Editing Evolutionary psychology (section)

===Mating===
{{main|Human mating strategies|Mate choice|Mating preferences|Sex differences in psychology|Sexual selection in humans}}{{See also|Bateman's principle}}
Given that sexual reproduction is the means by which genes are propagated into future generations, sexual selection plays a large role in human evolution. Human [[mating]], then, is of interest to evolutionary psychologists who aim to investigate evolved mechanisms to attract and secure mates.<ref>Wilson, G.D. Love and Instinct. London: Temple Smith, 1981.</ref> Several lines of research have stemmed from this interest, such as studies of mate selection<ref>Buss 1994</ref><ref>Buss & Barnes 1986</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Li |first1=N. P. |last2=Bailey |first2=J. M. |last3=Kenrick |first3=D. T. |last4=Linsenmeier |first4=J. A. W. |year=2002 |title=The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: Testing the tradeoffs |url=http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/Publications/Li%20et%20al.,%202002.pdf |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=82 |issue=6 |pages=947–55 |pmid=12051582 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.947 |access-date=16 July 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080910055642/http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/Publications/Li%20et%20al.,%202002.pdf |archive-date=10 September 2008 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all |citeseerx=10.1.1.319.1700 }}</ref> mate poaching,<ref>Schmitt and Buss 2001</ref> mate retention,<ref>Buss 1988.</ref> [[mating preferences]]<ref>Shackelford, Schmitt, & Buss (2005) Universal dimensions of human mate preferences; ''Personality and Individual Differences 39''</ref> and [[sexual conflict|conflict between the sexes]].<ref>{{cite book |title=Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind|last=Buss|first=David M.|year=2008|publisher=Omegatype Typography, Inc.|location=Boston, MA|isbn=978-0-205-48338-9|page=iv}}</ref>

In 1972 [[Robert Trivers]] published an influential paper<ref>Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), ''Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man''. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.</ref> on sex differences that is now referred to as [[Parental investment|parental investment theory]]. The size differences of [[gametes]] ([[anisogamy]]) is the fundamental, defining difference between males (small gametes – sperm) and females (large gametes – ova). Trivers noted that anisogamy typically results in different levels of parental investment between the sexes, with females initially investing more. Trivers proposed that this difference in parental investment leads to the [[sexual selection]] of different [[Human mating strategies|reproductive strategies]] between the sexes and to [[sexual conflict]]. For example, he suggested that the sex that invests less in offspring will generally compete for access to the higher-investing sex to increase their [[inclusive fitness]]. Trivers posited that differential parental investment led to the evolution of sexual dimorphisms in [[mate choice]], intra- and inter- sexual reproductive competition, and [[courtship display]]s. In mammals, including humans, females make a much larger parental investment than males (i.e. [[gestation]] followed by childbirth and [[lactation]]). Parental investment theory is a branch of [[life history theory]].

[[David Buss|Buss]] and [[David P. Schmitt|Schmitt]]'s (1993) [[sexual strategies theory]]<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Buss | first1 = D. M. | last2 = Schmitt | first2 = D. P. | year = 1993 | title = Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating | journal = Psychological Review | volume = 100 | issue = 2| pages = 204–32 | doi=10.1037/0033-295x.100.2.204| pmid = 8483982 }}</ref> proposed that, due to differential parental investment, humans have evolved sexually dimorphic adaptations related to "sexual accessibility, fertility assessment, commitment seeking and avoidance, immediate and enduring resource procurement, paternity certainty, assessment of mate value, and parental investment." Their strategic interference theory<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Buss |first1=D. M. |year=1989 |title=Conflict between the sexes: strategic interference and the evocation of anger and upset |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=56 |issue=5| pages=735–47 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.735|pmid=2724067 |citeseerx=10.1.1.319.3950 }}</ref> suggested that conflict between the sexes occurs when the preferred reproductive strategies of one sex interfere with those of the other sex, resulting in the activation of emotional responses such as anger or jealousy.

Women are generally more selective when choosing mates, especially under long-term mating conditions. However, under some circumstances, engaging in multiple sexual relationships can provide benefits to women as well, such as fertility insurance, trading up to better genes, reducing the risk of inbreeding, and insurance protection of her offspring.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/anthonybrowne.theobserver|title=Women are promiscuous, naturally|newspaper=The Observer |editor1-first=Anthony|editor1-last=Browne|date=2 September 2000|access-date=10 August 2016|via=The Guardian}}</ref>

Due to male paternity uncertainty, sex differences have been found in the domains of [[sexual jealousy]].<ref>Buss 1989</ref><ref>Buss et al. 1992</ref> Females generally react more adversely to emotional infidelity and males will react more to sexual infidelity. This particular pattern is predicted because the costs involved in mating for each sex are distinct. Women, on average, should prefer a mate who can offer resources (e.g., financial, commitment), thus, a woman risks losing such resources with a mate who commits emotional infidelity. Men, on the other hand, are never certain of the genetic paternity of their children because they do not bear the offspring themselves. This suggests that for men sexual infidelity would generally be more aversive than emotional infidelity because investing resources in another man's offspring does not lead to the propagation of their own genes.<ref>Kalat, J. W. (2013). Biological Psychology (11th ed.). Cengage Learning. {{ISBN|9781111831004}}.</ref>

Another interesting line of research is that which examines women's mate preferences across the [[ovulation|ovulatory cycle]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Haselton |first1=M. G. |last2=Miller |first2=G. F. |year=2006 |title=Women's fertility across the cycle increases the short-term attractiveness of creative intelligence |url=http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/haseltonmiller.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060104042607/http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/haseltonmiller.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=4 January 2006 |journal=Human Nature |volume=17 |issue=1| pages=50–73 |doi=10.1007/s12110-006-1020-0 |pmid=26181345 |citeseerx=10.1.1.411.6385 |s2cid=6625639 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gangestad |first1=S. W. |last2=Simpson |first2=J. A. |last3=Cousins |first3=A. J. |last4=Garver-Apgar |first4=C. E. |last5=Christensen |first5=P. N. |year=2004 |title=Women's preferences for male behavioral displays change across the menstrual cycle |url=http://faculty.oxy.edu/clint/evolution/articles/Women%E2%80%99s%20Preferences%20for%20Male%20behavioral%20display%20change%20across%20the%20menstrual%20cycle.pdf |journal=Psychological Science |volume=15 |issue=3 |pages=203–07 |doi=10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503010.x |pmid=15016293 |citeseerx=10.1.1.371.3266 |s2cid=9820539 |access-date=16 July 2008 |archive-date=16 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120216232133/http://faculty.oxy.edu/clint/evolution/articles/Women%E2%80%99s%20Preferences%20for%20Male%20behavioral%20display%20change%20across%20the%20menstrual%20cycle.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> The theoretical underpinning of this research is that ancestral women would have evolved mechanisms to select mates with certain traits depending on their hormonal status. Known as the [[ovulatory shift hypothesis]], the theory posits that, during the ovulatory phase of a woman's cycle (approximately days 10–15 of a woman's cycle),<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wilcox |first1=A. J. |last2=Dunson |first2=D. B. |last3=Weinberg |first3=C. R.|author3-link=Clarice Weinberg |last4=Trussell |first4=J. |last5=Baird |first5=D. D. |year=2001 |title=Likelihood of conception with a single act of intercourse: Providing benchmark rates for assessment of post-coital contraceptives |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1259567|journal=Contraception |volume=63 |issue=4| pages=211–15 |doi=10.1016/S0010-7824(01)00191-3 |pmid=11376648 }}</ref> a woman who mated with a male with high genetic quality would have been more likely, on average, to produce and bear a healthy offspring than a woman who mated with a male with low genetic quality. These putative preferences are predicted to be especially apparent for short-term mating domains because a potential male mate would only be offering genes to a potential offspring. This hypothesis allows researchers to examine whether women select mates who have characteristics that indicate high genetic quality during the high fertility phase of their ovulatory cycles. Indeed, studies have shown that women's preferences vary across the ovulatory cycle. In particular, Haselton and Miller (2006) showed that highly fertile women prefer creative but poor men as short-term mates. Creativity may be a proxy for good genes.<ref>Miller, G. F. (2000b) ''The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature''. Anchor Books: New York.</ref> Research by Gangestad et al. (2004) indicates that highly fertile women prefer men who display social presence and intrasexual competition; these traits may act as cues that would help women predict which men may have, or would be able to acquire, resources.