Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Incest Avoidance and Dating

  • Debra LiebermanEmail author
  • Joseph Billingsley
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3653-1

Introduction

Humans, like many other animals, possess information-processing programs that guide mate choice. Inherent in mate choice programs are procedures that weigh the potential benefits versus costs of selecting a particular individual as a sexual partner. The question is, which attributes would have been causally linked to the probability of reproductive success and thus part of the calculation that assesses the costs versus benefits of a given sexual partner? Furthermore, how are different attributes traded off against one another? After all, one rarely encounters a mate that is a “10” in every desirable category. That is, one is unlikely to encounter (never mind attract and retain) a mate that is a 10 in every relevant category. Instead, individuals vary in their value as a sexual partner, and to the extent that certain trade-offs had greater positive feedback with respect to selection, then we should see psychologies sensitive to making such trade-offs.

The field of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Apicella, C. L., & Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Perceived mate fidelity and paternal resemblance predict men’s investment in children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billingsley, J., Antfolk, J., Santtila, P., & Lieberman, D. (2018). Cues to paternity: Do partner fidelity and offspring resemblance predict daughter-directed sexual aversions? Evolution and Human Behavior, 39, 290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bressan, P., & Kramer, P. (2015). Human kin detection. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6, 299–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Buss, D. (1994). The evolution of desire. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  5. Conroy-Beam, D., Gotez, C. D., & Buss, D. M. (2016). What predicts romantic relationship satisfaction and mate retention intensity: Mate preference fulfillment or mate value discrepancies? Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 440–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Lieberman, D., & Billingsley, W. J. (2016). Kinship and cooperation. Current Opinions in Psychology, 7, 57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lieberman, D., & Patrick, C. (2018). Objection: Disgust, morality, and the law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Lieberman, D., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445, 727–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lieberman, D., Billingsley, J., & Patrick, C. (2018). Consumption, contact, and copulation: How pathogens have shaped human psychological adaptations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 373(1751).  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0203.
  11. Morgan, L. K., & Kinsley, M. A. (2014). The effects of facial attractiveness and perceiver’s mate value on adaptive allocation of central processing resources. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
  14. Tybur, J., Lieberman, D., Kurzban, R., & DeScioli, P. (2013). Disgust: Evolved function and structure. Psychological Review, 120, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MiamiCoral GablesUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Tara DeLecce
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyOakland UniversityRochesterUSA