LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Moore, David; Wigby, Stuart; English, Sinead; Wong, Sonny; Székely, Tamás; Harrison, Freya (2013)
Publisher: BioMed Central Ltd.
Journal: BMC evolutionary biology
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Parental care, Research Article, Altruism, Sexual selection, HQ, Mate choice, Cooperation
Background:\ud Despite its short-term costs, behaviour that appears altruistic can increase an individual’s inclusive fitness by earning direct (selfish) and/or indirect (kin-selected) benefits. An evolved preference for other-regarding or helping behaviour in potential mates has been proposed as an additional mechanism by which these behaviours can yield direct fitness benefits in humans.\ud \ud Results:\ud We asked 32 heterosexual women and 35 heterosexual men to rate the attractiveness of members of the opposite sex in the presence and the absence of information about helping behaviours. Reports of helping behaviour were associated with a significant increase in the attractiveness of both men and women as potential long-term sexual partners. Altruism also increased the attractiveness of men as potential partners for short-term flings, but to a lesser extent than when the same men were being considered for long-term relationships. Altruism did not affect the attractiveness of women as partners for short-term flings.\ud \ud Conclusions:\ud Our results unite two important areas of evolutionary theory – social evolution and sexual selection – and extend the list of means by which helping behaviours, which appear at first glance to be costly to the actor, can in fact earn direct fitness benefits. Helping behaviours may be attractive because they signal ‘good genes’ and/or because they are perceived as a signal of likely provision of non-genetic benefits (e.g. parental care). Exactly why helping behaviours in a non-mating context might be attractive to potential mates, and whether they are honest signals of mate quality, remains to be elucidated.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Hamilton WD: The genetical evolution of social behaviour I & II. J Theor Biol 1964, 7:1-52.
    • 2. Gardner A, Foster KR: The Evolution and Ecology of Cooperation - History and Concepts. In Ecology of Social Evolution. Edited by Korb J, Heinze J. Heidelberg: Springer; 2008:1-36.
    • 3. West SA, El Mouden C, Gardner A: Working Paper: Social evolution theory and its application to the evolution of cooperation in humans. http://www.zoo.ox. ac.uk/group/west/pdf/West_etal.pdf.
    • 4. West SA, El Mouden C, Gardner A: Sixteen common misconceptions about the evolution of cooperation in humans. Evol Hum Behav 2011, 32:231-262.
    • 5. Farrelly D, Lazarus J, Roberts G: Altruists attract. Evol Psychol 2007, 5:313-329.
    • 6. Miller GF: Sexual selection for moral virtues. Q Rev Biol 2007, 82:97-125.
    • 7. Phillips T, Barnard C, Ferguson E, Reader T: Do humans prefer altruistic mates? Testing a link between sexual selection and altruism towards non-relatives. Brit J Psychol 2008, 99:555-572.
    • 8. Zahavi A, Zahavi A: The Handicap Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
    • 9. Cockburn A: Prevalence of different modes of parental care in birds. Proc Biol Sci 2006, 273:1375-1383.
    • 10. Malcolm JR: Paternal Care in Canids. Amer Zool 1985, 25:853-856.
    • 11. Goodwin NB, Balshine-Earn S, Reynolds JD: Evolutionary transitions in parental care in cichlid fish. Proc Biol Sci 1998, 265:2265-2272.
    • 12. Reynolds JD, Goodwin NB, Freckleton RP: Evolutionary transitions in parental care and live bearing in vertebrates. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2002, 357:269-281.
    • 13. Clutton-Brock TH: The Evolution of Parental Care. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1991.
    • 14. Bowlby J: Attachment and Loss (Vol. 1). Attachment. New York: Basic Book; 1969.
    • 15. Johnson MH: Functional brain development in humans. Nat Rev Neurosci 2001, 2:475-483.
    • 16. Geary DC: Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychol Bull 2000, 126:55-77.
    • 17. Lovejoy CO: The origin of man. Science 1981, 211:341-350.
    • 18. Marlowe F: Paternal investment and the human mating system. Behav Process 2000, 51:45-61.
    • 19. Roberts S, Little A: Good genes, complementary genes and human mate preferences. Genetica 2008, 134:31-43.
    • 20. Mace R: Social behaviour in humans. In Social Behaviour: Genes, Ecology and Evolution. Edited by Székely T, Moore AJ, Komdeur J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010:395-409.
    • 21. Nettle D: Why do some dads get more involved than others? Evidence from a large British cohort. Evol Hum Behav 2008, 29:416-423. e411.
    • 22. Andersson M: Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1994.
    • 23. Kenrick DT, Sadalla EK, Groth G, Trost MR: Evolution, traits and the stages of human courtship: qualifying the parental investment model. J Pers 1990, 58:97-117.
    • 24. Trivers RL: Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual Selection And The Descent Of Man 1871-1971. Edited by Campbell B. Chicago: Aldine; 1972.
    • 25. Woodward K, Richards MH: The parental investment model and minimum mate choice criteria in humans. Behav Ecol 2005, 16:57-61.
    • 26. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J: The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc Biol Sci 2003, 270:653-664.
    • 27. Kotiaho JS, Puurtinen M: Mate choice for indirect genetic benefits: scrutiny of the current paradigm. Funct Ecol 2007, 21:638-644.
    • 28. Zahavi A: Altruism as a handicap: the limitations of kin selection and reciprocity. J Avian Biol 1995, 26:1-3.
    • 29. Kelly S, Dunbar R: Who dares, wins. Hum Nat 2001, 12:89-105.
    • 30. Alonzo SH: Social and coevolutionary feedbacks between mating and parental investment. Trends Ecol Evol 2010, 25:99-108.
    • 31. Gangestad SW, Simpson JA: The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behav Brain Sci 2000, 23:573-587.
    • 32. Roney JR, Hanson KN, Durante KM, Maestripieri D: Reading men's faces: women's mate attractiveness judgments track men's testosterone and interest in infants. Proc Biol Sci 2006, 273:2169-2175.
    • 33. Buss DM: Sex-differences in human mate preferences - evolutionary hypothesis tested in 37 cultures. Behav Brain Sci 1989, 12:1-14.
    • 34. Hooper PL, Miller GF: Mutual mate choice can drive costly signaling even under perfect monogamy. Adapt Behav 2008, 16:53-70.
    • 35. Iredale W, Van Vugt M: The peacock's tail of altruism. Psychologist 2009, 22:938-941.
    • 36. Shackelford TK, Schmitt DP, Buss DM: Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Pers Individ Diff 2005, 39:447-458.
    • 37. Waynforth D, Dunbar RIM: Conditional mate choice strategies in humans: evidence from 'lonely hearts' advertisements. Behaviour 1995, 132:755-779.
    • 38. Phillips T, Ferguson E, Rijsdijk F: A link between altruism and sexual selection: genetic influence on altruistic behaviour and mate preference towards it. Br J Psychol 2010, 101:809-819.
    • 39. Barclay P: Altruism as a courtship display: Some effects of third-party generosity on audience perceptions. Brit J Psychol 2010, 101:123-135.
    • 40. Farrelly D: Cooperation as a signal of genetic or phenotypic quality in female mate choice? Evidence from preferences across the menstrual cycle. Brit J Psychol 2011, 102:406-430.
    • 41. Gangestad SW, Simpson JA, Cousins AJ, Garver-Apgar CE, Christensen PN: Women's preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychol Sci 2004, 15:203-207.
    • 42. Schneider W, Eschman A, Zuccolotto A: E-Prime User's Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.; 2001.
    • 43. Combined Japanese and Caucasian Facial Expressions of Emotion (JACFEE) and Japanese and Caucasian Neutral Faces (JACNeuF): http://www. paulekman.com/product-category/research-products/.
    • 44. Martinez AM, Benavente R: The AR Face Database. CVC Technical Report #24. http://www2.ece.ohio-state.edu/~aleix/ARdatabase.html.
    • 45. Minear M, Park DC: A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behav Res Meth Ins C 2004, 36:630-633.
    • 46. Tottenham N, Tanaka J, Leon AC, McCarry T, Nurse M, Hare TA, Marcus DJ, Westerlund A, Casey BJ, Nelson CA: The NimStim set of facial expressions: judgments from untrained research participants. Psychiatry Res 2009, 168:242-249.
    • 47. Havlicek J, Roberts SC, Flegr J: Women's preference for dominant male odour: effects of menstrual cycle and relationship status. Biol Lett 2005, 1:256-259.
    • 48. Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI, Castles DL, Kobayashi T, Burt DM, Murray LK, Minamisawa R: Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature 1999, 399:741-742.
    • 49. R Development Core Team: R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. See http://www.R-project.org/.
    • 50. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B: lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-42; 2011. http://CRAN.R-project.org/ package=lme4.
    • 51. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H: Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 2010, 85:935-956.
    • 52. Lenth RV: lsmeans: R package version 1.06-05. ; 2013. http://cran.r-project.org/ web/packages/lsmeans/.
    • 53. Hardy CL, Van Vugt M: Nice guys finish first: the competitive altruism hypothesis. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2006, 32:1402-1413.
    • 54. Simmons LW, Firman RC, Rhodes G, Peters M: Human sperm competition: testis size, sperm production and rates of extrapair copulations. Anim Behav 2004, 68:297-302.
    • 55. Kokko H: Should advertising parental care be honest? Proc Biol Sci 1998, 265:1871-1878.
    • 56. Todd PM, Penke L, Fasolo B, Lenton AP: Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007, 104:15011-15016.
    • 57. DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Little AC, Boothroyd LG, Perrett DI, Penton-Voak IS, Cooper PA, Penke L, Feinberg DR, Tiddeman BP: Correlated preferences for facial masculinity and ideal or actual partner's masculinity. Proc Biol Sci 2006, 273:1355-1360.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.