackelford, T.K., Platek, S.M. (2006). Female infidelity and paternal uncertainty: evolutionary perspectives on male anti-cuckoldry tactics. Evolutionary Psychology, 5(2) 358-362.
Photos
Male Mate Guarding in Humans
The human relationship that occurs between two members of the opposite sex elicits some of the most complicated behavior situated around the propagation of genes. In a human sexual relationship many conflicts arise out of “strategic interference,” described by Buss (1989) when the execution of a successful reproductive strategy by one member in the relationship interferes at several points with the reproductive strategy practiced by the other. Probable reproductive strategies comprise long-term and short-term efforts to copulate. This interference and the potential for losing a mate manifests itself in human behavior through what is called mate guarding. Mate guarding comprises strategies aimed at maintaining sexual access to a mate while at the same time thwarting the intrusion of sexual rivals, and inhibiting a mate from abandoning the relationship (Haselton & Gangestad, 2006). Mate guarding is practiced by both sexes in the human species, but is of more value to males to solve the adaptive problem of cuckoldry (Shackelford, Goetz, Guta & Schmitt, 2006). Mate guarding is usually triggered through males’ heightened sexual jealousy regarding their mate’s fidelity, and is subsequently rooted in males’ paternity uncertainty.
Mate guarding by males in the human species does not always follow the same intensity or consistency. Buss and Shackelford (1997) explain that males who are mated to a more attractive mate (more symmetrical and within the target waist-to-hip-ratio) practice more intensive mate guarding behavior in comparison to men with older or already pregnant mates. Haselton and Gangestad (2006) concluded that mate guarding behavior by males increased during their mate’s most fertile period during their ovulatory cycle, especially if their mate held more reproductive value (more attractive). Males mated to women who are high in reproductive value practice more intensive mate guarding behaviors due to the increased probability that their mate will engage in extra-pair copulations (Goetz et al. 2005).
Mate guarding behavior by males has been categorized into the two broad categories of intersexual and intrasexual manipulations, or those directed towards one’s mate and those directed towards potential competitors. Within intersexual manipulations reside the categories of direct guarding, negative inducements, and positive inducements. Direct guarding involves behavior characterizing vigilance (dropping in on a mate unexpectedly), concealment of one’s mate (refusing to take a mate somewhere other males are present), and the monopolization of a mate’s time (spending as much time as possible with a mate) (Buss, 1988). Negative inducements involve threatening infidelity (flirting with a member of the opposite sex in front of a mate), punishing a mate’s threat to infidelity (ignore a mate for flirting with another man), emotional manipulation (making a mate feel guilty for talking to other men), commitment manipulation (asking a mate to marry), and the derogation of competitors (pointing out another man’s flaws) (Buss & Shackelford, 199
7). Positive inducements include the display
of resources (bought an expensive gift for a mate), sexual incentives (performing sexual favors for a mate), enhancing physical appearance (dressing nicely to maintain a mate’s interest), emphasizing love and caring (displaying greater affection for a mate), and submission and debasement to one’s mate (giving into a mate’s every request) (Buss & Shackelford, 1997).
Intrasexual manipulations involve displaying public signals of possession and negative inducements. Public signals of possession include verbal (bragging about a mate to other males) and physical (kissing a mate while other
males are around) signals of possession, and possessive ornamentation (asking a mate to wear your ring) (Buss, 1988). Negative inducements involve the derogation of one’s own mate to competitors (telling other males your mate is not a nice person), intrasexual threats (telling other males to stay from your mate), and violence (hitting another male who made a pass at your mate) (Buss, 1988). Although male mate guarding is sometimes perceived as overbearing and controlling, the benefit of saving oneself from cuckoldry once outweighs the cost of all prior unsubstantiated guarding behaviors.
Support for the evolution of mate guarding in males is evident in the costs of failing to preserve a mate’s reproductive opportunity for oneself. A male who fails to mate guard increases his probability of suffering genetic cuckoldry, investing his time and resources for the propagation of someone else’s genes, experiencing a loss of his social reputation, and losing opportunity in the mates he could have been pursuing (Buss, 2002). If a man loses his mate as a result of failing to mate guard, he also loses access to his former mate’s future reproductive value. In modern human species, long-term in-pair copulation is the strategy most selected for as males can be more certain of paternity, females can depend on their male’s resources, and each of the sexes can monitor each other’s fidelity. Mate guarding is still important regardless of this trend to practice a long-term reproductive strategy due to the threat of those individuals who choose to practice short-term mating strategies, or who defect from their own long-term strategy.
The Double Standard: Restraints on Female Sexuality
A double standard towards adultery that favors males exists in many different societies. This double standard suggests that the act of adultery is an act against the male and not the female, as described earlier. Reflections of this double standard date far back into Ancient Egyptian and Roman law up to modern day societies (Daly & Wilson, 1993). Common laws concerning adultery as an act against males have been prevalent in Hebrew, Syrian, and various Mediterranean countries.
For example, in ancient Athens men were allowed to divorce their wives because of adultery while women were not (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002). A similar law also existed in the law books of England during the nineteenth century (Holmes, 1995). Even today, men report greater distress than women do in response to a partner’s sexual infidelity (Shackelford et al., 2004).
Several theories have been proposed to explain the double standard. For example, the patriarchal explanation suggests that sexual jealousy and mate guarding are learned responses. Hence the differences in women’s reactions to infidelity reflect differences in intensity of a patriarchal ethos in the culture (Hardgrave & Jankowiak, 2007). The male control theory suggests that men have always sought to control female sexuality in order to maintain control and power (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002). This theory implies that men constantly strive to suppress the sexuality of all women. The female control theory on the other hand, argues that women cooperate to stifle female sexuality in order to keep the demand of sex high amongst men (Baumeister & Twenge, 2002). This theory indicates that women encourage other women to suppress their sexuality in order to keep their men.
Evolutionary psychologists have proposed that this double standard is rooted in the fact that men and women have different reproductive interests and strategies. Because of this basic difference between the two sexes, each have developed different strategies in order to better solve their reproductive problems.
Jealousy and Paternity Uncertainty
Student ID#: 0936
Topic: Jealousy
The way that men handle the possible infidelity of a mate contrasts with how women would express her jealousy. Suspicions create turmoil within both sexes, but each react to an affair differently and depending on the type of affair. There are sexual and emotional affairs, and to these, men and women react in contrasting general ways. The majority of men find a sexual affair to be more detrimental, while women find emotional affairs more upsetting.
In Schützwohl’s journal, he claims: “A woman's sexual infidelity could reduce a man's reproductive success because of the ensuing risk of inadvertently losing an opportunity to reproduce and of investing limited paternal resources for the benefit of genetically unrelated offspring”. Having been cheated on, a man is less likely to want to remain in contact with the woman because his trust in her – as well as his chances of procreating with her – has significantly diminished. “A woman’s reproductive success, in contrast, is endangered if she loses a male's resources and assistance in raising her offspring. A man's mere sexual infidelity does not necessarily imply the risk of losing his paternal investment” (Schützwohl). By securing good genes, the woman then looks for or tries to maintain a hold on a good parental figure. The mother is certain of her maternity, so her concern lies in the connection of her mate and another woman.
As seen in the Lishner case study, 44% of males recruited for the study stated that a sexual infidelity was more upsetting than an emotional infidelity, whereas the females’ opinion was reversed; only 27% of women stated that a sexual infidelity was more upsetting that an emotional one. This case study failed to capture true evidence of jealousy existing in either sex’s responses.
On the other hand, according to the Goetz case study, “Men […] reliably over-perceive women’s sexual interest in them [for example] inferring sexual interest from a friendly smile. […] Women under-perceive sexual interest [ … however, women do] over-perceive men’s commitment [for example] inferring that commitment displays are genuine”. Furthermore, men were not only more likely to report suspicion of their significant other’s possible affairs, but “men were more likely than women to report that they themselves would commit sexual infidelity” (Goetz). Despite this confession, the majority of men STILL were convinced that their significant other would also be capable of infidelity.
The Strout study reveals that since men have paternal insecurity they have more reason to be jealous and uncertain of their partner’s fidelity. This study also questioned the participants on a more personal level, asking about their own experiences with infidelity. This tactic was used to understand why the participants focused on the sexual or the emotional infidelity sections more (Strout).
It is fascinating that men find themselves to be the more promiscuous of the sexes, but are still more concerned with the potential for women – specifically their woman – to be unfaithful. I believe men are jealous because they are aware – as men themselves – how other men operate, and they are more protective of their significant other in case another man makes an attempt to woo her. Men experience jealousy and act in a protective manner as the only means they have to ensure paternity. Ignorance is foolish and leaves room for another mate to stake a claim with his woman of choice.
The article Paternity uncertainty and the complex repertoire of human mating strategies goes into further detail on the importance of paternal certainty. Buss explains that paternal uncertainty was an adaptive problem for men. Research in Buss article estimates that 9-30% are not being raised by their biological father. Buss believes this has always been a problem an so men have used jealousy to help assure paternal certainty. This can be explained by many studies that involve male jealousy and even what males look for in short term and long term mates.
Buss and Schmidt identify the problem of paternal uncertainty. Human males tend to heavily invest in their children by providing many different resources and their own valuable time time. While maternity certainty is 100%, without DNA testing, the males can never be 100% that a child is theirs. Males do have adaptations that help avoid cuckoldry and ensure that the children they are investing in are theirs. Researchers have identified sexual jealousy as an adaptation that has evolved in order to ensure that the children men are raising are their own. The three main adaptations the authors focus on as ways to achieve paternity certainty include a desire for chastity, desire for sexual fidelity, and abhorrence of promiscuity on a long term mate (Buss and Schmitt, 1993).
A study mentioned in Buss and Schmidt’s article tested means jealousy as being reproductively damaging. The participants were tested using self report and physiological methods (Buss Schmidt, 1993) . They asked them, “Imagine that you discover that the person with whom you’ve been seriously involved became interested in someone else. What would distress or upset you more?” From this they were to identify whether the emotional attachment was more upsetting or the actual act of passionate intercourse .Results showed that 60% of the men reported being more upset about the sexual infidelity. Men were jealous of sexual infidelity because it was reproductively damaging. The women, on the other hand, reported that they would be more upset if their partner engaged in emotional infidelity. This could be because they would lose male commitment and investment.
Buss and Schmidt also explain another study they conducted in which the participant’s heart rate and other physiological functions were recorded when they had the subject imagine their partner having sexual intercourse and becoming deeply emotionally involved. Men were more upset about the sexual intercourse in this study as well. This jealousy could be an adaptation for paternal certainty in that a male would not want his partner with other men because then there would be a possibility that the children he has with his partner are not his. It is clear that in both studies mentioned, men become jealousy in order to avoid cuckoldry and insure that their genes will passed on.
Another tested hypothesis mentioned in Buss and Schmidt’s article was a study focused on different characteristics men prefer in both long term and short term relationships. These characteristic included faithfulness, promiscuity, and chastity. They used a sample of 75 men that rated 67 characteristics as desirable or not. For long term relationships the subjects placed a high preference for faithfulness and chastity. This could help in paternal certainty because males would want to pick women that will be faithful to them. They would not want someone who is with other males because the babies that come from the woman could have different possible fathers. If this were to occur their resources would be given to genes that are not theirs.
The last study presented by Buss and Schmidt involves promiscuity and sexual experience. Their results found that men found sexual experience and promiscuity desirable in short term mates. This could be because they are not looking to reproduce or use their resources for this mate. As for long term mates, promiscuity was seen as undesirable for long term mates and sexual experience was neutral. This could also go along with ensuring paternal certainty because males would not want long term mates that could possibly be with other males. Mate promiscuity would not achieve paternal certainty in that, once again, there could be the possibility that the children were not his genes.
These studies have shown that there are ways in which males avoid paternal uncertainty. They become jealous at the thought of their partner engaging in sexual intercourse ( with other males) and do not prefer promiscuous women as long term mates. When it comes to finding someone to be with for a long time they looked for qualities that would ensure faithfulness and in turn help ensure their paternal certainty that much more.
The article Paternity uncertainty and the complex repertoire of human mating strategies goes into further detail on the importance of paternal certainty. Buss explains that paternal uncertainty was an adaptive problem for men. Research in Buss article estimates that 9-30% of children are not being raised by their biological father. Buss believes this has always been a problem and so men have used jealousy to help assure paternal certainty. This can be explained by many studies that involve male jealousy and even what males look for in short term and long term mates. Buss, David M., & Schmitt, David P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2).
Paternity uncertainty and the complex repertoire of human mating strategies. Buss, David M.; American Psychologist, Vol 51(2), Feb, 1996. pp. 161-162.
"The way to hold a husband is to keep him a little jealous; the way to lose him is to keep him a little more jealous" --Henri Du Bois (quote from Winokur, 1989)
Jealous vigilance may be another evolved psychological mechanism designed for males to avoid being cuckolded (Symons, 1979). There are four main reasons for jealous vigilance among males. First, it may convince one’s partner to avoid involvement with other males. Second, jealous vigilance may deter or fend off competitors from involvement with one’s partner. Third, it may sensitize one to situations that may involve the unfaithfulness of his partner. Fourth, it may encourage a man to make efforts to satisfy his partner’s needs so she does not seek other possible suitors.
Although males and females may experience feelings of jealousy in a similar way, the result of jealous feelings between the sexes differ. Males are much more likely than females to commit violent acts as a result. For example, the number of battered females is much higher compared to battered males as a result of jealous vigilance (Daly, 1983).
Buss et al. (1992) asked college students to rate their jealousy in two imaginary distressful situations: (1) imaging the emotional involvement of their partner with someone else, or (2) imagining their partner committing sexual infidelity. Buss found that men reported more upset in the situation involving sexual infidelity than women (60 percent of men compared to 17 percent of women). On the other hand, women were more distressed than men when they imagined that their partner became emotionally involved with another (83 percent of women to compared to 40 of percent men).
Evidence Supporting Buss's Theory of Jealousy
It is safe to say that both sexes have jealousy, however, the triggers that activate men's versus women's jealousy may be different. Because reproductive costs for males are higher if they unknowingly invest in offspring that he may or may not be genetically related to, men have been hypothesized to be more upset over a partner’s sexual infidelity than her emotional infidelity. Women, on the other hand, suffer greater reproductive costs if they lose paternal investment and, therefore, have been hypothesized to be more upset over a partner’s emotional infidelity than his sexual infidelity.
Research in the field has overwhelmingly supported such hypotheses. Murphy et al (2006) conducted a study that included 263 undergraduate participants (188 women, 75 men) ranging in age from 18 to 74. Data was collected using self-report questionnaires. Participants responded “Yes” or “No” to three questions pertaining to serious, committed romantic relationships (SCRR). In addition, following Buss et al. (1992), participants were asked to reflect upon either a past or present serious, committed, romantic relationship by answering several questions, including four scenarios involving acts of a partner’s infidelity. As found in previous research, the results of the current study indicated that men would be more distressed by sexual infidelity and women would be more distressed by emotional infidelity.
Edlund, Heider, Scherer, Fare and Sagarin (2006) conducted research relationship experience as a predictor of romantic jealousy when there had been infidelity. In Study One, they administered a paper survey to 215 undergraduate students (53 men, 162 women). Of these participants, 24 men (45%) and 86 women (53%) had been cheated on. When recalling actual experiences with infidelity, men reported greater jealousy in response to the sexual aspects than the emotional aspects of the infidelity, whereas women reported greater jealousy in response to the emotional aspects than the sexual aspects of the infidelity.
Study Two was designed to replicate these findings using a different method of data collection and a non-student sample. Students recruited working adults to participate in a web-based survey. One hundred and thirty six people participated in Study Two (40 men, 96 women). Of these participants, 20 men (50%) and 49 women (51%) had been cheated on. Consistent with Study One, when recalling actual experiences with infidelity, men reported greater jealousy in response to the sexual aspects than the emotional aspects of the infidelity, whereas women reported greater jealousy in response to the emotional aspects than the sexual aspects of the infidelity.
Schützwohl (2006) examined the type of information a male or female would actively request from their partner if there were reason to suspect his or her infidelity. The participants randomly received one of the two infidelity scenarios: “Your partner begins a conversation in which he discloses meeting another woman” (infidelity less likely), or “Imagine that lately your partner is frequently tardy in coming home. At your insistence, he admits meeting anther woman” (infidelity more likely). The participants were then asked to note in the order of importance up to five questions they would like to have answered. The questions could be categorized into 13 mutually exclusive categories which were generated from the data. Based on the data collected, significantly more women than men asked emotional involvement-other referent questions, and emotional involvement-self referent questions in both scenarios. In addition, significantly more men than women wanted to know about a mate’s sexual infidelity also in both scenarios.
Evidence Conflicting with Buss's Theory of Jealousy
Many psychologists conducted research to try and determine whether or not the experience of jealousy is different for men and women. As shown above there appears to be systematic biases but are they real? DeSteno et al (2002) conducted two studies to determine first if the previous results supporting the evolutionary account of jealous responses are of a method-specific nature, and second to examine whether jealous responses are automatic and unconscious. In their first study, DeSteno et al.(2002) posit that the reason sex differences are found in testing jealousy is because of method-specific reasons. Previous research was conducted using forced-choice preference measures which ask the participant to indicate their level of distress of the two types of infidelity: emotional and sexual. In order to find out if this type of measurements causes specific results, DeSteno et al (2002) decided to use the traditional force-choice measure as well as univariate and covariance structure modeling, or CSM, which “[allow] investigation of jealousy responses free from specific method variance”. The participants were asked to think about a committed romantic relationship and then answer a forced-choice measure, Likert-scale measure, agree-disagree measure, and a checklist measure. In the forced-choice measure the participants were asked which event would cause more distress: “(a) finding out that one’s partner had passionate sexual intercourse with another person or (b) finding out that one’s partner had formed a deep emotional attachment”. Next, in the Likert-scale (7-point scale) participants were again asked to indicated the degree to which they would experience anger, jealousy, calmness (reverse scored), threatened, relieved (reverse scored), and hurt. In the agree-disagree measure, participants were asked to use a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) on these same experiences. Lastly, the checklist measure asked them to place a check next to adjectives they would feel in either emotional or sexual infidelity.
Results from the study’s forced-choice measure indicated that “men and women were found to differ in their choice of the most distressing type of infidelity event". Women reported emotional infidelity (66%) to be more distressing than sexual infidelity (34%); men, however, reported the reverse pattern, so that more men found sexual infidelity (54%) to be more distressing than emotional infidelity (46%). These results fall in line with evolutionary theory. Other results on the continuous measures for single-item responses found that the single-item measure for upset was not moderated by gender. “Men and women were both more upset in response to sexual than emotional infidelity”. For the other single-item measure for relieved, the results indicated that “women and men both reported more distress (i.e., less relief) when considering a sexual as opposed to an emotional event of infidelity”. The final analysis for distress indicated that there was “no difference due to type of infidelity…[and it revealed] no sex difference in endorsement of the distress item as a function of infidelity type. However, women were more likely than men to indicate more feelings of distress in response to both infidelity events. The results from the Likert-scale and agree-disagree measures found that “both men and women reported more jealousy in response to sexual than to emotional infidelity”. However, it seems that women were more likely to report “higher intensities of emotion across both types of infidelity”. Therefore, it appears that men and women are both more jealous and more distressed in instances of sexual infidelity as opposed to emotional infidelity; however, women rate higher distress scores for both instances than men do.
In the second study, DeSteno et al (2002) were determined to find out if reactions to infidelity are automatic or carefully considered in order to determine if they could be the outcome of evolutionary selection. Assuming that automatic responses refer to evolved processes, DeSteno et al. (2002) hypothesized that the response under cognitive load would be the evolutionary or automatic response. To find this out, DeSteno et al (2002) believed that the presence of cognitive load would “enhance the influence of automatic processes on judgment and behavior through the inhibition of corrective or deliberative processes reflecting the influence of conscious analysis”. Therefore, in this study, 121 participants (51 men, 70 women) were assigned randomly to one of two groups: cognitive load or control condition. In the cognitive load group, participants were asked to “remember a string of digits at the same time that they were responding to a series of preference questions”. The participants had 10 seconds to answer once all digits were shown and all questions asked. In the control condition, participants were only asked the series of questions.
The jealousy measure that was used consisted of five questions: one target question and four distractor questions. The participants were asked to complete the following phrase: “It would upset me more if my partner....” They were given the following distractor responses: (a) was rude to my family, was rude to my friends; (b) lied to me, stole from me; (c) forgot my birthday, forgot our anniversary; and (d) insulted me or ignored me. The following response was the target response: (e) had passionate sex with someone else, formed a deep emotional bond to someone else. All of the response choices were given in random order.
The results from this study showed that “the presence or absence of cognitive load substantially influenced women’s choice of the most distressing event”. When the women in the cognitive load condition were asked which infidelity was more distressing, they responded that sexual infidelity was most distressing. However, women in the control condition said the opposite, that emotional infidelity was most distressing. Men did not experience a change between the cognitive load and control conditions. In conclusion, DeSteno et al (2002), found that “gender did not moderate the influence of load condition on choice. That is, women, when needing to make a quick decision, behaved exactly as men did; both genders were more distressed by sexual infidelity”. These results are in opposition to the evolutionary theory which states that men and women differ in that, women find emotional infidelity more distressing while men view sexual infidelity as more distressing.
According to Ward and Voracek, men and women show differences in jealousy because they have been socialized to believe that attachment and sex are weighted differently by each gender (Ward & Voracek, 2004). In other words, as a result of societal and cultural influence, men and women have developed beliefs that they are supposed to have certain feelings about sexual versus romantic infidelity. These researchers tested this idea using 268 participants. Subjects completed a questionnaire that was meant to compare this innate sex difference. They found results that supported the evolutionary explanation that men find sexual infidelity more devastating while women find emotional infidelity to be more distressing. Although their research was limited in that it pertained only to college undergraduates, it provided replication for previous research. Harris took a different approach to studying these sex differences. She carefully examined the evolutionary perspective on jealousy, and through an in-depth analysis, found that many results point to no difference at all. For example, many of the forced-choice questionnaires produced results indicating that only a small number of men report sexual infidelity as being worse than emotional infidelity. She calls in to question evidence that shows many self-report measures have shown that men do rank emotional infidelity as more distressing than sexual infidelity (Harris, 2002).
Male Preference for Virgins
Males should show a tendency to desire long-term partners whose reproductive lifespan they can monopolize. In light of this, males should value chastity and fidelity in their long-term partners. Cross-cultural evidence shows a trend for men to value premarital chastity more highly than women. However, there is a great deal of cultural variation in the extent to which chastity is considered an important feature of a long-term mate. Cosmides and Tooby (1989) suggest that cultural differences in the extent of material resources controlled by women and the utility of paternal investment in the given cultural circumstances may help explain this variation.
Rejecting Mates Who Are Unfaithful
Sexual fidelity may be a difficult quality to evaluate. Interestingly, premarital chastity and post-marital faithfulness seem to be linked. Women who have had many sexual partners before getting married are subsequently more likely to engage in extramarital sexual activities than their chaste counterparts (Thompson, 1983; Weiss & Slosnerick, 1981). Research has demonstrated that men find the thought of a wife’s infidelity more distressing than any other type of betrayal or deceit (Betzig 1989; Buss, 1989; Daly & Wilson, 1988). Though sexual infidelities also distress women, other types of pain inflicted by their mates are found to be equally or more upsetting.
Sneaky Strategy: Infanticide
Although infanticide (the killing of newborn young) is by no means considered common in the animal world, there are a large number of species that have been observed committing infanticide. Studies on infanticide have tended to focus mainly on males as a sneaky reproductive strategy, because infanticide of this nature has been observed most often. Although the strategy is typically used by males, instances of infanticide by females have also been recorded. In humans, infanticide by women is actually much more prominent than infanticide by men, having been documented in the United States and even more extensively by Hedge (1999) in South India. Through evaluation of the various evolutionary pressures, physiological and reproductive stresses, and other factors that lead to infanticide, some light may be shed on the differences between the occurrence of infanticide by males and females. By studying the purposes for infanticide in non-human species of the animal world, future conclusions may be made about infanticide in humans.
Infanticide as a male sneaky strategy has been noted in many mammalian species including an extensive list of primates, lions, jaguars, horses, marmosets, and even dolphins. However, infanticide has been documented most widely among Hunuman langur monkeys (Presbytis entellus). In a study by Borries and colleagues (1999) in Nepal, the occurrence of infanticide was recorded and DNA from the victim and the perpetrator were taken. The results showed that male Hunuman langurs only attacked and or killed infants that were genetically unrelated (not their own offspring) to themselves. This occurrence of infanticide in langurs appeared to be by intruder males as a sneaky reproductive strategy. Because mammalian females do not ovulate while lactating, infanticide has evolved as a means for males to stop female lactation and therefore initiate ovulation. Thus, the male langur uses infanticide to gain access to an estrous (fertile) female by reinitiating the females ovulation cycle, allowing the male to copulate more quickly and spread his genes more efficiently. Borries also found that in every case of infanticide that was recorded, the male langur copulated with the mother of the infant he had killed (Borries et al, 1999). Due to the fact that female langurs will readily mate with outsider males who have just killed one of their offspring, infanticide has become a very successful, efficient, and stable evolutionary strategy for male langurs.
In the same way, infanticide is used as a male reproductive strategy in the plains zebra (Equus burchelli). A study done by Jan Pluhacek and Ludek Bartos (1999) on a captive population of this species found that mortality rates of foals increased significantly after adding unrelated males to the population. Nine instances of infanticide by male plains zebras were documented. It was also noted that the males subsequently mated with the mothers of the foals they had killed (Pluhacek & Barton, 1999). Plains zebras and Hunuman langurs seem to have developed the use of infanticide as a sneaky reproductive strategy because of its immense reproductive value, illustrating behavioral convergent evolution of the two species.
Infanticide has also been documented among male Southern sea lions (Otaria byronia), but for a different purpose than that of the plains zebra and Hunuman langur. Claudio Campagna and his colleagues (1988) conducted a study in Santa Cruz, California on this species, observing 285 pup abductions by outsider males, most of which were followed by infanticide. A total of 1.3% of pups from each breeding season died from physical abuse. Campagna observed that many of the pup abductions and subsequent pup deaths were carried out by subadult males. These young males treated the pups in the same way that adult male Southern sea lions treat adult females, sequestering them, preventing their escape, and defending them against other males. In 9% of the abductions, males actually mounted the pups, although no intromission occurred (Campagna, Le Boeuf, & Cappozzo, 1988). These results combined with the fact that breeding is seasonal in this species (females who lose pups lose a whole breeding year) provide evidence that males do not receive an immediate reproductive benefit from pup abduction and infanticide. Therefore, the study concluded that the young adult males may substitute pups for females, as they are not able to compete with older adult males to gain access to mates. In addition, these young males may employ this tactic as a means of gaining experience for controlling adult females (Campagna et al., 1988). Ultimately, the infanticide committed by Southern sea lion males is a by-product of pups being treated as females for practice (forcefully and aggressively), and not a strategy for restarting ovulation of females, as in Hunuman langurs and plains zebras. However, infanticide in all three of these species is used in pursuit of a common goal: to successfully reproduce with a female (whether immediately or after maturity is reached).
Although infanticide by females is not as common as infanticide by males, this behavior has been documented in females from a decent number of different species. Rather than for some immediate reproductive benefit as seen in males, female infanticide in the wild is typically driven by factors that promote survival and are less closely related to reproductive success (with a few exceptions). In the ultimate scheme of things, these factors are also promoting reproductive success simply by facilitating the individual’s survival (the longer an individual lives, the more opportunity to reproduce). Sarah Hrdy (1979) discusses the different reasons for female infanticide, identifying four different classes: exploitation, resource competition, parental manipulation, and sexual selection. In the first, female infanticide occurs as a means of exploiting the infants as a resource either for direct consumption (cannibalism) or in rare occasions as a prop for “play mothering”, which is seen in some species of primates. Infanticide by females that actually consume the infant, such as that among ground squirrels, hyenas, sometimes lions, and even some fish and insects, is a means of attaining a food resource and avoiding starvation. Infanticide resulting from resource competition (wild dogs, primates, elephant seals, Belding’s ground squirrel), occurs when females kill the young of female conspecifics in order to free up more resources. Due to the fact that in most animal species young are known to use up a large amount of resources, a female may gain access to more resources by killing the young of a nearby, unrelated female, ultimately reducing resource competition. Female infanticide as a means of parental manipulation occurs when the female kills her own young (filicide) in order to terminate parental investment to that particular offspring (Hrdy, 1979). By doing this, the female increases her own chances of survival as well as the survival of any other offspring she may have. This type of infanticide is also seen in human females, who are unable to economically or physically care for their children (Gauthier, Chaudoir, & Forsyth, 2002). Hrdy proposes that the last purpose of female infanticide results from sexual selection. Even though infanticide of this nature is the main cause of infanticide by males, it is rarely seen in females. Infanticide by females due to sexual selection occurs in species with reversed sex roles, where females compete for access to males. In the button quail (Turnix sylvatica), a species with reversed sex roles, the male cares for the young, so females compete for male services. This often leads to the destruction of a female’s eggs by a female conspecific as a means of monopolizing the male’s services (Hrdy, 1979). This, in turn, increases the guilty female’s own reproductive success in addition to that of her young.
By studying the infanticide committed by both males and females of different animal species, the various implications of infanticide have come to light. Male infanticide is strongly correlated with a direct reproductive benefit, that appears to have evolved as an ultimate cause, with some exceptions (Southern sea lion). However, infanticide by females has both proximate and ultimate causes including exploitation, resource competition, parental manipulation, and sexual selection. Female infanticide is more strongly related to survival rather than to reproductive gain (as in infanticidal males) although there are exceptions in species with reversed sex roles, like the button quail. This sexual dimorphism in infanticidal behavior that exists between males and females (in non-human species) may share evolutionary roots with human infanticide, providing further explanations for the sexual dimorphism of the trait that is also present in humans. Further investigation is imperative, as it has implications in reducing homicide and child abuse rates. Hopefully one day research in infanticide will be able to provide an explanation for this trend of human infanticide by females rather than males, while the rest of the animal kingdom shows the opposite trend.
When a father dies among the Ache Indians, a hunter-gatherer tribe in Paraguay, his children are sometimes killed by the other villagers, particularly if the child is weak, ill, or defected in some way. The Ache have both spiritual and practical reasons for this practice. Ultimately, however, it is understood that the chape children (as they are called) would not be cared for well and would be a burden to the villagers if they lived. Yanomamo have also been reported to kill offspring of their wives from previous marriage. Daly and Wilson report that the reason for this is so the women can focus more time and energy in the upbringing of the present husbands children.
Infanticide by a man usually occurs in the case that the childs parentage (paternity) is in doubt (Mealey, 2000). Couvade, the rituals and/or physical changes that fathers go through during their partners pregnancy, may determine decrease the likelihood of infanticide by a father. Wilson and Daily (1995) reported that nonpaternal partners as well as stepfathers are more likely to commit infanticide than biological fathers.
[[Image:|Child%20Murder%20Patterns%20in%20Step%20Parents.jpg]]
INVESTING IN THEIR CHILDREN
Human parents spend more time than any other species raising their children. Although fathering and mothering are similar, they are also different (Lewis, 1986). Across cultures, fathers are more involved in rearing their sons than their daughters. More than mothers, fathers tend to have a greater effect on children in regarding sex-role socialization. Their expectations tend to be more specific for sons than for daughters. In Western culture, fathers tend to take part on more boisterous activities with their children and be less verbal or communicative with them.
Couvade
Couvade Syndrome is a global phenomenon in which expecting fathers actually experience physical and/or psychological symptoms of pregnancy, rather than acting them out symbolically. (Brennan et al., 2007a). Commonly reported symptoms include toothache, headache, diarrhea, constipation, weight gain, change in appetite, and indigestion (Budur et al., 2005), as well as anxiety, depression, irritability, and insomnia. (Brennan et al., 2007b). Its prevalence is heavily debated. Reports from a round the world show occurrence in 11-97% of all pregnancies. (Brennan et al., 2007b). Studies also show differences in demographic factors related to Couvade Syndrome. For example Brown (1983) found its prevalence was higher in men younger than 30 years old, while Borgen (1989) found a higher prevalence in men over 30 years old (as cited in Brennan et. al., 2007b).
There is also debate over whether Couvade symptoms are related to the number of children men have previously had. Studies by Clinton (1986), Condon (1987), and Ferketich and Mercer (1989) show a positive correlation between occurrence of the syndrome, and the number of pervious children. However, Trethowan and Conlon (1965) found no significant difference in its occurrence between men who already had children, and first-time fathers (Brennan et al., 2007b). Couvade seems to have a relationship with ethnicity. Studies have consistently shown higher prevalence of symptoms in Black Caribbean males, African Americans, and other ethnic minorities in the United States. (Brennan et al., 2007b).
Anthropologists propose that it began as a cultural tradition to symbolize the man bearing the pain of woman during childbirth (Lundell, 1999). In fact, there are documented cases of Couvade practices as far back as 135-151 B.C. (Reed, 2005). Cultures differed in the rituals they performed, but many had some sort of practice to include the father in the pregnancy process. For example, British Guiana and Borneo both had strict dietary rules for the father, so that he would feel weak and need to be taken care of after childbirth just like the mother (Lundell, 1999).
The Australia Ritualised couvade display behavior includes fathers not eating specific foods and being secluded from others or only able to be accompanied by his mate during pregnancy (Mason, p. 139). This ritual purposely shows the father giving respect to his partner in relating to her anguish and pain of the pregnancy. In Spain and Asia, the mother gives birth on her own and still maintains going to work while the husband stays at home in bed. These types of rituals may be more derived from the pressures of society and its individual roles. This was described as the Bachofen-Tylor Theory: that the couvade operates to protect paternity rights by illustrating to others that they are the biological father (Mason, p. 139). In other words, it is a man's claim to the community that he is the father of this child because he is assuming the role of the female.
Studies of certain mammals illustrating behaviors that depict the Couvade Syndrome have also been recorded. A study by Ziegler et al. (2006) showed instances of marmoset and cotton-top tamarin monkeys having changes in hormones and weight gain. With no changes in diet, these monkeys demonstrated the effects of what pregnant males undergo during their mates pregnancy. For marmoset monkeys, their weight from the first gestation to the fifth showed a significantly higher increase in weight while the tamarin’s showed a significant weight gain throughout the six month gestation. The tamarin monkeys also had their most increase in weight to be the last three months of their mate's pregnancy accompanied by an elevated prolactin level. Changes in testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, and oestradiol also occurred with their mates later in pregnancy which is closely related to human male fathers. According to Storey et al. (2000), males with Couvade Syndrome showed a higher increase in prolactin and cortisol for early and late postnatal pregnancies for their partners.
Couvade Syndrome
Couvade syndrome is characterized by physiological and behavioral changes that typically occur in males who have a pregnant mate. Common symptoms include indigestion, increased or decreased appetite, weight gain, and headaches, and tend to coincide with physiological changes in the female. Symptoms often mirror physiological markers of pregnancy as the male’s body seems to mimic what his mate is experiencing. But how does Couvade syndrome work in humans? Is it purely psychological, or does it have a biological basis? And why do some males experience Couvade, and not others?
A study by Brennan, Marshall-Lucette, Ayers, and Ahmed (2007) explored the psychological and physiological symptoms of Couvade syndrome in order to address these questions. Researchers interviewed 14 expectant fathers in order to investigate possible associations between feelings towards parenthood and common symptoms of Couvade syndrome. Involvement and attachment of prospective fathers are both correlates of Couvade syndrome, indicating that this syndrome is a sociocultural and a psychological phenomenon as men respond to the pressures and expectations of fatherhood. Males who expect high parental involvement are more likely to experience symptoms of Couvade syndrome. Another correlate of Couvade syndrome was first-time parenthood, as first-time fathers experienced more intense symptoms. Previous parenting experience was a mediating factor of Couvade symptoms, as men with more negative parenting experience were more likely to experience Couvade symptoms. These correlations suggest that anxiety about the pregnancy is a major factor in the male’s physiological response to his mate’s pregnancy, which points to a psychological cause.
A case study investigated by Budur, Mathews, and Mathews (2005) supports the psychological hypothesis. A 22-year-old woman, Ms. A, went to the hospital complaining of increased urination, fullness of belly and breasts, and morning sickness, common markers of pregnancy. She was single and not sexually active, and a pregnancy test confirmed that she was not pregnant. She revealed, however, that she had a twin sister who lived in another city who was pregnant with her second child, and Ms. A also experienced pregnancy symptoms during her sister’s first pregnancy. Ms. A had no record of mental illness, did not show abnormal anxiety, depression, or psychosis, and did not show abnormal attachment to her sister or excessive desire to become pregnant. As far as researchers could tell, Ms. A’s symptoms were a psychological response to her sister’s pregnancy. There was no biological basis for these symptoms, as Ms. A and her sister did not even live nearby. Perhaps Ms. A’s symptoms resulted from her concerns for her sister and a somatic response to these concerns, indicating that Couvade may have a purely psychological cause.
One of the best explanations of why Couvade syndrome has developed comes from the evolutionary perspective. According to Elwood and Mason (1994), Couvade syndrome acts as a marker of the onset of parental care of fathers. Research indicates that Couvade syndrome occurs much more frequently in fathers who expect to provide a lot of parental care to the unborn child. Couvade syndrome correlates with preparation for offspring, as fathers who actively prepare to accommodate their new children experience Couvade syndrome much more frequently. In what may be linked to this, researchers have also discovered that testosterone level of a father tends to change around the time of his child’s birth, indicating another biological change psychologically activated by the expectancy of fatherhood. It is possible, then, that Couvade syndrome helps fathers develop the mindset required to invest in their offspring.
In conclusion, Couvade syndrome involves physiological and behavioral changes that are psychologically triggered. Research on animal subjects that also experience Couvade symptoms corroborates the notion that Couvade syndrome is an evolved feature (Elwood & Mason, 1994). While the question of causation has yet to be answered definitively, it seems likely that Couvade syndrome helps to activate feelings of attachment in the father towards his offspring, which would likely encourage him to be a more active, nurturing father.
References
Brennan, A., Marshall-Lucette, S., Ayers, S., & Ahmed, H. (2007). A qualitative exploration of the Couvade syndrome in expectant fathers. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 25(1), 18-39.
Budur, K., Mathews, Maj., & Mathews, Man. (2005). Couvade syndrome equivalent? Psychosomatics: Journal of Consultation Liaison Psychiatry, 46(1), 71-72.
Elwood, R. W., & Mason, C. (1994). The couvade and the onset of paternal care: A biological perspective. Etiology & Sociology, 15(3), 145-156.
Assessing the probability of paternity
Males have always been at a disadvantage when it comes to child-rearing because they do not have the same degree of certainty that women have knowing that the child is truly their offspring. It is imperative for a male to be attentive to the paternity of the children he has with a female so as to ensure that he is investing in offspring that are actually his. The result of not doing so could mean investing in the progression of another male’s genes.
With paternity assurance holding such an important role in procreation, it would be appropriate for evolution to favor males that have developed skills to assess the probability of their paternity. One such skill is being more attentive than women to resemblance of newborn faces. Platek et al. (2004) have developed a research study to examine this phenomenon further. The importance of facial features in paternity assurance is that: “In humans, facial resemblance has been suggested as a kin identification mechanism” (Daly & Wilson, 1998, as cited in Platek et al, 2004). Not only did males explicitly respond positively in regards to hypothetical investment decisions with children whose faces resembled theirs, but they also had neural substrates which inhibit negative responses that were activated when viewing such faces. These results show that: “sex differences in reactions to facial resemblance may be driven by neurocognitive processes that are recruited when facing specific adaptive problems, such as making determinations about paternity” (Platek et al., 2004).
Males have been shown to rely heavily on other’s opinions of resemblance between them and their children as a measure of paternity assurance. In the study by Burch and Gallup (2000), the results showed that: “when subjects were asked how often other people had told them that their biologically related children looked like them (n=81), it correlated highly with their own ratings of resemblance (r=.870 P<.001).”
In addition to face resemblance, men use other strategies to assess paternity. In one study by Apicella & Marlowe (2004) it was discovered that males often use strategies such as: their current perceptions of their mate’s fidelity, their mate’s past behaviors, and mate’s behaviors after the conception of the child. This perception led to changes in parental investment, as has been found in previous studies: “This study provides preliminary evidence that men may be responding to changes in paternity confidence by varying their levels of parental investment” (Apicella & Marlowe, 2004).
Fathering: Male parental investment
| #2375
Why males spend less time in parental care Though there has been a shift over the years of fathers investing more time in parental care, mothers are still spending more time investing in the needs of their children. The question lies for evolutionary psychologist why fathers invest less time in parental care than mothers. Looking back at our ancestors, we see that males were responsible for providing resources. They were also responsible for seeking shelter while providing safety for the family. In order to do this, males needed to be good competitors to provide for the family. Aggressiveness, a common trait seen in men, was necessary for our ancestors to compete for scarce resources. Taking an evolutionary perspective, fathers needed to be more aggressive, thus provide less childcare to maintain their high levels of testosterone. Today, one may imply that high levels of aggression is not necessary because men are not competing for scarce resources as they may have in the past. Having lower levels of testosterone, which is a product of investing in parental care, will not affect the survival of the family. <br>Based on evolution, men were the ones who went out and hunted for food and provided safety. They took on the role of the provider, which entails providing food, shelter, and safety for the family. In order to take on this role, men needed to be fierce competitors. According to Grey, Khalenberg, Barrett, Lipson, and Ellison (2002), lower levels of testosterone in fathers during the day may lead to a decreased likelihood that the fathers will be engaged in any competitive behavior. Therefore, the decrease in testosterone levels would make the men less aggressive, making it hard for them to go out and compete for resources to provide for the family. This can possibly be a factor in why men invested less in their children. If they invested time with their children, their testosterone levels would decrease, making them less aggressive. Thus, it would make it difficult for them to compete for resources. <br>In contrast, according to Gray (2002), high testosterone levels are associated with an increase in aggression, which one can infer may be a good attribute to have for survival and competition. This would be a positive attribute for the survival and evolution of our ancestors. Aggression, and therefore testosterone levels, is decreased during fatherhood when the father is investing in the care of their children. According to Burnham, Chapman, Gray, McIntyre, Lipson, and Ellison (2002), testosterone levels facilitate male-male competition; therefore the decrease in testosterone levels, which is correlated to parental care, may have been a disadvantage for our ancestors. From an evolutionary perspective, this may be another reason why fathers invest less time in parental care.<br>Further research found a correlation between age of child, parental care and testosterone levels. According to Gray (2002), a difference in testosterone levels can be due to the effort in parental care in the effort of the father. It has been said that fathers with younger children have lower levels of testosterone than fathers with older children (Gray). The younger the child, the more time one may need to invest in parental care. Therefore, a father investing time with his young children may lead to lower testosterone levels. Thus, the lower testosterone level will make it hard for to him to be an aggressive competitor.<br>It may be inferred that based on Evolution, fathers invested less time in parental care than mothers because of survival instincts and competition. A high level of aggression has been linked to high levels of testosterone in males. Their aggressiveness helped with their ability to fight off predators, thus providing the family with safety and resources. During the days of our ancestors a high level of aggression was needed for survival. Thus, if fathers invested time in parental care, this would have decreased their levels of testosterone, which would make them lose in competition to others when fighting for resources. Therefore, fathers who spend more time providing childcare would have reduced their testosterone levels. This in return would have made him less aggressive. As a result, he would be less likely to provide resources and safety for his family, which may untimely lead to the death of his family. Today it appears that fathers are spending more time investing in their children. This can be due to the fact that we live in a society where resources aren’t as scarce and competition is less primal. Therefore, the increase in parental care, which lowers testosterone levels, may be seen less of a threat. References Fleming, A. S., Corter, C., Stallings, J. & Steiner, M. (2002). Testosterone and <br>prolactin are associated with emotional responses to infant cries in new <br>fathers. Hormones and Behavior, 42, 399-413.<br>Gray, P. B., Kahlenberg, S. M., Barrett, E. S., Lipson, S. F. & Ellison, P. T. <br>(2002). Marriage and fatherhood are associated with lower testosterone in <br>males. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 193-201.<br>Gray, P. B. (2003). Marriage, parenting, and testosterone variation among Kenyan <br>Swahili men. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 122, 279-286.<br>Burnham, T. C., Chapman, J. F., Gray, P. B., McIntyre, M. H., Lipson, S. F. & <br>Ellison, P. T. (2003). Men in committed, romantic relationships have <br>lower testosterone. Hormones and Behavior, 44, 119-122. <br> <br> |
Why do some men invest MORE in paternal care?
Male paternal investment is of interest to psychologists because of the lack of time and energy men invest in childcare. The topic of interest here are men who do invest resources in their children and the circumstances under which they use the time and energy to parent. Research on different theoretical models of parenting, the biological influence of testosterone, and pair bonding all investigate the reasoning behind increased male paternal investment.
Fox and Bruce (2001) experiment with Identity Theory and Parental Investment Theory to discover which model best accounts for men’s fathering attitudes and behaviors. Symbolic interactional (SI) perspectives, especially those formed by the Identity Theory, identify the self as constructed by several identities, which are structured by role relationships, such as father-child, and organized into a salience hierarchy where some identities are more central to one’s innermost sense of self (Fox & Bruce, 2001). Therefore, Identity Theory suggests that men’s commitment to their children displayed through fathering is a function of the importance of the father role to a man’s sense of self, the satisfaction that the father role provides, and the perceived assessment of his performance in this role by the father’s significant others. In cases where these three factors are strong, commitment to fathering and performance of fathering behaviors should be high. On the other hand, Parental Investment Theory assumes that concern with one’s inclusive fitness and the continuation of one’s unique genetic inheritance is a universal adaptive characteristic (Fox & Bruce, 2001). Therefore, parenting choices are linked to maximizing inclusive fitness; a father’s willingness to invest his own time, energy, and money into his child will increase due to the child’s ability to enhance his long-term wellbeing. Children who are most likely to enhance the man’s inclusive fitness are most likely to receive parental investments. A father’s commitment to his children will be a function of his interest in maximizing his child-focused investments, the contingent nature of his commitment to children and his certainty that the children are his. Fox and Bruce (2001) conclude that both theories were effective in accounting for men’s commitment behaviors but the identity theory appeared stronger. The measure of how salient the father role was to the man consistently showed up as an important predictor of fathering commitment and investment. Therefore, men’s degree of value placed on their father role as central to their sense of self and identity invest more time and energy in their children. More in line with the parental investment theory, it was also found that men of limited economic resources maximized their investment in children as a source of enhancing their inclusive fitness.
Ronald Immerman (2003) looked at the human, terrestrial primates, and canid (mammal of the dog family) forms of bonding in relation to females’ choice of mating partner. His research of pair bonding suggests that females choice in mating partner shifted in the direction of the male behavior that is analogous to that of a canid adult male who returns from hunting and shares food with their young and systematically plays with them (Immerman, 2003). Men who are most often selected as a female’s mating partner also display similar behaviors toward their child. Male investment could be accounted for by the Parental Investment Theory described earlier; men invest in their children because they enhance their inclusive fitness and living in a pack or a group is conducive to survival. Also male parental childcare is an investment that is influenced by human’s bio-cultural heritage, which cross-culturally promotes investment in the family and children. Ethnographic literature is filled with examples of fathers being fond of their own children (Immerman, 2003).
From a biological perspective, Peter B. Gray, Sonya M. Kahlenber, Emily S. Barrett, Susan F. Lipson and Peter T. Ellison (2002) looked at the role testosterone has on fatherhood and male paternal investment. Wingfield, Hegner, Duftym and Ball’s (1990) “challenge hypothesis” suggest that testosterone facilitates male-male competition in reproductive context and conversely is down- regulated during parental care (Gray et al., 2002). Experimental manipulations have demonstrated that the elevation in testosterone is associated with increased mating effort and reduced parenting effort. The results of this experiment supported the “challenge hypothesis” which proposes that testosterone mediates a tradeoff between mating and parenting effort in human males because males who were fathers had markedly lower testosterone levels compared with unmarried men.
Men invest more resources in raising their children because some view fatherhood as central to their identity and sense of self. Some men use their children as a means on increasing their inclusive fitness and chances of survival. Lower levels of testosterone are also associated with men who invest in parental care and fatherhood (Gray et al., 2002). All in all it seems that it is men who choose to invest in their offspring are influenced by cultural norms, fatherhood as a sense of identity, and inclusive fitness. This analysis of male paternal investment leads to implications in discovering how all men can find some sort of internal meaning in their children in order to increase their investment. This research can aid in structuring environments for all men and their children to foster importance of father roles to men’s sense of wellbeing.
Resources
Fox, L.G. & Bruce, C. (2001). Conditional fatherhood: Identity theory and paternal investment theory as alternative sources of explanation of fathering. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 394-403.
Gray, B.P., Kahlenberg, M.S., Barrett, S.E., Lipson, F.S., & Ellison, T.P. (2002). Marriage and fatherhood are associated with lower testosterone in males. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 193-201.
Immerman, S.R. (2003). Perspectives on human attachment (pair bonding): Eve’s unique legacy of a canine analogue. Evolutionary Psychology, 1, 138-154.
Stepfathering
Investing in other kin
|
Topic: Male Parental Investment in Other Kin When learning about sex differences one of the first questions addressed relates to what each sex looks for in a mate. The answer to this question, which has been supported by research, states that men often look for fertile women to create offspring with while women look for men to provide resources for both them and their children. Many articles in response to this question go further by asking whether or not males provide resources to children other than their own, and if so, are the resources equal in the amount that could be expected if the children were their own. The short answer to the first part of this question seems to be yes, males provide resources to children other than their own, however these same males tend to provide fewer resources than they would if the children they were taking care of had their same DNA. References Anderson, K.J., Kaplan, H., Lam, D., & Lancaster, J. (1999). Paternal Care by Genetic Fathers and Stepfathers II: Reports by Xhosa High School Students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 433-451. Relevant Websites: An ecological approach to father involvement in biological and stepfather families.
|
Desertion
Back to Chapter 9 main page.
REFERENCES
Baker, R.R. and Bellis, M.A. (1995). Human Sperm Competition, Chapman & Hall: London.
Baker, R. R. & Bellis, M. A. (1993). Human sperm competition: Ejaculation manipulation by females and a function for the female orgasm. Animal Behavior, 46, 887-909.
Baumeister, R. (2001). Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 5(3), 242-273.
Bernat, J. et al (2001). Homophobia and physical aggression toward homosexual and heterosexual individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(1), 179-187.
Birkhead, T. R. (2000). Promiscuity: An Evolutionary History of Sperm Competition. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Borries, C., Launhardt, K., Epplen, C., Epplen, J., & Winkler, P. (1999). DNA analyses support the hypothesis that infanticide is adaptive in langur monkeys. The Royal Society Publishing, 266, 901-904.
Buss, D. M. (2002). Human mate guarding. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23, 23-29.
Buss, D. M. & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention practices in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346-361.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Conflict between the sexes: Strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset. Journal of Personal Social Psychology, 56, 735-747.
Buss, D. M. (1988). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 291-317.
Bristow, J. (1997) Sexuality. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.
Campagna, C., Le Boeuf, B., & Cappozzo, H. (1988). Pup abduction and infanticide in southern sea lions. Behavior, 107, 44-60.
DelBarco-Trillo, J. & Ferkin, M. (2004). Male mammals respond to a risk of sperm competition conveyed by odours of conspecific males. Letters to Nature, 431, 446-449.
Denman, C. (2004) Sexuality: A Biopsychosocial Approach, Gordonsville, VA, USA: Palgrave Macmillan.
Farrelly, D., Lazarus, J., Roberts, G. [YEAR] Altruists Attract [REST MISSING] Evolutionary Psychology 5(2): 313-329.
Fassinger, R. (1991). The hidden minority: Issues and challenges in working with lesbian women and gay men. Counseling Psychologist, 19, 157-176.
Gallup, G. G. Jr., Burch, R. L., & Berens Mitchell, T. J. (2006). Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy: multiple mating, self semen displacement, and timing of in-pair copulations. Human Nature, 17(3), 253-264.
Gallup, G.G. Jr. (2004). Semen Displacement as a Sperm Competition Strategy in Humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 12-23.
Gallup, G. G. Jr., Burch, R. L., Zappieri, M. L., Parves, R., Stockwell, M., & Davis, J. A. (2003). The human penis as a semen displacement device. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 277-289.
Gangestad, S.W., Simpson, J.A., Cousins, A.J., Garver-Apgar, C.E., ,and Christensen P.N., (2004). Women's preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychological Science, 15(3), 203-207.
Gauthier, D., Chaudoir, N., & Forsyth, C. (2002). A sociological analysis of maternal infanticide in the United States, 1984-1996. Deviant Behavior, 24, 393-404.
Goetz, A.T, Shakelford, T.K., and Pound, N. (2005). Psychological and physiological adaptations to sperm competition in humans. Review of General Psychology, 9, 228-248.
Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., Shackelford, V. A., Euler, H. A., Hoier, S., Schmitt, D. P., & LaMunyon, C. W. (2004). Mate retention, semen displacement, and human sperm competition: a preliminary investigation of tactics to prevent and correct female infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(4), 749-763.
Hardy, C.L. Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32, 1402-1414.
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, 509-618.
Hedge, R. (1999). Marking bodies, reproducing violence: A feminist reading of female infanticide in south india. Violence Against Women, 5, 507-524.
Herold, E. S. & Milhausen, R. R. (1999). Dating preference of university women: An analysis of the nice guy stereotype. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 25, 333-343.
Hrdy, S. (1979). Infanticide among animals: A review, classification, and examination of the Implications for the reproductive strategies of females. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1, 13-40.
Jensen-Campbell, L., Graziano, W. & West, S. (1995). Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 427–440.
Kimmel, M. (1994). Masculinity as homophobia. In E. Disch (Ed.) Reconstructing Gender: A Multicultural Anthology. Third Edition. (pp. 103-109). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Madureira, A. et al (2007). The psychological basis of homophobia: cultural construction of a barrier. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41(3), 225-247.
McDaniel, A. K. (2005). Young women’s dating behavior: Why/why not date a nice guy? Sex Roles, 53, 347-359.
Meier, B. et al (2006). A secret attraction or defensive loathing? Homophobia, defense,and implicit cognition. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 377-394.
O’Hara, K., & O’Hara, J. (1999). The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. British Journal of Urology, International, 83, 79-84.
Parker, G. & Ball, M. (2005). Sperm competition, mating rate and the evolution of testis and ejaculate sizes: A population model. Biology Letters, 1, 235-238.
Parker, G.A.(1990). Sperm competition games: Sneaks and extra-pair copulations. Biological Sciences, 242, 127-133.
Parrott, D. et al (2000). Homophobia: personality and attitudinal correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(7), 1269-1278.
Penton-Voak, S., Little, A.C., Jones, B.C., Burt, D.M., Tiddeman, B.P., and Perrett, D.I. (2003) Female condition influences preferences for sexual dimorphism in faces of male humans (homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117(3), 264-271.
Pluhacek, J. & Bartos, L. (1999). Male infanticide in captive plains zebra, Eqqus burchelli. Animal Behavior, 59 , 689-694.
Plummer, D. et al (2001). The quest for modern manhood: masculine stereotypes, peer culture and the social significance of homophobia. Journal of Adolescence, 24 (1), 15-23.
Pound, N., Shakelford, T.K., and Goetz, A.T. (2006). Sperm Competition in Humans. Sperm Competition in Humans, 1-29.
Rhoads, S. E. (2004). Taking Sex Differences Seriously, San Francisco, CA, USA: Encounter Books.
Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., Guta, F. E. & Shmitt, D. P. (2006). Mate guarding and frequent in-pair copulation in humans: Concurrent or compensatory anti-cuckoldry tactics? Human Nature, 17, 239-252.
Shackleford, T.K. et al. (2002). Psychological adaptation to human sperm competition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 123-138.
Simmons, L.W., Firman, R.C., & Peters, M. (2004). Human sperm competition: testis size, sperm production and rates of extrapair copulations. Animal Behavior, 68, 297-302.
Simmons, L. W., Firman, R. C., Rhodes, G., & Peters, M. (2003). Human sperm competition: testis size, sperm production and rates of extrapair copulation. Animal Behavior, 68(2), 297-302.
Simpson, Jeffrey, S. & Gangestead, Steven. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantric partner choice. Journal of Personality, 60, 31-51.
Snook, R. (2005). Sperm in competition: Not playing by the numbers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20(1), 46-53.
Urbaniak, G.C. and Kilmann, P.R. (2006). Niceness and dating success: A further test of the nice guy stereotype. Sex Roles 55, 209–224.
Urbaniak, G.C. and Kilmann, P.R. (2003). Physical attractiveness and the “nice guy paradox”: Do nice guys really finish last? Sex Roles, 49, 413-426.
