Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Jun 19;109(25):9923-8.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1200717109. Epub 2012 May 29.

Human origins and the transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding

Affiliations

Human origins and the transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding

Sergey Gavrilets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. .

Abstract

A crucial step in recent theories of human origins is the emergence of strong pair-bonding between males and females accompanied by a dramatic reduction in the male-to-male conflict over mating and an increased investment in offspring. How such a transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding could be achieved is puzzling. Many species would, indeed, be much better off evolutionarily if the effort spent on male competition over mating was redirected to increasing female fertility or survivorship of offspring. Males, however, are locked in a "social dilemma," where shifting one's effort from "appropriation" to "production" would give an advantage to free-riding competitors and therefore, should not happen. Here, I first consider simple models for four prominent scenarios of the human transition to pair-bonding: communal care, mate guarding, food for mating, and mate provisioning. I show that the transition is not feasible under biologically relevant conditions in any of these models. Then, I show that the transition can happen if one accounts for male heterogeneity, assortative pair formation, and evolution of female choice and faithfulness. This process is started when low-ranked males begin using an alternative strategy of female provisioning. At the end, except for the top-ranked individuals, males invest exclusively in provisioning females who have evolved very high fidelity to their mates. My results point to the crucial importance of female choice and emphasize the need for incorporating between-individual variation in theoretical and empirical studies of social dilemmas and behaviors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Examples of long-term evolutionary dynamics. (A and C) Small variation among males (σ = 0.25). (B and D) Large variation among males (σ = 1). (A and B) N = 8, ε = 0.05. (C and D) N = 16, ε = 0.1. Other parameters: α = 1, β = 3, γ = 0.5, ω = 1. In A–D, Top shows male provisioning traits pi for males of different rank from low (cyan) to high (magenta), Middle shows female faithfulness trait f, and Bottom shows the average fitness. The colored curves showing mean trait values are superimposed on the graphs to show the distributions of the traits using the gray color scheme. The numbers on top of sets of graphs show the final generation and the average values of p and f at this generation.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Alexander RD. How Did Humans Evolve? Reflections on the Uniquely Unique Species. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ of Michigan, Museum of Zoology; 1990.
    1. Flinn MV, Geary DC, Ward CV. Ecological dominance, social competition, and coalitionary arms races: Why humans evolved extraordinary intelligence? Evol Hum Behav. 2005;26:10–46.
    1. Richerson PJ, Boyd R. Not by Genes Alone. How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press; 2005.
    1. Hrdy SB. Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press; 2011.
    1. Lovejoy CO. Reexamining human origins in light of Ardipithecus ramidis. Science. 2009;326:74e1–74e8. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources