Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 123–135 | Cite as

Treat ’em Mean, Keep ’em (sometimes) Keen: Evolution of Female Preferences for Dominant and Coercive Males

Research Article


How should females choose their mates if choice is not completely free, but at least partly dictated by outcomes of male–male competition, or sexual coercion? This question is of central importance when evaluating the relationship between sexually antagonistic ‘chase-away’ scenarios and models of more traditional female choice. Currently, there is a mismatch between theories: indirect benefits are seen to play a role in conventional mate choice, whereas they are not predicted to have an influence on the outcome if matings impose direct costs on females. This is at odds with the idea that resistance and preference are two sides of the same coin: either leads to a subset of males enjoying enhanced mating success. In the same way as choosy females benefit from mating with sexy males if this yields sexy sons, females could benefit from being manipulated or ‘seduced’, if the manipulative or seductive ability of males is heritable. Here I build a model where male dominance (or coerciveness) improves his mating success, and this relationship can be modified by female behaviour. This clarifies the definitions of resistance and preference: resisting females diminish the benefit a male gains from being dominant, while preferences enhance this pre-existing benefit enjoyed by dominant males. In keeping with earlier theory, females may evolve to resist costly mating attempts as a counterstrategy to male traits, particularly if male dominance is environmentally rather than genetically determined. Contrary to earlier results, however, indirect benefits are also predicted to influence female mating behaviour, and if sufficiently strong, they may produce female preferences for males that harm them.


dominance indirect benefits mathematical model quantitative genetics sexual coercion sexual conflict 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arnqvist, G., Rowe, L. 2002Antagonistic co-evolution between the sexes in a group of insectsNature415787789Google Scholar
  2. Berglund, A., Rosenqvist, G. 2003Sex role reversal in pipefishAdv. Study Behav32131167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berglund, A, Bisazza, A., Pilastro, A. 1996Armaments and ornaments: an evolutionary explanation of traits of dual utilityBiol. J. Linn. Soc58385399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernasconi, G., Keller, L. 2001Female polyandry affects their sons’ reproductive success in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneumJ. Evol. Biol14186193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bisazza, A, Vaccari, G., Pilastro, A. 2001Female mate choice in a mating system dominated by male sexual coercionBehav. Ecol125964Google Scholar
  6. Cameron, E, Day, T., Rowe, L. 2003Sexual conflict and indirect benefitsJ. Evol. Biol1610551060CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Candolin, U. 1999Male-male competition facilitates female choice in sticklebacksProc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B266785789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chapman, T, Arnqvist, G, Bangham, J., Rowe, L. 2003Sexual conflictTrends Ecol. Evol184147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman, T, Liddle, L.F., Kalb, J.M., Wolfner, M.F., Partridge, L. 1995Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland productsNature373241244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Clutton-Brock, T.H., Parker, G.A. 1995Sexual coercion in animal societiesAnim. Behav4913451365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cordero, C., Eberhard, W.G. 2003Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current researchJ. Evol. Biol1616CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox, C.R., Le Boeuf, B.J. 1977Female incitation of male competition: a mechanism in sexual selectionAm. Nat111317335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crudgington, H.S., Siva-Jothy, M.T. 2000Genital damage, kicking and early death: the battle of the sexes takes a sinister turn in the bean weevilNature407855856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunningham, E.J.A., Birkhead, T.R. 1998Sex roles and sexual selectionAnim. Behav5613111321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Double, M.C., Cockburn, A. 2003Subordinate superb fairy-wrens (Malurus cyaneus) parasitize the reproductive success of attractive dominant malesProc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B270379384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eberhard, W.G., Cordero, C. 2003Sexual conflict and female choiceTrends Ecol. Evol18438439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forsgren, E. 1997Female sand gobies prefer good fathers over dominant malesProc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B26412831286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friberg, U., Arnqvist, G. 2003Fitness effects of female mate choice: preferred males are detrimental for Drosophila melanogaster femalesJ. Evol. Biol16797811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gavrilets, S, Arnquist, G., Friberg, U. 2001The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflictProc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B268531539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Getty, T. 1999Chase-away sexual selection as noisy reliable signallingEvolution53299302Google Scholar
  21. Haley, M.P. 1994Resource-holding power asymmetries, the prior residence effect, and reproductive payoffs in male northern elephant seal fightsBehav. Ecol. Sociobiol34427434Google Scholar
  22. Hall, D.W., Kirkpatrick, M., West, B. 2000Runaway sexual selection when female preferences are directly selectedEvolution5418621869PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Holland, B., Rice, W.R. 1998Chase-away selection: antagonistic seduction vs. resistanceEvolution5217Google Scholar
  24. Houle, D., Kondrashov, A.S. 2002Co-evolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genesProc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B26997104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iwasa, Y, Pomiankowski, A., Nee, S. 1991The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The “handicap” principleEvolution4514311442Google Scholar
  26. Jennions, M.D., Petrie, M. 2000Why do females mate multiply?. A review of the genetic benefitsBiol. Rev752164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Jennions, M.D., Møller, A.P., Petrie, M. 2001Sexually selected traits and adult survival: a meta-analysisQ. Rev. Biol76336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnstone, R.A., Keller, L. 2000How males gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins, and the cost of matingAm. Nat156368377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jormalainen, V. 1998Precopulatory mate guarding in crustaceans: male competitive strategy and intersexual conflictQ. Rev. Biol73275304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kokko, H, Brooks, R, Jennions, M., Morley, J. 2003The evolution of mate choice and mating biasesProc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B270653664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kokko, H, Brooks, R, McNamara, J.M., Houston, A.I. 2002The sexual selection continuumProc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B26913311340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kokko, H., Monaghan, P. 2001Predicting the direction of sexual selectionEcol. Lett4159165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lande, R. 1981Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic charactersProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA7837213725Google Scholar
  34. Lee, P.L.M., Hays, G.C. 2004Polyandry in a marine turtle: females make the best of a bad jobProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA10165306535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Markow, T.A. 2000Forced matings in natural populations of DrosophilaAm. Nat156100103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Martin, O.Y., Hosken, D.J., Ward, P.I. 2004Post-copulatory sexual selection and female fitness in Scathophaga stercorariaProc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B271353359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McKinney, F., Evarts, S. 1998

    Sexual coercion in waterfowl and other birds

    Parker, P.G.Burley, N.T. eds. Avian Reproductive Tactics: Female and Male Perspectives.AllenLawrence163195
    Google Scholar
  38. Moore, A.J., Moore, P.J. 1999Balancing sexual selection through opposing mate choice and male competitionProc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B266711716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moore, A.J., Gowaty, P.A., Wallin, W.G., Moore, P.J. 2001Sexual conflict and the evolution of female mate choice and male social dominanceProc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B268517523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morrow, E.H., Arnqvist, G., Pitnick, S. 2003Adaptation versus pleiotropy: why do males harm their mates?Behav. Ecol14802806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Møller, A.P., Alatalo, R.V. 1999Good-genes effects in sexual selectionProc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B2668591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ophir, A.G., Galef, B.G.,Jr. 2003Female Japanese quail that ‘eavesdrop’ on fighting males prefer losers to winnersAnim. Behav66399407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pai, A., Yan, G. 2002Polyandry produces sexy sons at the cost of daughters in red flour beetlesProc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B269361368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parker, G.A. 1979

    Sexual selection and sexual conflict

    Blum, M.S.Blum, N.A. eds. Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects.Academic PressNew York123166
    Google Scholar
  45. Partridge, L., Hurst, L.D. 1998Sex and conflictScience28120032008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Payne, R.J.H., Pagel, M. 2001Inferring the origins of state-dependent courtship traitsAm. Nat1574250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pizzari, T. 2003Food, vigilance, and sperm: the role of male direct benefits in the evolution of female preference in a polygamous birdBehav. Ecol47593601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pizzari, T., Birkhead, T.R. 2000Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant malesNature405787789CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Pizzari, T., Snook, R.R. 2003Sexual conflict and sexual selection: chasing away paradigm shiftsEvolution5712231236PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Pomiankowski, A, Iwasa, Y., Nee, S. 1991The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and biased mutationEvolution4514221430Google Scholar
  51. Qvarnström, A., Forsgren, E. 1998Should females prefer dominant males?Trends Ecol. Evol13498501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reinhardt, K, Naylor, R., Siva-Jothy, M.T. 2003Reducing a cost of traumatic insemination: female bedbugs evolve a unique organProc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B27023712375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rowe, L. 1992Convenience polyandry in a water strider: foraging conflicts and female control of copulation frequency and guarding durationAnim. Behav44189202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stutt, A.D., Siva-Jothy, M.T. 2001Traumatic insemination and sexual conflict in the bed bug Cimex lectulariusProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA9856835687CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Thornhill, R., Alcock, J. 1983The Evolution of Insect Mating SystemsHarvard University PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  56. Watson, P.J., Armqvist, G., Stallmann, R.R. 1998Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water stridersAm. Nat1514658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wedell, N., Tregenza, T. 1999Successful fathers sire successful sonsEvolution53620625Google Scholar
  58. Wong, B.B.M. 2004Superior fighters make mediocre fathers in the Pacific blue-eye fishAnim. Behav67583590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wong B.B.M., Candolin, U. (in press) How is female choice affected by male competition? Biol. Rev.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Ecological and Evolutionary Dynamics, Department of Biological and Environmental ScienceUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations