Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

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

Greater Polygyny Selects for Greater Risk-Taking

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2563-1

Synonyms

Definition

When men can have multiple female partners, male mating competition increases, leading to riskier behavioral strategies.

Introduction

Most mammalian species are polygynyous, where a male can simultaneously have several female mates (Reichard and Boesch 2003). In polygynyous species, male reproductive success is more highly skewed than female reproductive success, both because of high-status males with multiple mates, and because fewer potential partners are available to lower status males. The greater intensity of intrasexual selection increases male risk-taking in the competition for resources and status.

Sexual Selection and Polygyny

Sexual selection helps explain sex differences in psychology and behavior, including greater male tendencies for risk-taking, competitiveness, and sensitivity to social hierarchy (Cronin 1991). Males compete more intensely for female sexual partners in most animal species because females usually invest more in offspring...

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

References

  1. Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349–368.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Betzig, L. (1986). Despotism and differential reproduction: A Darwinian view of history. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. Clutton-Brock, T. H., & Isvaran, K. (2007). Sex differences in ageing in natural populations of vertebrates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 274, 3097–3104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cronin, H. (1991). The ant and the peacock: Altruism and sexual selection from Darwin to today. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ember, M., Ember, C. R., & Low, B. S. (2007). Comparing explanations of polygyny. Cross-Cultural Research, 41, 428–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kruger, D. J. (2010). Socio-demographic factors intensifying male mating competition exacerbate male mortality rates. Evolutionary Psychology, 8, 194–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Plavcan, J. M. (2000). Inferring social behavior from sexual dimorphism in the fossil record. Journal of Human Evolution, 39, 327–344.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Reichard, U., & Boesch, C. (Eds.). (2003). Monogamy: Mating strategies and partnerships in birds, humans, and other mammals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA