Cited by 33Animal Behavior and ReproductionEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species

Sex differences in cognition and their relationship to male mate choice

Open access
Keagy, Jason, Minter, Ross, Tinghitella, Robin M·2019·Current Zoology

Abstract

Male cognition has gained recognition as an important potential player in sexual selection. A number of studies have found positive correlations between male sexual signals and cognitive performance and/or female preferences for males with better cognitive performance, although other studies have not found these relationships. Sex roles can differ dramatically, and sex differences in selection on cognition likely follow from the different tasks associated with these sex roles. Here, using threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus, a species with clearly divergent sex roles and mutual mate choice, we focus on the cognitive trait inhibitory control because males must differentially respond to reproductive females versus other sticklebacks while defending territories and refrain from eating eggs and fry while performing paternal care. We presented fish with a detour task four times over a period of 7 days, allowing us to assess initial inhibitory control and improvement over time. We ask 1) whether there are sex differences in inhibitory control and 2) whether male mate choice is associated with female inhibitory control. Although males outperformed females on three different measures of detour task performance across four trials, these differences were largely explained by males being less neophobic than females. Females took more trials to successfully solve the detour task, even after accounting for sex differences in neophobia. Female cognitive abilities, however, were unrelated to the vigor with which males courted them. The equivocal results regarding sex differences in cognitive ability suggest further study given the very different selection pressures each sex experiences.

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 · 10.1093/cz/zoz014

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • The reproductive strategy of an animal varies by species, including female choice or rejection, male selection, and coercive strategies.

    “The reproductive strategy of an animal varies depending on the species; for example, in some animals, the female chooses or rejects the males (striped-faced dunnarts Sminthopsis macroura [23]), [24] while in others, males select the females [25] sometimes using coercive strategies [13].”

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: 51

  1. Andersson M, 1994 Sexual Selection. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
  2. Anderson RC, Searcy WA, Peters S, Hughes M, DuBois AL et al, 2016 Song learning and cognitive ability are not consistently related in a songbird. Anim Cogn 20: 309– 320. 27844219
  3. Astié AA, Kacelnik A, Reboreda JC, 1998 Sexual differences in memory in shiny cowbirds. Anim Cogn 1: 77e82. 24399271
  4. Bailey NW, Zuk M, 2008 Acoutic experience shapes female mate choice in field crickets. Proc R Soc B 275: 2645– 2650. PMC2605808 18700205
  5. Bell AM, 2004 Behavioural differences between individuals and two populations of stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus. J Evolution Biol 18: 464– 473. 15715852
  6. Benson-Amram S, Dantzer B, Stricker G, Swanson EM, Holekamp KE, 2016 Brain size predicts problem-solving ability in mammalian carnivores. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113: 2532– 2537. 26811470 PMC4780594
  7. Buechel SD, Boussard A, Kotrschal A, van der Bijl W, Kolm N, 2018 Brain size affects performance in a reversal-learning test. Proc R Soc B 285: 20172031– 201720317. PMC5805926 29367391
  8. Candolin U, Voigt H, 1998 Predator-induced nest site preference: safe nests allow courtship in sticklebacks. Anim Behav 56: 1205– 1211. 9819337
  9. Chen J, Zou Y, Sun Y-H, ten Cate C, 2019 Problem-solving males become more attractive to female budgerigars. Science 363: 166– 167. 30630929
  10. Chow PKY, Leaver LA, Wang M, Lea SEG, 2017 Touch screen assays of behavioural flexibility and error characteristics in Eastern grey squirrels Scrurus carolinensis. Anim Cogn 20: 1– 13. 28130606 PMC5394141
  11. Edward DA, Chapman T, 2011 The evolution and significance of male mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 26: 647– 654. 21890230
  12. Foster SA, Garcia VB, Town MY, 1988 Cannibalism as the cause of an ontogenetic shift in habitat use by fry of the threespine stickleback. Oecologia 74: 577– 585. 28311765
  13. Galea LAM, Kavaliers M, Ossenkopp KP, 1996 Sexually dimorphic spatial learning in meadow voles Microtus pennsylvanicus and deer mice Peromyscus maniculatus. J Exp Biol 199: 195– 200. 8576690
  14. Gonzalez-Voyer A, Winberg S, Kolm N, 2009 Social fishes and single mothers: brain evolution in African cichlids. Proc R Soc B 276: 161– 167. PMC2614256 18796397
  15. Griffin AS, Guez D, 2014 Innovation and problem solving: a review of common mechanism. Behav Process 109: 121– 134. 25245306
  16. Guigueno MF, Snow DA, MacDougall-Shackleton SA, Sherry DF, 2014 Female cowbirds have more accurate spatial memory than males. Biol Lett 10: 20140026. 24573155 PMC3949381
  17. Hart PJB, Gill AB, 1994 Evolution of foraging behaviour in the threespine stickleback In Bell MA, Foster SA, editors. The Evolutionary Biology of the Threespine Stickleback. Oxford: Oxford Scientific Publications, pp. 207–239.
  18. Head ML, Price EA, Boughman JW, 2009 Body size differences do not arise from divergent mate preferences in a species pair of threespine stickleback. Biol Lett 5: 517– 520. 19474072 PMC2781927
  19. Hebets EA, 2003 Subadult experience influences adult mate choice in an arthropod: exposed female wolf spiders prefer males of a familiar phenotype. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100: 13390– 13395. 14597702 PMC263824
  20. Herczeg G, Välimäki K, Gonda A, Merilä J, 2014 Evidence for sex-specific selection in brain: a case study of the nine-spined stickleback. J Evolution Biol 27: 1604– 1612. 24898271
  21. Hynes H, 1950 The food of fresh-water sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus and Pygosteus pungitius), with a review of methods used in studies of the food of fishes. J Anim Ecol 19: 36– 58.
  22. Jacobs LF, 1996 Sexual selection and the brain. Trends Ecol Evol 11: 82– 86. 21237767
  23. Johnstone RA, Reynolds JD, Deutsch JC, 1996 Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50: 1382– 1391. 28565695
  24. Kabadayi C, Bobrowicz K, Osvath M, 2018 The detour paradigm in animal cognition. Anim Cogn 21: 21– 35. 29234898 PMC5756264
  25. Kotrschal A, Räsänen K, Kristjánsson BK, Senn M, Kolm N, 2012 Extreme sexual brain size dimorphism in sticklebacks: a consequence of the cognitive challenges of sex and parenting? PLoS ONE 7: 1– 4. PMC3261870 22276144
  26. Kotrschal A, Rogell B, Bundsen A, Svensson B, Zajitschek S et al, 2013 Artificial selection on relative brain size in the guppy reveals costs and benefits of evolving a larger brain. Curr Biol 23: 168– 171. 23290552 PMC3566478
  27. Kotrschal A, Corral-Lopez A, Amcoff M, Kolm N, 2014 A larger brain confers a benefit in a spatial mate search learning task in male guppies. Behav Ecol 26: 527– 532. 25825587 PMC4374130
  28. Kozak GM, Reisland M, Boughman JW, 2009 Sex differences in mate recognition and conspecific preference in species with mutual mate choice. Evolution 63: 353– 365. 19154359
  29. Kraak S, Bakker T, 1998 Mutual mate choice in sticklebacks: attractive males choose big females, which lay big eggs. Anim Behav 56: 859– 866. 9790696
  30. Laland K, Reader S, 1999 Foraging innovation in the guppy. Anim Behav 57: 331– 340. 10049472
  31. Lucon-Xiccato T, Bisazza A, 2017b Individual differences in cognition among teleost fishes. Behav Process 141: 184– 195. 28126389
  32. MacLean EL, Hare B, Nunn CL, Addessi E, Amici F et al, 2014 The evolution of self-control. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A 111: E2140– E2148. PMC4034204 24753565
  33. Mateos-Gonzalez F, Quesada J, Senar JC, 2011 Sexy birds are superior at solving a foraging problem. Biol Lett 7: 668– 669. 21450725 PMC3169050
  34. Mehlis M, Bakker TCM, Engqvist L, Frommen JG, 2010 To eat or not to eat: egg-based assessment of paternity triggers fine-tuned decisions about filial cannibalism. Proc R Soc B 277: 2627– 2635. PMC2982036 20410042
  35. Minter R, Keagy J, Tinghitella RM, 2017 The relationship between male sexual signals, cognitive performance, and mating success in stickleback fish. Ecol Evol 7: 5621– 5631. 28808542 PMC5551085
  36. Nagel L, Schluter D, 1998 Size, natural selection and speciation in sticklebacks. Evolution 52: 209– 218. Body 28568156
  37. Reader SM, Laland KN, 2000 Diffusion of foraging innovations in the guppy. Anim Behav 60: 175– 180. 10973718
  38. Rosenthal GG, 2017 Mate Choice: The Evolution of Sexual Decision Making from Microbes to Humans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  39. Rowland WJ, 1994 Proximate determinants of stickleback behaviour: an evolutionary perspective In: Bell MA, Foster SA, editors. The Evolutionary Biology of the Threespine Stickleback. Oxford: Oxford University Press 297– 344.
  40. Ryan MJ, Akre KL, Kirkpatrick M, 2009 Cognitive mate choice In: Dukas R, Ratcliffe JM, editors. Cognitive Ecology II. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press 137– 155.
  41. Samuk K, Iritani D, Schluter D, 2014 Reversed brain size sexual dimorphism accompanies loss of parental care in white sticklebacks. Ecol Evol 4: 3236– 3243. 25473476 PMC4222210
  42. Sewall KB, Soha JA, Peters S, Nowicki S, 2013 Potential trade-off between vocal ornamentation and spatial ability in a songbird. Biol Lett 9: 20130344. 23697642 PMC3730647
  43. Shohet AJ, Watt PJ, 2009 Female guppies Poecilia reticulata prefer males that can learn fast. J Fish Biol 75: 1323– 1330. 20738617
  44. Stein LR, Bell AM, 2014 Consistent individual differences in paternal behavior: a field study of three-spined stickleback. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69: 227– 236. PMC4317326 25663736
  45. Striedter GF, Burley NT, 2019 Are clever males preferred as mates? Science 363: 120– 121. 30630914
  46. Tinghitella RM, Weigel EG, Head M, Boughman JW, 2013 Flexible mate choice when mates are rare and time is short. Ecol Evol 3: 2820– 2831. 24101975 PMC3790532
  47. Tinghitella RM, Stehle C, Boughman JW, 2015 Females sample more males at high nesting densities, but ultimately obtain less attractive mates. BMC Evol Biol 15: 200. 26385337 PMC4575468
  48. Uy JAC, Patricelli GL, Borgia G, 2001 Loss of preferred mates forces female satin bowerbirds Ptilonorhynchus violaceus to increase mate searching. Proc R Soc B 268: 633– 638. PMC1088650 11297181
  49. Vamosi SM, Schluter D, 1999 Sexual selection against hybrids between sympatric stickleback species: evidence from a field experiment. Evolution 53: 874– 879. 28565643
  50. Webster MM, Laland KN, 2010 Reproductive state affects reliance on public information in sticklebacks. Proc R Soc B 278: 619– 627. PMC3025685 20826479
  51. Wootton RJ, 1976 The Biology of the Sticklebacks. London: Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Keagy, J., Minter, R., & Tinghitella, R. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • University of Denver (US)
Corresponding author
Tinghitella, Robin M
Venue
Current Zoology
Published
2019-04-02
Volume
65
Issue
3
Pages
285-293
ISSN
  • 1674-5507 (ISSN-L)
  • 2396-9814
OpenAlex
W2927218189
Cited by
33
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2
FWCI
3.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Zoology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Denver
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Physiology › Reproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Keywords
sex differences in cognition, inhibitory control, male mate choice, sexual selection, Gasterosteus aculeatus, detour task, neophobia, female preference, courtship behavior, gender roles, paternal care, territorial defense

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