CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 148Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorAnimal Behavior and ReproductionMarriage and Sexual Relationships

Are we monogamous? A review of the evolution of pair-bonding in humans and its contemporary variation cross-culturally

Open access
Schacht, Ryan, Kramer, Karen L.·2019·Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
DOI 10.3389/fevo.2019.00230
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Despite a long history of study, consensus on a human-typical mating system remains elusive. While a simple classification would be useful for cross-species comparisons, across contemporary human societies monogamous, polyandrous, polygynous, and short-term mating patterns are present, with most societies exhibiting multiple kinds of marriages and mating relationships. Further complicating a straightforward classification of mating system are the multiple possible interpretations of biological traits typical of humans used to indicate ancestral mating patterns. While challenging to characterize, our review of the literature offers several key insights. Although polygyny is socially sanctioned in most societies, monogamy is the dominant marriage-type within any one group cross-culturally. Though the timing of the evolution of certain anatomical characteristics is open to debate, human levels of sexual dimorphism and relative testis size point to a diverging history of sexual selection from our great ape relatives. Thus, we conclude that while there are many ethnographic examples of variation across human societies in terms of marriage patterns, extramarital affairs, the stability of relationships, and the ways in which fathers invest, the pair-bond is a ubiquitous feature of human mating relationships. This may be expressed through polygyny and/or polyandry but is most commonly observed in the form of serial and social monogamy.

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 · 10.3389/fevo.2019.00230

Cites

133 of 133 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?

  • Attachment style, relationship history, and familial or cultural expectations work in tandem with neurobiological mechanisms to influence mate choice and romantic engagements.

    “Attachment style, relationship history, and familial or cultural expectations work in tandem with neurobiological mechanisms to influence mate choice and romantic engagements [60,117,118,182].”

    From The Neurobiology of Love and Pair Bonding from Human and Animal Perspectives (2023) · cites this paper as [182]

    The passage labeled “Sexual Dimorphism” describes parental support for premarital relationships and social rules governing sexual relationships, supporting a role for familial and cultural expectations in mate choice. The Introduction discusses evolutionary influences on mating, but the passages do not connect attachment style or relationship history with neurobiological mechanisms as the claim does. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Romantic love is present in almost all human societies, and despite differences in acceptance of polygamy and extra-marital sex across cultures, monogamy remains the dominant marriage type even in groups where polygamy is accepted.

    “Romantic love is present in almost all human societies, and despite differences in acceptance of polygamy and extra-marital sex across cultures, monogamy remains the dominant marriage type even in groups where polygamy is accepted [13,181,182].”

    From The Neurobiology of Love and Pair Bonding from Human and Animal Perspectives (2023) · cites this paper as [182]

    In “What Is the Human Mating System?” (page unavailable), the review says most marriages are monogamous even in societies that sanction polygyny. That section and “Sexual Dimorphism” also describe cross-cultural variation in sexual relationships outside marriage. The passages address pair-bonding, but do not establish that romantic love is present in almost all societies. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Although humans are not sexually exclusive, the rates of extra-pair paternity are relatively low compared to other socially monogamous but not sexually exclusive animals, such as certain monogamous birds.

    “Furthermore, although humans are not sexually exclusive, the rates of extra-pair paternity are relatively low compared to other socially monogamous but not sexually exclusive animals, such as certain monogamous birds [182].”

    From The Neurobiology of Love and Pair Bonding from Human and Animal Perspectives (2023) · cites this paper as [182]

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

2 of the 135 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Binford, L. R. (2001). Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  2. Gregor, T. (1987). Anxious Pleasures: The Sexual Lives of an Amazonian People. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  3. Kramer, K. L. (2005b). Maya Children: Helpers at the farm. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  4. Leonetti, D. L., Nath, D. C., Heman, N. S., et al. (2005). "Kinship organization and the impact of grandmothers on reproductive success among the matrilineal Khasi and patrilineal Bengali of Northeast India, " in Grandmotherhood: The Evolutionary Significance of the Second Half of Life, eds E. Voland, A. Chasiotis, W. Schiefenhovel (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press), 194-214
  5. 0423 · DOI
  6. Pollock, D. (2002). "Partible paternity and multiple maternity among the Kulina, " in Cultures of Multiple Fathers: The Theory and Practice of Partible Paternity in Lowland South America (Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida), 42-61.
  7. Turke, P. W. (1988). "Helpers at the nest: childcare networks on Ifaluk, " in Human Reproductive Behavior: A Darwinian Perspective, eds L. Betzig, M. B. Mulder, and P. Turke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 173-188.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schacht, R., & Kramer, K. L.
Affiliations
  • East Carolina University (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Schacht, Ryan
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2019-07-17
Volume
7
ISSN
2296-701X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fevo.2019.00230
OpenAlex
W2959562749
Cited by
148
References
135
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6
FWCI
13.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Marriage and Sexual Relationships
Keywords
human mating systems, pair bonding, monogamy, polygyny, polyandry, short-term mating, cross-cultural variation, sexual selection, sexual dimorphism, testicular volume, adultery, paternal investment, marriage patterns

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