CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 173Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

Human origins and the transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding

Open access
Gavrilets, Sergey·2012·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1200717109PMC PMC3382477
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1200717109

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • By promoting exclusive devotion to a single mate, oxytocin may open an evolutionary path to biparental care and shift male competition toward in-group cooperation.

    “By keeping an exclusive devotion to a single mate, it may open an evolutionary path to biparental care of offspring and shift a potentially destructive competition between males for mates toward more beneficial in-group cooperation (45).”

    From Oxytocin enhances brain reward system responses in men viewing the face of their female partner (2013) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Discussion says pair-bonding opened a path to greater male parental investment and redirected potentially destructive competition for mates toward becoming better providers. The introduction also links pair-bonding to parental partnership and within-group cooperation. Our copy does not identify oxytocin as the cause of these changes; searches for oxytocin and related terms found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [20]Brotherton P, Komers P (2003) Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and Other Mammals , eds Reichard U, Boesch C (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK), pp 42 -58.
  2. [24]Nowak M (2006) Evolutionary Dynamics (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gavrilets, S.
Affiliations
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Department of Mathematics, and National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2012-05-29
Volume
109
Issue
25
Pages
9923-9928
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1200717109
PMC
PMC3382477
OpenAlex
W2167601923
Cited by
173
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 2
FWCI
19.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
human origins, pair bonding, promiscuity, male-male competition, social dilemmas, communal care, mate guarding, female mate choice, female fidelity, assortative mating, between-person variation, evolutionary game theory
MeSH terms
Conflict, Psychological, Female, Humans, Male, Sexual Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review